Speech Crime as a Leading Indicator

I’ve been attempting to explain my fear of the fall of our society by using an analogy with the debasement of our language. Will crime against language presage crimes against societal norms? I worry that it is so.

For example, the term “parameter” is a mathematical one, referring to the attribute of a variable. It closely resembles the word “perimeter,” or a boundary. The terms were confused by careless writers and speakers for so long that “boundary” is now an accepted meaning of “parameter,” a linguistic crime against the glorious language of Shakespeare and Milton. It has so far gone unpunished.

I now know people with doctoral degrees from major universities who, unabashedly and without embarrassment, say “It is a secret between you and I.” In fact, I once heard, on Book TV, a woman with a graduate degree from the Columbia School of Journalism, thank the school for “inviting my sister and I here to speak.”

Let’s not even mention the misuse of “nauseous” to mean “nauseated.” Oh hell, let’s do. Ironically, it may have a ring of verisimilitude when a vapid speaker refers to himself as “nauseous,” meaning having the power to nauseate others. It sure does the trick for me.

Can societal communication survive the legitimization of such talk-crime? I, for one, don't see how.

My point? I think it may happen that this current presidential administration will burn itself out. Unless someone manages to push the wrong button, it will go the way of all sociological transgressions. I worry that, by then, we may find that our collective level of social decency may so debased that, like allowing our children to think that it is allowable to say, “would you please help he and I,” our ability to recognize the good and proper in our societal conduct may be forever lost.

"By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion." - Psalm 137