This from Chet McAteer

THE SOCIETAL IMPORTANT OF A SOUND VOCABULARY

Vocabulary is fundamentally a social construct. It serves as a shared system of communication that allows members of a society to understand one another and navigate the world with common reference points. A robust and clear vocabulary fosters social cohesion and stability, as it ensures that people can effectively convey and comprehend ideas, values, and norms.

When everyone in a society uses a consistent and accurate vocabulary, it creates a sense of mutual understanding and predictability. This shared language acts as a set of common landmarks, guiding social interactions and enabling coordinated efforts. For instance, precise legal, scientific, and educational terms are crucial for clear communication in their respective fields, contributing to overall societal order and progress.

However, when the vocabulary of a society becomes distorted—whether through intentional manipulation, misinformation, or gradual shifts in meaning—this common understanding starts to erode. Miscommunication becomes more frequent, and the ability to achieve consensus on important issues diminishes. Over time, this can lead to confusion, mistrust, and conflict among members of society, weakening the social fabric.

For example, if key terms in political discourse are deliberately redefined to serve specific agendas, it can polarize public opinion and hinder constructive debate. Similarly, if scientific terminology is misused or misunderstood, it can lead to public misconceptions and poor decision-making in areas like health and environmental policy.

In conclusion, a sound and shared vocabulary is essential for societal stability. It ensures that members of society can communicate effectively and work together harmoniously. When this vocabulary is compromised, the structures that maintain societal order become fragile, leading to potential instability and disintegration.

-cmcateer

Tim adds:

I studied Russian in college and had a certificate in Scientific Translation. One of the things that held Russia back was the imprecision of language, in my view. (They did amazingly well despite their handicap.) But they just didn't have the depth and richness offered us by English, and it made a difference. Describing things could be very clumsy and I suspect that made their engineering clumsy, even while they were capable of doing some amazing things. Our tech was always superior to the Soviets and language was no small part of that.

English is a pidgin with the melding of Old English with the Norman French. So we have two sets of words for everything, and often more. This gives shades of meaning that are not there in other languages. English has a richness and texture not seen in other languages and makes it ideal for technical language as well as for literature and poetry. We basically borrowed the best from the whole world and it makes communications far more precise than many other groups enjoy.

It's why almost 98% of all scientific papers world-wide are written in English. It's our richness of vocabulary that makes this the case.

As you rightly observe we have seen a massive decline in vocabulary in recent decades and that by design. Like Newspeak in Orwell, it is intended to make it harder to clearly express ones-self and thus to put into words thoughts and ideas that may be disagreeable to the mandarins of our culture who want to control our behavior and lives.

Confucius said that to restore a nation one must first true the language. He was right; if you cannot properly express the problem, and properly express how the problem arose and what can be done about it, you cannot fix it. In Orwell's 1984 the Party was imposing Newspeak to make it impossible to think outside of the carefully constructed box the Party permitted. No seditious, counterrevolutionary thoughts would be possible because the language would make it impossible to express them - even to yourself. We are coming to that sort of thing now in modern America and the West.

How do you deal with a nation that speaks of "reproductive rights" when speaking about murdering a baby in the womb? How do you deal with "gender affirming care" when we are talking about mutilating a child with surgery and hormones? How do you debate a theory about atmospheric warming of the planet caused by industrial and agricultural emissions when you call it "climate change"? We are purposely dumbing down the language to end debate and in favor of those who have control of the means of disseminating information.

Time we true the language.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:58 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 736 words, total size 5 kb.