What are future possible words in English?

Question

For example, right now it is grammically correct to say "could have", but many people use the contraction "could've" That sounds like "could of" therefore in about thirty years, could be grammically correct.

Also, how might instant messaging affect future words that become grammatically correct?

Answer 1

I think Kyria is absolutely right. How people pronounce and use words dictate the changes in the language. For 'could of' to make it may well take more than 30 years or it may never make it - but it is a good candidate.

Some others that are on the cusp of becoming acceptable or in some cases already recognized by some publications' style manuals:

Alright for All Right - By association with 'already', many people think this is the correct spelling, and I've seen it in print more and more. It seems inevitable that it will become acceptable.

Alot for A Lot - Not as far along as 'alright', but seen a lot (alot?) in informal writing. Definitely a candidate.

Loss of Whom - This is not a future word except in the sense that 'who' will be used more and more. The use of 'whom' is dying. Many people don't know how to use it, and many of those who do don't use it properly because they think it sounds 'too pretentious'. As a prediction, use of 'who' as an object will become accepted in English - no idea when.

Probly for probably - that's the way it's pronounced by many, many people, so it's a good candidate.

Hunderd for hundred - just listen to any salesman.

Possessives ending in 's' - For centuries, possession by a noun ending in 's' was shown by adding apostrophe + s - Charles's, boss's, etc. Many people now just add the apostrophe. The GPO Style Manual still says 's to all words. The AP Style manual waffles - it says 's to common nouns (boss's) but only the apostrophe for proper nouns (Foss'). That one is pretty silly - you would have to write 'Mr Foss' boss's office.' Not so much a word as a spelling.

There are more - but this is getting long.

On the question of IM and texting, I think it's too early to tell if there will be an impact. If people start writing in 'textese', some of the shortcuts may well make it into standard English. I have not seen any signs yet, but would not be surprised if they showed up. It is also possible people will keep 'textese' as a kind of 'different' language and never mix it with 'regular' language.

Answer 2

some lexicographers have said that language (any language) is a residing element. regulations might want to be utilized to a language, and such regulations might want to be compared to putting a fence round a large city. the regulations (the fence) can administration what takes position on the outer edges of the language (the city), yet what is going on interior the centre, interior the midsection, of the language (the city) is as a lot because the language (the inhabitants of the city) itself. you're saying that lexicographers might want to set some criteria, yet they couldn't administration surely how a language adjustments. you're saying that lexicographers might want to derive new words (do you mean "invent" new words?). nicely, new words can, and performance been, invented, yet basically because new meanings can't be assigned to present words. you're saying that a newly-created observe must have a constrained type of meanings. certain, yet when the hot observe has been created for a particular purpose, then it is going to evidently have a constrained type of meanings. it extremely is the nature of language. i do no longer trust your glaring criticism that the English language is turning out to be noticeably ambiguous. for sure, there are words which have more advantageous than one which potential, yet is that no longer also actual of alternative languages? An experienced speaker of English will be able to observe of, from contextual clues, which meaning (of numerous) must be assigned to a particular observe. If he hears the observe "timber" used alongside section an outline of a collection of timber, he will be conscious of that the observe "might want to" isn't meant, and he will be conscious of that the shape cloth of a table isn't meant. Any language it extremely is able to take in words and thoughts from different cultures can basically advance and enhance, and does no longer run the potential for declining to the status of a dull language.

Answer 3

Check out the blogs - I'm sure they're inventing new words every day.

Communication is what's important, meaning that both the person using the words and those receiving them agree on what they mean - many new words are obvious for their connotations and easily merged into the extant vocabulary.

Answer 4

just because could've sounds like cound of doesn't mean it will ever be grammatically correct. it's pronounced like that because most people don't know proper english in the first place.

Answer 5

Deceivious - a contraction of deceitful and devious.