|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Less and fewer
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
quote:
Originally posted by Shubenacadie:
A few years ago I remember it being reported on the radio that the OED (or some such) had said (as descriptivists) that the non-literal use of use 'literally' as an intensifier was now acceptable (a change for the worse in my view -- what are you supposed to say when you really do mean 'literally'?).
The problem is that a frequent use of 'literally' is not as intensifier but as a synonym for 'figuratively'. For instance, a teenager complaining about having to climb a hill:
quote:
I literally died!
This isn't a problem; amazingly we still understand people when they do this.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
quote:
Originally posted by Shubenacadie:
A few years ago I remember it being reported on the radio that the OED (or some such) had said (as descriptivists) that the non-literal use of use 'literally' as an intensifier was now acceptable (a change for the worse in my view -- what are you supposed to say when you really do mean 'literally'?).
The problem is that a frequent use of 'literally' is not as intensifier but as a synonym for 'figuratively'. For instance, a teenager complaining about having to climb a hill:
quote:
I literally died!
This isn't a problem; amazingly we still understand people when they do this.
Part of what I was attempting to say is that 'literally' here does not appear to be an intensifier.
It is obvious that "I literally died" does not mean that the person who said that had died. However, what about:
- I'm literally dying
- Climbing the hill, he literally died
- I went to a comedy club and one of the comedians literally died on stage.
The last illustrates a case where 'died' could be taken figuratively, and so 'literally' eliminates the figurative meaning.
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
It is obvious that "I literally died" does not mean that the person who said that had died. However, what about:
When my friend who was in cardiac arrest for 2-3 minutes, and was resuscitated by a colleague who knew how to use an AED, tells his story, he says "I literally died" to mean exactly that.
So perhaps it's not always obvious ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
(With respect to your last comment, I was watching the live TV broadcast when Tommy Cooper died on stage. Like many people, I thought it was part of his act.)
[ 17. January 2018, 14:40: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
quote:
Originally posted by Shubenacadie:
A few years ago I remember it being reported on the radio that the OED (or some such) had said (as descriptivists) that the non-literal use of use 'literally' as an intensifier was now acceptable (a change for the worse in my view -- what are you supposed to say when you really do mean 'literally'?).
The problem is that a frequent use of 'literally' is not as intensifier but as a synonym for 'figuratively'. For instance, a teenager complaining about having to climb a hill:
quote:
I literally died!
This isn't a problem; amazingly we still understand people when they do this.
Part of what I was attempting to say is that 'literally' here does not appear to be an intensifier.
It is obvious that "I literally died" does not mean that the person who said that had died. However, what about:
- I'm literally dying
- Climbing the hill, he literally died
- I went to a comedy club and one of the comedians literally died on stage.
The last illustrates a case where 'died' could be taken figuratively, and so 'literally' eliminates the figurative meaning.
Yeah, there's some posh name for words which can mean almost opposites of themselves. Thing is, 99% of the time the usage of "literally" is unambiguous. Literally is indeed used figuratively as well as a mere intensifier. In a way, all intensifier uses are in fact figurative as they are not, erm, literal.
There really is no point in standing Canute-like against the tide which is usage. People will find ways of avoiding ambiguity when they need to. The literal meaning of literally can also be expressed by "actually". You may not like it, but I reckon that most UK English speakers would say "The comedian actually died on the stage!" if they thought "literally" ambiguous. It's what I'd say.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
People will find ways of avoiding ambiguity when they need to.
With a modicum of education, they needn't have to do this as often. IIRC, you are one of the techs-savy Shippies. When the technically illiterate speak to you about their computers, have you never experienced frustration in their lack of proper use of terminology? The first time someone asked me for recommendation on replacing their CPU, I spent time researching one that would work in their system to then realise that they meant computer.
quote:
You may not like it, but I reckon that most UK English speakers would say "The comedian actually died on the stage!" if they thought "literally" ambiguous. It's what I'd say.
Actually can be as ambigous as literally. In usage, the two are fairly interchangeable.
quote:
There really is no point in standing Canute-like against the tide which is usage.
Language will change. A standard slows that down to something manageable.
And why should we gracefully let go wonderful words that are beautifully communicative if one understands how to use them. Like irony. There literally isn't a replacement word.
Now, through ignorance, it means just about anything, therefore almost nothing. It is no more descriptive or fuctional than innit.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
People will find ways of avoiding ambiguity when they need to.
