It’s been a while, but I’m Right, You’re Wrong is back.
To review: I post a recent disagreement that I had with someone (fortunately with my personality, there’s never a shortage of those!) and you weigh in on who’s right and who’s wrong. Because I am universally adored, I’m not going to tell you which side of the argument I’m on, because then you’d obviously side with me as a way of showing your adoration.
Disagreement: Should spelling words thru and lite (instead of through and light) be acceptable in all contexts?
Disagreers: Marinka and Marinka and Husbandrinka’s friend.
Position One: Languages are the living expression of how people want to communicate. The most important factor is that the communication be clear. We got rid of the ‘u’ in honour (the Brits still haven’t). I am very comfortable getting rid of more silent letters in ‘through’. I am euphoric (or let’s make it uforic) that spell check accepts it. Also, remember that we now carry the responsibility for making English handy for the whole world to use as their language thru our innovations.
Position Two: Hell no. That kind of spelling is just lazy and sloppy. And will lead to spelling and eventual grammatical anarchy. And the end of civilization.
UPDATE: I was Position Two. And I’m still Position Two, but I’m sort of surprised how much everyone else is Position Two as well. I mean, does Position One have no merit? Don’t we agree that language is a living thing, that it evolves? That we no longer say “Thou art”? I’m not sure where to draw the line, but I’m sort of uncomfortable thinking that the way we speak now should be the way that we speak forever and ever, til death do us part.
One year ago ...
- Thank you. - 2009