alone? no. and what the hell is salvation anyway?

on the other hand, words DO matter. how come a man who speaks up for himself is forceful but a woman who does is feisty (at best) or bitchy?

republicans know how much words matter. they have decided that the democratic party should now be called the democrat party, and they've gotten so far with it that even liberals are starting to use the word that way. it's a seemingly small thing but they use it mockingly and it sounds slightly harsh, and we should resist that. ALL of us. that means republicans too. don't use dirty tricks!

g

That statement is utterly evil.
To begin with the uses of the words salvation, resurrection and corruption connote a neo-religious pseudo biblical authority to which it has no right or baring.
The presupposition that any society or culture in question needs salvation is an assumption based upon the idea that something is inherently wrong with said culture in the first place this is of course a totally subjective view.
Case in point both Islam and Christian cultures believe the other to be in error and in need of “salvation” from damnation. It is basically then an opinion to assert any “civilisation” is in need of “salvation”
However even given that this is so to say said salvation “has to be predicated on” anything is again a matter of opinion and circumstance.
The salvation of the dog from drowning in the river is predicated on a near infinite number of variables: can I swim? can the dog swim? how deep is the river? how strong is the current? what is the ambient temperature? do I want to save the dog? does the dog want to be saved?...etc
In any given circumstance there is no “has to be predicated on” all that “has to be predicated on” is one person's chosen course of action.
Opinion again.
“a resurrection from the corruption of its language”
The grammar here is appalling all one can do is first of make a guess at the implied meaning which might be
“a resurrection of the language of the civilisation from corruption”
This immediately makes the assumption that the language is a)corrupted and B) is therefore dead.
I can think of no instance in history where even a dead language passed from use because of it being corrupted.
This statement is in itself a bastardisation of Orwell's “new speak” in the novel 1984 the idea that to control the language is to control the populous and the civilisation, to limit language is to limit thought or at least the expression of thought.

The rescue of this civilisation has to rest on the rewriting of the language for the culture to be born anew in the image of those who wish to control it? YUCK! Scary.

There is no 'proper' use of language as language is evolving. As more and more cultures meld, more loan words, more customs will intermingle and that is a healthy move, because it staves off stagnation and creates vibrancy. What caucasian in 1950s would have known what the word 'ganja' was let alone used it (in both senses!) and further still who would know that it is a Sanskrit word for hemp. It is important for a national lexicon to evolve.

Hope not.

1. Drump is the enemy of the people! Period.
2. The original statement is a bunch of words, high-falutin' ones, that could be put MUCH more succinctly and clearly...obfuscation is dangerous in & of itself! Also not even sure it is true...how would you prove it?

This is a French sentiment. If it is true, English and it's speakers are doomed, for English has no hint of purity about it.

On the other hand, any language can be corrupted through rhetoric and abuse of framing.

Language does not matter. In an advancing society it needs to be expressive, precise (both to express exactly what we intend to say and to convey the emotional content we want to portray. As our knowledge and means of ascertaining truth increases, we need to create new terms which convey those advances.

At the same time, we need to take real care that adoption of terms from other languages and cultures is NOT seen as corrupting the language. Seeing such advances as corruption is nothing more than ethnocentrism -- bigotry. And, just as we need to guard against increasing incivility and abusive behavior and norms in our culture, we need to guard against increasing terms and speech tactics in our language which express and encourage incivility and attacks against individuals and groups.

A fake President is a bigger enemy of the people.

I think the biggest problem with our language now is that so many people have just gotten so damned lazy.
Recently, someone close to me criticized my use of proper, formal language.
I asked them if they ever wonder what I mean when I say anything. They answered, "no".
That was when I said, "Now you know why I speak the way I do. Kindly keep your unfounded criticisms to your fucking self."

I like your question a lot. We really have buggered up our language. We have invented new meanings for words and made language much harder to clarify. I laughed when we started using misspoke or misremembered rather than just say we sorta lied. This doesn't mean I want to go back to Jane Austin English but I do think we use language not as a clarified but as a way to obfuscate