With a modicum of education, they needn't have to do this as often. IIRC, you are one of the techs-savy Shippies. When the technically illiterate speak to you about their computers, have you never experienced frustration in their lack of proper use of terminology? The first time someone asked me for recommendation on replacing their CPU, I spent time researching one that would work in their system to then realise that they meant computer.
Yes, but two points - 1. I come across as an insufferable arsehole if I point out to people that "CPU" (or, worse, "modem) doesn't mean the box under their monitor, and 2. no amount of pointing it out ever actually makes any difference anyway. You'll end up working out what the hell they mean anyway.
quote:
quote:
You may not like it, but I reckon that most UK English speakers would say "The comedian actually died on the stage!" if they thought "literally" ambiguous. It's what I'd say.
Actually can be as ambigous as literally. In usage, the two are fairly interchangeable.
quote:
There really is no point in standing Canute-like against the tide which is usage.
Language will change. A standard slows that down to something manageable.
And why should we gracefully let go wonderful words that are beautifully communicative if one understands how to use them. Like irony. There literally isn't a replacement word.
Now, through ignorance, it means just about anything, therefore almost nothing. It is no more descriptive or fuctional than innit.
You are doomed to failure. As old words change meaning, new words arise. You can rail against it if you like, but you might as well whine that it gets cold in Winter.
All you achieve is coming over all superior and cleverer than the person you're talking to.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
wabale
Shipmate
# 18715
|
Posted
Some time ago I bought ‘Good English’ by G.H.Vallins, followed by ‘Better English, and ‘the Best English’. The lack of a capital ‘T’ on the cover page of ‘the best English’ presumably didn’t concern the author, though I wonder what he might have made of the modern confusion over ‘better’ and ‘best’ one sometimes hears on the tele. He drew a fine line between ‘correct’ English and ‘usage’, which I found useful, and it probably still works in principle today.
I can recall a Deputy Head in a Basildon school telling a student that ‘Report English’ was a ‘dialect’ - I think that was the word he used. He needed to learn this dialect for the job market. The implication was that there was nothing wrong with the student’s own everyday language.
If you’re writing technical reports, or speaking English whilst piloting an airliner, you need to be as precise as possible. But, apart from life-or-death situations, and other situations where precision is required, it shouldn’t, in my opinion, become an occasion for a kind of moral judgement. A few years ago I tutored an adult, an extremely capable person, who as part of her job had to write reports for clients. As a put-down, her boss ridiculed her English mistakes. Having read a couple of her reports I’m confident the clients wouldn’t actually have noticed. She was an extremely conscientious person, and I really hope that after she had read a book or two she felt able to turn the tables on her boss!
Posts: 74 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Yes, but two points - 1. I come across as an insufferable arsehole if I point out to people that "CPU" (or, worse, "modem) doesn't mean the box under their monitor,
I find if I, politely and humorously, explain why it matters that we communicate effectively, there is no animosity. And it is a two way street, communication is. As is my helping someone. If they wish me to make an effort on their behalf, it isn't unreasonable for me to expect an effort on their part.
quote:
and 2. no amount of pointing it out ever actually makes any difference anyway. You'll end up working out what the hell they mean anyway.
With extra time and effort. It is annoying to have to ask them to carefully explain what they are talking about, I don't wish to have to do this with everyday conversation Every. Single. Time.
quote:
You are doomed to failure. As old words change meaning, new words arise. You can rail against it if you like, but you might as well whine that it gets cold in Winter.
You missed what I was saying. If it helps, working towards the standard is like buying a coat for the cold of winter. Pretending a standard is unnecessary is like walking into the snow naked and having your bits freeze off.
quote:
All you achieve is coming over all superior and cleverer than the person you're talking to.
This is where human interaction is key. How one discusses word usage can mitigate correction. In fact, one shouldn't do it as a correction. Having a conversation works better.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Or you can just let it go.
Not sure why ignorance is superior to knowledge. Or why one person's right to abuse a language is greater than another person's to not.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wabale:
But, apart from life-or-death situations, and other situations where precision is required, it shouldn’t, in my opinion, become an occasion for a kind of moral judgement.
I find myself often rather busy these days. Given that I have many different calls on my time, if you want something from me, it is courteous for you to communicate your needs in an efficient manner. That requires both precision and brevity on your part.
Fairly high up my list of minor everyday irritations are people who stop me when I'm in the middle of doing something (I'm always in the middle of doing something) with some simple request, but launch in to some laboriously-presented five minute story to ask a thirty second question.
