Language.
Prescriptivism or Descriptivism? For a long time I've considered myself a little of both, trying to somehow meld these two philosophies together into some coherent personal belief system on language. On one hand I absolutely adore the complexity of language, the shades of meanings that are revealed in subtle word changes and the development of succinct definitions and concise phrases to alleviate much of the vagueness that is inherited with ineffable topics, but conversely I enjoy the bastardization of language and the speedy development in the modern internet era of new words, changed spellings and impressed meanings of modified pronunciation and syntax (this involves the appropriation of regional/cultural variances in spoken language in order to superimpose meanings and context over language), slang, and other modifications or evolutions.
In the study of linguistics, my latter joys (apropos to the previous paragraph) in the miracle and development of language in the mysterious inter-workings of the brain as something that is deeply natural, fueled by evolution, and unavoidable; this is something that is encouraged in the linguistics field and is true. There is no decent way to refute it, the evidence is in total support of descriptivism as being the most 'natural' solution to the lexicographical problems that face us (especially in the modern era where so much is being written and available -- language explosion).
In the study of English and the Classics however I saw something completely different, and this is something that has become close to the heart:
Language needs to be shaped and controlled for the sake of understanding it. There are simply too many dialects, sub-cultures, hidden realms of written verse to simply allow them to flower and develop without some sort of deterministic philosophy in defining 'written language'.
Wow, it does restrict me to one page... Major bummer.
Prescriptivism or Descriptivism? For a long time I've considered myself a little of both, trying to somehow meld these two philosophies together into some coherent personal belief system on language. On one hand I absolutely adore the complexity of language, the shades of meanings that are revealed in subtle word changes and the development of succinct definitions and concise phrases to alleviate much of the vagueness that is inherited with ineffable topics, but conversely I enjoy the bastardization of language and the speedy development in the modern internet era of new words, changed spellings and impressed meanings of modified pronunciation and syntax (this involves the appropriation of regional/cultural variances in spoken language in order to superimpose meanings and context over language), slang, and other modifications or evolutions.
In the study of linguistics, my latter joys (apropos to the previous paragraph) in the miracle and development of language in the mysterious inter-workings of the brain as something that is deeply natural, fueled by evolution, and unavoidable; this is something that is encouraged in the linguistics field and is true. There is no decent way to refute it, the evidence is in total support of descriptivism as being the most 'natural' solution to the lexicographical problems that face us (especially in the modern era where so much is being written and available -- language explosion).
In the study of English and the Classics however I saw something completely different, and this is something that has become close to the heart:
Language needs to be shaped and controlled for the sake of understanding it. There are simply too many dialects, sub-cultures, hidden realms of written verse to simply allow them to flower and develop without some sort of deterministic philosophy in defining 'written language'.
Wow, it does restrict me to one page... Major bummer.
