The Language Line

Language, as we all know, is an ever evolving aspect of mankind. It is an ever-changing, ever-growing tool in constant use. English, being a widely used language, has countless variations, pronunciations, and semantics. Its changes, though, have always been under one criticism or another, and the question always asked: Is this better English?

“How art thou, good sir?”
“How’s it going, man?”
“What’s crackin’, homie?”

All three of these phrases are synonymous in their meaning. The first being Shakespearean in nature, the second being contemporary, and the third being urban. It may be surprising to see how quickly and drastically English has been changing – but this is all considered modern English.

“The holy blissful martir for to seke,
That hem hath holpen, whan that they were seke.”

The above, italicized quote, is middle english; a quote from Chaucer’s ‘Canterbury Tales.”

“oðþæt him æghwylc þara ymbsittendra”

And, this… this is old English.

I’m fairly certain that if someone were to use middle English and old English it’d be considered, by many, improper. Even Shakespearean modern English would be looked oddly upon. So, now, to the real question. Where is the line drawn between a language’s improving and a language’s deterioration? Who is to say that the phrase, “I is doin’ good.” is a horrid butchering of the English language, and not natural evolution of it? Can not the argument be made that the phrase is just an embodiment of the ever-changing tool of communication that is language?

Personally, I don’t have an answer. I don’t quite advocate the usage of various ways of speaking the English language, but there’s nothing truly adhering said ways to the standard of a detriment and not that of ‘evolution’.

What do you think?