More of the same I'm afraid dear reader, there is a lack of comprehension (on my behalf I assure you) welling up as to make a suitably large explosion of confusion upon the very page you view, here.
Why (oh why oh why, to enter into the "points of view" mode necessary for me to express this avenue of angst) does it occur to me that just as I start to enjoy the subtleties of our mother tongue (Oooer missus) do I witness it being randomly (I was going to use the word systematically but that would have implied organisation) butchered, in verse and in life.
Yes this wonderful language of ours is being usurped by a foul and ugly argot, why? The normal evolution of a language is by normal use and adoption, thus spellings and pronunciation gently slide in and out of fashion at an almost tectonic pace, I turn my back on the old country (for a mere decade) and it has seemingly been invaded by aliens, all of which appear to have been studying old Grange Hill reruns and listening to BBC Radio One's output, and they have come to the conclusion that normal people talk "Ghetto". (reminiscent of Coneheads 1993 (starring Dan Aykroyd)
Why (oh why oh why, to enter into the "points of view" mode necessary for me to express this avenue of angst) does it occur to me that just as I start to enjoy the subtleties of our mother tongue (Oooer missus) do I witness it being randomly (I was going to use the word systematically but that would have implied organisation) butchered, in verse and in life.
Yes this wonderful language of ours is being usurped by a foul and ugly argot, why? The normal evolution of a language is by normal use and adoption, thus spellings and pronunciation gently slide in and out of fashion at an almost tectonic pace, I turn my back on the old country (for a mere decade) and it has seemingly been invaded by aliens, all of which appear to have been studying old Grange Hill reruns and listening to BBC Radio One's output, and they have come to the conclusion that normal people talk "Ghetto". (reminiscent of Coneheads 1993 (starring Dan Aykroyd)
Surely the reaction of anyone who is brought up in any form of deprivation is to escape said adversity and to ensure that the state is not entered into again, why then, are the teens I am referring to, emulating characters who are inherently depicted as poor, criminal and generally undesirable or merely subjugated so much that their only choice is to ghettoise and "live the life"?
It must be mentioned that there are some, very successful, famous persons who have managed to come from such disadvantaged positions, but that does not make it de rigueur to regress prior to attaining status. They, invariably, move away from the street (and into some pretty big mansions see below)
Incidentally this is nowhere near the owners Brooklyn place of birth (just in case you were wondering)
What used to be described as "street-wise" is now shortened to "Street". OK but I do remember street pertaining to tramps, is this the logical direction to head for the next generation? To achieve approbation from their peers will they need to sport matted hair, mutter unintelligibly and reek of urine?
It has been, for years, the very thing to proclaim your intelligence (why would you have everyone scorn you?), especially in the right circles, has this, just as the meanings of so many words (such as "sick"), been reversed? So now is it socially acceptable to be a window licker? (OK so you are a stockbroker by day, but your night time guise is as the village idiot). Where does this amazing idea come from?
Will these people look back in their dotage and cringe (well I do when I see pictures of myself in scrotum crushing canvas jeans), I hope so, I really do!
No comments:
Post a Comment