MULRAH wrote:
I think think the "educated" need to be less ignorant about how language evolves and accept that a penchant for recalling word origins does not invalidate subjective meanings.
You're right. Because subjective meanings were never valid to begin with. No need to invalidate them.
But when people start trying to say to me it means X so don't, then that's when we point out that it doesn't matter what you decided it means; it matters what the word actually means.
Why have an agreed-upon language if we don't use it? Grammar is one thing; but we're talking definitions of words here. Do we really want to accept a chilling effect on our language because some people hear a word they don't know and say that word feels bad to me?
Inferring isn't implying. Comprision isn't constitution. Insuring isn't assuring. Nauseous things aren't nauseating. One doesn't flaunt the law; nor does a ship flounder in rough waters. Being disinterested isn't being uninterested. Being humored isn't being amused. Effecting isn't affecting. Twits aren't twats. If your interest peaks, you're past it's being piqued. Sensuousness isn't sensuality. There has never been a stanch believer, nor a horse that chomps at the bit.
Language is here to be understood, not maligned. Cultural redefinition is one thing; sheer ignorance is another. The shortcomings of the minority do not abridge the liberties of the majority. Nor would they if the minority and majority roles were switched.
I work in language as a profession. Not as a professor, but as someone who makes his living making bad writers' writing understandable. There is purpose in definition, and the people who deal in meaning as a trade care enough to pay to convey the meaning they intend. We have words because they have a use. Someone's mistakenly using a glass cutter to try to install a screen doesn't mean we get rid of glass cutters. It means we teach people how to use them.