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

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'."For" would not disappear because it is necessary to communicate the idea.Try the Electron Band Theory.Congradulations. This is a concept I have never heard of.I say this because I, a kid who looks as far into Quantum Mechanics that he can without textbooks, has never heard of it. Assuming that I am more knoweledgable than the Average Alex, never will anyone short of Hawking will ever mention it.But even if it is important, why would new words be needed to describe this phenomenon?"Quantum Gravity" is not called "Gffda Sasfdfg" because there are already terms to describe the concept: "Quantum" and "Gravitation".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.Why would we need a word for Pleasure-Eating? Will we suddenly need that word/It was unfortunate, certainly, but the point I was making was that the same thing could happen to other words.Imagine, if you will, that egregious still only meant great. Would you say "That was egregious!" or would you say "That was great!".Egregious is not neccesary.If, as you claim, other words start disappearing, then they would have to have a replacement that a large majority consider more usefull than the original.While, 'the crime scene was bloody' might not easily take a double meaning 'the bloody crime scene' couldWhen talking about a crime-scene, only stories would take the time to insert an adjective, so it is most likely that, in normal conversation, the word would be a swear.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.Why would this cause a breakdown in English? It has already happened, and we can still communicate just as effectively, if not more effectively than before.I'll give you an example. You seem to be fond of Shakespeare, so I will use a scene from Romeo and Juliet to prove my point.Do you remember the first scene where the soldiers are talking, and one says that he will "take the maids' heads"? The soldier even comments that we can take it anyway we want to take it.For us, the meaning of the sentence is "I will cut off their heads".But back then it could also mean "I will take their virginity".The latter meaning has backed up into obscurity, but our language has not deteriorated to the point of turmoil, even after 300 years.'Umm' adds no actual meaning to a conversationI was just showing that we do not write like we talk. We often talk with having scripted your statements in your head.We need to stop this literary massacre before it strips us of everything we have worked for.In order for a word to disappear, people would have to stop using it. If people stop using a word, then those 10000s of people would either have no use for the concept, or would have replaced the word with a much better word.___________________________I love debating you; you know what you're talking about and type with a kind of awesomeness.