lhexa ([personal profile] lhexa) wrote2011-08-03 01:04 am

(no subject)

If the success of your theory's agenda leads to the elimination of some term, then your theory abuses language. If the adoption of a theory entails holding some term or terms in uniform contempt, disdain and dismissal; if it takes some other word and makes it inescapable and indispensable; or if it enforces a style of writing, so that only work in that style can be recognized as a work of the theory: then it abuses language. Theory should enrich language, not diminish it. Take into consideration the theory that seeks to persuade you against an opinion, but beware the theory that seeks to make it unthinkable.
davv: The bluegreen quadruped. (Default)

[personal profile] davv 2011-08-03 02:03 pm (UTC)(link)
Would the adoption of the theory that well spelled material is understood more easily count? Such a theory, if adopted, would lead to the exclusion and elimination of terms that are misspelled.

Or, less obviously, do you think theories that encourage linguistic conservatism are also bad? Or are you considering theories that limit language indirectly, instead of dealing with language itself?