After reading about language change and its inevitability, I decided to talk to my father about the changes he has observed in our language, Arabic, over the years. Our conversation revealed some fascinating insights into the evolution of the language.

Firstly, my father noted a significant shift in pronunciation, particularly with younger generations adopting a more relaxed and colloquial way of speaking. He mentioned that in his youth, there was a stronger emphasis on classical Arabic, especially in formal settings. Nowadays, there’s a noticeable trend towards using dialectal Arabic even in contexts where classical Arabic would have been preferred. In terms of vocabulary, he highlighted the incorporation of numerous foreign loanwords, particularly from English and French, into everyday Arabic. This phenomenon was less prevalent during his younger years when Arabic equivalents or adaptations were more commonly used.

Another change he observed was in slang and colloquial expressions. Many phrases he used in his youth have fallen out of favor, replaced by new expressions that often perplex him. Spelling and grammar have also undergone transformations, albeit to a lesser extent. The advent of digital communication has introduced abbreviations and shortcuts, much like in English texting culture. My father recounted how formal writing was more rigid and strictly adhered to grammatical rules, whereas now, informal communication often bends these rules, incorporating elements of spoken dialects and simplified structures.

In conclusion, my conversation with my father underscored the dynamic nature of Arabic. Pronunciation, vocabulary, and informal writing practices have all evolved, reflecting broader cultural and technological shifts. It’s a reminder that language is a living entity, continually shaped by the speakers who use it.

1. Proposition: I own a blue car.

Truth Value: True.

Truth Conditions: For this proposition to be true, I must have legal ownership of a car, and that car must be blue.

Entailment: If it’s true that I own a blue car, it must also be true that “I own a car.”

2. Proposition: I have visited the moon.

Truth Value: False.

Truth Conditions: This would be true if I had physically traveled to and landed on the moon.

Entailment: If it were true that I have visited the moon, it would also be true that “I have traveled in space.”

Truth Value: Unknown.

Truth Conditions: For this to be true, there must be an undiscovered city located within the Amazon rainforest.

Entailment: If this proposition were true, it would entail that “There are undiscovered places on Earth.”

A word I want to talk about is “pasta”. When the Italian word “pasta” /ˈpɑːstə/ was borrowed into Japanese, its pronunciation changed to fit the Japanese language, resulting in [pasɯta]. In Italian, the word is pronounced with a “st” sound in the middle, which is okay in Italian. But in Japanese, you can’t have two consonants like “s” and “t” together in the middle of a word. To fix this, the Japanese pronunciation adds a short vowel sound, [ɯ], between the “s” and “t” sounds, making two separate parts: “pasu” and “ta.” This change follows the Japanese rule that usually doesn’t allow two consonants together in the middle of a word. Also, the Italian “a” sound is a bit different from the Japanese “a” sound, but they are similar enough that the “a” sound in “pasta” stayed the same in Japanese. In summary, when “pasta” was borrowed into Japanese, it changed to fit the rules of the Japanese language. The addition of the [ɯ] vowel to separate the “s” and “t” sounds is a clear example of how Japanese rules affect the pronunciation of foreign words which ties into when words are borrowed from other languages.

In my 4th grade class in elementary school, I learned some rules about language that said things like “ain’t” were wrong. They said these rules were important for sounding smart. But even though I was taught this, I still used these words in everyday life, especially when talking casually. As I grew older and learned more about language, I realized these rules were not as strict as they seemed. Language changes over time, and what’s considered correct is often just a matter of opinion. So now, I’m more open to different ways of speaking and less worried about following these strict rules.

In another class in middle school, I was told that ending a sentence with, “with” or “for,” was incorrect. The reason why was that it was a rule from Latin grammar, which doesn’t always apply to English. I remember being told to rephrase sentences to avoid ending them that way, which sometimes made my sentences sound awkward or overly formal. even with this instruction, I often found myself naturally using sentences that ended in prepositions in everyday conversation, as it felt more natural and less forced. This experience further reinforced my belief that language rules should be flexible and consider how people actually speak and write.