Libertarian and conservative views over the usage of English.

So many languages developed from almost a similar alphabetic script.
The Dispersion of population led to the emergence of different languages.
Different languages developed differently with somewhat similar alphabetic script in their own separate identities.
Application differences were observed in terms of sound allocation with different arrangement of letters to spell words.
The idea is that we have already been enough liberals to the point that we cannot understand most of us. Being liberal is not going to help us any good way. If people had ever followed rules, then we wouldn’t have those many languages as we have today. The question is, if we could do any better or just float in somewhat same currents we saw primordial libertarians floating.
This is actually a crucial time for English language, and other languages as well.
If we do not want our native words go astray in maze (self-creation), and if we want to save them from being anglicized because we are not the only race that avow to be libertarian.******Then we’ve got to clear-up our acts in time, before we see too much complicated kedgeree to work on.
Original word sounds had been transmuted to something, which is not even close to the actual sounds.
The inconspicuous damage would be to every language (developed on the same script or else wise) resulting in to a concoction, and if you had to pick something from that concocted crucible you would not be able to, if you wanted to pick something that belonged to you.
People with Conservative and libertarian views are pitted against each other with no good enough reasons.
Libertarians say, language should be let free—–Good. —-Fine! This is the way languages grow.
Conservatives say, put a check, speak right.
The fact is, the so-called conservatives had been so liberal that the poor libertarians can ever possibly be.
If it flow like the way it had been flowing, there is a danger of other languages blowing away with the wind.
Libertarian would strongly support the bending or breaking of the rules of grammar and syntax. They would strongly support the idea that we can communicate effectively without being grammatically correct.
Is actually good for a language.
But conservatives wouldn’t reconsider their stance.
And liberals would backlash by saying something as pointed very nicely by ‘Jug Suraiya’(Time for Englishes nov’06 TOI) , “it would be going against the grain of English language, as is the most eclectic and self-renewing in the world”, and to sum it up, “communication takes precedence”. “Language is a free trade agreement” and what not.
No one would deny.
But! A big but. (If this is the beauty of being liberal, playing with the connotations, I enjoy it, double entendre) if the communication takes the center stage, we have to see if we have any obverse to the ostensible theory.
Different languages which developed from almost the same source, are also not that far off, then why we could not twig a German speech (or literature), French, Spanish, et al., I am talking about the normal people who are not that quick on the uptake to understand foreign languages from the same origin.
We cannot understand.
We cannot communicate effectively.
Hindrance in the free flow of feelings.
No successful trade of ideas and feelings, as we are blinkered enough to read the terms & conditions of the agreement of ideas and feelings.
It seems that it would’ve been better if used the sign language to communicate feelings and ideas. But is also not safe.
It was observed that we introduced too many letters in the alphabets that we could handle initially, as there were very few words, and also the stand of many letters was not solid as people started allocating letters differently for different sounds, at their own behest, as if they were keeping their own counsel. Also there were not much things to talk about, as the word bank was small. The alphabets were introduced but there were not much enough words in primordial languages. The full potential of the alphabet was not utilized.
Different regional usage and application of the language were observed, as the system was not that organized.
What I personally feel is that all those wars in the history took place because of the difference in the languages.
Just an example:
“Wæth yo sah en no understanth”. Who would not get agitated if had to hear this 50 times. Every such like sentence would be double Dutch for any body, who is not that good at the up take, for someone who does not speak that language.
And now just imagine that you are the person who is trying to say something for such a long time, but of no help.
And at last you give up and say something like: “ go en f*** yoerselva”.
And to your surprise, that those were the only words from your language he could understand.
And the next thing we heard of history, one was dead.
So the idea is, these things only create differences. Dwelling on the primordial to support your believes is of no use if we could not learn anything from it.
It would be better in the interest of both liberals and conservatives to come to a unanimous decision, get the language in the third way.
We cannot afford to be an ignorant and indifferent libertarian any more if we somehow want to a true liberal.
And being a hard-core conservative won’t help us either, is equally bad as being a liberal.
And both ilk’s doing their bit separately, is a disaster.
How?
To quote an example:
Say, in modern societies somebody who knows few words but no grammar and syntax.
Till the time you do not make the right gestures you won’t be able to express yourself, no matter how badly you try with your face expressions. And the fact is if we had been real good at the sign language, as not everybody is quite good at the grasp, if they ever had been, the need for language wouldn’t have arisen in the first place. It was needed when there were very few things but food, and now without language, expression of your thought is quite is task. Just remember situations when you spoke at length and people did not understand you, similar to something like that is what we have here.
Just imagine a situation where someone who did not know of the grammar and the syntax, and is not that good at art of expressions, is trying to ask if he can eat food in a formal situation.
Let say, I EAT FOOD. The possible response could be: “Good! Everybody eat food. You eat food, does not make you any good. I also eat food. Not only eat food, I drink, and I sleep, I bathe, and do lot many things.”
EAT FOOD. No thanks!
FOOD WANT EAT.
What food want eat! Your food is dead (if you chose to point at the food) it can’t eat anymore. Did u mean food want heat? Oh! You want to cook something.
WANT EAT FOOD.
No thank! Not now, I’ll eat later.
WANT FOOD EAT.
Put it on the simmer.
EAT FOOD WANT: Go.To.H**l.
And to save yourself from more efforts: eat food, no food, yes food, and possible embarrassment, you recollect your thoughts and say:
“WANT FOOD”: the possible response could be, who want food? Me, no! And if you want to eat, eat. But don’t ask me to. I’m not hungry. I’ll eat later. And if I’ll ever eat, I’ll not eat with you.
It makes it quite difficult for people to understand you. Till the time you do not use right signs you would confuse people. But signs can also confuse. And also, everybody is not as nice as you are, they have some inhibition that make them act the way they do, that’s why they take that long to understand. And sometimes, they make you feel as if they do not want to understand. Yes, most of the time they really do not want to understand.
And what if they could not understand “want food”, and you could not hold on to your dispositions and the nicety of the situation, because you were famished. And you cry with all your might and the right tone and expression. And say it again: “WANTTTTTTTT FOODDDDDDDDDDDD”.
And if still they can’t understand you, you do not belong in that place. That place might be full of hard-core conservatives.
In gumption, the knowledge of grammar and syntax is helpful.
To move to the next phase of learning, “The right pronunciation takes precedence”.
How?
To quote an example, almost everybody knows the purpose, the seriousness, and the application of the phrase “I LOVE YOU”.
No that much grammar.
Just imagine, you were beaten up with the excessive concentration on grammar, vocabulary, and syntax but you do not know the pronunciation.
Why would you know grammar, vocabulary, and syntax?
Almost everybody know, to get the true meaning come easy and to communicate with ease.
And if I say, the excessive concentration on grammar, vocabulary and syntax is of no use, if we did not know the right pronunciation in the very first place.
If u say these three golden words as:” i: loυvei: jaυ” or anything of that sort. Do anything you wish to, apply intonation rule, any grammar, or choose any other word from your vast vocabulary, which you will somehow distort the same way as you distorted these three words, won’t solve the purpose. Try to change, tone, style, or whatever.
But if the right pronunciation of the word ‘love’ and the tone required is used, you will somehow get the message across, and the desired results.
People also say ‘love has no language’. By the same token, what if your love does not speak the language you know, does not know the meaning of the word ‘love’ (script), then you are in a big trouble. Try to learn the language she knows ( and the right pronunciation) or try the sign language (risks involved).
The best approach would be to take the matter in the third way, and try to save the different languages from possible threats (hard core conservatives and libertarians)