As to the changes we see in both English and Thai, here is an excerpt quoted by Bryan Garner as part of his daily email, "Garner's Usage Tip of the Day" from Oxford University Press:

"English is not static -- neither in vocabulary nor in grammar . . . . Grammar and punctuation defy all the efforts of grammarians to force them into the mould of a permanent code of rules. Old words drop out or change their meanings; new words are admitted. What was stigmatised by the purists of one generation as a corruption of the language may a few generations later be accepted as an enrichment; and what was then common currency may have become a pompous archaism, or acquired a new significance." Sir Ernest Gowers, The Complete Plain Words 48 (1954; repr. 1964)."

We see this phenomenon in English with the SMS language becoming an increasing instrument of communications in this forum and others, and in Thai with the increasing use of slang, Englishisms, contractions, novel spellings, and new expressiveness in this most flexible of media. We can only try to catch up or attempt to stick with the official language. It is interesting to see the diversity of approaches many of the users of this webboard are taking towards their language acquisition process.

An easy way a layman can put language changes into perspective is to look at how your grandparents talked, parents talk & guage that against how your contempories talk.

The most recognisable changes are, in my opinion, in profanity & slang, which language pureists may argue as not being important to the main body of a language.

An easy way a layman can put language changes into perspective is to look at how your grandparents talked, parents talk & guage that against how your contempories talk.

The most recognisable changes are, in my opinion, in profanity & slang, which language pureists may argue as not being important to the main body of a language.

Another area is when technical words take on new meaning from misuse by people who don't know the true meaning. As a philosophy major one that has always bothered me is "to beg the question." To a philosopher it is a logical fallacy meaning that a statement makes an assumption that the same statement is true to prove the very same argument. Whereas, in common day speech it's taken on the meaning of one question bringing to mind or bringing up others. I looked up a website real quickly that explains things more clearly (http://begthequestion.info/).

Should we accept the new meaning of the word at the risk of losing the old or should linguists attempt to prevent the changing of a words meaning through its misuse?

An easy way a layman can put language changes into perspective is to look at how your grandparents talked, parents talk & guage that against how your contempories talk.

The most recognisable changes are, in my opinion, in profanity & slang, which language pureists may argue as not being important to the main body of a language.

Another area is when technical words take on new meaning from misuse by people who don't know the true meaning. As a philosophy major one that has always bothered me is "to beg the question." To a philosopher it is a logical fallacy meaning that a statement makes an assumption that the same statement is true to prove the very same argument. Whereas, in common day speech it's taken on the meaning of one question bringing to mind or bringing up others. I looked up a website real quickly that explains things more clearly (http://begthequestion.info/).

Should we accept the new meaning of the word at the risk of losing the old or should linguists attempt to prevent the changing of a words meaning through its misuse?

How about the many, many nautical terms which have become part of our everyday language. For most of them, English speakers do not know the origins. For example, "as the crow flies", "to have someone over a barrel", "to pipe down", "three sheets to the wind", "in the offing", and "to the bitter end". Thai metaphors, as we have seen, are mainly agricultural and rural in origin.