I love this quotation. It is lyrical and poignant. So, I
added it to my collection a few years ago, not knowing who Gustave Flaubert was
or the context, until I read Madame Bovary, and there it was. I was happy to
find it in context, and it caused me to think about words.
Because I’m a logophile. And because something happened
recently, in the world of words, that bothered me.
The Merriam-Webster English dictionary now lists the second
definition of LITERALLY as: in effect :
VIRTUALLY
And civilization as we know it has LITERALLY come to an end.
Well not truly literally...but yes literally, because
literally can now mean virtually. And my head is going to literally explode.
Ok, given the readership of my blog, you probably get it and
probably feel much the same, and I should quit...but it just
MAKES...ME...WANT...TO...SCREAM!
Literally!
Ah words! More precisely language. I believe the English
language is evolving and devolving. While the evolution is good and natural, I
lament the devolution. An increasing body of knowledge, new discovery, and new
technology make new words necessary. We have more words today than 100 years
ago, or even a generation ago. However, while the sheer number of words is
undoubtedly greater, I believe many people have a poorer command of the English
language than our predecessors.
New words are necessary and validated by common accepted
use, such as selfie and hashtag. I get it.
But literally meaning virtually is incorrect and should not
be accepted no matter how commonly it is misused.
People know hard drive, bling bling, and plasma screen, but
if you say to the average high school graduate I have very eclectic taste in
music or the conversation was rather esoteric or some words are now considered
archaic you may very well get a wrinkled nose, stupefied expression. In my
opinion we are moving towards Orwellian Newspeak, where our many redundant
words such as: big, large, huge, giant, enormous, etc. and their antonyms:
small, tiny, little, puny, etc. are replaced with a single word, plus prefix,
plus suffix. One root word covers the entire gamut: big, bigger, biggest,
unbig, unbigger, and unbiggest.
The pragmatic within me thinks this is brilliant and
efficient, but the poet finds it harsh and ugly. I don't believe efficiency in
language ought to be our goal, but rather efficacy. I don't believe anyone is
actually advocating Newspeak, but we have dumbed down the language. We default
to the simplest word. Why bother with words like aroma, fragrance, odor, scent,
when smell works in every instance. It works; just not as well. There are
subtle differences and speech can be more evocative with a small word change. A
young man may tell his date she smells nice, but he will probably get a better
response if he says, that’s a beautiful fragrance you’re wearing. Isn’t it more
descript to speak of a flower’s scent, a locker room’s odor, or dinner’s aroma,
than merely their smell?
Consider an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence: Such has been the patient sufferance of
these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter
their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great
Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all
having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these
States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Today this would probably read: Therefore we must change our
system of government. King George has repeatedly and intentionally abused us.
Here is the proof.
Maybe I was born in the wrong century. I read Thomas
Jefferson’s argument or Jane Austen’s dialogue and I lament the devolution of
English. Language should evolve. New words are necessary, but must we sacrifice
the elegance of language in order for our brains to accommodate more words?
Language is not only beautiful; it is powerful. So, while
the poet appreciates the beauty, the people that change the world understand
the power. Language is an indispensable tool. If a person is satisfied with an
inferior tool, that is their prerogative, but I happen to think it is a
mistake. Communication is essential; it isn't a pastime. It is the principle
means by which knowledge is conveyed. If we settle for efficient communication,
or the fewest, simplest words, we limit our ability to receive and convey
knowledge. We ought to strive for excellence not adequacy. I do not mean
verbosity or grandiloquence, but precise, accurate, complete discourse.
As I said, I’m a logophile; I love words. Without words, how
would Walt Whitman have lamented his fallen Captain? Without words, how could
Poe make my hair stand on end, or Prof Tolkien create a world I can escape to.
How would the founding fathers have defied a King? How would Martin Luther King
Jr. share his dream with a languishing nation? Without words, how could Helen
Keller, who never heard a word spoken in her life, tell us: When we do the best that we can, we never
know what miracle is wrought in our life, or in the life of another.
How can we hope to move the stars?
© 2014 Joseph E. Fountain
© 2014 Joseph E. Fountain
*************************************
A bit of good news: The Oxford English Dictionary defines
literally as: in a literal, exact, or
actual sense; not figuratively, allegorically, etc. So we may be spared the
apocalypse a bit longer.
So remember:
Oxford English Dictionay – Defenders of goodness and decency
Merriam-Webster – Commentary redacted in the interest of
avoiding litigation
Final thoughts: Just expressing my passion for words. I
don’t mean to preach, and if I did, I know I am preaching to the choir. My own
vocabulary, spelling, structure, punctuation, diction, etc. is far from
perfect. I simply aspire to excellence. Quotation: I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it.
Edith Sitwell (1887 - 1964) Goodness, she said the same thing I did, but with
so many fewer words, obviously an advocate of Newspeak.
No comments:
Post a Comment