“Of these two kinds of language, the more noble is the vernacular: first, because it was the language originally used by the human race; second, because the whole world employs it, though with different pronunciations and using different words; and third because it is natural to us, while the other is, in contrast, artificial.”

Dante – De vulgari Eloquentia

Language is a wonderful thing. but it also can be a horrible, horrible thing. It complicates lives to an absurd degree, and I’m definitely no stranger to those effects. Sometimes I wish we’d revert back to caveman noises, and sometimes it feels like that’s exactly what’s happening. To view vernacular, plain ol’ spoken English as it is today as something not worthwhile because of its ever-changing nature is to not understand its purpose in the first place.

In my experience as an English major at a relatively prestigious school, I frequently encounter people who deny vernacular language’s use, and swear to strive to only desire the usage of some hoity-toity form of speech that’s really only seen in some academic research paper written for your collegiate American Government class. You know, like this one. Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

Anyways, honestly, I find this commitment to “higher language” to be a little ridiculous. I know that’s a little sacrilegious coming from an English major, but I truly find the focus on fancy-schmancy language to be quite unrealistic. I can’t deny that I do occasionally want to sound like that, to impress others and make myself feel better-than-thou, but I would also like to, you know, be able to communicate with a wider range of people and feel accessible to the modern ordinary person.

My slight rejection of fancy speech is not endorsing the “dumbing down” of the language, but it is rather trying to express the value of speaking in a way that reaches a larger number of people. I want to get my ideas in more heads, and that would be significantly more difficult to accomplish if I were like Charles Brockden Brown and used a thesaurus to form every single sentence.

This accessibility that I strive for can be found through not using such high-falutin’ speech, because not everybody takes a Romantic Literature class and needs to have that skill. While it’s true that everybody needs to take Writing 101 so they can know how to properly write an email, it’s not necessary for them to feel required to be some sort of poet with words. I find the English major, at least in my college, to be viewed as some sort of exclusive book club, i.e. “We’re better than you because we’re more well-read and well-written” when that is simply not the case. Those are good and important traits to have, but they do not make you better than others.

One time in one of my English classes the professor spent the entire class time basically making fun of a Rupi Kaur poem. While I am not the biggest Rupi Kaur fan as I have not really read much of her work, I think it is completely unfair to deny her status as a poet simply because she does not follow the rules of grammatical English. In fact, she has an FAQ on her website, where she says,

Within the Gurmukhi script, there are no uppercase or lowercase letters. The letters are treated the same. I enjoy this simplicity. It’s symmetrical and straightforward. I also feel there is a level of equality this visuality brings to the work… It is less about breaking the rules of English (although that’s pretty fun) but more about tying in my own history and heritage within my work.

Rupi Kaur

Like come on, professor. Just because the given rules of English created by some dude forever ago aren’t followed doesn’t mean she’s not a poet. Poetry doesn’t have to be perfectly structured, with every minute aspect adding to the overall meaning of the poem. Coleridge has been dead for almost 200 years. Give it a rest, buddy. Besides, she’s referencing a language that’s not English, and some languages have different punctuations and capitalizations, like in French where you only capitalize the first word of the title. Crazy, right. But you, professor, are used to Chaucer, and claim to strive for finding the beauty in all works of literature, but stop looking after 1948. Modern works can be good, you know.

My apologies for that side rant. I just really did not enjoy that professor. Anyways, I want to be as clear as possible when I write and when I speak. It’s something that’s always bothered me because I have a tendency to be as indirect as possible (my boyfriend can attest to that), completely without meaning to. I think that’s due in part to how I was educated and how I grew up with my parents who are both incredibly intelligent individuals. This tendency to be indirect (and vague and ambiguous) has led me to some problems in my interpersonal relationships, especially recently. I can’t deny that. These struggles in communication have now more than ever forced me to realize how important my words are, and how respecting other in their attempts at communication is also just as valuable.

I believe that respect is easily the most essential facet of communication, so respecting other people’s word choice comes with that. Besides, English is such a versatile language; there are two or three ways to say literally anything, and I just think that’s neat. This leads me to (unfortunately or fortunately) bring up the whole pronouns thing, and how dumb I think the “It’s grammatically incorrect” argument is. Sorry not sorry. They/them referring to a single person is completely valid. We do it all the time in vernacular speech when referring to an anonymous or unknown person, completely without realizing. But as soon as people have to actively use it to refer to someone, it’s like their brains short-circuit. As Dante said, the vernacular is natural to us, while more eloquent speech is artificial. If you take the stance that you can’t refer to someONE as they because someONE is singular and they is plural, you’re ignoring the presence of vernacular speech and the past who knows how long when you’ve been doing that exact thing.

“I was talking to Jerry, and they said they were well.”

That sounds a little off to the untrained ear, yes. Jerry is one person (and the typically male name “Jerry” makes it worse), and the use of “they” implies more than one person. But, times are a-changin’, and one should strive to be inclusive with their language, for at least on the most basic level to be respectful to others. Language is constantly changing and it is literally impossible to try to stop that change. That’s why pronouns like thou, thy, thine, and thee shifted out of use in modern language (and by the way, those words are still defined as modern), and we now use you in place of thou. Words like this will most definitely continue to change and evolve, especially seen with the rise of neo-pronouns. I’m not telling you to just shut up and accept the change; I’m telling you to at least try and understand where it’s coming from and why it’s happening, because it’s not just happening for no reason. If you really want to get anywhere with your messages, whatever they may be, trying to understand and then respect the other is the first step towards achieving that goal. Saying that the other doesn’t deserve respect because they don’t agree with you just means that you probably won’t gain any respect either, so don’t go around expecting it if you’re not going to give it out yourself.

Definitions of words change literally all the time. For example, let’s look at the word “vulgar”, to tie it back to Dante’s De vulgari eloquentia. Currently, we define the word as “rude or offensive”, but it used to mean “of the common speech”, so we’ve morphed this word to have a more negative connotation, just as we’ve morphed common speech to be of a lesser degree. Common speech should be just as acceptable as academic lingo, or any other style or type of communication, because it is the easiest way for people to communicate and understand each other.

If you demand others to be respectful of your choices, perhaps religion-wise or politics-wise, you should give a minimum of respecting their choice of what pronoun they want to use. If you deny them that, they have every right to deny your self-proclaimed choice of being referred to as a Christian.

Anyways, my point is that English is not the only language to exist and also it evolves and you should learn it, respect it, and be aware that it’s changing.