I can see the truth to these two paragraphs, in line with what I was trying to say in my posts on separate issue. Not that I am so much into discipline, but the way some languages 'evolve' hardly upgrade their capability as expression tools and only represent the simplistic nature of today's information barraging.rhubroma said:I don't agree. So much of today's language is debased by the consumption culture we live in and the horrendous example on commercial television, for which vulgarity and ignorance predominate. Then there are the ridiculous and grotesque Anglo-Americanism, like "Jobs-Act" or "Fiscal-Compact," even when the native tongue has its own perfectly suitable terminology. What thus tries to be cosmopolitan and trendy, always comes across as pretentious and ultimately ridiculous, provincialism at its finest. Even worse is when the politicians use them as a mystifying means to address a public that is viewed as too bumpkinish to understand such "complex issues."
Whereas it seems to me the less good common language usage comes, the greater the volks' inability to express complex issues or thoughts elegantly, which can't be fortuitous in terms of the public debates and, therefore, the state of the democracy.