Re: Evolution of Language
- From: "Don Phillipson" <d.phillipson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 09:36:51 -0400
"Tom Robertson" <thomasrrobertson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:tcg1l1tukn514g87sl9o2t7r9s1121iinl@xxxxxxxxxx
> Don't "mistakes" account for the evolution of language? I often
> correct friends who say "I did that good," telling them that they
> should have said "I did that well." But when "good" becomes more
> popular than "well," doesn't it become "correct?" How did "well"
> become "correct" if not by popular usage? I dread the day when "it's"
> becomes "correct" to use as possessive just because too many people
> don't know that it was "supposed" to be a contraction for "it is," not
> used as possessive.
1. We can agree that language changes, but why should
anyone call this change evolution?
2. The two examples above are very different. Good/well
concerns the choice of words (adjective or adverb) between
two words that (everyone agrees) both exist currently in
the language; and any change in usage appears to have
begun in oral speech (and occasionally spilled over into
written English. The choice between it's and its is a
matter of spelling and punctuation, i.e. occurs only in
writing: it cannot occur in oral English because both
words sound the same.
3. You probably need more robust examples to convince
us that errors "account for" language change in any
significant way.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Evolution of Language
- From: Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
- Re: Evolution of Language
- References:
- Evolution of Language
- From: Tom Robertson
- Evolution of Language
- Prev by Date: Re: A Disturbing Incident
- Next by Date: Re: Sayings
- Previous by thread: Evolution of Language
- Next by thread: Re: Evolution of Language
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading