Discontentment with English

I expected Latin to teach me more about general language, and she did even before I started to learn
her properly; my views may be clouded by inexperience, but all of the Latin I've read so far lacks a
particular problem with modern English I now view around myself constantly.  Evil naturally longs to
impair communications between all, lest they speak ill of it, and English has long been under attack
of a peculiar sort: Modern English is accurate beyond all sense, destroying its ability to describe.

The phrase following is a basic statement about reality: ``A person has two hands.''  This phrase is
so simple a child can understand it, which to evil is the problem.  Already, modern English objects.
A more accurate phrase is ``Most people have two hands.'' or ``A person can have one only hand, two,
or even more than two hands.'' and there's nothing quite wrong yet with additional accuracy.  A real
language must be able to describe that which isn't common, using words such as ``some'' or ``most''.
Nevertheless, this neverending need to qualify, to be more exact, to change a basic sentence to suit
a handful of cases in the world takes pleasant language to smother it using unnecessary terminology.

Some of this stems from new technology.  The sentence ``A pregnant woman has had sex.'' is also easy
to understand, and yet I've seen people arguing against this too, because of in vitro fertilization.
I believe new technology mustn't have such an effect on language, lest the words ``ownership'' along
with ``property'' and many others be up next for a convenient redefinition by powerful corporations.

I regularly read writers constantly contorting their sentences to be accurate in ways which can only
be called nonsensical.  Simple sentence structure gives way to worthless clauses, which drone on and
on.  The problem makes the perfect vehicle for evil to begin poisoning minds.  It's been noted often
how so-called intelligent people can be convinced of utter nonsense no uneducated fool could be made
to believe.  Unfortunately, modern evil is rather good at convincing even fools of utter lunacy, but
the basic point remains: Once unnecessarily complicated language becomes common, it's easier for the
messages of evil to hide.  I now see unnecessary and false adjectives used in front of ``woman'' and
even ``child'' nowadays; furthermore, fighting directly against this merely plays into evil's hands.
When others begin to falsely call themselves ``women'', the proper course of action is to label them
not ``non-biological'' or some other complex adjective, but ``false''; a ``biological woman'' is but
a real woman, and what isn't a real woman is a fake woman.  Lately, I've seen others trying to place
``chronological'' in front of ``child'' in the same vein.  Only a language influenced by evil has an
issue like this.  I've noticed no such issues arising in those languages spoken exclusively by evil.

I've long amused myself with the thought that I use language to communicate with myself above anyone
else, that I use language for the effects it has on my mind more than anything else.  This amusement
was put a certain way, using a certain sentence I found to be particularly amusing, but it no longer
comes to mind, perhaps this: ``I speak to speak, not to be understood.''  That sounds very immature,
however, so I could swear the first half were different.  In any case, I still see the primary value
in a language beyond one's first to be its effects on the speaker's mind.  I noticed so long ago how
most speaking is automatic, picking a template and swapping in values, and suppose many people never
exceed this.  I've seen people struggling to decompose language beyond what they commonly use, so it
becomes atomic to them.  I also see how it can be useful to force another template into their minds.
I well remember my dread upon realizing many of my grandfather's favoured sayings to be programming.

I've read that the modern world is strangling other languages in yet other ways, with many unable to
express thoughts in their native tongue and instead resorting to English.  This is yet another issue
which Latin largely avoids.  Modern language worldwide is strangled by brand names which pollute the
lexicon for selfish gain.  Historians will have a horrible time reading through this period, even if
most of its writing somehow survives.  Already foreign universities give some courses in English and
no other tongues.  I like to learn about the French Academy, which struggles to resist this disease.

Mathematical argument was once written in normal language; dedicated notation improved it, by making
proofs more precise and therefore smaller, but this also made writing preferred over speech.  I like
to think about science given this treatment, in a particularly extreme way.  Already, visualizations
improve thought; surely, there be some possible constructed language a scientist could learn to free
himself from the need to speak of it in his native tongue, actually making him incapable of the act.
Spoken mathematics can sound nice enough, but anything not centuries old becomes clear gobbledegook.

I'm quite certain learning classical Greek will affect me no more weakly than Latin has, eventually.
.