Today’s Agenda
Mini-lecture: Part 1
Mini-Lecture: Part 2
Journal:
For the next 10 minutes, I want you to journal on the following subject:
As you are probably starting to notice, your own personal form of English is not the same form of English that everyone around you speaks.
For example, if you grew up in Maine, you probably encountered older people who spoke French as well, or better, than they spoke English.
On another level, you probably use different terms and phrases than your parents or even older or younger brothers and sisters do.
You are probably also more comfortable with certain forms of slang than other people your own age are.
What I want you to do over the next 10 minutes is tell me a little about the English you speak: what defines it? Where does it come from? What does it say about you? Do you have the ability to improve or change your English, or is it something that is unchangeable and fixed?
Group Work:
Now that we have thought a little bit about our language, I want you to get into groups and discuss the following:
There is a movement in the US, and within many other nations, to have an official national language. In the US, the movement is to make English the official national language. Does this, or does this not, make sense. If so, why? If not, why not? You don’t all have to agree, but you do all need to be capable of expressing an opinion on the matter.
Class Discussion:
As you will see, many of the same basic questions and issues we have just raised are not new. They were very much critical questions for Europe during the period we are studying.
Today’s Agenda:
G. Chaucer was very much part of a massive sea-change in the intellectual lives of many English people, and these changes directly affect us today. The trends he was associated with can perhaps best be understood by considering how the cultural of England developed over the next 250 or so years.
You might remember that, when we were reading the Knight’s Tale, the narrator paused while describing how awful life was for Palamon and states:
“Who could make rhymes in English fit to vie With martyrdom like that?” Indeed, not I.”
You might think it is easy enough to understand what he is saying here, which we might interpret as something like : “There are no words to describe how bad the situation is,” a phrase we often use when faced with tragedy or calamity. But that answer is only partly right.
When Chaucer was writing, the capacity for a language like English to express serious sentiment was very much in question — something we all take for granted today. And this is because, at the time, English was not widely accepted langauge it is today, but, rather, was generally considered a lowley, if not “hillbillyish” form of communication.
A good analogy to keep in mind is that, for Chaucer and his contemporaries, English was about as respected as text-speak is respected today.
However, and amazingly Chaucer, like a number of new English poets, encouraged a new kind of “play” with English, and demonstrated that it was at least as useful a tool for accurately describing the human experience as stuffy, old Latin or Greek were.
This proved problematical — as Latin was the official language of the Church, and was, quite literally, believed to be the language of God in the Christian tradition. This letters themselves were representative of God.
Imagine how strange it would be today to think God spoke in LOL-speak:U S8ved? ROTFLMAO! CU, JZ
For the English people, God did not speak Spanish or French, or German or Italian. And he certainly — prior to Chaucer — could not be imaged as speaking English — which was understood to be the lowliest and most basic of languages.
When Chaucer was writing so beautifully in English, there were the first rumblings of educational reform in England. Intellectuals – who were generally religious types – traveling abroad were noticing that the Latin they had learned was generally inferior to the Latin that was being taught in Continental Europe.
What was a monk to do!
This posed MAJOR problems. If Latin was supposedly the language of God,then what would happen to people who understood Latin imperfectly? Worse, what would happen to the people who taught it incorrectly?
Uh-oh! Should have learned your Latin better!
As a result, the study of language and life become an increasingly important subject.
In larger numbers, intellectuals argued that education should involve the study of man and nature as they are representative of God’s Divinity. God could be found in life and experience, not just in the moral teachings of writers who lived thousands of years ago.
This was a MASSIVE change in focus. People were now beginning to make life as it is lived a study in and of itself. One can imagine old-school medieval teachers asking, “What practical use is that?” Notice how obvious the answer is, and similar their question is to the question you asked about literature on your first day in class.
This was the true birth of the humanities. Intellectual horizons were now greatly expanded. . “Man” became a rational being capable of divine insight – through our wonderful languages, including English.
People began to read more writing n English. More printing presses were built. Good writing became equated with Godliness.
Classical and Biblical authors were still studied as guides for life – but we were increasingly beginning to wonder about the questions they had not answered.
While all this was occurring, the English were becoming increasingly more interested in studying the English language. It is either by chance or divine intervention that, during this very moment in history, the two greatest English writers who have ever lived happen to be born: Edmund Spencer and William Shakespeare. You simply cannot say that similar poets emerged during this period in any other nation. Had they, we might be speaking another language today.
