Language Rules.

[Stupot]

Rules are useful.  They help to create stability and consistency and order.

Language rules are no different.  But all languages have evolved over thousands of years to get where they are today?  Surely it has to be allowed to evolve further... so who decides what is what, which words are acceptable or not, and in what order?

I'm mainly talking about particular words... if people hadn't invented words in the past we wouldn't be able to talk to each other today.  So why can't I invent a particular word, just because it has never been accepted by any dictionary makers.  Many people in history have 'coined' certain words.  So why weren't they told off by their peers?  Why were their new words allowed?  Why didn't Bill Gates come up to them with a squiggly red pen every time they wrote something unconventional?

I had a particular word in mind to back up this argument, but actually it turned out to be a bad example 
but everything above still stands.  Have you ever come up with a word which would perfectly suit your needs apart from the fact that it doesn't exist?  And then felt the need to correct yourself, to the detriment of your creativity, just to avoid a berating from your peers?

[nihilyst]

I'm mainly talking about particular words... if people hadn't invented words in the past we wouldn't be able to talk to each other today.  So why can't I invent a particular word, just because it has never been accepted by any dictionary makers.  Many people in history have 'coined' certain words.  So why weren't they told off by their peers?  Why were their new words allowed?  Why didn't Bill Gates come up to them with a squiggly red pen every time they wrote something unconventional?

Day by day thousands of new words are created. If people like them, they will most likely use them themselves. And in the end, if a majority of those who speak the language know and use it, it will even be accepted in dictionaries.
All those language organizations or those who decide upon orthography, they might encourage people to use this or not to use that words or grammatical phenomena. But eventually they will conform. If cases die out, they die out. If prepositions change their governed cases, they will. It has always been that way.

[twin-moon]

So why can't I invent a particular word, just because it has never been accepted by any dictionary makers.  Many people in history have 'coined' certain words.  So why weren't they told off by their peers?  Why were their new words allowed?  Why didn't Bill Gates come up to them with a squiggly red pen every time they wrote something unconventional?

Please calm down, and tell us who told you off so we can go beat them up 

I would argue language has no rules. In school they taught me that in the English language place comes before time (i.e. I went to work at 9 o'clock) but that become only a rule AFTER it was a convention.
As an illustration of vocabulary having no rules, a poem by Lewis Carroll:

"Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
  Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
  And the mome raths outgrabe."

Most people would call that beautiful, yet half of the words in those four lines are not in the dictionary.


(Actually, I have a situation without a word. Something I hear a song on the radio, and I think "this music is made by people who don't enjoy what they're doing, it's 100% insincere and it's crap."
I used to call it 'celinedion' but lately the word was 'jamesblunt'. )

[lo_res_man]

I think a better way of putting it is that we make the rules, in a fashion that means it is highly unlikely, but still possible,for one person to make significant changes. Of course if someone is famous enough, there actions can significantly face the lingual landscape, but usually, things take time. Language seems to change fastest during times of upheaval, as slangs and terms are invented by various factions, as well as when new words are brought in by people in interface professions, like merchants and sailors. This is why during the start of the Age of Exploration, so many new words were added to the English language.Also, when one culture conquers another, the new ruling class adds many new words as the society reintegrates, such as the Norman Invasion of England. I love the English language, it is such a melting pot, with sometime seeming to have more exceptions to the rules then words that follow the rules.  SO do your part, work to change language, but don't try this on your English Teacher, it tends to make them ticked.

[Radiant]

Memetics, pure memetics.

Many many people try to coin words or phrases, or indeed have their jokes become popular on the internet. Check ytmnd, youtube or wikipedia for a plethora of examples. Most fail. Most that succeed do so unintentionally.

[thebaddie]

english is one of the easiest language to invent words... just add to an existing word the suffis:

-less
-ly
-ing
-or

OR

in-
a-

and so one

btw i'm jocking, but american/english people invents a lot of words.. isn't it?

we in italy invent words too, but they are like slang, or words used in a second way.

[Radiant]

Verbing weirds language.

[Carsten Schermuly]

Very good questions!

See Germany - my country - with its Rechtschreibreform - the reform about grammatcs and orthography (spelling).
e. g. this article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6250184.stm
It does not help our Pisa - Study quotes.

Once we do talk in love (with respect) to another - everybody does understand well - no matter what mothertongue.

[EldKatt]

Every language is constantly changing. The change is slow enough that a lot of people get the impression that it isn't, but that's an illusion. New words, and (more rarely) new grammatic constructs are created all the time, and winnowed out through a kind of memetic natural selection.

My main concern when I speak or write is merely that people should understand what I'm saying (including every intended nuance of style). If I accomplish that, I don't really care how old the words I use are. Or if they existed before I said them.

[Carsten Schermuly]

I think, English as the world trade language is a happy choice - because English is often simple (this does not mean "poor" - just "easy to handle"), e. g. it is easy to make rimes, to make verses in English.

Byside other languages, English looks sometimes as to be richer,
example
german Unschuld
english Virginity and Innocence

Using Unschuld in German, it needs to know the environment of the word to know what will be meant. Using Virginity or Innocence in English, we do know without a phrase what is meant.

A similar thing is "love", the ancient Greece did know four words for, so it is good to overtake the old words to be more precise.

[Emerald]

I invent words all the time. If someone calls you on it, just accuse them of being boorish and inartistic and move on...

[Akatosh]

If I remember correctly, there was a competition in Germany a few years ago to establish a word that would mean "the opposite of thristy". The winner was "sutt" (which is basically "satt" - satiated - with the vowel changed  ). To my knowledge, nobody EVER uses or used that word.

