Language War Zone

Evolution happens. Like it or not, it just does. Humans evolve, technology evolves, and even language evolves. Just like the picture here to the left. It refers to the type of response we see a lot now days in text messages; the infamous "k." How can we have passed from writing a sentence that emotes our legitimate response, to a simple consonant? While some think that language should stay as conventional and original as possible, others think that language should evolve and we should all adjust to those changes. 

After reading this debate from The New York Times about language, I realized that I'm a "descriptivist". What that means is that I basically accept the fact that language is evolving, and that some rules expire as time goes by. Descriptivist accept and acknowledge the language as it is used in the present. On the other hand, as one of the debaters from the Language Wars, there are "prescriptivists." This is the kind of people who focus more on how the language "should be used", or in other words, they prioritize the correctness of the language. While both types of people are valid, I think that with the speed that the 21st century is evolving, we all have to be descriptivists now days or else we will be wasting our time. 

Something that we learn as human beings, at some point in our lives, is that we all make mistakes. We can't escape from the fact that mistakes are part of our growth and understanding of how life works. I have done many mistakes in my life. Teachers commit a lot of mistakes. Native speakers make mistakes too. Even freaking E.B. White made a mistake in one of his writing pieces. It simply happens. Why should we punish ourselves about the grammatical mistakes that we commit with all of the rules of grammar, and what not? Honestly, many people in our world don't care if we use "which" and "that" incorrectly, or in place of each other. Some even ignore the acknowledgment and distinction of homophones. I'm not saying we should all ignore grammar rules and do whatever we please to do with our writing. My point is that some traditional and conservative rules of grammar (such as the one from the debate - the "which" & "that" dilemma) become less important to people, and eventually they begin to disappear. That's why I don't think we should judge and criticize the 21st century way of communicating: texting. Texting is simply an evolution of a medium of communication that itself brings new ways of saying things in a more grammatically rebellious way. 

I don't know, maybe I "demonize prescriptivists" like Greene (according to Graner). I'm just completely biased and in favor of the evolution of language, and it is really annoying that some people won't accept that and move on. And this doesn't mean that i WriTe l!ke diz nd i dont care 4 grammer rulezz. I actually agree with Greene when he mentions that “there is a set of standard conventions everyone needs for formal writing and speaking," because if there wasn't we wouldn't be able to communicate correctly and understand what each of us has to say. However, this doesn't mean we should follow absolutely every rule that exists in the world of grammar if it isn't absolutely necessary in order to emote our message.

In the end, people are the ones who choose what to do with their writing ability. Maybe for some of us right now it seems like a horrible violation to ignore grammatical rules when we, say, text. However, in 50 years, we'll see that the change we are going through was less intense than the one we'll see then. It's the way it has been and felt in history, and we just gotta learn to accept this change and evolution that is happening right now.