Sometimes people must be precise, but they meet the limits of language, and argument over meaning is then inevitable. My point is that the even most finely honed cutting edge use of language is not the cure some think it is. Legal language is archaic, as recognised by Lord Woolf and the reforms he put into place. That’s not always a useful criticism, though. Experts’ terminology is often impenetrable to others.
Sometimes gist is more important than specific detail. It’s a question of register. Despite their professed level of literacy, few people are comfortable with, or able to, step out of their own register. Who is a better linguist, the specialist/one trick pony or the generalist/master of none? (rhetorical question alert)
I think people have probably always worried that we’re ‘all going to hell in a handcart'(™Daily Mail). I also think there’s no basis for saying so. In this context, literacy levels are rising. So called ‘dumbing down’ is what made English the language it is today. It has followed an organic dialectic process whereby elements of different languages were simplified in order that everyone could communicate. (eg Norse met Saxon, and lost the bits of words they didn’t have in common, kept the bits they did..have. etc)This led to maybe the real advantage of English per se over other languages; it’s flexibility and the ease with which it can evolve.
