The English language should be expanded to accommodate new forms of language use, not compressed

I hope it proves interesting and enjoyable for all of us. --- The English languages draws its origins from before the invention of the printing press, with the printing press being invented in 1448(1) while the English language dates back to the 5th century(2). As such, in its original state it was far more malleable, moulding to the way it was required to be used. Between the 12th and 16th centuries, English was a language for the working class, with the upper classes speaking French or Latin. As such, English was used primarily for communicating everyday concepts. Spelling at this time was erratic and non-standardised, and was based phonetically off the way people spoke. However, when it came to the communication of larger ideas, English as it was was no longer sufficient. One example of early English being adapted to be able to communicate more sophisticated ideas is Shakespeare's rather considerable contribution to the language. Shakespeare was prone to invent his own words when there was not one that expressed the concepts that he wanted to convey (3), and many of these words still survive today. This has allowed English to grow from a langauge for simple communication to one for the discussion of more complex ideas, and is just one example of the English language expanding to accommodate the new ways in which it was needed to be used. That being said, English has already evolved to the point that we can express the concepts we want to, right? Wrong. Just because we don't have a word for something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it does make it harder to convey quickly and easily. While I won't try to make up any new words for the purposes of this argument, I will make note of the fact that there are many words in other languages that do not have an English equivalent (4). We live in a world that is more multicultural than ever before, and yet there are words that exist for one community and not for another. English was augmented with French words and phrases (cul de sac, to name example) during the time when French and English were widely spoken in the same countries, between the 12th and 16th centuries; would it not be logical to now expand English again so that we may express a wider range of ideas in a smaller number of words? So the inclusion of new words in the English language would make it harder for people to learn? I highly doubt that there is anyone alive who knows of every word in the English language, but there is somebody out there who knows every word, or has a record of its meaning, or that word wouldn't be a part of the English language at all. Language is basically a way of representing concepts in an abstract way, and as such there is no word that does not require a definition. While some words will always require the reader to look up that definition, the shortest accurate definition of a word, were it to be subbed in, would inevitably serve to make text more cumbersome. The presence of words that represent other words in a shorter fashion allows for quicker reading for those who do know the words. But what about those who don't know the words? The dictionary exists for just this purpose, and thanks to the Internet, most people who use English for the discussion of complex ideas that necessitate the use of obscure words have ridiculously easy access to one (5). As such, modern technologies allow for more expansion of language than ever before. The addition of words to the English language could only serve to make it a better tool for the communication of ideas. --- There are more points to argue for this case, but I believe I will give my opponent an opportunity to introduce his arguments and do his best to dislodge mine before I make them. There's no use playing all your cards in the first round, after all. --- . http://web.mit.edu... . http://www.englishclub.com... . http://www.bardweb.net... . http://mentalfloss.com... . http://dictionary.reference.com...