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

I'm not sure why I'm debating against a TED talker here.The point of the TED (what does that stand for?) Talk was to support my claim that language naturally compresses.Would the people of 1877 have been able to predict that one day we would need a verb like 'google' to carry out conversations?You're missing something: We do not need "google" in our language in order to communicate more effectively.Even today, "google" is used interchangeably with "look it up". The average person ddoesn't know that "google" is in the dictionary. To many, "google" is just slang as opposed to an actual word.Would early biologists have considered that they might need a word to describe a phenomenon that they did not know existed?I ask then: "what phenomenon do we not know of?"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.As I have already pointed out in my last argument, there are quite a few words that do not have any English equivalent.Though they may not have English equivalents, many of these words are unneeded.There may be a German word for over-eating for pleasure, but I (and most people) are not going out of the way to remember a German word. I'll stick with, "over-eating for pleasure".Let us take the word 'egregious'.The change of this word's meaning does not affect the English Language. Why? I did not know it existed (and my hobby is study linguistics!). I, along with everyone else, use either "great" or "terrible".No need four a four syllable word.Adapting a word to a new meaning diminishes the meaning it can have in either contextYou are wrong, and I'll show you why.In America, the word "bloody" always means "having blood" or something around that.In Britain/UK, the term has the same meaning as in the US, as well as also being a minor curse word.It is pretty clear that "the crime-scene was bloody" does not mean "the crime-scene is ***".Definitions mean little to nothing as long as people can effectively communicate.Now I would like to take a moment to refute the ridiculous claim that we do not use grammar as we speak.Read any book's dialougue, you will almost never find any "umms", which humans use ad nauseum. This is but one example.Also, when telling stories, humans do not naturally establish the environment like books do.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.the degeneration of language must be stopped.I do not advocate, nor does anyone, the adoption of txt spk grammar.However, those texting get their thoughts across while texting. Everyone understands. Why is this "degeneration" if it is used mainly while texting?Whether it is a change that should be happening is far more pertinent to our debate here.One thing I'm sure we both agree on is that we both want language to be consise. If language is condensing while staying consise, it should be allowed to do so.