[ 17. January 2018, 19:47: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Or you can just let it go.
Not sure why ignorance is superior to knowledge. Or why one person's right to abuse a language is greater than another person's to not.
There's a right to abuse a language, or a right not to be subjected to abuse of the language?
And innocently using the wrong word or term (like "CPU"*) is an "abuse"?
* I’ll admit ignorance. What is the correct term?
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Or you can just let it go.
Not sure why ignorance is superior to knowledge. Or why one person's right to abuse a language is greater than another person's to not.
I think the problem is categorising other people's usages as "abuse".
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
There's a right to abuse a language, or a right not to be subjected to abuse of the language?
I think there is a right for both. My preference is for people to know what the proper use is, not that they be restricted to it.
quote:
And innocently using the wrong word or term (like "CPU"*) is an "abuse"?
* I’ll admit ignorance. What is the correct term?
Computer. The box containing the electronic parts is a computer. Inside that box is the Central Processing Unit which is, essentially, the brain of the computer.
The misuse of the terminology makes communication difficult. Why is knowing the basic terminology of the tools one uses an imposition? It should be the default.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Or you can just let it go.
Not sure why ignorance is superior to knowledge. Or why one person's right to abuse a language is greater than another person's to not.
I think the problem is categorising other people's usages as "abuse".
It is abuse. One of the definitions of abuse is misuse. If it helps, I'll switch to misuse.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Look, where technical terms are concerned, I grant you there's specific definitions for these things.
But the main thrust of this thread is people getting their panties wet about "less" and "fewer". And in this case it's not misuse; it's established use. It just doesn't match up to a largely artificial distinction from 18th Century grammarians. Ditto figuratively used "literally". Ditto split infinitives. Ditto sentence final prepositions. Ditto use of "whom". Ditto just about every other shibboleth that the language mavens get all worked up about.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
There's a right to abuse a language, or a right not to be subjected to abuse of the language?
I think there is a right for both.
On what basis can either be called a "right"?
quote:
The misuse of the terminology makes communication difficult. Why is knowing the basic terminology of the tools one uses an imposition? It should be the default.
Thanks for the clarification on CPU.*
I never said it’s an imposition to know the correct terminology. I questioned why innocently getting the term wrong—especially when it’s something that lots of people get it wrong—is an "abuse" of anyone's "rights." (ETA: I cross-posted with your switch to "misuse." That is much better. I still find the claim of a "right" somewhat bizarre, though.)
*BTW, it was my department's IT people who some years ago corrected me when I referred to that box as the "computer" and told me that the correct term is "CPU." So . . . .
[ 17. January 2018, 20:41: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But the main thrust of this thread is people getting their panties wet about "less" and "fewer".
OK, you used that wrong.
quote:
And in this case it's not misuse;
But I am not arguing that case. I have been mostly commenting on the broader issue of standard v. not having a standard.
With a side of how misuse of words isn't always neutral.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
On what basis can either be called a "right"?
Karl seemed to be implying that the burden to deal was with those who prefer proper terminology/word use. Not sure what word to use at the moment.
quote:
*BTW, it was my department's IT people who some years ago corrected me when I referred to that box as the "computer" and told me that the correct term is "CPU." So . . . .
Don't get me started on IT people.No, not all of them. But some think a piece of paper from Microsoft or a course at a polytechnic means more than it does.
IME, the problem started when marketers began to use CPU to mean computer. Some IT people went in the same direction. Whether because it was easy or out of ignorance likely varies.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Karl seemed to be implying that the burden to deal was with those who prefer proper terminology/word use. Not sure what word to use at the moment.
I'd probably go with saying that I have a hope that people will speak "properly" (whatever that means in context) and perhaps, in certain cases, can have a reasonable expectation that they will. When my hopes and expectations are not realized, I’ll cope with it, likely with little or no effort required, and sometimes with a private chuckle. I'll only correct someone if I’m in a position where it's appropriate for me to do so, such as with my children, employees I supervise or students I’m teaching.
In the rare instance where I really can't tell what the other person means, I’ll ask questions to figure it out, and I’ll rely on the tenor of the conversation to decide whether saying something like "for future reference, this is called the x" would be appreciated, would seem pedantic or critical, or would likely be forgotten in 5 minutes.
quote:
IME, the problem started when marketers began to use CPU to mean computer. Some IT people went in the same direction. Whether because it was easy or out of ignorance likely varies.
