version

Well-known member
I struggle with a cohesive view of language. There's a perpetual war on for it, but I can't decide whether something like propaganda's a hijacking or simply a harnessing.

Does anyone have a right or claim to language?
 

version

Well-known member
I suppose it's a technology since we seem to have created it, but sometimes it feels like a natural resource up for grabs like gas or oil.
 

Clinamenic

The Wild Drunkard
You reckon there are legitimate and illegitimate uses of it then?
Well I figure any given use of it is liable to be considered legitimate or illegitimate, depending on the perspective.

In my opinion, there are common usages of words that bear no resemblance to what the etymology of the word would lead you to think it means, but I personally don't really think of these cases as illegitimate.
 

Clinamenic

The Wild Drunkard
I suppose it's a technology since we seem to have created it, but sometimes it feels like a natural resource up for grabs like gas or oil.
Yeah I agree, and I'd go even farther and say that language is a public good, insofar as it is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. Whereas oil is rivalrous and, de facto, excludable.
 

version

Well-known member
Well I figure any given use of it is liable to be considered legitimate or illegitimate, depending on the perspective.

In my opinion, there are common usages of words that bear no resemblance to what the etymology of the word would lead you to think it means, but I personally don't really think of these cases as illegitimate.

I meant legitimate or illegitimate in a moral sense, e.g. using language to spread fascism.

The use of oil to fuel the war machine would be legitimate in the sense that it is a use, but you could argue it's some sort of corruption and illegitimate as it's an immoral use.
 
Top