[ExI] Language Changing Before Our Very Eyes

[Lee Corbin]

PJ writes

> As you can see below, the definition of comprise has indeed drifted
> from its older meaning.  It started drifting in the 18th century.
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/comprise

Thanks.  No, I had not realized that I have grown up hearing a just the
latest installment on a change that had a long history.

> although it has less to do with the 'mindless march
> of euphemism' and more to do with the fact that we have always adapted
> the language to the prevailing technology (and psychotherapy could be
> interpreted as a technology).  It goes both ways.  For example, humans
> are viewed as 'thinking machines' whose minds can be 'programmed' and
> 'deprogrammed.'  Brains are 'hard wired' and require the 'input' of
> 'data.'  On the other hand, computers get 'viruses' with the entire
> host of human-medical terminology (infection, contagious, virulent,
> vaccine, innoculated) that comes with it.

Quite right, except for the euphemism part. Many euphemisms simply
exhibit bad taste, poor style, or are even mild attempts at deception.
Calling the man who cleans up after school the "sanitation engineer",
to use a famous one, is a vain attempt to elevate status, and is 
offensive to good sense.  One should say "janitor", "crippled", "black",
etc., instead of their more weighty euphemisms, where one cannot
help but in the background hear the sound of axes being ground.

> I appreciate that you have 'issues' with the imprecision of language.
> I myself am a stickler for diction when it comes to my own kids.  But
> the larger issue is that language evolves.  Period.  Sorry.

Language evolves? Well, duh!  Of course it does. Your very nice examples
of "hard-wired", "programmed", etc., are examples of usages not only benign,
but helpful. Whenever we have made progress of some sort or other, new
analogies and new ways of looking at things arise. Everyone agrees to the
obvious benefits of these.

Even neologisms, like my "duh!" above, often evolve to compactly say
what used to take many words;  in this case, "well, Jeez, of course!", 
or "how could anyone not know that!?", and so on. (Sorry for the
apparently aggressive use of the word---I only used it because it so
deftly illustrated what I was about to say about neologisms I like.)

> Yes, all these words debuted in the works of Shakespeare.  And
> even if they didn't, because the earlier reference was lost to the sands

Oh, Shakespeare came up with a lot of new words did he?  That's one
reason I keep reading this list---you never know what new little pieces
of wisdom will turn up.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_invented_by_Shakespeare
> 
> You better start catching up, my friend, or
> you'll start telling us Shakespeare had a lot of nerve.

I will try to catch up!   :-)

>> P.S.  Was anyone who read the above jolted at all by my
>> insensitive male-chauvinist use of the generic "he" and "his"
>> in the second paragraph?  No?  Well, would you have
>> noticed if I had written "she" and "her"?   I conjecture that
>> even those under age 30 still notice when the really more
>> specific "she" and "her" are used, despite all the efforts of
>> the politically correct over the last twenty-five years.
> 
> I had to read it a few times to know if it was appropriate for a lady
> like myself to answer, since, apparently, writers are men.  But I
> thought I'd risk it.

Writers are men?  Yes, either on mailing lists or books (I'd bet)
a majority are.  But I don't know where you get the idea that it's
really true in any sort of generality, or, maybe that I had implied
it somehow.

But then you also didn't provide the information that I was really
after, namely, does the reader (in this case you) have his or her
attention drawn to the generic use of "he" the way that (it seems
nearly inevitable to me) one is struck by a use of "she" or "her"?
In other words, are you (in this case anyone reading) even a bit
distracted by the latter, but not distracted by the former?

Lee