Spencer and Shakespeare proved that English was not only capable or describing human life perfectly, but that it could also ACHIEVE the very standsards of God’s Language itself. For the first time, it was no longer possible to argue that what was commonly understood to be the BEST of all languages, Latin, was NO MORE INSIGHTFUL or POWERFUL than English, and probably less!
And to think, most of us use this language to order cheeseburgers!
Class Discussion of Journal
Homework:
Your homework for next class is to read the handout material from Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities and to write a 1.5 page response of the following topic:
What are the limits of English communication? What aspects of human experiance do you think are simply too complicated to be put into words? Are there any? If so, what are they? If there are not, why are there not?
Advertisement
[...] Wednesday, Jan 28 [...]
Timothy McGuire
Eh241, Adam Crowley
Jan. 30th 2209
There are probably limits to communication in english but I would imagine no more so than any other language. There are just some concepts that are more readily expressed one particular language or another. For instance the Inuit’s have a great many more words to describe snow. This is probably has to do with the very cold and icy climate they live in.
I think certain concepts may be too complicated to properly put into words for instance complicated mechanical or surgical procedures. For these visual aids would be necessary. For other areas of expertise I can imagine visual aids would at least be more practical. For instance mathematical expressions are best understood using their own symbols which may represent quite a lot if written in English every time they were used.
I think there are other areas of the human experience which are not technical that are hard to put into words. For instance love which poets, and hopeless romantic have been grappling with to express in words for centuries. This is perhaps because we all experience these feelings differently and because there are such confusing and powerful feelings associated with love. I think there are other experiences like love that are also hard to put into words. I think this is because at the time we are experiencing them we are feeling and not so much thinking. I remember the days that my nephew was born and the day may niece was born but to describe the feelings I had would be very difficult if not impossible to truly convey. I don’t think this is a unique short coming on my behalf. I think it is still a central struggle of humanity. Our language or at least or ability to translate our true experience into language hasn’t yet reached that level. I think this is what makes great authors so great. It’s that ability to get closer than anyone else to really conveying that. We can point to a great author and relate to what their character is experiencing. For most of us though this is a lifelong and ultimately unachievable goal. Even great authors only get close and only for their brief only represent their brief life experience or moment in history.
Jason Stewart
Adam Crowley, Eh 241
29 January 2009
Our language is much more of a “Frankenstein” language, as Adam Crowley states it, than most other languages of the world. English has aspects of many of the major languages mixed and matched into one. Languages like German and the Romantic languages (French and Spanish) have helped shape English into what it is today, but not for all English speaking nations. A large limit for the English language in America is that this nation such a melting pot of so many different nations that our version of English is much more of a worldly Frankenstein than the English spoken in the United Kingdom.
As Benedict Anderson point out in Imagined Communities, “…by mediating between vernacular and Latin, mediated between earth and heaven” (Anderson 15), this means that speaking or writing in the English vernacular was being in an earthly state of mind while reading and writing in Latin was far more heavenly. Anderson goes so far as to state that Latin was the “true” language. This “fight between languages” continued until the late sixteenth century until Latin was all but phased out with the inception of more commonly used languages like French, English and Spanish. The same kind of argument can be found in modern day America. There are so many different kind of nationalities in America that the decision to make the national language be English would be quickly fought by more than a third of the nation because of the high volume of Spanish speaking citizens. It took Europe nearly a thousand years to break itself of Latin as the predominant language, and they do not have a uniform language for all nations (like the use of Euros as currency), thus the thought of a national language for a nation as large and largely diverse as America might be unattainable for even longer.
The human experience has seen many amazing and perplexing things. Whether it be great wars like the battle of Troy or the drop of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, man has been witness to great atrocities that can be difficult to understand when distanced by a thousand years, or just fifty. Can we really put to words the reasoning to attack an entire city state because of a cheating wife, or the destruction of two entire cities and over two hundred thousand lives to end a war that had dwindled down to the world against Japan? Though the reasoning at the time may have seemed justified, and thousands of reports could have been written in English to support the dropping of an atomic bomb, today we can look back and question that action. However, not all human experiences are horrendous enough to render us speechless. The creation of the Pyramids of Egypt and Stonehenge are very difficult to put to words because it is nearly unimaginable to reason how these massive pieces of human achievement were constructed.
