Archaic Language

By: Prem Prasad Sigdel

Language is a means of communication or it has some live nature to make the receiver do something. It expresses a message which is conceived by the receiver and does something in action so language isn’t only the speech rather a means to do something. Thus language is functional or it has some goal to achieve. We use language to fulfill our wishes, or desires, or needs, or wants. In Nepali proverb it is said that language and bullet never return back. If we speak once it has affected the listener and is incurable in comparison to the wound. Or the wound of language has some deeper affection or influence than the wound; which is sufficient to understand the nature or function of language. The use of language is quite sensitive or yet we can get good result if used properly. It has taken positive and negative aspects equally, for that we must understand the context of the user and the receiver or listener to use rightly. It has got such power that makes us superior or inferior in no time which is determined the use of it. So the use of language should be goal oriented or it should be contextual to make it more vital or achieve the proper goal.

Archaic language has some different meaning which we consider as original speech or sometimes we call it equal to colloquialism. The straight meaning of it has connection with the prehistoric language. However, the use of it in our context can be understood as indirect, informal, or localization. The use of archaic language in this text has some indirect meaning along with the context which needs some effort to understand positively. Mostly, I have seen its use in indirect sense which produces negative result as followed by examples below. The meaning of archaic language in our context has been used to reveal indirect intention of ours. We use such language to make the language more ironic, satiric, or to make the situation more interesting. Sometimes we use it allegorically which, in the real sense is neither ironic nor is allegoric. Hence, it is appealing, indirect, symbolic, contextual, and so on.

The use of such language has positive and negative sides equally along with the situation. The language can be taken positively if the user and the receiver are of same standard or type. If there is no match of the user and the receiver it has totally negative meaning. The common understanding of such language has mostly negative meaning. The user and the receiver should have taken it along with context and their mental ability to understand. It can be interesting as well as conflictual along with the standard of the users, situation, social context, traditions and so on. There should be the match among the above mentioned particulars to make it functional. We can understand that language has the power to make us functional.

First woman: You can use less spice.

Second woman: Is it true or not?

There is misunderstanding between them and the situation leads to conflict. The first person has used it directly and the second person has understood it indirectly or her answer may be archaic. Thus the situation turns to negative due to the context. It helps to increase enmity between them.

Driver: Can I come by 10.00am?

Coordinator: You can come till 10.30 am if favorable.

The coordinator had already told driver to carry school children on time. The school would start at 9.40am and the driver told that he could come till 10.00am comfortably. The coordinator would reply that he could come till 10.30am if he didn’t have duty sense. The situation is conflictual yet solvable as the user and the receiver are of same types. They both have considered the context and the use of archaic language has positive target. The use of such language is much risky if the user and the receiver don’t belong to the same standard. The use of such language is much fruitful if it is contextual neither is it too bad.

However, I have found that the use of archaic language has mostly negative consequence as the use of it is not justified with time, context and the level of participants. Mostly it has been used in informal conversation and the situation should have been assured. It has mostly negative consequences in public.

Customer: What’s your educational qualification?

Shopkeeper: I have finished my reading.

Customer: What class do you finish: 10 or 11?

Shopkeeper:  (not spoken)

 It refers that reading class 10 or 11 is not so good educational qualification in our context. The situation makes us clear that the customer is dominant or he has tried to defame the shopkeeper. There is misunderstanding between them or the shopkeeper remains silent and smile. Thus the use of archaic language has mostly negative consequence.

Sometimes it has created problem of understanding and friends can become enemy though they are good friends.

First person: Hello, who is speaking?

Second person: Hello, who are you?

First person: I am Raman, are you Riyan or not?

Second person: I am the brother of Riyan

First person: (recognized the voice of Riyan) Its ok, buy.

First person has taken his cell number from a reliable friend so he has recognized his voice also clearly as they had been school friends from class 1 to 10. The second person deceives him telling that his brother has spoken. Raman’s has given his introduction, yet Riyan has introduced wrongly. Raman has misunderstanding with Riyan.

Hence misunderstanding occurs frequently and its better to reduce the use of such language if we want to increase our friends. The use of such language has mostly misunderstanding between and among people though it has been used positively. We need further clarification for that to make the receiver understand. Once spoken the language can’t be returned back. Mostly the public figures have got much misunderstanding with it. We have seen many such examples those who have used archaic language frequently. For example ex-Prime Minister K. P. Oli has such problem or he has been made a man of humor of using proverbs while speaking. Or he has used such archaic words or phrases so his figure is too much debatable or disliked by the receiver.

On the other hand, if it is understood directly or straightly, it has much negative consequence. The problem with archaic users is same due to its nature. The people are of different types; they are of different standards; the metaphors always can’t match situations.  Hence, the use of archaic language is much sensitive, debatable, yet interesting. We should have used it according to the time or context to have positive target.