Yes, language changes. It is natural and right that it do so.
BUT, not all change is for the good. IMO, the test should be whether a) a proposed change is necessary or is more the result of laziness in not learning the existing language thoroughly first, and b) whether the change makes the language more useful, more accurate, more precise, more interesting, and more beautiful. For example, the trend toward the interchangility of infer and imply loses a clear and useful distinction and adds nothing useful. It is a simple matter of refusing to learn (or failing to have been taught) proper usage. However, email is a new word which is useful, accurate, and indeed virtually necessary. I use it regularly, even though it does not yet appear in any dictionary I use.
The problem, as I see it, is how to embrace "good" changes while gathering the forces together to reject "bad" changes. |
