To allow a word to change is a sign of lack of character and virtue. Some idiots even skip (silent) letters purely out of convention while others convinced themselves that having 21 vowels but no way of representing each one with their 5 broken diphthongs is normal, so they resort to examples of (usually foreign) words to show what a native vowel sounds like.Is there any philosopher or writer that explores this topic seriously besides the occasional praise pro good language knowledge? I read somewhere that Plato thought highly of etymology; is that all? Hegel is infamous for being hard to read; is it because of his writing prowess, or just obscurantism?
>>25642076english is a living language that, like all such, is continuously changing.
>>25642084>language is a living thing
>>25642084I'm starting to think that scientists abstaining from value judgements in their work was a mistake
>>25642091characteristically literal-minded. it’s an established expression.
>>25642076>I read somewhere that Plato thought highly of etymologyPlato jokes with etymology, the biggest joke through his Cratylus is that everything ends up meaning "motion".
i wonder about 100 or 200 years from nowDigital technology has really formalized language in a way that first started with dictionaries spell checkers, AI etc all herd you tot he correct spelling, but none of that makes it so we keep speaking in the same wayenglish may drift more and more from matching how we pronounce thinks, eg we say jrink and jrive not drink and drive
>>25642098
>>25642112That's a beautiful quote. Where is it from?
>>25642106Not sure about the future, but current AI sucks at conlangs like Anglish. I hope it continues so for we need to know who is litterate and who isn't.
>>25642084self-fulfilling prophecy
>>25642140robert graves’ essay on genius from ‘difficult questions, easy answers’
>>25642266how exactly do you mean
>>25642076Heidegger is by far and away the canonical philosopher most famous for his (questionable) philology.>To allow a word to change is a sign of lack of character and virtue.Yep, Heidegger is the philosopher for you. In his later writings he even comes close to having as banal an opinion on the development of language as yours.
>>25642076>language is broken>let's fix language>too lazy to represent hip new trend fully>language is incomplete and inconsistent>lets fix language
