![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Within the mind there exists a realm unmanifest, an unquiet void nestled admist the islands of Inspiration and the lofty cliffs of Reason. Protean seas, from which we dredge
language in all of its infinity. Each sound a symbol, each utterance an idea. With these we build civilization in all its glory, as vast and complex as the living tapestry of Man. It is ancient, ever-new, and ginormous.
It is also the reason why not every word can or should be included in any given language. Language is intended to convey meaning. Words have purpose, dignity, and power if used properly. When used improperly, that power is diverted or lost.
Ginormous is an example of improper usage. It is a term unlike any other compound found in English, combining two words possessed of identical meaning. It is claimed that this redundancy carries the connotation of the modified noun being even larger than one described by either of the agglutinated words. By this logic, a double negative in English would indicate an even more strident negation. Tautologies would be reinforcing rather than redundant. "I killed him dead" would carry the meaning of a more thorough murder than "I killed him" alone would convey. And adding more adjectives to a sentence would make the sentence clearer rather than resulting in prolixity. "The turquoise sky was cyan blue..." Clearly, these things are not the case.
Neither is it the case that language cannot be prescribed. It is, all the time. American English spellings exist, in large part, because of the prescriptive works of such men as Noah Webster. It is to be lamented that this legacy of Webster's has largely been lost, and modern dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster have come to claim they function purely in a descriptive fashion. This is patently false. If it were so, no word in English could be said to have a proper spelling. That is prescriptive, after all, and a child which just failed a spelling test could easily claim that he was simply using a nonstandard spelling. That's how language evolves after all, right? But shall we put forth "teh" as proper English? Shall "too" and "two" become interchangeable? It is "apparant" that this is not the case, so some prescription must be in use.
So too, we teach children vocabulary... certain words paired with certain meanings. We do not allow any word to carry any meaning, with the logic that it's just a nonstandard meaning that may yet become mainstream if allowed to catch on. A paleontologist does not mean "old person who knows stuff", it means someone who seeks knowledge about the past, specifically in prehistoric periods. This aspect of language, a reasonable coherence of a given word with a given meaning over time, is what makes communication possible. If any word can mean any thing, then I could say "I want a banana" and mean "please pass the salt". Obviously, unless "please pass the salt" is a previously agreed upon meaning for the phrase "I want a banana", I am unlikely to get what I want by saying this. We also have prescriptive rules for how words in our language may be used together. "I ain't got the time", "Y'all come back now", "We don't need no education", "Of the two of us, I am the smartest", "Woe is us"... all of these would be grammatically valid if prescription had no place in language. In the same sense, ginormous is syntatically invalid. Both gigantic and enormous are adjectives, both of them modify a single noun. Adjectives cannot modify other adjectives, only adverbs can modify adjectives. If "gigantically enormous" would be an invalid phrase in English, ginormous cannot help but be an invalid word as well.
That is why I am so against ginormous being added to the dictionary, and against the idea that its presence there is merely the natural evolution of language. It is very clearly not a word which adheres to normal English standards. It may be in use by a large number of english speakers, but so are terms like "y'all" and "ain't". Some, no doubt, will argue that these are perfectly "cromulent" words which "embiggen" our language. I take another view. These are the words that educated men and women of the past have repeatedly told their students are not proper English. These are the words which teachers of English and composition have railed against their students using in homework and writing, rather than learning the proper alternatives to convey their intended meaning. These are words which signify folly, and embody ignorance. That they are now being put forward in a text aimed towards college students who are presumably striving to better themselves and their grasp of language is, to my mind, abominable. We are literally handing the language over to those who grasped it least. Who turn from its richness and depths to embrace portmanteaux designed purely to give the ironic impression of uneducated speech, rather than seeking other words to convey an impression of immenseness. Is this the path we want our language to take, that of the least common denominator? When I compare modern texts to those of days gone by, I find myself pining for the fecundity of thought there once was. As a culture, we have fallen.
Fallen down, into the unfathomed depths of that inner sea. Where the cities of Culture dump their refuse, and the light of Wisdom fades. Deeper than even the Bards of old delved in their search for the pearls of secret Names, where the warmth of Reason's cliffs is but a distant memory. Down there, in the wild darkness, in the unruled and unruly deep, we are drowning. Drowning in Words which have no purpose or meaning.
language in all of its infinity. Each sound a symbol, each utterance an idea. With these we build civilization in all its glory, as vast and complex as the living tapestry of Man. It is ancient, ever-new, and ginormous.