But see the problem? People are possibly subject to impatience and criticism for using the wrong term, when all they’re doing is using what those in a better position to know have told them is the correct term. I suspect my patience would wear thin when all I want is my computer/CPU working again.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Seems to me there are three possible positions here.
1. There is no such thing as an error in use of language. There is only successful and unsuccessful communication of meaning.
2. If an individual does it, it's an error. If a community does it, it's not an error, it's a feature of the way they speak.
3. People can get it wrong, both individually and collectively, although when we're talking about language the reference point is established majority usage (rather than any fixed or inherently-right usage).
Take your pick...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But see the problem? People are possibly subject to impatience and criticism for using the wrong term, when all they’re doing is using what those in a better position to know have told them is the correct term. I suspect my patience would wear thin when all I want is my computer/CPU working again.
You wanna compare frustrations?
Friend: lilB, my CPU is broken, I need a new one, can you advise?
Me: Sure. You have a (x) brand, right? What is the model?
Friend: Don't know. (x) 27"?
Me. No, that is the monitor model. Look on the case for a label.
Friend:It is ##-##-###
Me: OK, I'll give a look and let you know.
(Later)
Me: I sent you some links for CPUs that will work in your computer.
Them: lilB, those are electrical bits.
Me: Those are CPUs.
Them: No, I need the whole CPU.
Me: What are you talking about? Those are whole CPUs.
Them: I sent you a pic.
Me: That is a computer. OK, what is wrong with it?
Friend: Well, it doesn't...
And that is just one of the words that causes problems.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But see the problem? People are possibly subject to impatience and criticism for using the wrong term, when all they’re doing is using what those in a better position to know have told them is the correct term. I suspect my patience would wear thin when all I want is my computer/CPU working again.
You wanna compare frustrations?
Friend: lilB, my CPU is broken, I need a new one, can you advise?
Me: Sure. You have a (x) brand, right? What is the model?
Friend: Don't know. (x) 27"?
Me. No, that is the monitor model. Look on the case for a label.
Friend:It is ##-##-###
Me: OK, I'll give a look and let you know.
(Later)
Me: I sent you some links for CPUs that will work in your computer.
Them: lilB, those are electrical bits.
Me: Those are CPUs.
Them: No, I need the whole CPU.
Me: What are you talking about? Those are whole CPUs.
Them: I sent you a pic.
Me: That is a computer. OK, what is wrong with it?
Friend: Well, it doesn't...
And that is just one of the words that causes problems.
It's only causing a problem because you are insisting on the use of the correct term. Once it becomes clear that your friend doesn’t understand the difference between computer and CPU—which is a very common thing to encounter, I’d guess—you have two choices:
• Say "time out, let's make sure we both know what we're talking about so we can get to the problem more quickly. The CPU is . . ., and the computer is . . . ." Then once that’s sorted out, deal with the problem. Or
• Accept that your friend doesn’t know the right words and translate in your head, which in my experience is the option the leads to the quickest resolution of the problem.
I do the latter all the time with family and friends in discussions on things legal. Unless it matters that they know and use the right term, and as long as I know what they mean, I usually see no need to correct them.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
You understand that was a synopsis, not a verbatim conversation? And that people use computers on a daily basis, but not the law?
[ 18. January 2018, 05:41: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
quote:
From Nick Tamen • Accept that your friend doesn’t know the right words and translate in your head, which in my experience is the option the leads to the quickest resolution of the problem.
That only works well when your 'Babel Fish' is properly functioning. If you have a dysfunctional 'Babel Fish' you will make wrong assumptions on the matter of what YOU think the speaker should mean and what the speaker actually understands themselves to mean. In other words you are in the realm of 'assumption' rather than accurate communication. That is when option one of your suggestions is the only viable option. It slows comprehension and annoys the ignorant, who assume you are just being pedantic, but at least it ensures accurate communication, which is what language is supposed to do.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Look, where technical terms are concerned, I grant you there's specific definitions for these things.
But the main thrust of this thread is people getting their panties wet about "less" and "fewer". And in this case it's not misuse; it's established use. It just doesn't match up to a largely artificial distinction from 18th Century grammarians. Ditto figuratively used "literally". Ditto split infinitives. Ditto sentence final prepositions. Ditto use of "whom". Ditto just about every other shibboleth that the language mavens get all worked up about.
