Jeremy Nixon wrote:
Floyd Davidson wrote:
*Nobody* cares whether words match precise dictionary meanings, because
*point* is to communicate.
When people *communicate*, the question is not "what did they
say", but "what did they mean".
When things devolve too far in that direction, communication becomes
difficult or impossible.
No Jeremy, I think now, Floyd has a good prospective of the evolutionary
process that has overtaken the English language. The language itself is
no longer subject to exclusive overview by proponents of the Oxford
dictionary, so to speak. Those that may be offended by the use of jargon
as speaking aides may well find that to be a problem they have created
"English is a pluricentric language, with marked differences in
pronunciation and spelling between the UK and the US, and a variety of
accents of those and other English-speaking countries. It is usually
considered a symmetric case of a pluricentric language, because no
variety clearly dominates culturally. Statistically, however, American
English speakers comprise more than 70% of native English speakers, with
British English a distant second at 16% and other varieties having less
than 5% each."
Within the US, communicative jargon is accepted. Should the word "Bucks"
be substituted for "Dollars" the jargon would not be misunderstood. No
more than "Howdy" would not be understood to mean "Hello." Consider
also, Oxford English is not the English of Geoffrey Chaucer. Even in
England, the English language has undergone considerable change.
Though it serves to repeat: "... no variety clearly dominates
culturally," the time to consider when extreme use of jargons have
caused communicative problems is when a listener has to say ... eh?
However, just having the ability to inquire about what is being said
still leaves a listener with the ability to communicate.