It is also the reason why not every word can or should be included in any given language. Language is intended to convey meaning. Words have purpose, dignity, and power if used properly. When used improperly, that power is diverted or lost.
Ginormous is an example of improper usage. It is a term unlike any other compound found in English, combining two words possessed of identical meaning. It is claimed that this redundancy carries the connotation of the modified noun being even larger than one described by either of the agglutinated words. By this logic, a double negative in English would indicate an even more strident negation. Tautologies would be reinforcing rather than redundant. "I killed him dead" would carry the meaning of a more thorough murder than "I killed him" alone would convey. And adding more adjectives to a sentence would make the sentence clearer rather than resulting in prolixity. "The turquoise sky was cyan blue..." Clearly, these things are not the case.
Neither is it the case that language cannot be prescribed. It is, all the time. American English spellings exist, in large part, because of the prescriptive works of such men as Noah Webster. It is to be lamented that this legacy of Webster's has largely been lost, and modern dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster have come to claim they function purely in a descriptive fashion. This is patently false. If it were so, no word in English could be said to have a proper spelling. That is prescriptive, after all, and a child which just failed a spelling test could easily claim that he was simply using a nonstandard spelling. That's how language evolves after all, right? But shall we put forth "teh" as proper English? Shall "too" and "two" become interchangeable? It is "apparant" that this is not the case, so some prescription must be in use.
So too, we teach children vocabulary... certain words paired with certain meanings. We do not allow any word to carry any meaning, with the logic that it's just a nonstandard meaning that may yet become mainstream if allowed to catch on. A paleontologist does not mean "old person who knows stuff", it means someone who seeks knowledge about the past, specifically in prehistoric periods. This aspect of language, a reasonable coherence of a given word with a given meaning over time, is what makes communication possible. If any word can mean any thing, then I could say "I want a banana" and mean "please pass the salt". Obviously, unless "please pass the salt" is a previously agreed upon meaning for the phrase "I want a banana", I am unlikely to get what I want by saying this. We also have prescriptive rules for how words in our language may be used together. "I ain't got the time", "Y'all come back now", "We don't need no education", "Of the two of us, I am the smartest", "Woe is us"... all of these would be grammatically valid if prescription had no place in language. In the same sense, ginormous is syntatically invalid. Both gigantic and enormous are adjectives, both of them modify a single noun. Adjectives cannot modify other adjectives, only adverbs can modify adjectives. If "gigantically enormous" would be an invalid phrase in English, ginormous cannot help but be an invalid word as well.
That is why I am so against ginormous being added to the dictionary, and against the idea that its presence there is merely the natural evolution of language. It is very clearly not a word which adheres to normal English standards. It may be in use by a large number of english speakers, but so are terms like "y'all" and "ain't". Some, no doubt, will argue that these are perfectly "cromulent" words which "embiggen" our language. I take another view. These are the words that educated men and women of the past have repeatedly told their students are not proper English. These are the words which teachers of English and composition have railed against their students using in homework and writing, rather than learning the proper alternatives to convey their intended meaning. These are words which signify folly, and embody ignorance. That they are now being put forward in a text aimed towards college students who are presumably striving to better themselves and their grasp of language is, to my mind, abominable. We are literally handing the language over to those who grasped it least. Who turn from its richness and depths to embrace portmanteaux designed purely to give the ironic impression of uneducated speech, rather than seeking other words to convey an impression of immenseness. Is this the path we want our language to take, that of the least common denominator? When I compare modern texts to those of days gone by, I find myself pining for the fecundity of thought there once was. As a culture, we have fallen.
Fallen down, into the unfathomed depths of that inner sea. Where the cities of Culture dump their refuse, and the light of Wisdom fades. Deeper than even the Bards of old delved in their search for the pearls of secret Names, where the warmth of Reason's cliffs is but a distant memory. Down there, in the wild darkness, in the unruled and unruly deep, we are drowning. Drowning in Words which have no purpose or meaning.
Tags:
