For many years while teaching philosophy I played middle linebacker for the English language. I tried to protect the language from student errors which, I feared, would become acceptable if not resisted, thereby changing the language forever. But languages evolve, so why resist change?
My rationale, or rationalization for resisting change stems from the loss of differentiation and precision. Standard English has both count and mass nouns. “Sugar” is a mass noun, so we speak of the “amount” of sugar, not the “number” of sugar. We say “less” sugar, not “fewer” sugar. “People,” by contrast, is a count noun; we can count people one, two, three, etc. Accordingly, in standard English we don’t use “amount” in relation to people; we speak of a certain “number” of people. We don’t say there are “less” people; we say there are “fewer.”
Today, this conventional distinction between count and mass nouns is violated even by well-known reporters speaking on major television networks. Lately, the “amount” of people getting Covid-19 is increasing, but “less” of them need hospitalization. None of these reporters ever wrote an essay for me.
My sense of linguistic propriety is offended, but should I really complain if the distinction between mass and count nouns disappears? We can properly use “more” for both types of nouns – we say “more people” and “more sugar” – so why not use “less” for both? I don’t like it, but I don’t see how this would impair communication. I’m working from denial toward acceptance.
Another change in progress is the substitution for “soon” for “early.” Traditionally, “soon” refers to a time in the not-too-distant future, whereas “early” refers to what comes sooner-rather-than-later in a process that is stated or, more often implied by the context. He got up “early” refers implicitly to the daily cycle of day and night. He got up “soon” requires as background some particular time of action after which he got up, but before much time had elapsed, such as, he got up soon after the pizza arrived, which could take place at any time of day.
Yet, well-known reporters use “early” where only “soon” is appropriate, such as when we’re told that the Supreme Court could rule on an appeal as “early” as tomorrow, when they should have said as “soon” as tomorrow. But again, what’s the harm if “early” is used to express the idea that “soon” traditionally expresses? This change doesn’t seem to cause confusion.
What’s more, some changes in language that eliminate traditional distinctions may be socially useful. When I was teaching, I corrected students when they used “they” to refer to a singular subject, because “they” is traditionally plural. I told them that if they don’t want to use “he or she,” they could in most cases make the subject plural.
The underlying problem is that we don’t have a gender-neutral pronoun in the singular. We increasingly want to use a singular pronoun without a gender designation because traditionally we almost always used a male designation and this made it seem like all real human individuals are male. In response, in my first book I used female designations throughout (the first editor was not amused and had to be replaced), and in a later book I switched from female to male and back to female again every other paragraph.
Perhaps English could survive if “they” were used as both a singular and a plural pronoun. “You” is used this way, and I’m told that like “they,” “you” originally referred only to the plural, while “thou” referred to the singular. However, the transition to a “you” that can be either singular or plural wasn’t completely smooth, as evidenced by such plural expressions as “yous guys,” “y’all,” and “all y’all.”
Using “they” (and “their”) for both singular and plural may be worth it nevertheless because it accommodates people whose self-concept is non-binary, that is, neither male nor female. I’ll never get used to it, but I’m the kind of person who uses his iPhone as if it were just a phone.
Not every elimination of distinction is functional, however. We now use the term “upscale” to designate a commercial enterprise with high-priced goods or services. But “scale” traditionally refers to size, as in “large scale” and “small scale,” so our new use of “upscale” creates confusion when referring to a large enterprise like Walmart. In size it’s “upscale,” but in price it’s not.
The British have a solution. They use “upscale” to designate size, and “upmarket” for enterprises with high prices. I think we should follow suit, so we can say that Walmart is “upscale” but not “upmarket.” See, I can ditch tradition. I accept change when it doesn’t impair communication, especially if it has social benefits, and I endorse change when it increases helpful precision.
Comments