Why subject the subject to subjectivity?
If the above question makes you feel sick, do blame me. I would welcome if anyone pins blame on me for being sick with that sentence. First, let me admit that I do not know anything about universally accepted linguistic principles. Now, Who would want to listen or read lines like subjecting the subject to subjectivity? It is an imaginary sentence that has no specific origin or usage. The reason for writing it is actually making an attempt at chasing this new trend in news language to its extreme. With the current trend, the above line may one day find place in some TV channel. We do listen or read unique lines everyday through our newspapers or television news channels. I, as many others, follow what I get to listen or read through available resources. Mostly related to current affairs, I do come across this new trend in the language everyday. It is part of my daily professional requirement. In the process, I inevitably raise questions to myself- Why take away simple words from language and fill the space with 'complex invention of unnecessary phrases'? Why hate simplicity of language if that is the magic of it?
History books tell us that human race evolves over time, so does the language of human race. Hence, changes or modifications are seen in all walks of life including the language we speak or write in. Every language has its grammar. So you stick to the grammar as much as you can. Sometimes you take liberty from specified rules and make it more convenient for yourself. This modification is also known as adaptation. And it is a natural process. It can also qualify as linguistic innovation.
But many people, mostly from news business, do not seem to believe in natural evolution of language and its traits. Therefore, forced evolution takes effect. Even if provided with the best of conditions, a fruit takes its time to ripe. It can ripe days before its natural time, if forced by a chemical conditioning. But we know how a fruit would taste if the natural growth is advanced by applying artificial means.
Television journalism makes fruit ripe even before existence of that fruit is established. I will again make the same request. Watch TV news and observe the language used. Why do we replace simple words with more complex, newly invented phrases? Why do we pretend to be masters of language when we are not? Why the simplicity of language condemned and complexity preferred? Is there any benefit out of it? As I see it, there is none.
At least in India, we see inflation of already crowded news vocabulary. For instance, Why write "big blow" when blow is what you mean? Why say "massive loss" when loss is what you report? Why say "big tragedy" or huge tragedy" when tragedy alone suffices? Look around, you will observe, these words have influenced language as used in daily lives. Television channels take liberty to be flexible with grammar. This liberty has done more damage to language. Unwarranted modifications have replaced rules.
There is no dearth of words in english language, if the only objective is to multiply the significance of news by putting a word here and there. Won't the usage of the phrase "Racism beyond shame" categorise racism as a lesser crime? Or an acceptable act? Then how will one define "racism under shame"? Racism itself is an unacceptable act, why set boundary and re-define it? But 'racism beyond shame' becomes acceptable. Simplicity is treated like contempt of complexity. Usage of simple verb, adjective qualifies as poor linguistic calibre.
As I said above, we are not in the business of amending the existing grammar. Though Innovation in language can be accepted without much argument. But how can an unwarranted invention be acceptable? People who have brought news vocabulary at this juncture see nothing wrong with the degradation of language. Not because they don't care, but because they do not know that the degradation has already begun. In fact, they are playing an active role in it. Not that anybody is bothered, but by the time remedy is thought about, wounds spread to every part of the body.
When you read 'a subject is subjected to subjectivity', you inevitably take note of it. It makes one think whether there is any dying need to add adjectives, edit verbs, play with nouns, when simple verbs can be trusted with the job. Every language has its own grammar. Not to decorate the language, but to maintain the uniformity.
Linguistic discipline is the backbone of this profession. Simplicity is the first lesson. If it is not respected, we will end up with new dictionary every year that neither has the right word nor the right meaning. Editorial immunity, guaranteed under the constitution, can not become a reason for hitting new low everyday. The current trend neither decorates the language we use, nor does it help in maintaining uniformity of any kind.
Since linguistic complexity has become daily business, simplicity of language has become an asset. If you possess simplicity of lanuage, cherish it.
If the above question makes you feel sick, do blame me. I would welcome if anyone pins blame on me for being sick with that sentence. First, let me admit that I do not know anything about universally accepted linguistic principles. Now, Who would want to listen or read lines like subjecting the subject to subjectivity? It is an imaginary sentence that has no specific origin or usage. The reason for writing it is actually making an attempt at chasing this new trend in news language to its extreme. With the current trend, the above line may one day find place in some TV channel. We do listen or read unique lines everyday through our newspapers or television news channels. I, as many others, follow what I get to listen or read through available resources. Mostly related to current affairs, I do come across this new trend in the language everyday. It is part of my daily professional requirement. In the process, I inevitably raise questions to myself- Why take away simple words from language and fill the space with 'complex invention of unnecessary phrases'? Why hate simplicity of language if that is the magic of it?
History books tell us that human race evolves over time, so does the language of human race. Hence, changes or modifications are seen in all walks of life including the language we speak or write in. Every language has its grammar. So you stick to the grammar as much as you can. Sometimes you take liberty from specified rules and make it more convenient for yourself. This modification is also known as adaptation. And it is a natural process. It can also qualify as linguistic innovation.
Television journalism makes fruit ripe even before existence of that fruit is established. I will again make the same request. Watch TV news and observe the language used. Why do we replace simple words with more complex, newly invented phrases? Why do we pretend to be masters of language when we are not? Why the simplicity of language condemned and complexity preferred? Is there any benefit out of it? As I see it, there is none.
At least in India, we see inflation of already crowded news vocabulary. For instance, Why write "big blow" when blow is what you mean? Why say "massive loss" when loss is what you report? Why say "big tragedy" or huge tragedy" when tragedy alone suffices? Look around, you will observe, these words have influenced language as used in daily lives. Television channels take liberty to be flexible with grammar. This liberty has done more damage to language. Unwarranted modifications have replaced rules.
There is no dearth of words in english language, if the only objective is to multiply the significance of news by putting a word here and there. Won't the usage of the phrase "Racism beyond shame" categorise racism as a lesser crime? Or an acceptable act? Then how will one define "racism under shame"? Racism itself is an unacceptable act, why set boundary and re-define it? But 'racism beyond shame' becomes acceptable. Simplicity is treated like contempt of complexity. Usage of simple verb, adjective qualifies as poor linguistic calibre.
As I said above, we are not in the business of amending the existing grammar. Though Innovation in language can be accepted without much argument. But how can an unwarranted invention be acceptable? People who have brought news vocabulary at this juncture see nothing wrong with the degradation of language. Not because they don't care, but because they do not know that the degradation has already begun. In fact, they are playing an active role in it. Not that anybody is bothered, but by the time remedy is thought about, wounds spread to every part of the body.
When you read 'a subject is subjected to subjectivity', you inevitably take note of it. It makes one think whether there is any dying need to add adjectives, edit verbs, play with nouns, when simple verbs can be trusted with the job. Every language has its own grammar. Not to decorate the language, but to maintain the uniformity.
Linguistic discipline is the backbone of this profession. Simplicity is the first lesson. If it is not respected, we will end up with new dictionary every year that neither has the right word nor the right meaning. Editorial immunity, guaranteed under the constitution, can not become a reason for hitting new low everyday. The current trend neither decorates the language we use, nor does it help in maintaining uniformity of any kind.
Since linguistic complexity has become daily business, simplicity of language has become an asset. If you possess simplicity of lanuage, cherish it.
