As part of an ongoing attempt to communicate my models more openly, here is one very informal “model” about the explosion of language. According to this model, this language proliferation emerges from a combination of these factors:
Humans live in different places and have different experiences over time and yet they have much in common so they naturally re-invent words meaning the same thing.
Also, even if they already know words that are “good enough”, they get bored and need novelty, so coin words anew.
Of course, all the while, many words get blurrier over time, so some people feel the need to create new ones for many reasons: to define identity; to distinguish in- from out-groups; to evade censorship; to prove something (such as knowledge); or simply to seek clarity … for at least for a little while before the landscape shifts again.
It is difficult for people to coordinate on a minimum shared vocabulary. Doing so is subject to politics in all its forms. Culture is a form of coordination but seems mostly agglomerative w.r.t. language. Are there forces powerful enough to stop motivated people from adding to a language?
Dictionaries are catalogs of usage, after all, not prescriptive, and have no page-length limitations.
There is a cost, of course, of having duplicative words, but I suspect this is mostly an economic externality and provides scant deterrence for those who like to make new words.
Every once in a while a John Wilkins, Peter Mark Roget, or Douglas Lenat comes along and strives to systematize knowledge. They probably appreciate the audacity of such efforts, and blaze ahead anyway.
Sometimes I revel in the richness of the English language. This at least feels better than wallowing in bewilderment from the cacophony of it.
For example, here are some synonyms for “abtruse” from the Apple dictionary:
As part of an ongoing attempt to communicate my models more openly, here is one very informal “model” about the explosion of language. According to this model, this language proliferation emerges from a combination of these factors:
Humans live in different places and have different experiences over time and yet they have much in common so they naturally re-invent words meaning the same thing.
Also, even if they already know words that are “good enough”, they get bored and need novelty, so coin words anew.
Of course, all the while, many words get blurrier over time, so some people feel the need to create new ones for many reasons: to define identity; to distinguish in- from out-groups; to evade censorship; to prove something (such as knowledge); or simply to seek clarity … for at least for a little while before the landscape shifts again.
It is difficult for people to coordinate on a minimum shared vocabulary. Doing so is subject to politics in all its forms. Culture is a form of coordination but seems mostly agglomerative w.r.t. language. Are there forces powerful enough to stop motivated people from adding to a language?
Dictionaries are catalogs of usage, after all, not prescriptive, and have no page-length limitations.
There is a cost, of course, of having duplicative words, but I suspect this is mostly an economic externality and provides scant deterrence for those who like to make new words.
Every once in a while a John Wilkins, Peter Mark Roget, or Douglas Lenat comes along and strives to systematize knowledge. They probably appreciate the audacity of such efforts, and blaze ahead anyway.