today i saw a review of the mercedes-benz e320 blutec diesel luxury sedan. it’s a car that runs off diesel fuel, the johnny-come-lately alternative fuel source for the automotive industry.
now, i wasn’t really paying attention to the review because frankly, i think the car is a bit too blase for my tastes, but what really caught my attention was that every time the reviewer mentioned the word ‘diesel’ he would pronounce it ‘dee-sull’. after about the fifth time he said it, i started getting really annoyed and stopped watching. later on during the day, i began thinking about the difference between ‘dee-sull’ and dee-zull’. i assume that most people say ‘dee-zull’, though it’s technically correct to say either. this got me to thinking how a habit or idea like saying ‘dee-sull’ in propagated. after ruminating on the topic while taking a well-deserved shower, considering all the ways to rid the world of people who say ‘dee-sull’, i came to a startling conclusion: language is not safe from evolution.
now, you might think, that i mean something like, ‘the language apparatus (throat, mouth, nose) evolves physically and accommodates for certain sounds which go on to define the limitations of spoken human language.’ this is not what i mean, though it is true. what i really mean is that language, in fact all things that exist, are subject to the process of evolution. it’s not just an anthropological term limited to describing biological change. it is a much more profound and encapsulating concept which applies, almost metaphysically, to all things that exist.
consider that if a man is born with a genetic disorder rendering him incapable of walking, he would clearly die out quite rapidly (assuming a more primitive time when societies weren’t around to shoulder the burden of invalids among the populace). this characteristic would fall before the onward march of evolution, dying along with its carrier. so long as the carrier is unable to genetically propagate the disorder through reproduction, the mutated genetic code would last only as long as the host’s pathetic lifespan. genetic reproduction is the method of propagation nature uses to power the endless cycle of life. now, consider if a person were taught to beat women every time he met them. in today’s society, this would clearly run him astray, providing for almost no opportunity to reproduce. he would not sire any offspring and consequently be unable to continue this odd tradition of unadulterated misogynistic violence. in the same way, behaviors, habits, and ideas are subject to the flow of evolution. if something is not conducive to mass propagation, it will likely die out with the individual that exhibits the quality.
however, these intangible qualities are not completely regulated by the same mechanics as biological evolution as there are many ways to propagate an idea. it does not require reproduction or child-rearing, but rather thrives on the art of persuasion. those concepts and ideas that are more easily instilled upon others end up propagating the most successfully and those which few people take towards end up dwindling and fading away into extinction. all of culture is in fact regulated by this metaphysical evolution. it is an evolution of thought. these thoughts and ideas are what richard dawkins coined ‘memes’. they are how human culture changes over time. an idea that seems to benefit the individual best with regards to success in life is an idea that he/she is likely to follow. the more beneficial the idea is, the more widely it will spread among the population.
fashion, for example, makes for an easy analogy to this evolution of memes. fashion functions on innovation and creativity at the highest levels, new ideas and concepts explored by the avant-garde designers within the industry. these innovative ideas are like genetic mutations. they produce something fresh and new. the true test then is how well they are received. the public opinion and reception of a new design is like the reproductive success offered by a genetic mutation. if the public hates it, the design will die out. if it is loved, the design will flourish. how well it’s received is also dependent on a myriad of variables spanning from audience to marketing to sheer aesthetic quality. it’s all circumstantial whether a new design can survive in the fashion industry, just like the survivability of a genetic mutation is also context dependent.
so back to the diesel question. how does the pronunciation of diesel propagate? through sheer circumstance and ideological persuasion. if one were to commit a veritable linguistic genocide, one must attack the psychological, social, and ideological allures of the pronunciation in question until it became so unpopular that to utter said word would incur widespread beleaguering from every corner of society. so as per my goal to eliminate all the people who say ‘dee-sull’ instead of ‘dee-zull’, i must notify you, the reader, that only mouth-breathers, lisping homosexuals, and brain-damaged layman pronounce the word diesel with a sibilance. ask yourself, are you any of those things?
