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

When I asked why I was debating against a TED talker, it was meant to be a sort of self reprimand. I knew it was your arguments I should be responding to, and that you used the talk as evidence (although I suppose I could say I was refuting your evidence). Please understand that I did not mean this as an insult in any way, shape or form. - The term 'google' and all other words that similarly came into existence thanks to a change in lifestyle are not absolutely necessary, but they are useful. If 'google' was not a verb, then the word 'search' would almost inevitably end up being used instead. However, with small words disappearing hither and yon, who's to say that in twenty years time, we wouldn't have dropped the 'for' in a phrase like 'I'm going to search for Fred'. In this situation, we would not be able to tell whether we were looking for Fred, or looking him up. You might say that the context would make all the difference, but surely a simple addition of another word would allow for this confusion to be solved. Why say 'look it up' when you could say 'google' or 'search', both of which fewer syllables. Also, 'google' implies the Internet, where 'look it up' could as easily apply to a library. By simply switching one word, we have provided much more information. Why is a new word required for this? Because the Internet is a new factor which would not have been considered before. "I believe that we have discovered most (more than 98%) of all phenomenon. "What about the 2%? "All phenomenon, known or unknown, are in a field (quantum, macro, etc.) and have characteristics (movement speed, etc.). Based on these things, we can describe/name the phenomenon." I would like to bring up something called Dark Matter (1)(2). Our scientists are pretty sure that it's there, but they don't know what it is. They speculate, but that's a whopping 95% of the universe that is yet to be known. Try the Electron Band Theory. This is meant to explain why conductors conduct, but as new conductors are created, the Band Theory isn't measuring up anymore(3). Scientists throughout history have claimed that they were nearing the end of what was there to learn, and every time a new mystery has come to smack us in the face. Once it was fact that the Earth was flat, and everything that didn't make sense was magic. They thought they knew almost everything too. Now the useless words. There has to be some reason that the Germans have a word for over eating for pleasure, and we don't. The most likely reason is cultural difference, but with globalisation on the prowl, pretty soon if it's in Germany, it'll be here too. The concept might be as foreign to us as 'googling' was to a 19th century scientist, but the world changes, and language must evolve with it. I would like to take the time to note that I did not state, in my last round, that the loss of the word 'egregious' was the greatest tragedy of our time. It was unfortunate, certainly, but the point I was making was that the same thing could happen to other words. The forces of mal-definition are not to be trusted. Give them an inch, and they'll spin you around until you don't even know what you're talking about any more. My opponent brings up the word 'bloody' as an example of where a word has taken on new meaning without negative repercussion. While, 'the crime scene was bloody' might not easily take a double meaning 'the bloody crime scene' could. If we had simply chosen a better exploitive, then we would not have to think so carefully about how we phrase our sentences, meaning more ease of communication. "Definitions mean little to nothing as long as people can effectively communicate." If we allowed language to be shaped as it wished, with no concrete definitions, pretty soon apple would mean a fruit in one country, and something completely obscene in another. English as a whole would cease to be, breaking down into sub languages and leaving us unable to communicate, as without a definition to learn it would be mush harder to study another language. Definitions are essential for any meaningful widespread communication "Read any book's dialougue, you will almost never find any "umms", which humans use ad nauseum. This is but one example." 'Umm' adds no actual meaning to a conversation. It merely allows the speaker time to consider their words. This is not necessary when writing, because the reader is not reading as we write. Any statement, minus any 'umm's will not lose its meaning. A pause or a comma on the other hand, can mean life or death for our over-referenced grandmother. "Also, when telling stories, humans do not naturally establish the environment like books do." This is a literary technique, and has nothing to do with the language used to describe the environment. This technique stems from the fact that books tell more intricate stories than we usually tell in everyday life. A storyteller, whether writing or speaking, will set the scene for his or her tale. Someone retelling an everyday event will not, regardless of whether they are describing the event to a friend or writing it in a journal. "In letters, essays, etc., thoughts are far more consise. We do not linger, like we would in normal life. This is another example of how proper grammar is different from how we speak." Again, the subject matter is critical. An essay is by definition a structured argument. If you were trying to convince someone of something, while they were gagged, and you had time to prepare your thoughts before you spoke, then you would no doubt relate your argument in a 'concise' fashion. I never claimed that all writing reflected conversation. There are many different purposes and contexts in language, after all. We are losing words all the time. We need to stop this literary massacre before it strips us of everything we have worked for. The only way forward in understanding the universe around us is to arm ourselves with the words to understand and communicate about it. - 1- http://science.nasa.gov... 2- http://math.ucr.edu... 3- http://news.stanford.edu...