hrotha wrote:Of course it's elitist to suggest the speech of the popular classes is debased, corrupt and inferior. How could it not be? That's what makes your argument elitist, not the way you talk.
I wasn't addressing any point you raised about the classical language, I'm raising it myself by saying the speech you hold so dear is nothing but a "corruption" of older variants. It's arbitrary to draw the line at a particular speech and say that's the standard that should be upheld forever and ever, regardless of all other considerations.
This model of "linguistic corruption" is outdated for a reason.
Well if we have gotten to the point at which just saying that the popular parlance of today is debased, then call me an elitist. Naturally I think that nothing could be further from the truth, but this isn't the place to have a serious discussion about the matter.
I don't agree that language evolution is necessarily the "corruption" of what came before, otherwise we would not have arrived at Ciceronean Latin from archaic Latin, or Shakespeare's English from that of Beowulf. It is, to the contrary, possible for common language to experience degeneration. Call me whatever you like, but I find the language mutations currently taking place as being endemic of a certain superficiality in the culture.
Common language can be intelligent and poetic, or merely uninspired and insipid. I think what matters are the forces at work guiding it.