That's pretty much it. There is also the issue of dialects, which I think is very important. I suspect that some dialects have used 'less' with plural nouns for a very long time, and now they are wrong? It's like saying that Cockney is a barbaric pronunciation of English.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Karl wrote:
quote:
There is a hypothesis, gaining traction, that this is how Middle English arose. There is a vast gulf between the highly inflected synthetic Old English and the largely uninflected analytic Middle English (which resembles Modern English far more closely than it does its immediate ancestor). The problem is not that English lost its inflections (so have Norwegian and Swedish and, in the main, German) but the speed with which this appears to have happened. The hypothesis is that the written, literary Old English of Beowulf and Alfred the Great was the language brought over the North Sea by the Anglo-Saxons, but on the ground, as it was adopted by the native British (previously Latin or Celtic speaking), their imperfect grasp of the language, especially its inflections (both Vulgar Latin and British Celtic of this period were losing inflection) could have resulted in a weakening of the noun and adjective case system, so the language of common discourse became far more analytical, whilst the scholarly written language of the Anglo-Saxon overlords remained more conservative.
I think this is part of the argument for English being a creole. These tend to happen when languages hybridize, and in addition, a simplified version arises - pidgin. This is used for business, trade, and so on, but sometimes becomes the first language for some people. This is a creole.
So we see the disappearance of inflections in English, for example, if you conjugate 'walk' in the present tense, you see this, with the exception of the 'he' form, 'he walks'. But I/you/we/they - walk.
However, this is still (as far as I can see), an insufficient argument that English is a creole, although it is certainly a hybrid. I guess it starts to get rather technical.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I should add that this is one particular description of how creoles evolve - the so-called 'life-cycle' argument. There are others, which don't involve the pidgin phase.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You understand that was a synopsis, not a verbatim conversation? And that people use computers on a daily basis, but not the law?
Perhaps I could have pointed out that many of the people I had in mind re law conversations are well-educated children of lawyers or judges or decades-long spouses of lawyers, so legal talk is pretty normal at home.
But seriously, there are lots of things that people use on a daily basis the components of which they very well might or might not know the right names for: cars, refrigerators, washing machines, cell phones, televisions. Shoot, even houses—we all used to roll our eyes when my engineer father would tell us that what we called the window sill was really the window stool. (I still have no clue on that one.)
I know many people use computers every day, but that hardly means they all understand the technology they’re using; I’d wager most don't. And as with so many other things, anyone who expects otherwise will likely be disappointed.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But seriously, there are lots of things that people use on a daily basis the components of which they very well might or might not know the right names for: cars, refrigerators, washing machines, cell phones, televisions.
That there are variations in names is a feature/bug of language. This doesn't negate the practicality of a standard. Instead, it accents the need. A standard lets language meander but still maintain integrity.
quote:
Shoot, even houses—we all used to roll our eyes when my engineer father would tell us that what we called the window sill was really the window stool. (I still have no clue on that one.)
The sill is the horizontal protrusion at the bottom of the window on the outside, the stool is the same on the inside.* One, potentially confusing issue is that in simpler window constructions, they are the same piece of material. And some constructions might have only one, the other or neither.
quote:
I know many people use computers every day, but that hardly means they all understand the technology they’re using; I’d wager most don't.
Much as I think people should learn about the items they use, I don't expect people to know everything. But basic knowledge helps. It helps them.
quote:
And as with so many other things, anyone who expects otherwise will likely be disappointed.
This is mistaking the likely outcome for the most beneficial outcome.
Politeness, BTW, is a tangent to this issue, not a solution.
*Not completely the same. There are overlapping functions, but not a completely identical set.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
lB, some linguists (I believe this idea emerged from the MIT dept. thereof, but can't swear to that) would suggest that the very idea of "a language" is problematic. Some research suggests each user of a language uses it in ways as unique to that individual as a fingerprint, and that what we refer to when we speak of "a language" is actually a multitudinous set of overlapping idiolects (only not quite that extreme -- I just don't know a more appropriate word for this). Such an idea makes nonsense of the notion of "standard" English.
After all, the point of using a language is to communicate, not to try to get as close as possible to some (possibly) mythical perfect version of the language. Most of us probably communicate most effectively within our own customary discourse communities. The "He think he special" sentence style used by my student is something I've encountered fairly often before. My guess is that's "standard" usage among his discourse community -- he's heard it all his life and said it all his life, and it has served him perfectly well. Will it serve him as a bank teller? A sports injury therapist or a sports scout (conceivable career choices, given his major)? A dental hygienist? A TV news anchor? An English professor? "He think he special" will probably only get seriously in his way with the last two options.
