Embrace It

            I adore the idea of basking in Barnes&Nobles and immersing myself in a book while a take slow sips of a Starbucks Caramel Macchiato. But that’s when I’m feeling open to all sorts of genres that are willing to taint my mind. If I’m steadfast on reading one particular novel that happens to grasp me completely, though, I go to a quaint little Starbucks instead. Coffeehouses are the way to go. And not just in the present modern world, oh no. Back in the 17^th century, coffeehouses were the places where people read and talked about the news. I feel so close to them right now.

            In that epoch, there was a “deep anxiety about the English language.” The greatest worry was that the English language was changing. Jonathan Swift, the writer known for Gulliver’s Travels, was one of these individuals that were keen on keeping the language unnchanging. “How then shall any man be able to undertake his work with spirit and cheerfulness when he considers that in an age or two, he shall hardly be understood without an interpreter?” He questioned. And so he proposed the establishment of an academy set to fix the English language, he even took his case to court to Queen Anne, saying that only classical English would endure to glory. Sadly, the latter died and was replaced by a German king who barely knew any English himself. Poor Swift. I understand his argument when he voices his concerns about writing when in two centuries no one will be able to understand, but I think he exaggerates. Writing is not only for your audience but for yourself. You can’t expect your writing to endure so many years in the public eye unless you’re Shakespeare (and fine, Swift), but that thought shouldn’t impact the happiness you feel while writing. And Swift, you’re still read and understood by those born in the 21^st century. You’re doing okay.

           

            Samuel Johnson was another individual set on the stableness of the English language. He did this by writing his very own dictionary. It took Frenchmen fourty years and he managed to do it in seven. 43,000 words, Six assistants. But his success went only so far as to the actual accomplishment of what he did and not so much the content of his work. He “confessed to omitting words he could explain because he didn’t understand them.” I couldn’t help but crack up when I heard this. But I was unprepared for the bouts of laughter that would wrap my body when the narrator said that the dictionary “served a purpose of pride,” but mostly “becomes entertaining,” and proceeded to read off some of Johnson’s definitions. According to the former, Johnson describes wheat as “a grain, which in England is given to horses in England, but in Scotland, supports the people.”  A tarantula is then “an insect whose bite can only be cured by music.” I definitely would like to meet this guy if only to swather me in his ridiculous and yet humorous definitions. He wrote that “The idea was to make a dictionary by which the pronunciation of our language may be fixed, its used ascertained, and its duration lengthened,” but in the preface his pragmatism and his honesty saw a rueful but radical change of mind. That last part was commentary from the narrator.

            As for the dilemma between the Scots and the ‘classy’ Londoners, Thomas Sheridan went out of his way to teach the ‘Scots to speak English correctly.” But then Robert Burns, the “plyboy who loved women to excess, loved scotch, and loved Scots” wrote poetry in the Scot dialect and “became a hero.” He even purposelyleft out phrases that used more standard English, in a very “shrewd move”.  Scotts had someone that made them proud for their own language. I actually look up to this guy and admire him for having the courage to do such a thing. As for Wordsworth, he said there was “no need for a deep poetic diction” since poetry could be written in the mans common tongue. And Jane Austen was “every bit as masterful and controlling as the men that had doubted her writing abilities”.  She used euphemisms, using politer terms for rather controversial or hurtful words. Whatever they did or didn’t do, I’m rather a fan of those who realize that there is no ‘standard’ English, that language, like politics, slowly changes with time, and there is nothing we can do about it so we might as well embrace it.