Why should things like language change just for the sake of new generations?
83317
Language doesn't change for the sake of a new generation.  The change had already started generations before.  Who came up with the obscenities in the first place?  Who decided that these sounds when put together to make words would be vulgar?\n\nThis is an interesting question.  Your examples are interesting, also.  I'm not sure it is quite that simple.  I'm thinking that you would need a nation of people to lose their teeth permanently for at least a couple of generations for the new pronunciation to take effect.
269376
cause things get older not younger.
776567
All languages change over time.  Just try reading Shakespear or the King James Bible to get a taste of how English has changed over the last few hundred years.  New languages form when two groups of people who were in communication become isolated from each other.  The language changes, but in different ways and soon becomes two distinct dialects.\n\nToday, with international communication via the Internet bringing people into communication with each other (lack of isolation) I think we will see the opposite.  Languages that were different will come closer together again.  Words for new things, like the telephone and the computer, become common in all languages.
1122624
This is a popular notion, and it has actually been tried. Two artificial languages were created, one called Esperanto, which is still in use, the other called Ro, which has pretty much died out. \nThe problem with creating artificial languages, is that you have to make up a grammar to go with it. \nSwahili, for example, is a 'created' language. It began as a lingua franca - or a pidgin language, used by traders to communicate with Africans. As such, it had a few basic words. Very basic. And no grammar. Over time, that wasn't enough, and as different people used the language, they contributed to it from their own languages. Today, Swahili is a mixture of five basic languages, Bantu, Arabic, English, French and German. Traces of other languages have been absorbed into it as well. But the complicating factor is that as each bit of language was added, the grammar attached to that language was added as well. So how you decline verbs, for example, depends on which language the verb came from originally. Today, Swahili is a rich and complex language, and people who learn it from childhood assimilate these grammatical rules without even thinking about it. Swahili worked because it was used in a limited area. But think what would happen if you tried to make a language that incorporated most of the world's languages? It would be so cumbersome as to be unworkable. And whose languages would be ignored? Whose languages would be most prominent? These are serious cultural issues. \nEsperanto, which was created as a completely artifical language, doesn't evolve well. It has difficulty in including modern concepts. And with no one to monitor it, people in various parts of the globe can add what seem to them to be appropriate words to describe new inventions, new situations, slang terms etc. Look what has happened to English over the past few centuries? People in England, Ireland, Scotland, New York, South Carolina, Australia, India all speak English, but it's very difficult sometimes to understand what they are saying because they use regional accents and regional terminology.\nThe notion of one language may seem Utopian at the moment, but given that television is breaking down geographic barriers around the world, it may become the medium that truly does permit international communication. \nAt least, that's my take on it.
271155
I am glad there are still people thinking like you, I agree, it is irritating. I don't even go into a chatroom anymore because its full of abreviations and duh, da words. The future lies within the children, we should teach them well. And it's the same in other languages as well, unfortunately. Good luck.
237098
Because grammar is part of the language people need to learn. If we don't use correct grammar, everyone would be talking all funny.
1002594
Language and its uses have and will always be changing. look at writing from 100 years ago, 50 years ago. The style is very different, as are the lifestyles of those who penned it. today's lifestyle is all about speed: we live in an age of instant gratification, people need to get the message across fast. why? because we can. the technology is available to correct my grammar and spelling, so why should i bother typing it correctly if the computer can fix it faster, or why bother fixing it at all of the message is still understood by the reader? even the grammar and spelling of old telegrams were abbreviated and adjusted to fit the prices. what needs to be understood is that there are now two realms of language and writing. there is an informal, hyper fast world of instant messaging, where misspelling and abbreviation is expected. then there is the formal world of writing, the world of book reports, college papers, and business reports. if today's youths cannot properly distinguish between the two, then there is a problem.
74709
My guess is that the term "Generation X" was coined somewhere in a popular newspaper or magazine and then people started copying it.  "Generation Y" is just a borrowing of Generation X (but tne next one).  I have no evidence whatsoever to back up this idea, but a little Internet searching might reveal what were the first times the terms were used.
542987
YES,i agree with you!!! There should NOT even have to be a question of this!!! ENGLISH is the language that Americans have been speaking since this country was FOUNDED!!! Why should people even WANT to change it NOW?? And,as for OTE (other than English),i have NO problems with people speaking their own language, UNLESS,they are around people who do NOT speak their language!!!! THEN,i think it is RUDE and INSULTING!!!Those of you who speak other foreign languages,PLEASE have enough CONSIDERATION for others around you,who DON'T!!!
19410
It's a cultural shift to the age of information. People become jaded about life and love when they are bombarded with internet porn, unattainable bodies, soft drink ads, and winning free ipods. The ideals of our grandparent generation are gone. I don't think that there is all bad to come of this shift, i believe that we are more aware and informed then ever. We have way more options then the you have to marry girl down the street or the person you parent picked out for economic reasons.
119690
I don't think I will ever get used to seeing wrong spelling and not getting irritated.  I've been speaking English all my life and it's not even my primary language.  Although I know that this adulteration is a result of us coping with technology and fast paced lifestyle, still, I don't think it's an excuse to murder the language.  Besides, if you keep using shortcuts, you'll get used to it and not remember how it's supposed to be spelled.
843899
1.  It's "misuse".  (Sorry.  I _had_ to.)  :-)\n\n2.  As the language changes, the vernacular often includes experimental use of verbs.  It's always been like this with a growing language.   We turn nouns into verbs, use verbs in unusual and "incorrect" ways, and experiment with tenses, possessive forms and plural/singular forms.  It's the sign of a growing, living language.  A language that remains structured and formal is a dead language.  I'm pretty sure nothing has changed in Latin for at least 1500 years.  ;-)\n\n3.  However, you will note that I didn't endorse this as desirable.  Personally, I wish that people would at least learn to speak the language correctly before experimenting.  There is evidence that many people today see absolutely nothing wrong with "creative spelling", illogical sentence structure or terrible grammar.   If you're going to play around with an established system, you should first learn its rudiments.\n\nThanks for asking; I also needed to vent my "closet grammarian" side.   ;-)
297423
Tough question. And hard to explain. Indeed, something that has been discussed for over two thousand years.\nGoing to the basics of contemporary linguistics, Ferdinand de Saussure made a distinction between language and speaking (even though they depend on each other)or langue et parole in french . He considered language the conventional system used for communication and speaking as the personal uses, changes and meanings for an individual. When this personal changes or intermissions from other languages get to the conventional system, language is modified; so, we make use of the system and we modify it from the inside.\nThis is a theory brought up in the beginning of 20th century and has been largely discussed and changed over the years; still, it sets some general characteristics of language.\nIn any case, as language is something we can not grab on the entirely as it is constantly modifying, we could even believe that has a life of its own, which sounds to "mystical" for me: I'd rather believe it flows as we flow.
1090915
Seems like it is headed that way.\n\nBut wouldn't it be nice-maybe not-if we could all communicate in one language who cares what it is.
407305
It's because the modern society that has been created focuses on the speed of production. With computers, television, cars, etc, who cares about details. The goal is to get as much out as fast as possible while still creating some sense of coherency. Unless someone is writing a paper for school, most people don't care about their grammar as long as people understand.
654459
Language is not static and it evolves according to the social circumstances in which it is spoken. So English 300 years from now will be as different as Elizabethan English is now. Jules. Australia.
689879
If nobody learned it - it would be lost in only one generation.  Then nobody could benefit from past experiences, good or bad.