I t seems like every time a new word or phrase, especially one from the internet, begins to enter the common vernacular, a hue and cry is sent up over the supposed decline of the English language. Before I get into that, however, consider – when was the last time you said the word “‘tis” in conversation? Like the short form of “it is?”

Odds are that it was sometime around last December, in the phrase “‘tis the season.” In fact, if you were to tally up all the times you had ever said the word ’tis, I would bet that the vast majority – with perhaps the exception of one or two quotes from archaic poems – would be as a part of the phrase.

Aside from one phrase, typically said at one time of the year, the word “tis” has almost completely vanished from the common vernacular. It exists in this strange space between totally obsolete and commonly used. Language is bizarre. It’s really only going to get more bizarre as time passes, from our perspective. Consider all the daily colloquialisms you use that would have been unimaginable years ago – “internet” and “iPhone” or “twitter” or “facebook” or “snapchat.” If we really wanted to maintain purity in language, we’d have a lot to get rid of.

Language adapts. It has to, really; to insist on maintaining a pure, exact form over time will inevitably do a disservice both to the language and the speakers of it. That isn’t to say that the process is always a smooth one.

Take for example the recent trend towards integrating more gender neutrality into English. I’ve seen a few complaints over the rise of the singular “they” pronoun as opposed to he or she, or how a few countries now offer “Mx.” as a title right alongside “Ms.” and “Mr.” on official documentation for those who identify outside the male-female binary.

Of course, there are also angry essays recorded from the late 17th century when “thou” as the singular form of “you” was phased out and scolding letters to the editor from the late 1960s when “Ms.” became a thing in the first place. So none of that is new.

You could argue against the singular they, but then you’d probably have to go back and argue against the singular you, and probably the use of “you” instead of whichever German word started it. Once that was finished, you would have to erase the word “y’all” from the common vernacular because there wouldn’t be a need for it anymore, and what kind of tidy language tolerates such redundancy?

And once that was all finished, those truly invested in the purity of language would have to repeat the process for just about every other word in English. Oh, and we would have to get used to calling those white floaty things that go “boo!” gosts – that was the original word before Flemish printers moved to England and started circulating copies of the Bible with an ‘h’ after “g” because that was how gwords worked in Flemish.

It really is just better to go with the changing times and vernacular. Certainly a lot less work.

Language adapts. And ‘tis it not more interesting when it does?

— Nina Collay is a senior at Thornton Academy who can frequently be found listening to music, reading, wrestling with a heavy cello case, or poking at the keyboard of an uncooperative laptop.