Definitions and Self-Control

First of all, way to go, Molly, for reading the posts AND the comments and taking the conversation in yet another direction! You mention tradition as what gives language its meaning. Consider some other sources... I had no idea what the term "integral" meant in math until my high school calculus teacher defined it for us. Thus, authority is one source for language meaning. Another is casual usage. The verb "text" did not exist until recently. And how did people know how to parse it? In other words, how did they know the past tense should be "texted?" There seems to be a combination of culture at work along with inherited rules of English grammar. We have made an accepted past tense of "text" through the common rule of adding the suffix "-ed." This is just the thing an toddler reared in an English-speaking environment does when he or she says, "They breaked my toy" instead of "They broke my toy." And the mere fact that "texted" seems acceptable whereas "breaked" does not suggests that even the rules are culturally derived, along with the definitions. Still another source of meaning is from literature. A long list of expressions have passed into the English language via Shakespeare and the King James version of the Bible.

Finally, I want to take the censorship thing in a different direction. Consider the power an individual's vocabulary develops when he or she refrains, for whatever reasons, from using certain words or even certain syntax. For many people, their grandmother is the one who is proper and decent. How shocking it would be to hear her say certain words! When we freely restrict ourselves, we not only add power to our words, but we stretch our range of expressions. There is a great story about a woman who challenged Winston Churchill for ending sentences with prepositions and told him he should not do so. He replied, "Madam, that is an imposition up with which I will not put." By choosing not to end his response with a preposition, he was forced to find another way to say what he wanted. As it turned out, this response was ludicrous in its syntax, which was Churchill's point all along.

Offensive Language/Çensorship

Why are words offensive??? I don't think we should be offended by any words because, like Mr. Perkins said, they're only consonants and letters. I don't think there's anything "morally wrong" with using "bad language"; however, I do believe that it is disrespectful depending on how sincere you are and who you are speaking to because of the TRADITION that makes the words offensive. My little sister used to sing the name game when she was younger, rhyming random words with "duck" or "sam", etc, screaming out obscenities in public places, totally unaware that she was delivering a drove of "bad words." We're TAUGHT that words are "bad", or in this case, disrespectful.  Words do not have any meaning by themselves; it is the context through the language as a whole, tradition, or association that gives them meaning.

Oh, and I completely agree with Kat. If the government told me not to say "I love you" or any other word, I'd say it at every opportunity I'd have to open my mouth. But to answer Mr. Perkin's question in the comment he left: for those who would still be scared to utter forbidden language, it would definitely make those three little words a lot more powerful. The reward for speaking out against the church when Roman Catholicism dominated Europe was death; obviously, the words "God isn't real" might have been pretttyyyyy powerful. Censorship could never be executed effectively, though. Some people just don't like the government telling them what to do, though--I guess I'm one of them.

Censorship??

I think that an increase in censorship would have an adverse effect upon the amount of foul language in books, music, on tv, etc....for some reason i feel like people tend to try and defy authority or purposefully go against set rules in an attempt to prove their independence...or as boys call it using testosterone-haha just KIDDING. but honestly, i feel like there is not even a proper authority to implement the censorship-perhaps a school could do it ( i mean there was-and is- a list of censored books not allowed in public schools--if it is still applicable to today, i am not sure...and as students, we lack many of our basic rights to free speech while in school) but at home or online, unless the government got completely involved, then there would be absolutely NO way to guarentee censorship of words. I mean, even if Orwell's 1984 society could exist with complete governmental control, I think that people would still find a way to get around the laws.

fading meaning

I was just thinking about the discussion at the end of Tuesday's lesson about the overuse of certain words making them lose their meaning. I got to thinking that a big contributor to that loss is songs. Artists these days are using (I guess you could call it) "profane language" to not only convey their message in the lyrics but I guess intensify their emotions. I've noticed that more and more songs are being labeled "EXPLICIT" in the more popular songs. We're noticing these words less and less. There was a time when people would have never thought using these words in songs and I'm assuming, in some cases, their song may have been banned from production. I think the process of the word losing their meaning is definetly coming into effect. Not only profanity but also words that used to have a much deeper meaning. Take the phrase: "I love you". What does love really mean now as when someone says "Oh I love him", does that mean I love love him as in deep, passionate, head-over-heels love? Or is it the I-love-him-so-much-he's-like-my-brother kind of love? I think it's not only the meaning is becoming weaker but also more ambiguous. In addition, our society is becoming more ignorant and not really listening to what's being said so they either don't notice it or just don't care.