A (n)ever-changing language?

I haven't blogged for a while... does that mean that the language has stopped annoying me? No, I'd rather that be the case, but the reason is really a mix of lack-of-time and that the old standby issues with the language are still there, working their way into accepted usage.

Still in the top four:

There's versus there are. This is so prevalent these days, it won't be long before "there's" becomes its own word, correctly used in either instance. An oft-played commercial has a little girl saying "there's peas in my cake" or something to that effect. Sure, the error might be there to keep the illusion that the child is speaking naturally, but I'm inclined to believe that the writer probably wrote it that way without knowing better.

less versus fewer. This is gaining ground, soon to surpass the "there's" issue, I'm sure. I've become so tuned to the sound of either of these words that I cringe every time I hear either of them, audibly sighing in relief when it turns out it was used correctly. As expected, I don't sigh that much.

should of versus should've. Either I've become dulled to this one, or people are smartening up. Since we then agree that I've become dulled to it, it needs to get nipped in the bud, along with it's cousins "could of" and "would of". The worst case is the negative, "shouldn't of": nothing but ignorance can explain that one away.

loan versus lend. Until the OED lists "lend" as an archaic word, I am going to dispute the use of "loan" as a verb.


There's a new one out there, though, that seems to be gaining ground. It's all in the pronunciaton here, no misheard words or inappropriate usage. It started in what is horridly called AAVE, or African-American Vernacular English, in the linguistics community, but perhaps more commonly Ebonics. The first case I noticed was with the word "didn't".

Put on your best black woman attitude, with the head rocking side to side, and say "Oh no you didn't!" If you got what I was talking about, you said "Oh no you dih-int". That middle "d" got lost, and an extra "i" got inserted. This has been around for years, and allowing for "vernacular English", I've got no problem with it, just like I don't have a problem with "ax me a question", also in AAVE, or "youse guys" out East in Canada. They're regional differences.

But when the pronunciation "escapes" its demographic, I have a problem. This isn't just a case of some teen trying to emulate their rapper idol's speech, this is a real change in the way this word is being pronounced. Not convinced? The more recent word to go through this change is what really got me going. From numerous speakers lately, I've heard the word "important" pronounced "impore-int". Again, that sound in the middle is being dropped. If you try saying "impore-int", you're probably not quite getting the right sound, because in both "dih-int" and "impore-int", there's what's known as a glottal stop, a consonant-like sound that helps separate the two vowels that have been left. This glottal stop has replaced the middle "d" in "didn't" and the middle "t" in "important".

But why? I know that a lot of sound changes happen in language to make pronunciation simpler, but I don't see the difficulty in either of these words. Yes, people have been slurring "important" for years as "importnt", with what's known as a "syllablic n", and perhaps it is this form that has now become difficult to say, and has been changed to "impor?nt" (the question mark is similar to the IPA symbol for the glottal stop).

I'd like to stress that every instance of "impor?nt" I've heard has come from someone that you would not classify into a different "vernacular English". So why have they changed these words? Are others soon to come? Will we get our accoun?nt to do our taxes? Will the comba?nts in Iraq use bla?nt tactics again the resis?nt rebels? Will I feel repen?nt for the pollu?nts I've released in the atmosphere?

When I go camping, will I pitch my ?nt ?