English is not about to go wandering off into chaos if we abandon the idea of a standard. Why won't it? Simple: it's still a communication device, and communication can only happen when we maintain broad agreement about word order and what "tree" means. The need to communicate will slow the rate of change and override impulses to ride the language off into the sunset.
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
lB, some linguists (I believe this idea emerged from the MIT dept. thereof, but can't swear to that) would suggest that the very idea of "a language" is problematic. Some research suggests each user of a language uses it in ways as unique to that individual as a fingerprint, and that what we refer to when we speak of "a language" is actually a multitudinous set of overlapping idiolects (only not quite that extreme -- I just don't know a more appropriate word for this). Such an idea makes nonsense of the notion of "standard" English.
Hothouse philosophy. That we can communicate effectively is proof of language despite our variations.
quote:
After all, the point of using a language is to communicate, not to try to get as close as possible to some (possibly) mythical perfect version of the language.
Not advocating for a perfect version of a language. Nor a static one. Out language isn't a static one, despite having standards that are taught. I am actually arguing for the status quo. A taught standard that has living variation.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quetzalcoatl wrote: quote:
I think this is part of the argument for English being a creole. These tend to happen when languages hybridize, and in addition, a simplified version arises - pidgin. This is used for business, trade, and so on, but sometimes becomes the first language for some people. This is a creole.
I can agree with that, although I don't think an intermediate stage of pidgin is automatic. Though thinking about it, it probably hinges on what you mean by "simplification", which looks an easy concept but probably isn't.
I've read a fairly convincing paper that argued that the road to simplification started in late early English rather than middle English (which then gave it a good shove). The northern Germanic speakers and their neighbours the western Germanic speakers, having settled their squabbles, were keen to understand each other, and their languages were close enough to make a start without a lot of effort. Still, it was citing evidence and that was the theory they advanced.
There are interesting points to be made about the emergence of middle English consequent to the fusing of the Norman overlord culture with a greater identification with their vassal state, given how crap their top-level rulers were, and vice versa no doubt.
[ 18. January 2018, 21:30: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Karl wrote: quote:
There really is no point in standing Canute-like against the tide which is usage. People will find ways of avoiding ambiguity when they need to.
I think I was with you until this point. The thing about tides is that they come in - and then they go out again.
Here's a practical test. Watch a raft of pre-war films, American or British, and the more demotic the better. There are plenty of usages that have come and gone. Maybe they served some subculture which has vanished, maybe they started sounding dated where a more classic usage seemed timeless. We can postulate all sorts of reasons. But the point is that this is not a one-way street. Absent some central authority such as the Academie Francaise in French*, there is a continuous dialogue between English users, and it hinges on matters such as intelligibility, reliability, and all the sorts of things people have raised on this thread.
So these sorts of discussions are exactly what is needed concerning a cultural good that belongs to the public, i.e. those who would seek to use English. There is no obligation on any member of the public to accept something because it is "catching on". Indeed, to assert that we should do that is itself a form of prescriptivism. And it will never stop, nor should it, as the "literally" argument illustrates.
* Yes, I know a lot of their edicts get ignored.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I concede, lilBuddha, not only because I’d gone far beyond beating a dead tangent, but because you explained the sill/stool difference better than my father ever did. It's likely useless (to me) information, but at least I know.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
Looping for a moment back to the thread title, I do like
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
Forgive me, I've barely posted in ages. I do like [url= http://https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=image+the+pedant%27s+revolt&rlz=1CDGOYI_enGB676GB676&oq=image+the+pedant%27s+revolt& aqs=chrome..69i57.23301j0j7&hl=en-GB&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=tyu-07Lt_2lFfM:]this [/url]
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shubenacadie
Shipmate
# 5796
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
...doesn’t understand the difference between computer and CPU—which is a very common thing to encounter, I’d guess...
Apologies if I'm prolonging a tangent, but I'm curious as to who uses 'CPU' to mean 'computer'. Perhaps I've led a sheltered life, but I think I've only ever heard 'CPU' used by techie-type people who presumably know what it means.
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
...there are lots of things that people use on a daily basis the components of which they very well might or might not know the right names for: cars...
But does anyone use the word 'engine' to refer to a car?
