No

by M. Andrew Sprong

Created on: November 05, 2009

Some things are precious beyond measure words in all of their forms are among them.

I could never sanction the removal of old or infrequently used words from English language dictionaries. The English language is an amalgam of a number of languages, and unlike Latin or Gaelic, it continues to grow. From the very beginning, strange words infiltrated the language and became part of the whole. English's success is due to its functional characteristic. While other languages offer few exceptions in grammar, spelling and usage, English incorporates variations from its Latin, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Gaelic roots. Thus, English is a rich language and becomes more so every day.

Why then would anyone want to make English weaker by removing old words that functioned in previous centuries to great effect? Anyone who has read the works of Shakespeare or the book Pride and Prejudice can see how people spoke and understood English in a much more eloquent fashion. The fact that we have lost such eloquence should shame us into trying to preserve something of our past. Our educators should be impassioned to teach children the proper way to speak the language, and our publishers should encourage the propagation of true verbal beauty.

Once editors of an unabridged dictionary take it upon themselves to remove old and unused words, we start the slide into linguistic obscurity. There are two ways languages may die. The first manner of death is through cultural, political, or religious mandate. Scottish Gaelic died under these sorts of pressures and though there may be a resurrection of the language through an infusion from its Irish cousin, I believe it will never be self-sustaining. The other far more insidious manner a language may die is through transformation. Unlike English, many languages perished because migrant populations diluted resident ones to the point that existing linguistic integrity could no longer be sustained. Some efforts are undertaken to preserve these languages, but death is usually the result when the spoken language of a region moves on from the previous one. Latin is an example of this manner of death.

If we were to start removing words that still have meaning to English speakers despite their archaic nature we would end up creating an unidentifiable branch of the language in a few hundred years. As it is, our language has drifted far enough from the mother tongue to inspire much confusion in dialog between people of various English-speaking cultures.

Some people would say the efficacy of removing such words outweighs the task of maintaining them in dictionaries. I say they are acting under an irrational urge to modernize language; something that is more an emotional response than a logical one. Today, a large number of nations mandate English as a primary or secondary language in education and business. While we Americans feel we might have ownership of the language to some degree, this is not the case. Only Britain can lay claim to ownership of the English language and then only a partial one. Australia, the U.S.A., New Zealand, and many more have made their own contributions as primary speakers. While each of these cultures add words to the language, very few of them have been so bold as to remove words from the linguistic base. To do so unilaterally would be unreasonable to readers in future generations.

To remove words from the language creates some serious problems for those future generations in any event. If we were to remove words used by authors in prior centuries, then new readers would not be in the position to decode meaning and context. Unabridged dictionaries still allow a reader to understand most sixteenth century English works. Would you want to be the one who took such accessibility from future generations?

Learn more about this author, M. Andrew Sprong.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.