"Bob LeChevalier" wrote
>
> Language evolves, and words don't mean what they used to mean. Words
> pass out of favor. Why say "derelict" if it means "neglectful" which
> more people can understand and relate to? Why say "pith" and not
> "heart of the matter"?
>
We can, of course, introduce "Newspeak", even if we never mention Orwell.
That way, we could credit ourselves with a "good plus plus" vocabulary
with
little more than a thousand words, almost all of just one syllable.
(Doubtless our Australopithecine ancestors managed quite well with nothing
more than grunts and squeals.)
Where's that dictionary? Maybe I can not only delete "neglectful" but also
"absent-minded", "abstracted", "apathetic", "careless", "day-dreaming",
"defaulting", "delinquent", "derelict", "detached", "dilatory",
"distracted", "distrait(e)", "failing", "foolish", "forgetful",
"heedless",
"ill-considered", "imprudent", "inattentive", "inconsiderate",
"indifferent", "indiscreet", "indolent", "irresponsible", "lax", "lazy",
"negligent", "oblivious", "oscitant", "reckless", "remiss", "slack",
"slapdash", "slipshod", "sloppy", "slovenly", "thoughtless", "uncaring",
"unconcerned", "unheeding", "unmindful", "unobservant", "unreflective",
"unthinking", "unwary" - and thousands and thousands of others.
Unless that would be bad minus. (Sorry, bad- )
|