Verbing weirds language.

Quoting Calvin = win.

[lo_res_man]

I think languege should change naturaly, trying to stifle this beautiositiy is prone to stagnitalisum.

[Emerald]

I think languege should change naturaly, trying to stifle this beautiositiy is prone to stagnitalisum.

But there are certain careenings which should be restabilised. For example, the whole textspeak/internet slang thing... I don't believe I could persistulate in a world where we all communiferate through 'lol's and 'wtf's...

[Tuomas]

In the case of the German language I have nothing against the reform of 1998 with all the new stuff, basically restricting the double s and making some words sound more German. After all, that's most the German I've been studying, and now that it makes a bit more sense, grammarwise I can really relate. It's been really awful when a language expands too much and gets words that for foreign speakers are in no relation to the grammar. Then, being able to recognise words that you don't grow to use.

I don't think English is there yet though. But in my opinion, and note this, the language is developing quicker than ever, because simply, people write more nowadays, and in fact interract with each other through that. I find myself as a foreigner, speaking Englaish words that are not in the dictionary yet, and if added would probably not stay there. It's a changing phenomenon imo. But at this point if English neede a reform, it would be back to the original that is used in real books and newspapers. And this is easier done through nationwide education that really covers the issue of literacy. Surely you can't write if you never really learn it, and you end up spaekin liek U were in teh internets. And that's where all the planned reforms seem to be heading. And it's not really the simplest way. It's like giving everyone wheelchairs instead of teaching them to walk when they're small. Just like the womanperson in that article earlier on the thread. A correct language doesn't mean idiotics or retarded spelling, it means a vast group of people who are educated in reading and writing, basically, they're own cultural heritage and identity. But in an unsophisticated gatherplaceum that is socially tensioned you can easilly make up words people will understand but won't use again. And that's the words that are suggested to be the new language. Or Speak, because language seems too long, too French and too hard to type, while "Dictionary, entry #756 = Speak/Speek/sp34k = formery known as language, originates from times when people would differ from others speekways" is the easy solution, giving the speaker the choise how to write it. You might just become robots, everything installed into your brain.

I personally never had problems with spelling. And by this I don't mean occasional typos but, well, they don't have spelling bees in our country because there would be no end to them. And that person who won the spelling bee in the US mentioned before in this thread must have a huge brain capacity but no clue about what he's doing. Frankly if you look at it, most of even English words are easily guessed from the pronouncing. And all exceptions just make the language richer and more interesting. This was getting impossible in certain cases with German, that's why since 2005 you don't write Fussball as I just did, you use the "àŸ" (alt+225) which I can't find from my keyboard.

[Lionmonkey]

I think languege should change naturaly, trying to stifle this beautiositiy is prone to stagnitalisum.

But there are certain careenings which should be restabilised. For example, the whole textspeak/internet slang thing... I don't believe I could persistulate in a world where we all communiferate through 'lol's and 'wtf's...

You are too late. It has already started.

Now, about the business: I've spotted a one thing -- When someone says a new word (invented by that person) aloud, in the audience of people he/she knows, there are two possible ways, in which the destiny will go:

WAY ONE: The people ignore it, no matter how loud and how often you say it and try to be as much oblivious about it, as possible.

WAY SECOND: The People do not ignore it. This is where fate of the word splits in two possibilities again:

Possibility A: They like the word and eventually end up using it very much, till the next phenomena is born.

Possibility B: They remember the word, maybe laugh  a little, maybe not.  And then, the next day/week...
They use it. Not the way, you would want them to do that. They say it every 5 seconds, every time they speak with you, about you or near you. They call you just like the word, they call what you do just like that word, they call your mum "that word's mum". Eventually, you hate them, you hate the word and you hate the word's inventor, which is you, the most of them all.

Way 2nd, Possibility B has been noted to have the largest persentage of occurance.

Sorry, I'm thinglinng a bit.

[tube]

...that's why since 2005 you don't write Fussball as I just did, you use the "àŸ" (alt+225) which I can't find from my keyboard.

Actually it was the other way around. According to the 1996 spelling reform and the various revisions made to it afterwards you are now allowed to use the -ss ending (Fuss), whereas the classic spelling rules dictated it had to be FuàŸ.

[nihilyst]

It has been spelt "FuàŸ" before the orthographic reform, and it's "FuàŸ" after the reform. You are only allowed to write it FUSS when using capital letters (since there is no capital àŸ).

In the German language it's very easy to write from hearing, whereas in English, there doesn't seem to be a reason, why "hear" and "bear" look the same, but are pronounced differently.

[twin-moon]

If I remember correctly, there was a competition in Germany a few years ago to establish a word that would mean "the opposite of thristy". The winner was "sutt" (which is basically "satt" - satiated - with the vowel changed  ). To my knowledge, nobody EVER uses or used that word.

To give an example of the opposite: fifteen years or so ago a local newspaper held a competition to come up with a word for CD in the local dialect. That word is now institutionalised and used by everyone.

[tube]

@nihilyst,
I'm sure you're right, but at least wikipedia seems to agree with me.

The only sure and easily recognizable symptom of a text's being in compliance with the reform is the -ss at the end of words, like in dass and muss. Classic spelling forbade this ending, instead using daàŸ and muàŸ.

Quoted from this wikipedia article. Of course it's entirely possible that I am missing something. I haven't spoken a word of German since about 1998, back in school.