Information technology has dramatically improved the speed of communication and given us hundreds, probably thousands, of new words. But has it improved the clarity of meaning in those communications? I think not.

In last Saturday’s Daily, University of Queensland lecturer in language and cultural studies Dr Peter White reminded us that the effect of technology on our language should not come as a surprise, “because we’ve been stealing and inventing words for centuries".

True enough. One of the greatest inventors of new words was the Bard himself, William Shakespeare is thought to have coined more than 1700 new words, so we shouldn’t be frightened of more.

Our language is a living body, and its cells (words) are replaced ad infinitum. More than any other, English has borrowed or stolen words from other languages, and it is still doing so.

Two that come to mind are schadenfreude and zeitgeist. Schadenfreude, the feeling of smug satisfaction in the misfortune of others, has suffered from over-use by the chardonnay set in the last few years, and like the wine of that name, is becoming a touch passé.(There’s another ring-in, one from la belle France that has found a permanent place in English.)

Zeitgeist , though, is all the rage among the cerebral writers in the “class” newspapers and is no doubt right at home in clever conversation.

(If like me you weren’t quite sure of its meaning, I learn from Wikepedia that zeitgeist “describes the intellectual and cultural climate of an era.)

But back to Dr White. In the quoted article, he reminds us that the ability to communicate more rapidly and widely has its drawbacks; and in this he is backed up by professional writing consultant Britt Larssen, who says that in an effort to communicate quickly, many of us fall into the trap of using ambiguous language. So it seems that I’m not, after all, just a voice crying in the wilderness of cyberspace.

This puts me right back on my old hobby horse. As I’ve written so many times, the sole purpose of correct grammar and syntax is to make the meaning clear.

The rules are there for that and for no other purpose, but they’re either not being taught, or if taught, largely ignored, even by professional communicators.

Result, ambiguity reigns. It’s good to see that this is at last being recognised.

Now let’s hope for a return to the linguistic rules of the road, so that we won’t have to ask so often “But what does it MEAN?”

Speaking of ambiguity...
There’s a sign outside my GP’s rooms: ‘Patient Parking Only’. Perhaps similarly worded signs could be displayed around some of those war zones called shopping centre car parks.

And Another Thing: Good to see Jim Cash setting readers right on the comings and goings of the meandering Maroochy River mouth over the past half century (Daily, April 28).

In view of suggestions that it should be moved by man rather than by nature, the Sunshine Coast Regional Council could well tap into Jim’s long experience, painstaking research and vast knowledge when considering the “management” of the estuary.

I suspect his advice would be a forthright “Leave it alone”. And for what it’s worth, so would mine.

rich.29@bigpond.net.au