Modern audiences struggle with Shakespeare because hundreds of words have subtly changed meaning over 400 years (e.g., 'generous' meant 'noble'). This cumulative semantic drift makes the original text functionally a different language, requiring prior study, not just cultural appreciation, to understand.

Related Insights

No language is inherently "faster." Languages that pack more meaning into single words (polysynthetic) are spoken more slowly, while those with simpler words (like English) are spoken more quickly. This trade-off creates a universal, constant rate of information transfer across all human languages.

With non-native speakers as the majority of English users, the language constantly evolves in diverse ways globally. Efforts to impose a simplified, standard version for business (like "globish") are unlikely to succeed because language is a living system that speakers inherently and creatively adapt, making it impossible to control.

Contrary to being a 'lesser' language, slang is arguably richer than standard vocabulary. A standard word often has only a specific referential meaning, whereas a slang term simultaneously communicates the speaker's identity (e.g., Gen Z), their attitude (contempt, affection), and their desired self-perception.

No language is 'perfect' because its evolution is a trade-off. Speakers tend toward efficiency and simplification (slurring), while hearers require clarity and precision. This constant tug-of-war drives linguistic change, explaining why languages are always in flux.

Thought is fundamentally non-linguistic. Evidence from babies, animals, and how we handle homophones shows that we conceptualize the world first, then translate those concepts into language for communication. Language evolved to express thought, not to be the medium of thought itself.

In the 19th century, this phrase described an absurd, impossible act, as one cannot physically lift oneself by their own bootstraps. Its meaning has completely inverted over time to signify succeeding through one's own efforts, despite its literal impossibility, highlighting how idioms can radically change meaning.

Contrary to its modern, somewhat endearing meaning, the term "bookworm" was originally a pejorative. It compared people who read excessively to insects that burrowed into and damaged books. It was an early equivalent of telling someone to "touch grass" or that they have "brain rot" from media consumption.

Bad writing often happens because experts find it impossible to imagine what it's like *not* to know something. This "curse" leads them to assume their private knowledge is common knowledge, causing them to omit jargon explanations, abbreviations, and concrete examples. The key to clarity is empathy for the reader's perspective.

Unlike the past, when languages could diverge into new forms within centuries, modern widespread literacy and constant media exposure act as a brake on linguistic change. English in a thousand years may still be largely comprehensible to us, a stark contrast to previous rates of evolution.

The popular idea that grammar dictates thought is mostly false. For every cherry-picked example, there are countless counter-examples showing that linguistic features don't correlate with cultural traits. Culture and environment shape a language's vocabulary, not the other way around.