The English language still has its limits whether because of other languages or because of its ever changing style. It is difficult to put to words what it would be like to have and speak a universally uniform language, especially one so monstrous like English.
Meghann Peterson
January 29, 2009
Professor Crowley
Response to Language
I don’t think that the English language lacks the words someone needs to really communicate a concept t or feeling. I think it is probably the deficiencies in one’s own vocabulary that limits their ability to express their ideas. Above all else the most complicated concepts to put into words are human emotions and emotional notions. Try to explain what it means to trust someone or to explain what trust is. It is almost impossible to describe a concept like trust or love because even though everyone knows what it means to them it is more of a feeling than it is something concrete. Not only can we not accurately describe an emotional concept but it is possible that we don’t even know what the word means in the sense of its definition. It is kind of like trying to describe a color. I may think my shirt is purple but you may think it is more blue. But since we can’t really define the difference, and we can’t really know if the other is seeing the same color because of the limits of sight, we won’t know if what is purple to me is what is purple to you. I know this brings in a philosophical idea of the limits of perception but I think that is the main reason why words limit us no matter what language they are in.
In the “Imagined Communities” article the writer points out Marco Polo’s use of the term “truest rather than true” when referring to the Christian faith. Although Anderson is contextualizing this comparison in terms of “the seeds of a territorialization of faiths”, I think it’s just interesting that adding a “st” to a word can make such a big difference in its meaning. “True” is absolute where “truest” leaves room for doubt and indicates that there is still something more true. In this way English is limited by the interpretation of its meaning. For someone whose first language is not English( and many whose first language is English) there may not be a difference between the words “true” and ”truest” , but for someone like Anderson the difference is very significant.
The way in which we use language is also limited. Someone in class used the word “gay” and it brought up an interesting point. Some words meanings evolve over time. The word gay when used as an adjective once meant happy and carefree. Chaucer uses it in this context when he says, “Why is my neighbor’s wife so gay.” When used as a noun it is meant to refer to a homosexual person. And now it has taken on the verb meaning used by younger people to mean something like stupid. I don’t really agree with using it in this last manner, as it is offensive to actual gay people but it is interesting to see how a words meaning can change over time.
William Dow
1/29/2009
EH241.001
The English Language
The English language is a complex thing; it has allowed the creations of beautiful works of literary art like Shakespeare’s plays, but it has also been used to created atrocities like death threats, suicide notes, and other heinous things. The English language has no limits in my opinion as I have stated it has been used to make masterpieces and death. English maybe a magpie language to call back something that was stated in class the other day but it has no limits to it. English is alive in everyone who speaks it we all have the ability to make contributions to it by adding to the lexicon everyone has made words up and more words are add to the dictionary every year. I mean if D’oh and Muggle can be add to the Oxford English Dictionary by the way for the people who don’t know D’oh is from the TV show the Simpsons and Muggle is from the popular Harry Potter series of books. I know that they are just fictional words from pop culture but they have been accepted into a dictionary and they are part of the lexicon. It just shows that English is ever expanding and wont cap for a long time.
In my life, I have yet to come across any aspect of life that could not be expressed in words. I am a fully functioning and social human being that has felt most of the emotions we feel as human beings I have felt sadness, happiness, love, depression, etc. and have never been at a loss for words. And I want to get this straight I am not talking about clinical depression I am talking about normal everyday life I am broke, my dog died, my car needs repairs type of depression. We as human beings have assigned words or phrase to match the emotions we are feeling at that time. The phrase I am at a loss for words is the dumbest thing I could hear because all it is really saying is that I cannot think of the words I need to express at this moment to match my feelings because I am shocked and surprised. Because they can always come up with something to say seconds later this language is versatile, it has the potential to form anything a mind can create as long as there vocabulary is large enough.
As I am saying this, I have concluded that the language itself can produce masterpieces. The bottom line is the speaker ultimately is the person who answers the question. The question is can someone like a Billy Wayne from the Ozarks express the thoughts of the deepest feeling of carnal love and emotion. Not in a way that everyone would be able to understand, it would most likely sound funny and somewhat stupid to someone like a John College who went to Yale who has been educated past the required level of public education. I can say with some confidence that in any form of English whether it is Billy Wayne from the Ozarks form or John College who went to Yale’s form it can express the emotions necessary to them.
