Double plus good message :)

(-George Orwell on language engineering for those who don't get it).

There use to be a very informative programme on ABC radio that discussed in some detail the English language, its use and origins. I haven't heard it for years now but this article reminded me just how fascinating language can be.

But strict adherence to all of the rules and knowledge of objects like apositives and gerunds aren't really required for most of us mere mortals.

Thanks to everyone for a very interesting discussion. It has been extremely enlightening for me. I have learned about the noun form of "myriad" and I confess I never knew this before. "Linguist" is quite right to point out that one must be careful before venturing a prescriptive opinion on these matters without knowing all the background. I just think "myriad fish" sounds better, so I'll stick with the adjectival form. But the other option is there as well.

I have no argument with the idea of the language changing. There is no choice but to accept this. I am just insisting that the capacity of our language to convey meaning is retained. The capacity to inspire and to enchant are also nice things to have and I have found that forms of English that I consider degraded have little capacity for these things. There may well be a personal preference component in this - no doubt there is - but I believe that there is a wider importance as well.

I am glad that we are having this conversation and I hope it continues.
Liz

A man was in the river drowning. He shouted out "I am drowning and nobody may save me" OK the onlookers thought he is committing suicide, I will not put my life at risk to save him.

If he had said "I am drowning and nobody can save me" the onlookers may have thought, yes I can save him.

Confusion between can and may, might have killed this man. Words have very distict meanings.

Liz, I'm currently reading A S Byatt's "Still LIfe", such a joy to find such wonderful use of the English language. For most of my life, I expressed myself very precisely - without ambiguity unless I chose (e.g. for humour) to be ambiguous - and was amazed how often people misinterpreted my meaning, failed to accept the words used at their face value/correct interpretation but passed them through various filters, preconceptions, to understand something neither intended nor correct (I think I'm a bit less rigourous now). So more power to your "Pedant's Revolt".

Akshuns speek lowda dan werdz and if waching sumwun drown, specdators enjoi the vew and let thinkin and its eggstenshun, werdz, get in da way of wot needs to be dun, then l ges, that speeks for itself, if u will pardun da pun.

Personally l very much enjoy language, just for the pure artful and often whimsically creative use of it. But words are just words and they are very cheap in this world. In the face of all the lying, deceitful misrtepresentation that passes for communication, its no wounder that folks are loosing respect for language and falling back on listening to a persons actions instead of what they say.

Liz: Interesting article, and I think I agree with you a lot (including acknowledging that whilst my use of the language is not always perfect, it does annoy me when I see or hear bad English).

The only point relating to the article that I want to make is about architecture. I personally think a lot of what has been produced in architecture (actually, in our culture generally) in the past half century is pretty ugly and anything but magnificent. However, obviously a lot of people don't agree or we wouldn't see some pretty awful buildings. Federation Square in Melbourne, or the neo-Georgian (or whatever they're called) McMansions dotting our outer suburbs spring instantly to mind. Perhaps the greatest irony is the architecture department building at the University of Melbourne, which would make anyone re-consider unleashing anyone trained there on designing any building.

I also have a couple of other general points.

What I find interesting about pedantry is that (generally), if someone incorrectly stated a fact about geography or science, people wouldn't get upset if corrected. This isn't the case with language though. Why?

Also, is it any wonder that there are problems with language when people who should know better (for example, teachers, journalists and politicians) keep saying "bought" instead of "brought"? Unless we get incredibly elitist, it's difficult to stop the rot, so I think that (and many other examples) is a lost cause. However, it does seem that if so-called leaders can't set a good example then we've lost the plot. Furthermore, what's with the really strange way in which female newsreaders speak? Not only do they stress all the wrong parts of words or sentences, but they speak about three octaves lower than the average bass opera singer.