"The natural evolution of language" is utter crap
I've heard it argued one time too many that the perversions of the Queen's English perpetrated by the great unwashed masses are "the natural evolution of language."
No, shortening "you" to "u" and replacing letters with numbers is not evolution. Evolution implies improvement. When an organism is being hunted nigh onto extinction and develops a defense mechanism that allows its offspring to survive, that is evolution. A mutation that causes bees to nest in one's crotch, conversely, is an undesirable mutation. That is the opposite of evolution. It takes something that once worked perfectly fine, and ruins it. The rules that define the English language were put in place for a reason, they ensure clarity, and above all else, they are correct by definition.
Perversion of the English language is "the natural evolution of language" is the same way that obesity is the natural evolution of fitness. Yes, it's becoming more common. We no longer have to spend 18 hours a day harvesting crops without the aid of mechanization while intermittently battling back commanche raids, so fitness is no longer quite so necessary for survival. However, just because the increasing trend in obesity is due to environmental factors and happened more recently than the days in which the majority of people could carry out tasks unaided which we today would relegate to machines, does not make it evolution, and neither is bad English "superior" just because a lot of people do it.
Come on, I've heard of appeal to authority--a tactic which appears in every list of logical fallacies ever published--but appeal to the masses? To call that malarkey would be a dire insult to purveyors of malarkey all the world over. After all, if there's one thing that people in large groups are good at other than burning things for no apparent reason, it's being wrong. There was a time in which the majority of people believed that the sun revolved around the Earth and savagely murdered anyone who dared question their "doctrine," but it's been conclusively proven that said majority was flat out, unquestionably, 100% wrong. Even today, there is a large majority who believes that there is an old man living in the sky watching everything you do, the dirty pervert. Furthermore, this old man can do anything by willing it and is never wrong. Well, if you ask me, watching twelve-year-olds masturbate is not only wrong, but a federal offense, and rightfully so.
A fine example of this diseased mentality is the non-word "irregardless." It is an inherent double negative, which is automatically grammatically incorrect, and there are people who insist on using it because it's now in the OED. Congratulations, large numbers of people whose sole qualification is failing to die for 18-21 years (depending on local voting age) were able to pressure Oxford into intentionally inserting an error into their most famous publication just because a lot of people are using it, never mind the fact that the large number of people using it are so remarkably intelligent that they knowingly abstain from the use of prophylactics when they know very well that they haven't got enough room in their trailer for another squalling brat.
I can understand grammatical and spelling errors in someone for whom English is not their native tongue--but wait, what's this? Most people who learn English as a second, third, or thirty-ninth language don't make as many errors as native speakers, or even as many errors as those for whom English is their sole language. Why is that? Well, I have a theory:
Imagine a magical genie who, instead of granting wishes to one person, went about offering to magically imbue people with the ability to speak another language with no need for studying, intelligence, or any effort whatsoever. Do you know anybody who would decline? Even the red-necked racists who spout drivel like "If English is good enough for me, it's good enough for everybody" would accept if for no other reason than so that they'd know when the (insert race KKK Karl is prejudiced against here) is slagging them off in their native tongue. So what separates those of us who are unilingual (and thank-you for autocorrecting "unilingual" to "cunnilingus," Firefox) from those who speak multiple language? Easy: They're smarter. Everyone wants to speak another language, but only some people are smart enough to actually do it. And they all speak English better than the cunnilingus people. Yes, I know I just used a sentence fragment. On purpose. To show that far from making me look more educated and urbane, it in fact makes me look like a giant twat.
So, in conclusion, anyone who says "irregardless" is a horse-fellating mental midget, the original British English is the only true English, and appealing to the masses as an authority to justify breaking the rules is every bit as valid as using a T-62 tank to achieve a competitive edge in a sporting event. Thank-you for your time.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by rubah