Caleb Ashey
EH241 Adam Crowley
1-28-09
The English Language
I think the English language has a few limitations. For one I believe that since we are a powerfull nation, other minorities tend to learn our language to suit our needs instead of the other way around. I think that everyone that comes here is expected to learn our language, even though there are so many dialects to learn. Which is another problem with the English language, our country is such a melting pot that people have changed and warped the language to meet there own needs. Thus forming several dialects and accents with just one language. Also in our language you can use so many words to describe one thing. That plays into a persons vocabulary, sometimes people use words that another doesn’t understand. But I think that’s a problem that many different languages have, not just English. Getting back into the dialects, Europe and Australia have different versions of English than we do. So sometimes people can be confused using the same language but different words with different combinations, you think you could be saying one thing but to them you’re saying something that is completely different. Another limitation is that there are only a handful of languages that follow our same grammar rules. German I believe being the closest, but I could be wrong. So it makes it hard for a person who has grown up speaking English all his life to try and learn a completely new language. Take for instance Spanish. There sentence structure is completely different than the English language, learning words is easy, but putting them into sentences is difficult.
I believe that there are something’s that can’t be described in any language. Love for one thing I don’t believe can be described at all. It is way to complex an emotion to put into words. And love feels differently for every person that experiences it, so one person’s definition of love can be way different than another person’s definition of love. There are also so many variations of love that the word itself is mistaken a lot. A love for a pet is different than a love for a spouse. But young kids do not understand that there can be differences in love. I think that is why teenagers have a hard time with the concept. I also believe that faith is another thing that can’t be put into words. There are many different levels of faith so once again ones person’s beliefs of faith are different than another person.
EH 241
The limits in English are not necessarily just in words, but in thought. In other words, much of the thought process is affected by how one thinks in words. I sometimes find the English language restricting in those ways because it does not allow one to think beyond literacy. While many view the illiterate as unintelligent, I believe one’s mind can be freed from the constant literate pattern that everyone processes in. If we begin to function without literacy, I believe we can actually learn a lot more about our world than we already do (not to say that literacy has not taught us a lot to begin with). With that aside, English communication may be considered limiting because in comparison to Chinese, English has less characters in the alphabet, therefore offering less combinations. I also find it restricting because it often uses Latin to name unknown species, ideas or objects instead of using a “concocted” English word. Any language, however, can be restricting for these reasons and many others.
In relation, there are many aspects of the human experience which I find can be difficult or impossible to put into words. When one has to say “well I just know, but it’s unexplainable,” or “well you’ll just have to see it for yourself to know what I’m talking about,” then yes there are some obvious complications in communicating some experiences. For instance, I often find it hard to explain my theories of the Universe, or ideas about how God can exist to someone who thinks utterly different than I do. I often depend on someone having the same thought process that I do, but even that, sometimes, is frustrating because I never know if they truly understand what I am saying. For instance, how can you explain to people that the Universe is infinite and unending (not necessarily my belief) when you have no physical evidence to back up your theory? All one can do is speak comparatively to what people already understand. Yet, that is not necessarily to be blamed on the English language, nor any language for that matter. That just comes down to what we know versus what we may eventually learn out of experience. I highly believe there are some forms of communication we have not yet harnessed, because there are so many things that cannot be understood through tongue. The mind itself does not operate in language, but rather by energy. The mind operates with thousands of microbursts of electricity running through nerves and brain matter. The mind processes under these circumstances and was not made to operate through language. Language is merely a catalyst for knowledge to transfer between beings. So, how much smarter could we be if we could think without language and still somehow share our intelligence via some other method? For instance, what if our minds operated like computers where all we had to do was download other people’s experiences into our memory? We would certainly gain lots of immediate intelligence and I think develop a new language using some sort of extra-sensory method. I’m not saying like telepathic communication, but I mean everyone would know what each other wanted to say and therefore find no need to communicate, which could get boring. So, while some may complain about the restrictions of communication, we must also remember that if we knew everything and could do everything the way we wanted, life would not be interesting because all the problems would be solved. Life, instead, would be spent pondering rather than interacting.
Gavin Kennedy
Eh 241 Adam Crowley
Jan 28, 2009
One of the greatest flaws of any language is interpretation. Every single person has a different interpretation of the language they use and receive. When a person says love they conjure up pictures in their mind of what love is to them and when trying to describe it to another they pull up their own meaning of love, sometimes they can be two completely different things and meaning is lost in the transaction. Words are just ways humans try to further make sense of the world, I doubt it will ever be an exact science but only time will tell if the human race can perfect this intangible object named language.
