Words

My own view on the ‘proper’ use of language is radical, though not so radical as some. I am told of a UBC professor who believes that, “If you used it, it’s a word.” I would amend that statement to read, “If you used it—and it was understood by the listener in the way you intended it to be understood—it’s a word.”

Rafel Miro photo
Rafel Miro photo

I’m employing the classic communication model here, where sender, message and receiver must all be present in order for communication to take place, and I do believe that clarity is the prime consideration when attempting to communicate with the written or spoken word. Honesty might be my second consideration, and all the niceties of language—the elements of style—would follow, a distant third.

Words are meant to communicate, and communication is meant to move you somehow, either intellectually or emotionally, depending upon the kind of writing or speaking being done. But nowhere should it be maintained that there is a proper way to communicate with words, that there is one and only one correct way to string words together.

And yet of course there is. We have the rules of grammar, and we have the dictionary. The dictionary tells us that there is one and only one correct way to spell a word, and the rules of grammar tell us that there is only one way to correctly construct sentences.

Well, to not put too fine a word upon it, hogwash. Shakespeare never had a dictionary or grammar text to refer to, and most of us would agree that no fellow has ever strung English words together better than he, and he invented some dillys (How about “fell swoop?”). It makes no more sense to say that there are rules to govern writing than it does to say there are rules to govern painting, or sculpture, or theatre. Writing is an artform like any other, and to impose rules upon it is an act of stultification.

I’m with Bill Bissett, subversive poet of deserved renown whose work can be found on his “offishul web site,” work like this pithy gem (from scars on th seehors):

IT USD 2 B

yu cud get sum toilet papr

nd a newspapr both 4

a dollr fiftee

 

now yu cant  

yu gotta make a chois 

Bissett points out in his essay why I write like ths that it was the invention of the printing press that precipitated the standardization of language:

previous to that era peopul wud spell th same words diffrentlee  evn in th same correspondens  chek th lettrs btween qween elizabeth first n sir waltr raleigh  different spellings  different tones  different emphasis  sound  all part uv th changing meenings  

Once again it seems it was technology determining change, change which in this case undoubtedly impoverished words as a creative tool.

It was the Victorians who truly imposed a final set of rules upon the English language—the first Oxford Dictionary appeared in 1884—and generically speaking, there has rarely been a more noxious bunch populating the earth.

The French have the Académie française, “official moderator of the French language,” there “to work, with all possible care and diligence, to give our language definite rules.” The Academy of course admits a few new words to the French language each year, mostly to replace odious English words that have crept into use in French, but again, it is hard to imagine a more officious and objectionable pomp of bureaucrats than these self-appointed jury members. (Did you catch me inventing “pomp,” and, more importantly, did you grasp my meaning?)

Language evolves, daily, as must any art if it is to remain an art. It must constantly be in search of the novel, for there is precious little else remaining when it comes to the recognition of art than that it be new. Those who would stand in opposition to this evolution stand with those charming Victorians who offered up as their sole necessary justification, “It’s not done.”

Yes, the too-indulgent use of words can be tedious and problematic (Has anyone actually read Finnegan’s Wake?), but even more problematically tendentious are the language police manning the checkpoints in defense of a hopeless, conservative cause. If you want to say, “There is data to support my argument,” as opposed to “There are data…”, go ahead. Those who would condemn you for it are snobs, snobs with a fascist bent, and not the least deserving of the respect they seek. If you consider it a word, and you think it likely to be understood in the way you intend, go ahead, fire away, use it. Feel free.