Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 234: Line 234:     
::: That's your view, but the evidence is that the United States is growing more conservative just as the English language is.  This entry shows that the creation of insightful new conservatives words is greater in quality and frequency than that of new liberal words.  Over time, culture and politics must inexorably follow the lead of language.  That doesn't mean a liberal politician won't use smoke-and-mirrors to be elected occasionally against the grain, but the flow dictated by language cannot be reversed.  Ah, perhaps I've stumbled onto another new term:  "smoke and mirrors"!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:12, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
 
::: That's your view, but the evidence is that the United States is growing more conservative just as the English language is.  This entry shows that the creation of insightful new conservatives words is greater in quality and frequency than that of new liberal words.  Over time, culture and politics must inexorably follow the lead of language.  That doesn't mean a liberal politician won't use smoke-and-mirrors to be elected occasionally against the grain, but the flow dictated by language cannot be reversed.  Ah, perhaps I've stumbled onto another new term:  "smoke and mirrors"!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:12, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
 +
 +
:::: Actually, Andy, I believe language turns more liberal over time. I agree with you regarding the new words, but like all languages, English does evolve. To describe the language as "conservative" would really require the number of words in it to be reducing, perhaps to something like 1984's Newspeak! Why do we have multiple words for the similar concepts? Plus, look at our syntax - it's nothing like the English of Shakespeare's time. [[User:Andyt|Andyt]] 17:25, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
25

edits

Navigation menu