I just read Language Myths, edited by Lauri Bauer and Peter Trudgill, published in 1998. Twenty-one different authors each tackle a language myth and debunk it.
Below are the myths, each of which gets its own chapter.
–The meaning of words should not be allowed to vary or change.
–Some languages are just not good enough.
–The media are ruining English.
–French is a logical language.
–English spelling is kattostroffik.
–Women talk too much.
–Some languages are harder than others.
–Children can’t speak or write properly any more.
–In the Appalachians, they speak like Shakespeare.
–Some languages have no grammar.
–Italian is beautiful, German is ugly.
–Bad grammar is slovenly.
–Black Children are verbally deprived.
–Double negatives are illogical.
–TV makes people sound the same.
–You shouldn’t say “it is me” because ‘me’ is accusative.
–They speak really bad English down south and in New York City.
–Some languages are spoken more quickly than others.
–Aborigines speak a primitive language.
–Everyone has an accent except me.
–America is ruining the English language.
The various authors make compelling cases for concluding that the truth is contrary to every single myth posited. I’ll mention one argument to give you an idea.
The myth is that double negatives are illogical, but according to the author, they aren’t. The myth derives from math. Two minus negative two is four, the two negatives equal a positive. That’s how math works, that’s not how languages work. When someone says “I didn’t talk to nobody,” no sentient person really thinks, hmmn, if he didn’t take to nobody, then he must have talked to somebody. Only pedants think like that and they do it purposely to showcase how smart they are. Everybody, including the pedant, knows that the speaker didn’t talk to a human. Furthermore, double negatives are an integral part of many languages. In French, “I don’t want anything” is “je ne veux rien,” where “ne” and “rien” both indicate a negative.
The other myths are similarly discredited — though in truth, some of the “myths” have the appearance of strawmen. Memorize the opposite of the myth and you will have a much better understanding of linguistics. Or read the book and you will understand why the myth isn’t true.
The overwhelming takeaway from this book and other books I have read about language and linguistics is that languages are in a constant state of change. Words are created regularly (think about anything pertaining to text messages), fall into disfavor (dungarees), and change meanings (“nice” originally meant “silly”). The only thing constant about language is flux.
Books and writing have tended to slow the rate of change by locking in meanings and usage. But even so, words continue to morph.
Like many English words, “while” has multiple meanings, and most of them have a temporal element. Unfortunately, “while” has also become a synonym for “although.” It shouldn’t. The better practice is to retain the temporal element, as in “I read the book while riding the bus.” Use “although” when contrasting two related concepts, as in “although the sun was shining, it wasn’t that warm.” The oft-used “while” just doesn’t convey the same meaning. “While the sun was shining, it wasn’t that warm” almost seems illogical, as if it were warmer when the sun wasn’t shining.
Similarly “since” should be used to convey that time has passed, “I haven’t been outside since 10 o’clock this morning.” It is frequently used as a synonym for “because,” again without enhancing clarity, “since he went outside, he put on a jacket.” The reader isn’t certain when or why the jacket was put on.
The synonymic usages are here to stay, but I don’t like them because they add a level of ambiguity. Retaining the temporal element is clearer, less difficult to understand, and more difficult to misunderstand.
What we are really looking for, especially in conversation, is comprehension. So the next time you are having a conversation with someone and they don’t use “bring” or “come” exactly the way you would, take a deep breath and consider that, because you understand what is being conveyed, there is no reason to correct the mythical mistake that is likely on its way to becoming common usage.
Since you wrote that I have come to new thinking about language. I mean that in both the temporal and the more confusing ‘because’ substitution. Lol. Thanks for that review. I enjoy thinking about language and usage as well. I believe written language should be held to a higher standard, and I work to forgive strange uses as ‘inventive’ when I hear people speak them.
Definitely agree about written language being held to a higher standard — except my own.