I surely do get tired of hearing all these "but unfortunately now..." and "regrettably, it now seems to be" and "sadly, now it's used..."
The English that was taught 200 years ago would sound odd to you -- agreed? So what is so magical about the way some of our members were taught 20, 30, or 50 years ago? That was the "right" English -- not the silly old-fashioned stuff and not this awful, new stuff? We're so darn special that whatever WE were taught is the right way and any furher evolution of the language is simply a sad indication of deterioriation instead of evoliution?
Please. 'Nuff said. I won't return to this thread.
Dear Barb_D,
Although you might not read this anymore – as you announced not to return – I cannot leave your lines unanswered, even if I can do so in no more than a nutshell. What is more, I am none of your adressees as I cannot be counted among those linguistic defeatists or alarmists. I tried to find out whom you could have had in mind by reading the previous messages again. But I failed to identify someone who this characterization could apply to. Anyway, even if that had been the case, I deem it just a question of individual taste, liking, or preference, and thus of personal freedom to regret or to welcome whatever development, not just in the sphere of language. No one is compelled to share that same point.
What I do regret, however, is that your main paragraph is based on a false assumption. As far as I can see no one in this thread has puffed up himself as an absolute authority claiming that “his” English (what a strange concept of language!) is the “right” one (as you put it). And fortunately human beings are not mere products of their respective time, but are capable of transcending it. (Notwithstanding this ability the undeniable phenomenon of narrow-mindedness does exist.)
Moreover, the time span of a few decades that you mentioned is relatively irrelevant in terms of the intrinsic development of a language. Talking about development, it is just a platitude, a mere commonplace to state that everything is subject to development. What on earth is not? Who denies that?
Besides, the concept of development is neutral about the level reached during this process. It does not logically imply the idea of an upward movement in terms of improvement and advancement. Any development is principally open to rise and fall, and may turn out to be a downturn or decline. So it is wrong to suppose that everything that has surfaced is in itself better or higher than previous stages of development. Taking that into consideration, it is recommendable to adopt a twofold attitude towards any development – a positive, yet not uncritical stand. The responsibility of man demands to foster cultural achievements – one of the most valuable of them is language.
Hucky