A recent news item (if I knew the source, I'd cite it -- I don't) covered the changes coming to the English language. The changes were centered on the acceptance of common usage ... even though it's wrong. The idea was that since more than half the users of the language are using terms incorrectly, their usage becomes acceptable and the dictionaries all change to reflect it.
I've seen it a lot myself. One seminary student wrote regarding a class that he took that it was "fascinating to the tilt." I understand "fascinating to the hilt." "To the hilt" refers to a sword inserted all the way to its last inch. In more modern vernacular, it would be "to the max" or, in older terminology, "to the utmost." That would be a fascinating class. But "fascinating to the tilt" doesn't make any sense to me. It has no meaning. The only meaning that I can derive from it is by connecting it to "to the hilt" and assuming the author made a mistake.
One I've heard several times is the replacement of the term "fathom" with "phantom". Something is so complicated or deep that "I just can't phantom it." "Phantom"? "Fathom" would refer to the nautical practice of throwing out a line knotted with regular spacing of one fathom (about 1.83m) to find out how deep the water is. If they ran out of rope, it was "too deep to fathom." If "I can't fathom it", the topic was just too deep to figure out. But if I can't "phantom" it, I suppose there are ghosts of some sort involved that I don't understand.
"Free rein" refers to the concept of letting loose of the horse's reins and allowing it to go wherever it chooses. In fact, the concept of "reins" in terms of control have several idioms in our language. You can "grab the reins" when you take control. You can "rein in" a loose cannon. You can "take the reins of power" when you assume control. All of these are images of controlling a horse, and that imagery gives them their meaning. The dictionary, however, is changing. Too many people think of the term "reign". When you have "free reign", it means you are free to rule as you please. You can "grab the reigns" to take control and "reign in" a loose cannon by passing edicts based on your rule. In other words, since it makes sense to some people, it's ... right.
There is a website called Eggcorn Database that has a whole listing of these types of twists to the English language. You can "go at it hammer and thongs", miss "by a hair's breath" or even "a hare's breadth", discuss a "mute point", or have "a tough road to hoe". "Shoe in" is now "shoo in", "anchors aweigh" has shifted to "anchors away", and instead of "deep-seated" problems, you have "deep-seeded" ones. Although it started out as a "bare-faced" or "bald-faced" lie, most think of it as a "bold-face" lie. In fact, when I checked they had 596 entries of misuse of the language.
What is happening? Why is the language shifting ... and why is the shift replacing the correct? Well, the reason for the shift is primarily because most people don't know the source. More importantly, most people don't think about the source. They are simply mimicking what they heard ... or think they heard. They aren't examining what it means, where it came from, or how to use it. They are simply parroting with a parrot's understanding. When confronted ("How can you say 'reign in'"???), instead of examining the possibility they are wrong, they simply rise to their own defense ("I can make sense out of 'reign in' so it must be okay."). And why is it replacing the correct? That which is correct is replaced by that which is popular ... just about everywhere you turn.
A shift from the right to wrong use of the language is a small item. It upsets some of us, but most people could care less. (Note: The original phrase was "couldn't care less", but popular usage has made "could care less" the "correct" term ... even though it makes zero sense.) The problem is that this same concept has weaved its way into less innocuous things like, oh, I don't know, theology and doctrine. People far too often have decided that the right thing to believe about the character of God and the nature of Christianity is whatever they've heard. Does it make sense? Not necessarily. Do they know the source? Not really. Can they defend it? Not particularly. Do the ramifications make sense? Not at all. So we go on to discuss common terminology like "justification" and "sanctification" and "Trinity" and the like, it turns out that the connections are almost nonexistent. At this point it becomes important to bare in mind that it's not much to do about nothing. We need to nip this in the butt before these folks sail us down the river. Most people, however, consider it a mute point.
All humor aside, we might be able to work our way around misuse of the language, but abuse of the nature of God and the doctrines of Christianity produce heresies like Open Theism, anti-Trinitarianism, and outright denials of justification by faith. These are not small items. Salvation and a relationship with the Father depend on them. When it comes to issues of faith and doctrine, "most people think this is true" or "it's the popular perception" will only get you into trouble if it's wrong. Not something we can afford.
3 comments:
Interesting post, Stan. I was not aware that we are ostensibly moving the measure of language from people in general to a specific person's mangled interpretation. Wittgenstein said that when two people understand each other, it is considered language. However, what constitutes proper language is another thing. Perhaps we need to speak up whenever we hear about things "to the tilt" and "mute points". I usually let those pass by but I'll have to make a point to correct them. Irregardless (thought I'd throw one in there), if we let langauge become subjective, then we are in for a lot of ugly suprises. Take care.
According to the report, if 50% of people or more think that a word or phrase should be used a particular way, it becomes "acceptable usage". Reality be hanged.
It's postmodernism, I suppose, where language only means what the speaker intends it to mean, not what anyone else intends.
You are absolutely right about this, about its manifestation in theology and doctrine, and about the implications this has for Christianity (as it is understood and practiced).
Ultimately less important, but equally dire in terms of its immediate threat, is the effect this has on politics and law.
Post a Comment