As is well known, there are several points of view on neologisms and the evolution of language. One is that language must be strictly controlled. So that slang doesn't seep into literary beauty, and new words are introduced only "from above," or grudgingly acknowledged only if they've been used for ages. So that word stress is placed exactly as in the dictionary, and in no other way.
The second point of view (which is also reflected in the GOST) is that language evolves on its own, independently of all sorts of academies, and whatever people need will automatically remain in it. Therefore, there's no need to waste time on nonsense and scream about the "decline of literacy" and the "threat of losing authenticity".
I am closer to the second point of view. Therefore, by and large, picking "anti-words", as Latvian philologists are doing, isn't very smart. Fortunately, normal people haven't died out yet.
But the director of the Latvian Writers' Union, Ieva Kalmane, believes that language should be treated as a living organism, meaning we should observe its changes. "I think this contest cultivates an incorrect perception of language as such — as if it needs constant diagnosis. In reality, this is not the case, and nothing so bad is happening to our language," Kalmane believes. At the same time, she acknowledges the positive aspects of the campaign.
On Language
2007-01-16