Come to think of it, they sometimes use 'motor', but I'm guessing that that originated as a contraction of 'motor car' (there's no equivalent like 'CPU machine'), and in standard English at least I would associate it with the early part of the 20th century ('motorist' of course is still common).
(To indicate where I'm coming from, I'm not very tech-savvy, but I do have a vague idea what a CPU is as part of general knowledge. I'd rarely have occasion to talk about one, though).
Posts: 58 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
I give up
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by argona:
I give up
Was this what you were looking for?
[ 18. January 2018, 23:01: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Or this?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
{sigh}. I really was trying to wrap up this tangent, or at least stop feeding it.
quote:
Originally posted by Shubenacadie:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
...doesn’t understand the difference between computer and CPU—which is a very common thing to encounter, I’d guess...
Apologies if I'm prolonging a tangent, but I'm curious as to who uses 'CPU' to mean 'computer'. Perhaps I've led a sheltered life, but I think I've only ever heard 'CPU' used by techie-type people who presumably know what it means.
In my experience, lots of people on this side of the pond, because at some point a techie-type told them that’s what the unit is "properly" called. These people might also use "computer" to mean computer/CPU+keyboard+monitor.
quote:
quote:
...there are lots of things that people use on a daily basis the components of which they very well might or might not know the right names for: cars...
But does anyone use the word 'engine' to refer to a car?
No, but over here, at least, "engine" is commonly used to refer to anything under the hood (bonnet), whether actually part of the engine or not.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
No, but over here, at least, "engine" is commonly used to refer to anything under the hood (bonnet), whether actually part of the engine or not.
Car owner says my engine isn't working and thinks "The mechanic will sort out what that means" and the mechanic thinks "Here are my holiday expenses sorted". This is part of why it benefits the owner of something to have some knowledge.
Not that all mechanics are predatory, just that if you do not have an understanding of what is happening, you have no idea which sort you are dealing with.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
No, but over here, at least, "engine" is commonly used to refer to anything under the hood (bonnet), whether actually part of the engine or not.
Car owner says my engine isn't working and thinks "The mechanic will sort out what that means" and the mechanic thinks "Here are my holiday expenses sorted". This is part of why it benefits the owner of something to have some knowledge.
Not that all mechanics are predatory, just that if you do not have an understanding of what is happening, you have no idea which sort you are dealing with.
My brother builds new buses and knows everything there is to know about cars. But many parts are now self contained units and there is no fixing them without breaking them.
This makes them much cheaper to build and much more expensive to repair.
We now have a new lease car every two years. We know what we are paying every month and there are no other costs except insurance. No car to sell at the end of it, just hand in your car and collect the new one.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
Off thread anecdote:
quote:
Car owner says my engine [heater fan] isn't working and thinks "The mechanic will sort out what that means" and the mechanic thinks "Here are my holiday expenses sorted". This is part of why it benefits the owner of something to have some knowledge.
Had a VW Golf heater fan either not going or only going full blast. Dealer quoted £250.00 to fix. Did some internet research. Problem was a thermal fuse blown. Cost £0.95 at RS Spares. Fixed it myself, (no labour charge). Total cost £2.50 including bus fare to get part.
= Dealer would have been 100 times more expensive.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by argona:
I give up
Was this what you were looking for?
No but similar, and yours is better! Thanks
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Or this?
That's the one
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
wabale
Shipmate
# 18715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by wabale:
But, apart from life-or-death situations, and other situations where precision is required, it shouldn’t, in my opinion, become an occasion for a kind of moral judgement.
I find myself often rather busy these days. Given that I have many different calls on my time, if you want something from me, it is courteous for you to communicate your needs in an efficient manner. That requires both precision and brevity on your part.
Fairly high up my list of minor everyday irritations are people who stop me when I'm in the middle of doing something (I'm always in the middle of doing something) with some simple request, but launch in to some laboriously-presented five minute story to ask a thirty second question.
Leorning Cniht
Hi, Leorning Cniht. I am all in favour of fewer words, or possibly ‘less’. I am in awe - yes really - of the linguistic knowledge deployed on this thread. However identical arguments are sometimes deployed, particularly by those who believe in rigid rules, as a form of ad hominem argument. My own ‘laboriously-presented five minute’ stories were a way of making clear I was not referring to any instance of that on the ship, but to very real arguments I have witnessed elsewhere. It was an attempted tangent, and I am sorry if you took it as just an interruption.
Posts: 74 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
