Is the English language being "dumbed down", and if so, why?

[angus]

"Dumbed down" meaning, in this case, more informal, casual, and less strict or not held to a high standard.

Is this mostly an American phenomenon, or is it also happening in other English-speaking countries? What are your thoughts, theories, or observations as to why this is happening (if you agree that it is indeed happening)?

The fact that you cannot think of a better verb than "dumbed" to entitle a thread to describe the phenomenon of interest is ample evidence that it must be so.

Why?  Well, how hard would it be for you to think of a real word to describe it?  Or, if you cannot think of one, how hard would it be to look one up or learn one?  And why didn't you even bother to do just that?

If you can respond to these questions, then you will have the answer you seek.

[angus]

No Angus, that's verbing, not dumbing down. Verbing weirds language, dumbing down downdumbs it.

I regard promoting one-syllable adjectives to the status of verbs as another form of amelioration.  Not the worst form, as evidenced by many posts in this forum, but certainly one form.  

Still, one must accept the fact that languages evolve.  I had a long conversation with an English professor a few years ago about the way folks were pluralizing certain words in other ways that the way I was taught.  I've seen "indexes" for example, and "miminums."  She convinced me that evolution isn't necessarily a bad thing, and that growing pains are normal.  The only languages that don't experience them are the dead ones.

I suspect also that this language mitigation phenomenon is not unique to English, although given the language's wide geographic distribution and the attendant necessity that so many people (barely) learn it--and the fact that it's relatively new, as languages go, and that its current propagator is the same empire that was the cradle of fast food and the internet--the phenomenon may be more obvious in English than in other languages.  I say phenomenon, not problem, since I agree that features are not necessarily bugs, so to speak.

Take any foreigner who studied English long enough to speak it proficiently and plop him down in an English-speaking country and he'll forget how to speak English correctly in a very short time.  The recently-arrived Asian immigrant uttering "peace out, yo" and "damn, that's whack" is common enough fare in shallow Hollywood "summer" movies.  And that's art actually imitating life.

I've even gotten used to university administrators referring to the mentor/mentee relationship.

Mentee?  Really?!  

Okay, okay, I said I was over it.  I am.  Really.

[angus]

I've even gotten used to university administrators referring to the mentor/mentee relationship.

Mentee?  Really?!

Yes.  Really.  One of the flaws of those who seek to inflict erudite English upon the rest of us is a weird insistence upon keeping certain words from being fully naturalized.  Granted, given its origin, mentee is a rank backformation, but if may ment you on this subject, I think doing so is a good thing.  If only we did the same thing with spellings.  Our insistence on keeping imported spellings knocks my spine out of alignment enough to make me want to see a kiropractor. Is that a good enough example of what I mean, or do I need to show you a fotograf?

You may ment, if you like, but that doesn't make me your mentee.  Is the one who sells the emptee?  No, he's the vendor.  You may also want to tell the new pope that he should replace that XP at the top of the vatican with a KR.  After all, the basilica isn't a version of Microsoft Windows.

If you don't like greek words for light+draw, then just say picture, as in "do I need to paint you a picture?"  If you don't like χέρι, the greek word for hand, then use one with a latin root:  manipulator.  "It is enough to make me want to have my spine manipulated."

The English language is a highly bastardized one and borrows from just about everyone else.  That makes it disorganized and illogical, but it also is rich in synonyms.  If a word that has its roots in Greek or Latin doesn't make you feel all warm and fuzzy, then pick one whose roots are German.  In English, you can be free, or take liberty.  

Need an alliteration?  There's always one to be found.  The local children's science museum is having an exhibit featuring coprolites.  They're calling it "Did Dinosaurs Poop?"  I ask you:  How stupid is that?  Nevermind the insult to your intelligence on a more fundamental level.  Just think of the missed opportunities for clever alliteration. They could have called it Digging Dino Dung, or Collecting Cretaceous Crap, or Mountains of Mesozoic Movements, or Finding Fossilized Feces.  What richness the language already possesses without us having to make up silly words like "poop" (and "mentee").

