Why Can't The English!

Henry Higgins from the Broadway musical, "My Fair Lady", in today's culture, had to be the ultimate sexist, intolerant, intransigent man, if he were real. He was the product of George Bernard Shaw's play, "Pygmalion", from which the musical was based.  Higgins, however, struck some chord that even  his critics acknowledged the stinging wit, humor and social observations to be notably true in some sense. He was an equal opportunity disparager.  He was not xenophobic because as an Englishman he had some harsh words against the English, specifically those he considered misusers or "murderers" of proper English. Eliza Doolittle, the cockney-talking flower vendor became the title character of the play and musical that originally starred Julie Andrews on stage but later played by Audrey Hepburn in the movie version that won seven Oscars. Rex Harrison played Higgins in both and won Best Actor for his role.

 

In one of Higgins' soliloquies he said,

"An Englishman's way of speaking absolutely classifies him

The moment he talks he makes some other Englishman despise him"

Then he went on his diatribe,

"One common language I'm afraid we'll never get

Oh, why can't the English learn to

Set a good example to people whose

English is painful to your ears?

The Scots and the Irish leave you close to tears

And, of course, American English became one of his peeves,

"There even are places where English completely disappears

In America, they haven't used it for years"

He went on with his acerbic commentaries on  the other nationalities, 

Why can't the English teach their children how to speak?

Norwegians learn Norwegian

The Greeks are taught their Greek

Arabians learn Arabian with the speed of summer lightning.

And Hebrews learn it backwards,

which is absolutely frightening.

But use proper English you're regarded as a freak.

In France every Frenchman knows his language from "A" to "Zed"

The French never care what they do, actually, as long as they pronounce it properly

Again, if Higgins were real, hypothetically alive in the world we live in today, he might add along his observations that might run like this,

"There even are places where some will never care what they do, actually, for as long as they  pronoun it properly".

The state of Michigan passed House Bill 4474, awaiting the state senate vote, that will make misgendering a felony - calling somebody by the wrong pronoun.

"Under the bill—which makes it a hate crime for a person to threaten another by deliberately using the wrong pronouns with an intimidating purpose—offenders would be guilty "of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or by a fine of not more than $10,000."

This is not really a political item worthy of any serious discussion. It will likely pass and likely be signed into law by the governor.  We can leave it at that.  

Now, languages have always evolved over time, changing even along and across borders in the same country.  Soon, the evolution makes it possible for two distinct languages, not just dialects, to split  from one original language; Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, as examples. However, in the centuries that those occurred, the process took a very long time and often changed with the spontaneity that is not really directed intentionally, certainly not centrally from one focal point.  Usage by and convenience for the users of the language were the prime movers of change.  

Today's language is changing upon the direction of a few, clearly not by the majority, to enforce the changes according to a particular leaning. The direction of today's language evolution is contrived and enforced with potential jail and financial penalties that, for example, the proposed Michigan law will try to achieve.

There is no predicting what trajectory society will veer into but for the moment, one idea is to make words,  and ultimately language, as the backdrop upon which culture will be made to evolve a certain way.

The pluralized pronoun phenomenon may or may not prevail.  Civilizations developed, flourished and sustained primarily based on the culture adopted by the population. Culture to mean language, social  mores, sets of laws and basic moral and ethical standards.  If the changes result in a cohesive society, civilization will continue to flourish. If, however, the population splits along a major disagreement among the people, in terms of a general cultural schism, that civilization will weaken and erode from within.  That is when another, from the outside, can and will take over.  That had been the cycle of humanity's histories for thousands of years.

Historians of the future will debate this. Today, we are charged with a profound duty to make a choice on what trajectory today's society must take. It is up to the living right now to shape the world of those who are yet to  be born and live at some time in the future.  What future inhabitants of this planet will look back to are the choices we make today.