Language is like a living organism in a Darwin environment, the survival of the fittest is the rule of law. Only the strongest and most apt languages end up surviving, languages have died out, reformed, evolved and stood the test of time. When a language evolves it undoubtedly gains but loses and alienates the older generations of people that spoke it. Languages don’t die easily, the seem to burn out slowly, Latin struggled and tried to rear its head through religion and being “Gods” language, effectively causing fear to keep itself alive.
English, as well as other languages, is hard pressed to express intangible concepts. Love in all its forms is a hard thing to express, unconditional love, romantic love, lustful feelings. They differ from person to person, language to language, gender to gender, all these differences just muddle and complicate things. The feelings of sorrow and pain, physical and emotional, having being perplexing poets for generations, have been the focus of many books, tragedies, plays, movies, and other mediums of trying to understand.
A big problem with languages, English in particular, is the evolving meaning of words, they change and reform to mean sometimes completely different things. Slang is adapted and brought into regular and accepted language, people are using tech talk to actually communicate verbally, saying things like “BRB: to mean be right back, condensing and streamlining language that if you were not privy to the meaning then you are going to be completely lost.
For all it’s proposed shortcomings I believe that English can get the point across, as best as any language can. There will always be loses in translation, within the same language as well as across language barriers. There will always be a gap that can never really be filled, little holes were “truest” meaning is leaked through. I personally never have had a hard time conveying meaning to people, being literate enough to at least get a basic principle across. And that is what I think English excels at, trying to bring standard and form to language, make it as universal as possible, but then again, even in English there are different dialects, for lack of a better word.
Leah Gomes
30 January 2009
Adam Crowley
Limits of Communication
What are the limits of English communication? I don’t think that communication has much to do with how well you can speak English. I think you can have just as good of a conversation with a third grader as you can with the CEO of a company. Sure, the topics and word choices will be completely different, but they both have the ability to communicate. I have found that people who have a greater vocabulary tend to have a harder time getting their point across to other people, struggling for exactly the right word. Young children don’t care about using a more “intelligent” word; they just want to talk to you. I think that it is the individual’s fault if there is a limit of communication. In some jobs you have to learn the lingo, or there will be problems.
Today, there is so much texting and IMing that sometimes teenagers (especially) forget that other generations don’t understand all the phrases and acronyms. But I have learned to have two different ways of communicating: one for my friends and another one for my coworkers and family. I think that this is a communication skill that some people need to learn. However, some people put on airs and refuse to try to communicate with people. I think that it is up to each individual person to try their best to communicate with everyone around them. It isn’t always easy, but there is no reason that there should be a limit, even when English is always changing. Some people may have to improve their English and some may need to cut back on the jargon.
What aspects of human experience do you think are simply too complicated to be put into words? I think that there are certain emotions that are hard for people to communicate to others. I think that this is why people who have been through hard times, find it easier to talk with someone who has been in the same situation. That way, there really is no need for words. Communicating feelings is easier for some people than it is for others, not because they are better communicators, but probably because they are able to sort things out and stay calm. When trying to communicate a feeling, your feelings tend to get in the way. I think this is the reason why people get frustrated, or shy away from talking about their feelings.
Benjamin McGray
EH 241
Adam Crowley
January 29, 2009
When considering the limitations of communication with the English language, and comparing it to those of the languages of other nations and cultures, one could argue that they are relatively few. The limitations that do exist are almost exclusively due to the variance that exists between both region and age. The English that is spoken in the United States of America is much different than that which is spoken in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and all of the aforementioned are different still than that which is spoken in Australia and New Zealand. Furthermore, when stepping away from the macro and looking at the micro, language between different regions within these countries is different as well. To exemplify this I challenge anyone from Maine to go to California (or any other state) and try to order an “italian” at a restaurant. If you’re from the mid-west, try coming into Maine, walk into a corner store and ask where they keep the “pop” (referring to soda). You will probably be taken to the ice cream section. And if you want evidence of variation between age groups, walk up to a person over seventy years old and ask when the last time they synced their i-pod was? Or if they need help updating their firewall. I rest my case.
