Definitions change. No problem.
Meaning is about ideas; it’s not about any specific, pronounceable lists of English letters.
Our lexicon isn’t sacred.
22 Words
Experiments in getting to the point.13 Comments »
Elizabeth Patton wrote @ May 9, 2008 at 7:37 am
You’re right. Our lexicon isn’t sacred. And in fact, it is critical to the survival of the language that it changes.
The only language that doesn’t change is a dead language.
Josh Pratt wrote @ May 9, 2008 at 8:16 am
Right on. There once was a difference between the words “jealous” and “envy”, but jealous has now been changed to mean the same thing as envy. The dictionary still has the original meaning of jealous, but the main meaning specifically states: “feeling or showing envy of someone or their achievements and advantages.” I think the meaning was changed due to incorrect usage.
Nancy Scott wrote @ May 9, 2008 at 9:16 am
Exactly AP. When our family first moved to Germany, words certainly weren’t going to keep me from communicating. The Air Force had given us some very useful language tapes which I put to use immediately. I learned important conversational phrases such as: Is that man a policeman? Is the map of the United States over there? Can I get potatoes and eggs with that? Where is the Hospital? And, the all time classic… Wo ist der Zug?
When my husband rented our house, a translator went with him… The day we moved in, Herr and Frau Thomas showed up to welcome us…they did NOT speak English. I liked Elizabeth immediately and it was clear we both wanted to communicate. Using my very best new language skills and smiling brightly I said ” Can I get potatoes and eggs with that?” We immediately became BFF.
ED… wrote @ May 9, 2008 at 9:33 am
Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum,
Si þin nama gehalgod
To becume þin rice,
gewurþe ðin willa, on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.
Urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg,
and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum.
And ne gelæd þu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele. Soþlice.
Abraham Piper wrote @ May 9, 2008 at 9:36 am
Amen.
Really Robin wrote @ May 9, 2008 at 9:41 am
I have to agree with ED here - that is, if I truly understood his point.
While these things are not set in stone, you play a game of ‘Babel’ [as in Tower of....] when you just begin to change the meaning of words.
“Irregardless”, although it sets my neck hair on edge, is NOT the end of the world. However, look what our changing the meaning of the word love has done!
Communication watered down, like the Gospel watered down, has no meaning in the end.
Abraham Piper wrote @ May 9, 2008 at 9:45 am
What I’m suggesting is that language change doesn’t water down communication.
ED… wrote @ May 9, 2008 at 9:54 am
If anyone’s seriously interested in understanding the historical changes which happen in languages, I’d recommend starting with the work of Jeremy Smith of Glasgow University. In particular, “An Historical Study of English: Function, Form and Change” (Routledge: London, 1996) (225 pp.)
ED.
—
Sincere Ignorance and Conscientious Stupidity
http://blog.myspace.com/CAUGHTNOTTAUGHT
Elizabeth Patton wrote @ May 9, 2008 at 10:21 am
Language change doesn’t water down communication. In fact, language change is what makes communication possible.
Point: Imagine us trying to have a conversation using words used in 18th century America.
We could probably get the gist of the conversation, but let’s face it, the dialog would sound to us (21 st century speakers) as stilted and formal.
Elizabeth Patton wrote @ May 9, 2008 at 10:25 am
P.S. On “changing the meaning of love”…
If OUR definition of love has changed, perhaps it has less to do with the lexicon changing and more to do with our hearts changing.
Words do not create our reality; they merely reflect our perceptions of it.
carissa wrote @ May 9, 2008 at 11:51 am
this is why i think, when it comes to traditional theological terms, we can do one of three things.
one, we can keep the terms (like “propitiation” 
and simply assign meaning to them. that is, we teach people this concept, and then give it an arbitrary name, which happens to be “propitiation.”
two, we can borrow a different term, one that’s actually in use in today’s vernacular, and assign it a particular theological meaning. the benefit would be that it already carries some concept in people’s minds, which can aid with the metaphor (like “justification” was meant to originally). the downside i guess would be that people could take the metaphor in unwanted directions.
third, we can continue to use our theological terms and expect everybody to know what it means, and treat them as sacred. this i think is not helpful.
shasha wrote @ May 15, 2008 at 11:56 pm
like anything in this world, language evolves too…
Leslie wrote @ July 10, 2008 at 2:14 pm
If you haven’t already read it, History in English Words by Owen Barfield is a fascinating study of words and human history. I don’t really know you, but based on your love of words as expressed on your blog I think you’d enjoy it.
Your comment
HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Read 22 Words by Email.
Read 22 Words by RSS.
22 Reasons to Subscribe.
