Chad Perrin wrote:
On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 05:08:34PM -0700, Mark Williamson wrote:
The rest of the message, ie that I pronounce the "inform" in "information" as if it were "infirm", or that I don't pronounce the "know" in "acknowledged" the same way I pronounce the "know" in "know" (more like "gnaw" - "acgnawledged"), or for that matter the "know" in "knowledge" the same as "know" when it's by itself...
Funny, I pronounce it like "inform". So do most of the people I know. Maybe I'm just lucky.
The purpose of language is to communicate. This holds notwithstanding Mark's efforts to prescribe all manner of fanciful and illiterate constructions and pronunciations. There is no shortage of local dialects and idioms, and it is good to know that they exist as well as where and how they are used. But that does not allow us to pretend that the usage will be accepted everywhere or to extrapolate a local meaning to the wider community. When you do that the reader is just as likely to interpret a term on the basis of its use in his own community, and that usage can be very different. It is notable that even though CNN is based in Atlanta it does not insist that all of its announcers speak in a Georgia drawl.
I am prepared to accept Mark's testimony that in his Arizona dialect "acgnawledge" is a commonly used variant, and that the people of Arizona are properly "infirmed" in their retirement. I am not prepared to accept that such aberations have fallen into general usage.
One aspect of the English language's dominance in the world is its ability to create new words whenever circumstances require. English has no Académie rushing in to say, "You can't use that word, because it's not in the dictionary." This is a huge problem for lexicographers. New words are regularly being invented, but many are invented for a particular ephemeral occasion. When that occasion passes the word passes with it; it has no need for an obituary. If I inject a new word or usage into a text or conversation, as I frequently do, it is in anticipation that my readers or listeners will understand it's meaning from the context. If I suggest that Mark quayles the English language readers will have some understanding of what I mean, but I would have no illusion about making that verb a normal part of English usage.
L33t may very well describe the speech patterns of a certain sub-culture for the private purposes of that sub-culture, but are we benefitted by those of its advocates who would want that recognised as a part of general English usage? The rest of society is not a part of the inside jokes that accompany much of that geek speak.
Those of us with a more conservative view of language accept a lexicographer's duty as one of description and documentation. Mark and his prescriptivist friends are too quick to tell us what belongs in the language without the least shred of verifiability. They seem to forget the basic point that I put at the begining of this message: "The purpose of language is to communicate."
Ec