• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Newspeak, New Languages?

MAgnum9987

Do What Thou Wilt
In the Book, 1984, by George Orwell, he brought to my attention an idea called "Language Reform" Which eliminated unneeded words in the English language. Now, while I know the Gov't has no right to reform healthcare let alone Language, but I thought it was pretty interesting that they even thought about it.

Now, the character who was talking about it, it was his job to find words that were not needed then to find substitutes that can have the same purpose as dozens of words. He sighted something along the lines of this
"Now, take the word Good. I could name dozens of superlatives that are synonyms of the word Good. Now, why have all of those when you can say, "Good" or "DoubleGood" Or "DoublePlusgood." Those three words can substitute about 20 words in the english language that mean the same thing. Even the word "BAd," the antecedant of Good, and all the synonyms of it, could be erased and replaced. 'Ungood" "Doubleungood" and "Antidoublegood" could substitute it. So just six words could subsitute as much as 4 dozen words."
I found it intriguing, and amazing, that someone could just look in the dictionary and cross out words, and then replace them.

Would something like that someday replace our language. History has proven that all languages will go into disuse and be replaced. What is the future of our languages?
 

FindMuck

Registered Member
In the Book, 1984, by George Orwell, he brought to my attention an idea called "Language Reform" Which eliminated unneeded words in the English language. Now, while I know the Gov't has no right to reform healthcare let alone Language, but I thought it was pretty interesting that they even thought about it.
First of all, the government has the right to do anything as long as it complies with the constitution and goes through the necesary set of checks and balances. Why would you even include that in your post, the health care debate is neither here nor there in this thread, and the government actually has the right to do both.

Now, the character who was talking about it, it was his job to find words that were not needed then to find substitutes that can have the same purpose as dozens of words. He sighted something along the lines of this
"Now, take the word Good. I could name dozens of superlatives that are synonyms of the word Good. Now, why have all of those when you can say, "Good" or "DoubleGood" Or "DoublePlusgood." Those three words can substitute about 20 words in the english language that mean the same thing. Even the word "BAd," the antecedant of Good, and all the synonyms of it, could be erased and replaced. 'Ungood" "Doubleungood" and "Antidoublegood" could substitute it. So just six words could subsitute as much as 4 dozen words."
I found it intriguing, and amazing, that someone could just look in the dictionary and cross out words, and then replace them.

Would something like that someday replace our language. History has proven that all languages will go into disuse and be replaced. What is the future of our languages?
I hope not. There is a reason why there are so many words that mean close to the same thing, and that is because they are all slightly different and imply something different, when you take away synonyms for words, you take away a whole set of subtle situations and emotions that now can't really be described articulately. This might be fine for government documents and instruction manuals, but so much of our lives comes from artful and discriptive use of language. If language were to change like that, I guarantee movies would not be as entertaining, books would not be as interesting, society would not be as diverse, and we, as individuals would loose an emense part of our individuality.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
If we lost some useful terms, we should just have to remake them. New words or word usages are constantly being born. You cannot stop natural language with its horrifying and magic illogicality (see Bertrand Russell), and its uncanny ability to confuse, obfuscate, and confound; and even enlighten. Incidentally, Orwell seems to think people put more stock in a sign than referent, and I think most do a pretty good job of distinguishing them. What's in a sign?
 

MAgnum9987

Do What Thou Wilt
First of all, the government has the right to do anything as long as it complies with the constitution and goes through the necesary set of checks and balances. Why would you even include that in your post, the health care debate is neither here nor there in this thread, and the government actually has the right to do both.
You forget that people have rights that are not listed in the constitution. For example, if the gov't regulated healthcare, it would require EVERY legal citizen to BUY health insurance. Sure health insurance has benefits, but no one should be FORCED to buy anything. And a gov't attempt to regulate language IS unconstitutional. First amendment, no law shall violate the right to free speech religion or press, so to regulate a language would be unconstitutional. Which is why America has no official language.
 

Shikimi_Farkash

Registered Member
a gov't should never attempt to regulate language. it would take away individuality and make things really awkward. besides, there aren't enough police running around to even be able to begin regulating language, so nobody would follow the regulations anyway.
 

FindMuck

Registered Member
You forget that people have rights that are not listed in the constitution. For example, if the gov't regulated healthcare, it would require EVERY legal citizen to BUY health insurance. Sure health insurance has benefits, but no one should be FORCED to buy anything. And a gov't attempt to regulate language IS unconstitutional. First amendment, no law shall violate the right to free speech religion or press, so to regulate a language would be unconstitutional. Which is why America has no official language.
Changing the English language is not regulating freedom of speech, you can still say what you want however you want to say it, it just might not be considered the most up to date way of communicating. Furthermore, English is not the official language of the US so it wouldn't limit freedom of speech at all in that regard, it would be purely for diplomatic purposes and probably not effect the public at all. That being said, I'm not at all for it.

Also, government regulated health care does not require anyone to buy health care, that's the whole point of having it. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Way to throw your own thread off topic by putting something that has nothing to do with the thread topic in your post...:lol:
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
France is the only country with an official dictionary and grammar, which is maintained by the Académie française, but there are no legal repercussions for deviating from the Académie's prescriptions. Not sure what that really has to do with anything, but it is an interesting if random fact.
 
Last edited:
Top