|SignWriting List Forum|
Jerry Spillman |
Date: Mon Nov 12, 2001 3:04 pm
Subject: Re: Is SignWriting Necessary?
Actually, you have struck the nail on its head. My boss thinks I should
change to the new political-speak from the common (vulgar). Instead of
referring to an idiot as an idiot, one must now say that person is
intellectually challenged. What I see here (viewpoint from an
uneducated person) is merely a change from simple down-to-earth language
to "make it vague, perhaps no one will take offense". Unfortunately, if
we all become so thin-skinned that we are insulted by mere conversation,
I don't believe we will have enough time to conduct business at all, but
will spend it all in litigation over the "correctness" of speech.
Personally, I think it would be more productive to work at improving
the usage of the common language, rather than to come up with "clever"
ways of stating a fact. I think that standards are wonderful, because
they limit the amount of "twisting" allowed to convey the meanings of
ordinary speech. I think (and evidence bears this out) that language
does evolve. However, also in my thinking, and perhaps like that of
some who wanted Latin to remain the standard, some common sense should
limit how far we go in our experimentation.