Taboo functions of language

Post Reply New Topic

Has anyone ever noticed that there's always someone or another telling people about what parts of their own language are allowed to be used? Such as demanding every sentence be in the active voice and frowning on the passive voice? Or how some people try to say, "Never use such and such a word" and I'm not referring only to the "Never say never" song in a mouse movie. There's also so much to do with content, and I'm not referring to profanity, such as where people demand the portrayal of optimism only. Or worse yet there's the "wonderful" world of working with the general public in which only canned psittacisms are permitted because the customers generally don't like the thought of their minimum wage slaves forming unique sentences. Has anyone else ever noticed how so many people are always trying to be the monarch in charge of the use of language by others?

I'm a little bit of a grammar nazi, but in my own defense, it comes up when people's mis-use of grammar makes it difficult to understand them. Stylistic differences (passive vs. active voice) don't bother me that much. Other examples of things that make me twitch are USING ALL CAPS, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THE WRITER IS SHOUTING AT YOU, 0r u51ng 133t wh3n ur c134r1y u51ng 4 r3gul4r k3y604rd. Also, swearing loses its ability to punctuate intense moments if every other word is f**k.

But, getting back to the topic: When I was a government employee, they gave us some writing classes where the emphasis was on writing in a simple, understandable manner, and avoiding the passive voice.

When writing in passive voice, it is easy to obscure things. For example, you might write "Tommy was hit with a ball." The writer might or might know know who hit Tommy with a ball, and might or might not be trying to protect someone. People who read material that comes from the government don't want to be left guessing. It is a lot clearer if you switch to active voice. "Billy hit Tommy with a ball."

Not sure if this fits here, but I heard that in Russian, you cannot say "bear" (the animal). You have to say somethin that refers to it, like "he-who eats-honey", or somesuch...

Language is a tool box with lotsa wonderful tools and like any other tool box some craftsmen are better at using it and better at picking the right tools for the right task than others.

I dont fault a master craftsman for expecting obedience from his aprentice.

In some areas of language Im a rebel, and in others a martinet.

An example of the former: I see nothing wrong with "aint". Its just a contraction of "am" and "not".
Whats the problem? Its no different than "isnt" and "arent". Objecting to "aint" is just snobbery.

But on the other hand I cant abide the practice of pairs of conversants describing a third party as "our mutual friend".

If both A and B are friends of C, then C is A+B's COMMON friend, not their "mutual" friend. They have C in common as a friend.

Two guys can stay awake around the campfire in the scary woods for "mutual protection", and a boy and girl can have a "mutual attraction".

Mutual means reflecting back and forth. So you cant be "mutual friends" with a third party.
You would be be "mutual" friends with the friend you're talking to- but mutuality is part of the definition of friendship so you dont need the "mutua" ajective to modify the word in that situation because it would be a tautology. So there is no reason to use the phrase "mutual friend".

The phrase was unfortunelly indelibley stamped into the English Language in the 19th centurey by no less than Charles Dickens when he published the novel entitled "Our Mutual Friend".

Who am I to gainsay Charles Dickens?

I dunno. I still hate the term.

I think part of it is that all human languages are imperfect at expressing the intended. There are some times when language is the perfect vehicle for ideas, such as, "I have four apples." If that is how many apples the person has, that sentence is no less than 100% correct. Nothing is missing, and everything implied is true. But try describing your thoughts in a sentence -- and having that sentence FULLY encompass your mental position on a particular, somewhat-complex subject. It's impossible, because human language is so finite, that we are forever frustrated by having to cram complex ideas into simplistic forms for the sake of conveying them. Real thoughts almost always end up somewhat mangled when spoken or written -- but especially when written, because people generally add non-verbal communication when speaking. Even Aspies do, although less.

This produces a lot of offense-through-miscommunication, sadly. How many times do others misinterpret our words in the negative? Countless!

language is what we make it, so stop going nazi on mine

to ragtime, so true, human language is very limited and crude.