I wonder if the rise of these words that relates to the senses is more due to the proliferation of books, which in turn could give more room to more casual writing.
Unrelated, I have always been fascinated with how fuck has managed to stay both vulgar and popular for 100's of years.
I don't think "neat" has ever been "groovy". For me as an Australian it conveys a sense of a particularly American type of "squareness". It's almost never used here, nor in the UK I think. I've noticed that Bill Gates uses it a lot and he is not particularly a model of cool.
BTW, not saying don't use it. If that's who you are and that's how you speak, that's cool :)
I associate neat with two expressions: "neat and tidy", and "that's (pretty) neat" (positive exclamation about a way of doing something, or a solution to a problem)
We're reaching a point where all these are coming back, but only ironically for now and in small secluded pockets of the city. Haven't spotted any legit uses in the field as of yet.
Only according to the article's findings (and explanations) that's not the case.
Besides there are lots of counter-examples of similar moderate words that were popular and faded out (swell, neat, jiffy, groovy, hip, dandy, gnarly, hairy, a-ok etc).
Do you think it's possible that words with similar sentiments are more likely to have a longer existance?
Take the word "dope" right now, which is often used as a synonym for "cool". What's the likelihood of a word like that breaking into the mainstream and lasting?
It seems to have quite a bit of utility as well, it's meaning is widely understood and I can't think of another word that carries quite the same connotation or intent. It actually fills a niche.
So ... why does everyone start a sentence with "So". Both verbally and in written media. This has bugged me for quite a while.
I've also been indoctrinated into it's use. It definitely assists conversation but ...
"Exactly" is another one (in London anyway). Recently "exactly" has come to mean absolutely anything. E.g. "I don't know what you're talking about but I'll say 'exactly' and nod my head as a lead in to what I want to say' or just to be sounding like I'm still in the conversation"
I'm not quite sure what you mean be 'exactly'? I thought at first you meant e.g. "I'm not exactly sure what you mean" - but you mention at the start? (Also London, just haven't noticed I suppose).
Regarding the use of 'So..' to lead in a sentence: this is an hideous Americanism that must be stopped from further penetrating our borders at all cost. I exaggerate, of course. But it is an Americanism; I do not like it.
I also don't like "So". But in spoken communication it's a good way to get somebody to stop looking at their phone for a split second so you can start telling them what you want to say.
It's a less obnoxious way of saying "Hey you". Because saying "Hey you" when you're standing in front of somebody, a foot away, at conversational distance, and you were both just conversing two minutes ago is weird. But necessary. Because phones.
"Exactly. Leading 'so' is a terrible thing, but I think the proliferation of the stand-alone 'day of' is worse."
That 'exactly' is used to acknowledge what someone said and then to lead in to a related but different thing. Or sometimes as just the acknowledgement.
Leading 'so' seems to me to be a softener. "So...that's not what I meant, but it's reasonable", "So...here's what I've got. Tell me what you think", "So...we've got a problem.". I don't think anyone uses leading 'so' to say something positive except to ironically lower expectations. "So...we just signed a million-dollar contract".
It gives people a chance to realize that something else is coming that's not wholly positive, I think. I don't really know. It's something I've picked up in SF and I use it all the time even though I'm fully conscious of how strange it sounds.
>I can't stand English language purists. It is akin to xenophobic Americans: comically hypocritical.
Not that I agree with either group, but it's not exactly hypocritical what they say.
Saying X is bad while yourself adopting it would indeed be hypocritical. But saying X is OK up to your (or your generation), but bad if it continues is merely selfish or conservative.
It's more like them saying "it stops here", is in the first case "selfish" (since they're in, but want others out) and in the second case "conservative" (since they inherited an impure language, but want to stop it from evolving), but not necessarily hypocritical.
It's not illogical either: just because something started as "X" ("a nation of immigrants" for America, "an impure mix of words and linguistic influence" for the English language) it's not a logical necessity that it should continue to be so ad infinitum.
"So" is quicker than "Therefore" or "In conclusion" or "Because of that" and so on. In conversation, people want you to get to the point quickly. One syllable "so" gets the job done. Yes, it's overused. Grammatically, there's nothing wrong with it.
"So" indicates a change in direction in a conversation. It's mostly used to start a summarization or a change of subject. It prompts the listener to stop thinking about the old subject and pay attention to the new.
I get 'so' in conversation, but I despise it in internet posts. On reddit it indicates that there is a 99% likelihood that what you are about to read is a repost.
