I read this quote in the other thread where there was a discussion on the origins of English language and the loss of some characters in the alphabet. In that context, this quote made sense.
Apart from the first line, this quote doesn't apply here and frankly makes no sense. Yes, English may borrow (or steal forcefully, apparently) words from other languages, but that does not mean the language internally must not have its purity defended. Devaluating terms to have little meaning (awesome, terrible, fantastic) is not my idea of progress.
(Foreign languages on the other hand are a good source of new words which can be introduced, already inflated, into English.)
You can't really rip the first part of this quote from the rest. The entire point of it is that the language does not exist on a pedestal worth defending. Everything about the language we use right now exists because of a gradual and occasionally sudden process of evolution where meanings shift and words occupy new niches and occasionally die.
Awesome, terrible, and fantastic all have meaning. They have as much meaning as they ever have. They have different meanings, and the broadening and shifting of their meanings has allowed people to communicate with more effectiveness and nuance.
There is no inherent value in words having "strong" (as in forceful) meanings. If people do not use them that way it's because they do not need them that way.
Apart from the first line, this quote doesn't apply here and frankly makes no sense. Yes, English may borrow (or steal forcefully, apparently) words from other languages, but that does not mean the language internally must not have its purity defended. Devaluating terms to have little meaning (awesome, terrible, fantastic) is not my idea of progress.
(Foreign languages on the other hand are a good source of new words which can be introduced, already inflated, into English.)