#language dilution

The vocabulary of flattery and insult is continually enlarged at the expense of the vocabulary of definition. As old horses go to the knacker's yard, or old ships to the breakers, so words in their last decay go to swell the enormous list of synonyms for good and bad.

𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐱𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐞

This process is going on very rapidly at the moment. The words 'abstract' and 'concrete' were first coined to express a distinction which is really necessary to thought: but it is only for the very highly educated that they still do so.

In popular language 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘦 now means something like "clearly defined and practicable"; it has become a term of praise.

𝘈𝘣𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 means "vague, shadowy, unsubstantial"; it has become a term of reproach.

𝘔𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘯, in the mouths of many speakers, has ceased to be a chronological term ; it has "sunk into a good sense" and often means little more than "efficient" or in some contexts "kind" ;

𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 can no longer be used in its proper sense without explanation.

𝘗𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 is a mere term of approval;

To save any word from the eulogistic and dyslogistic abyss is a task worth the efforts of all who love the English language. And I can think of one word—the word 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯—which is at this moment on the brink.

That is always the trouble about allowing words to slip into the abyss. Once turn 𝘴𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘦 into a mere insult, and you need a new word (pig) when you want to talk about the animal. Once let 𝘴𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘮 dwindle into a useless synonym for cruelty, and what do you do when you have to refer to the highly special perversion which actually afflicted M. de Sade?

It is important to notice that the danger to the word "Christian" comes not from its open enemies, but from its friends.

It was not egalitarians, it was officious admirers of gentility, who killed the word 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘯. The other day I had occasion to say that certain people were not Christians; a critic asked how I dared say so, being unable (as of course I am) to read their hearts. I had used the word to mean "persons who profess belief in the specific doctrines of Christianity"; my critic wanted me to use it in what he would (rightly) call "a far deeper sense"—a sense so deep that no human observer can tell to whom it applies.

And is that deeper sense not more important? It is indeed ; just as it was more important to be a "real" gentleman than to have coat-armour. But the most important sense of a word is not always the most useful. 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝'𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧?

And when, however reverently, you have killed a word you have also, as far as in you lay, blotted from the human mind the thing that word originally stood for.

𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐨𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐚𝐲."

＿＿＿＿

C.S. Lewis, 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