I've got a theory that "suck" is going to have staying power. It wasn't that long ago (say 30 years) that it was considered vulgar, while now it's quite tame. The advantage of suck is that it fills the niche of succinctly being the opposite of cool.
I'm curious if anyone knows in what direction a language evolves over time. Does it grow randomly with the addition of words/phrases, or is their a system of 'natural selection'? The American English language is certainly growing as new words become commonplace, but will other words die out completely? The reason for this question is because I wonder if languages become more efficient over time. For instance, what will the American English language be like in 100 years? Will it just be larger, or will it be more precise? It would be interesting if we create more and more precise words over time so that we actually stop using less precise words, making the language ultimately as efficient as possible. I guess it depends on so many things, like dialect/region/age/etc.
There are a lot of competing factors that drive language change. Probably the largest force is sound efficiency - speakers merge, elide, and otherwise mess with sounds in order to make speaking take less energy, or make it possible to talk faster (think runnin' instead of running). This increases efficiency for a while, until homonyms take over and meanings become too frequently ambiguous. (Think of the cot/caught merger, although that one probably confuses no one.) Then, speakers start to use lots of periphrasis and such, and eventually big compound descriptions get lexicalized as new words and grammatical structures. This makes the language more complex as it originally was. Thus language evolution often happens in cycles like this on the order of centuries.
The major factor that influences the equilibrium of this cycle is number of speakers and number of adult learners. Languages with lots of speakers change more slowly, and tend to be getting simpler especially if they are assimilating new speakers (think English as it is becoming the global lingua franca.) Small insular languages with few second language learners tend to get more complex and idiosyncratic.
Linguistic evolution is much like biological evolution in that there is no a priori direction for it to go. There is a sort of natural selection in that words that don't get used don't generally get passed on to the next generation. Text and other media allow some of these words to be recovered in later generations.
If history is any indication, in 100 years American English will have some precise ways of expressing things, some loose ways of expressing things, and various groups of people will be unreasonably upset with one situation or the other.
If you're interested in the mechanisms of language change, I found the (2000) 3rd edition of Jean Aitchison's _Language Change: Progress or Decay?_ both readable and worth reading. There is a 4th edition, published in 2013:
Languages grow simpler over time, in my view. I'm not an etymologist, but in my experience, long phrases that are used often are replaced with simpler ones. This isn't just in English, it's the same in Polish.
And if you don't trust my anecdata, look up the German and Japanese language reform. I don't speak much of those, but they have stronger ruling bodies over their language, making it easier to track change in language. It appears the reforms slowly make the language simpler, based on feedback from the populace.
Replacing long phrases with fewer words is not "simpler" in any measure of language simplicity I've ever heard. In fact, "simple" usually means fewer words and variety, and thus, longer sentences for covering more complex concepts.
An explosion of jargon and slang doesn't make a language simple, it adds layers and layers of exclusivity and nuance.
That's debatable. As a learner of English as a foreign language, I (and my classmates) had a much harder time understanding "simple" words.
Throw a word like "rotate", and it's just a matter of memorizing what the word means. Throw in a "simple" word like "turn", and it has a gazillion different meanings for every situation. It's a total nightmare for language learners.
'Turn' has many meanings because it has been used too often for reducing the number of words in sentences. You only have two choices when you want to do this: invent a new term (and totally confuse everyone) or use a related term (and let tome of the existing meaning bleed through.) Both of which make the language more complex.
One thing he mentions in the series is that languages tend to become more simple over time as they come into contact with others. This makes sense--if you're bringing people into a community who don't know the language then they're going to simplify it and that will spread. The languages that are the most complex are the ones that are most isolated. Here's a blog post about it: http://lingblog.com/2013/12/23/can-the-structure-of-society-...
American English was basically invented by Webster, yet there are many words from his reinvention that didn't catch on. You can also find many modern words in the Oxford dictionary, like "lol". So it seems that both deliberate, and accidental expansions/contractions of the language are possible.
Side note: as a teenager, I'm pretty sure this "on fleek" phrase everyone's touting as "the new cool phrase all the kids are saying" is a red herring to spot when people are trying too hard to be cool or something. I've never heard anyone say that in real life.
Initially I thought "cool" might have its staying power because it's the baseline... the first word to really encapsulate a concept (perhaps defined as "innovatively unique")... and the others are just knock-offs trying to redefine the standard.
but I'm pretty sure "hep" would be considered a synonym of cool that predates it.
So why didn't "hep" become the everlasting "cool" word?
Unrelated, I have always been fascinated with how fuck has managed to stay both vulgar and popular for 100's of years.