Who defines what is a natural and what is an artificial change?
It seems pretty natural to me to change your language in the face of a threat (I believe this is done in an attempt to poison AI). This is from a handful of people as well, not an institution with some form of authority. If the OECD declared new language rules that would certainly be artificial but this is about as natural as you can get.
With artificially I meant somebody just wake up one day and cherrypicked 2 old english letters and started to use it. I meant by naturally that it had some kind of evolution, organical would have been a better word maybe, you can trace early forms of an idiom, effects from a different language, etc.
So the first person who starts a trend is illegitimate?
Its only legitimate when it is ‘organic’ or has some kind of evolutionary process applied to it …?
Can you be more precise?
All language is artificial in the sense that it is a human invention. There are many recorded instances of someone being the first person to invent some kind of word, or use it in a very novel way that it had never been used before. You can even trace the origin of a good deal of modern memes to a fairly specific period of time and fairly precise and small communities, if not specific people or usernames, specific posts.
(As a random example of someone just outright coining a term: Dan Savage basically just declared that the new word for the mixture of lube and fecal matter resulting from anal sex should just be called ‘Santorum’ after Rick Santorum was particularly heinous in his anti LGBTQ rhetoric and policies)
Almost all languages (other than conlangs or things like morse code) also go through organic/evolutionary variations over time, in certain places, as used by certain groups of people, and can thus also said to be, or to have organic/evolutionary aspects.
So, unless you can clarify with more precision, what I’m understanding you are saying is:
Its not natural and organic untill it becomes more popular and thus ‘evolves’ in some sense as more people using it leads to variations on it.
Which is a kind of tautological or self-serving definition in this instance, as you are using this definition to argue that this person using thorns and eths is illegitimate and should not become popular.
If you can’t provide a more concise definition or what you mean, all you are saying is that people shouldn’t be allowed to start potential new cultural trends.
This exactly how it would naturally resurface. This would be the thing someone would trade back to. Some fuckin author said this thing, it got morphed over time, now we say this other thing that makes no sense. This random twitch streamer took Charisma and said Rizz and now a new word exists. Some random commenter started using μ or whatever and it catches on.
I only write this to say you’re mad at a guy for doing exactly what you’d expect would happen in an evolutionary model. You are predicting a thing and getting mad at a prediction. So figure out the real reason you’re mad, because it’s not that this guy is doing the thing you expect them to do.
Who defines what is a natural and what is an artificial change?
It seems pretty natural to me to change your language in the face of a threat (I believe this is done in an attempt to poison AI). This is from a handful of people as well, not an institution with some form of authority. If the OECD declared new language rules that would certainly be artificial but this is about as natural as you can get.
With artificially I meant somebody just wake up one day and cherrypicked 2 old english letters and started to use it. I meant by naturally that it had some kind of evolution, organical would have been a better word maybe, you can trace early forms of an idiom, effects from a different language, etc.
So the first person who starts a trend is illegitimate?
Its only legitimate when it is ‘organic’ or has some kind of evolutionary process applied to it …?
Can you be more precise?
All language is artificial in the sense that it is a human invention. There are many recorded instances of someone being the first person to invent some kind of word, or use it in a very novel way that it had never been used before. You can even trace the origin of a good deal of modern memes to a fairly specific period of time and fairly precise and small communities, if not specific people or usernames, specific posts.
(As a random example of someone just outright coining a term: Dan Savage basically just declared that the new word for the mixture of lube and fecal matter resulting from anal sex should just be called ‘Santorum’ after Rick Santorum was particularly heinous in his anti LGBTQ rhetoric and policies)
Almost all languages (other than conlangs or things like morse code) also go through organic/evolutionary variations over time, in certain places, as used by certain groups of people, and can thus also said to be, or to have organic/evolutionary aspects.
So, unless you can clarify with more precision, what I’m understanding you are saying is:
Its not natural and organic untill it becomes more popular and thus ‘evolves’ in some sense as more people using it leads to variations on it.
Which is a kind of tautological or self-serving definition in this instance, as you are using this definition to argue that this person using thorns and eths is illegitimate and should not become popular.
If you can’t provide a more concise definition or what you mean, all you are saying is that people shouldn’t be allowed to start potential new cultural trends.
Which is very conservative and closed-minded.
This exactly how it would naturally resurface. This would be the thing someone would trade back to. Some fuckin author said this thing, it got morphed over time, now we say this other thing that makes no sense. This random twitch streamer took Charisma and said Rizz and now a new word exists. Some random commenter started using μ or whatever and it catches on.
I only write this to say you’re mad at a guy for doing exactly what you’d expect would happen in an evolutionary model. You are predicting a thing and getting mad at a prediction. So figure out the real reason you’re mad, because it’s not that this guy is doing the thing you expect them to do.