[angus]

Mented

I've always thought exactly that as well.  If you really must, then try "mented" out for size.

Ernest, thanks for the poupen.  I hadn't looked that up before.

[angus]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They were probably lawyers, that ending up teaching in the Law School at whatever place you were at angus were this sort of thing occurred (that no doubt referred to itself as a "university" - is there such a thing as a "college" anywhere anymore on the Fruited Plain?), en route into moving into management.

Actually, I first heard the term from a physicist, and it was at Boston University, on the very edge of the fruited plain.  In later years the lingo really became fashionable.  Most of the administrators I've known have been mathematicians and scientists by training.  I wouldn't know a law school dean if one drove a bus full of lawyers off a cliff in front of me.  I should get out more.

[angus]

And a far more logical spelling system than what we have now.

Ðat iz trū, but ðat iz bēkuz ðār wuz nō sistem, sō evrāþīŋ had tū bī speld fonetiklī.

Wič wœd bé (ænd wuz) muč beter ðæn wut wé hav now.

No, it wouldn't.  first of all, you're totally ignoring the difference between the "w" sound as in water and the "wh" sound as in what and why.  You're also pronouncing "what" like some inbred trailer trash, which isn't really standard.  What is a perfectly fine spelling that is actually closer to the word's proper pronunciation than "wut."  Ernest is treating the vowel sound in "because" the same way.  Maybe it's a South Carolina thing, so it's forgivable, but he is also ignoring many syllables, for example in the last word of his post, which properly has five, he shows only four.

That tripe you're posting would only lead to more amelioration.  At least it would be standardized "dumbing down" in pronunciation, which may be better than the non-standardized version we have now, but it don't do nothing for the broader grammatical problems to which the thread refers.

[angus]

The important thing to keep in mind here is that grammar is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Formal writing may be aesthetically pleasing, but its purpose is to communicate ideas without ambiguity.

I'm not sure I agree with that.  If all you want to do is communicate an idea without ambiguity then you choose a dead language.  There's a reason that so much American legalspeak and sciencespeak is Latinized.  A language that isn't evolving doesn't have the term-ambiguity that a modern language has.  As for the point of correctly writing and speaking, it shows not only that you have learned something, but also that you are capable of learning something.  It can help you land a good job or impress the lads and lasses.  It has historically been taught as an end in itself and as a means to an end, with that end being so much more than formal communication.

There is also an argument that informal speech is sometimes used more effectively than formal speech if all you want to do is communicate without ambiguity.  

"Here's your change, man."  

"Na, we straight."  

The preceding is a good example of a two-phrase dialogue in which a worker communicates an idea effectively and a customer communicates just as effectively.  It is more efficient, and perhaps less likely to be misunderstood, than:

"Sir, I shall endeavor to return the remainder of your remittance.  Please accept it."

"It is unnecessary, and you may retain the balance."

[angus]

it seems entirely useless. 

It has uses, but not for what they're doing with it. 

There are many things we never encounter outside this forum.  This is one of them.  If you read articles in newspapers in magazines, they all have much more intelligent ways of passing along pronunciations in textual environments.  "Tomato.  Middle syllable same as middle syllable in godfather or middle syllable same as first syllable in apron?"  Done.

[angus]

I noticed something on the radio this morning that I've been hearing more often lately.  Two independent clauses not connected by a conjunction or anything else:

"Haywood Jablomi of our affiliate station WTF in Tupelo, Mississippi reports the arson suspect was also an Elvis impersonator."

Now, it seems to me that "Haywood... reports" is an independent clause and "the arson suspect was also an Elvis impersonator" is an independent clause.  There should be a conjunction between the two:

"Haywood Jablomi of our affiliate station WTF in Tupelo, Mississippi reports that the arson suspect was also an Elvis impersonator."

This was on Public Radio, which we assume is staffed by eggheads and grammar Nazis.  Moreover, I'm starting to hear this omission of conjunctions frequently.  Is it correct?  Is it evolution?