Now, as I mentioned before these hold-ups in communication are comparatively few. The reason for this is because of the “modge-podged” nature of the English language. Drawing on what we discussed in class, English is a language that takes it form from the contributions of a variety of other languages, not to mentioned that it is largely Latin based as well (like a number of other languages). This gives it a unique advantage in interlingual communications. Therefore communication with the English language is actually fairly strong.
There are certainly some aspects of human experience that English falls short of being able to express, things that are “beyond words” so to speak. Again, though, this is not uncommon among other languages as well. These experiences are typically those that are at the extreme poles of life’s spectrum, that is to say experiences of profound joy as well as devastating tragedy. In other words, they are things that need to be experienced to be able to comprehend them. For example the feeling a mother gets when her child is born (postpartum depression excluded), a feeling of instant unconditional love. Another more specific example would be being able to step onto the surface of the moon and watching the earth come up over the horizon. I think of the experience that Jim Lovell had when he was orbiting the moon and stuck his thumb up and seeing that it covered the entire earth he then commented on the strange feeling it was to have his whole reality or existence, everything he has ever known, behind his thumb. On the other side of the spectrum, the experience of having to suffer through the Holocaust, or losing your entire family in an accident. These things are also beyond words to people who have never experienced them.
That being said, I feel that English is a strong language when it comes to both communication and expression. This is because of it’s diverse origins as I have said before. This allows, for times when there might not be words to express something in English, to take words from other cultures and integrate them fairly easily. I’m not sure this can be said about any other language.
Kristen Porter
Jan 30th 2009
EH 241
Major British Writers
I believe the English language is full of boundaries and limitations. The United States is such a huge country with so many cultural influences, the language here can never really be defined. There are so many different versions of English in this country, ranging from the part of the country you live in, to immigrants learning the language, that all Americans interpet the English language in their own way. Even other countries that speak English such as England, South Africa, and China, do not speak the same language as what we the people speak in America.
Some of the limitations of the language include, how people think is not a direct speaking thought. There are various words that can be used to describe or depict something, which makes the language so complicated in itself. The English language also uses words that have Greek, or Latin roots. Even concept words, like love, sympathy, or trust, are words that cannot be described because everyone feels them differently. Concept words are just more complications in the language. The use of “slang” vocabulary; also brings up an interesting point. How does one describe a slang word? If someone says something is “cool” clearly it cannot be cool to touch or in a cool atmosphere, but how does one describe a slang term? There is no real way to describe anything.
Everyone in this country, or in other countries in the world that speak English, have their own interpretation of what words actually mean. Words can have definitions and meanings, but how the terminology is used in context is what changes the language for each individual. Even in writing what is written will not be the same thing said when read aloud. The words on paper, and the words that come out of someone’s mouth will not be a perfect fit to one another. Different dialects, accents, and second language barriers are what we deal with when we speak the language.
Kacey Beckwith
February 3, 2009
EH 241 Major British Writers
Professor Crowley
I don’t really think that there are many limits in English communication at all. I think when an individual encounters a limit, it is because of their own communication limitations, or the limitations which have been made because of the human race, and not because of a limitation on the language as a whole. Language can be spoken similarly, but the meaning could be drastically different, or a word that used to mean something oftentimes doesn’t seem to mean the same thing anymore. Therefore, limitations are made.
I think a major problem that people often encounter with language is how to put certain things into words. A good example is one’s feelings. If a person is trying to express a strong feeling, oftentimes, they can feel as though there are no words to describe it. However, I don’t think this is true. Many words are overused and therefore their meaning has been compromised. For instance, the words “love” and “forever”. When a person uses the word “love” in today’s time, they often use it in many different forms. Love can be expressed for an object as if it is just another word, and many people do this. Therefore, when a person is trying to express their love for someone, the word can often feel tainted or as if it’s meaning isn’t strong enough. The same is true for the word “forever”. It seems as though most people have trouble grasping the concept of forever, however the word is used quite often in everyday discussions. People say “I’m going to be with you forever”, but can two people really be together forever? Forever implies a never-ending point in time, and because it is used in such common and seemingly inappropriate forms, the meaning has been changed drastically. Therefore, these two words, along with many others, have lost a sense of what they truly should mean.
I don’t think that there are any real limitations when it comes to any language. It seems that the problem comes when people encounter the language and make changes in meaning and words themselves. Many times, the right word and way to express anything is out there, they have just been compromised because of the way humans have interacted with them.