Board Thread:Skyrim/@comment-12599067-20130928060857/@comment-24590102-20140228081009

Natalie-gra-Canada, it seems to me that your flexible approach to "interpreting" language may have led you into misunderstanding and, perhaps, a proneness to generalise. In the case of your discussion with myself, we actually do agree that some linguistic changes are not only healthy but, dare I say, indicative of cultural and technological progress. However, for the purpose of what I have been trying to communicate, this does not extend or generalise to all linguistic changes. Some (i.e. not all) changes are counter-productive and, with the exception of things which serve no function whatsoever, there is nothing else in all of existence for which this statement cannot be true. Language is not a stone in a Zen-Garden which just happens to be the way it is and, for which, there is no change which is either detrimental or beneficial. Language is more akin to a keystone which has been cut from a quarry and consciously sculpted by many hands according to a preconceived design in order to meet a very specific need which, by all definition in regard to language, is solely the need to communicate. Deviating from the metaphor, we always have an opportunity to reject the cuts which impair the linguistic function of carrying communication both accurately and concisely. When this is done effectively, the language can convey a picture in a meagre 17 syllables and when this is done badly, the language is incapable of painting a picture even with 1000 words.

The key distinction between development of language and degradation of language is, in my view, made by whether the change pays for its encumbrance upon the use of the language by increasing the scope for accurate and concise expression or whether it only encumbers the language by adding redundancies or eliminating an opportunity to express ideas accurately and concisely by introducing ambiguities which necessitate semantic explanation where none was necessary before. The reason why the introduction of ambiguity into diction is, perhaps, the worst degradation of language is because many works of literature, by being based on fact and not extending themselves beyond direct inference from fact, retain permanent relevance but, due to degradations in the language are no longer accessible to generations who view the once unambiguous usage of this literature through a degraded variant of the same language which introduces ambiguities that the original authors never intended. This is double-edged as it allows people, particularly prominent individuals in the community, to more freely misreport what has been said about key issues in the past and get away with it and it, further, deprives the younger generation of both informedness of consent in these matters as well as depriving them of an effective voice by which they can make their views understood in these matters. In fact, if you ever play Skyrim seriously enough to pay attention to your surroundings (particularly during the main quest) you will discover that a major theme of this role-playing game is the tremendous and universal importance of the human psychological need to communicate which, dare I say, is actually what all the shouting is really all about. :)

With that, I'll leave you with my favourite film quote if, only, because it carries so much of what I am trying to communicate in this discussion....

" What good is a phone call, Mr . Anderson, if you cannot speak ?" , Mr Smith, The Matrix