[angus]

"relative pronoun" or conjunction?


The bread I ate was stale.

The bread that I ate was stale.


optional?  necessary?  depends upon whether any ambiguity could arise?

If it depends upon possible ambiguity, since the first sentence is unambiguous.  Is this your point?

[angus]

altho

I bet you also like the Drive Thru window.

[angus]

Okay Ernest, I was driving to my office this morning and in front of me was a luxury sedan being driven by a very small, very old woman.  As I approached the from behind, I noticed a bumper sticker that stated,

"DO YOU FOLLOW JESUS THIS CLOSE." 

I don't care how you spin it, this sentence has at least two errors.  First, I'm certain that close is an adjective and therefore cannot modify the verb follow.  An adverb is required there.  Also, the voice--or mood--is interrogative.  At least the structure suggests an interrogative sentence, so the punctuation is wrong.  A question mark is required.  (ALLCAPS were inoffensive if they were intended to suggest shouting.) 

These errors were especially disconcerting considering that it was probably made by the Jesus People.  Who are the Jesus People?  The priests.  Priests are among the best educated members of society.  They go to school for a long time.  Historically, priests were typically the only members of the community who were literate.  In Western civilization, they could read and write not only in the vulgar idiom of their hometowns, but also in Latin.  I recognize the difference between the Religious and the Clergy and the Laity, and am aware that in the various flavors of Calvinist and Protestant religion that have been born in the United States there is no distinction between the Religious and the Clergy, and of the fact that in many of these traditions there is no proper clergy.  Maybe a plumber gets "saved" one day and is inspired to have some business cards printed that say he's a minister and he starts a church.  No formal education necessary.  Still, it is so disappointed that even the Jesus People don't write well. 

The style of this bumper sticker was meant to be clever.  Smart alek.  Cute.  I can appreciate that.   I, too, have a sardonic sense of humor.  But if you're going to be like that then you need to be sure that all your words are spelled correctly--and by correctly I don't mean Ernest Style--and you should make sure that your grammar is tight, including punctuation.

This bumper sticker is so distracting that I worried that might cause an accident.

[angus]

The ALL CAPS were likely used to improve legibility rather than indicate shouting.

They also apparently have it in now in lower case as well.



and with closely as an adverb



License plate holder:



and as a present participle:

[angus]

From the Walk Score Algorithm:

Walk Score measures how easy it is to live a car-lite lifestyle—not how pretty the area is for walking.

Walk Score uses a patent-pending system to measure the walkability of an address. The Walk Score algorithm awards points based on the distance to amenities in each category. Amenities within .25 miles receive maximum points and no points are awarded for amenities further than one mile.

Walk Score uses a variety of data sources including Google, Education.com, Open Street Map, and Localeze. Since nobody knows your neighborhood better than you do, you can add and remove places from Walk Score.


Now for the new-and-improved angus version:

Walkscore attempts to measure the degree to which living in a particular neighborhood necessitates a private car.  It does not take aesthetics into consideration.

Walkscore utilizes a patent-pending algorithm to measure the walkability of an address, based on distances from various retail outlets and other amenities.  Amenities within 0.25 miles receive a maximum number of points.  Amenities farther away than one mile receive no points.

Walkscore uses a variety of data sources including websites such as Google, Education.com, Open Street Map, and Zillow.com.  In an effort to include the intimate knowledge of those residing in a neighborhood to the walkability measure, walkscore encourages users to add or remove retail venues and other amenities from the map. 

Actually, there was only one glaring grammatical mistake.  The word "further" was used to describe relative distances.  This should be replaced with "farther."  Nevertheless, the hideous style of the writing bears testimony to the degree of amelioration that the written word has suffered in the decades since education for the masses has become compulsory.  Compare, for example, the Walkscore algorithm description to the Preamble to the United States Constitution:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That's one sentence, man.  The subject is We, the verbs are ordain and establish.  All the rest is dependent clauses and prepositional phrases.  Beautiful.