English is dead

[Hida Reju]

It has finally happened, the last bastion of the English language has fallen prey to the Internet. There is no hope make your time AHAHAHAHA

http://oxforddictionaries.com/page/newwords_may2011_us

May what god, goddess, or ideal you worship have mercy on your souls.

[Comet]

English is not dead. Quite the opposite in fact, it's just getting zhooshed up.

[Ravens_cry]

English is not dead. Quite the opposite in fact, it's just getting zhooshed up.
Indeed. English can never die. Unlike French and other languages that try to limit the changes and influences from other languages and cultures, English accepts them like the literal bastard it is. And I love it for it. English is vital and free, it is no wonder it became the language of the world.

[Flame of Anor]

Indeed. English can never die. Unlike French and other languages that try to limit the changes and influences from other languages and cultures, English accepts them like the literal bastard it is. And I love it for it. English is vital and free, it is no wonder it became the language of the world.

There is good change in languages--evolution--and there is bad change--devolution. Personally, I think this change is rather silly, but additions to vocabulary, no matter how stupid, are not anywhere near as heinous as alterations of grammar or spelling, and I don't mind that a dictionary should include some modern slang terms. So my personal feeling is rather meh.

Hmm, is "meh" in the dictionary?

[Comet]

Hmm, is "meh" in the dictionary?

It should be. Would feel rather silly otherwise.

I think that the only "bad" change to language is a forced one. As long as vocabulary, grammar, pronounciation and spelling changes occur naturally, at their own pace, and these changes do not get in the way of communication I'm more than okay with them.

And as long as these changes are happening we might as well acknowledge them. Yay Oxford D!

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

There is good change in languages--evolution--and there is bad change--devolution.

I completely disagree. English, and all other languages, are evolving, for better or worse, with the times, in response to and contingent upon cultural evolution.

[KillianHawkeye]

Having slang terms added to the dictionary is nowhere near as bad as the frequency with which people simply use words incorrectly, such as saying "decimate" when they really mean "annihilate" or similar. :smallannoyed:

Sorry, "decimate" is a pet peeve of mine.

[grimbold]

Having slang terms added to the dictionary is nowhere near as bad as the frequency with which people simply use words incorrectly, such as saying "decimate" when they really mean "annihilate" or similar. :smallannoyed:

Sorry, "decimate" is a pet peeve of mine.

if its in the dictionary is it even slang?

[SiuiS]

The thing about decimate is that, while not literally correct, it does make sense. A full ten percent of an object is destroyed and the rest is dispersed; that may as well be 'annihilated' from the point of view of the thing being decimated. Or at least, that was my understanding.

Hasn't the dictionary been including slang for years? It's been gradual, but I'm pretty sure it's been a standard occurrence for a while. Alas, i have no proof. Ah well.

[KillianHawkeye]

The thing about decimate is that, while not literally correct, it does make sense. A full ten percent of an object is destroyed and the rest is dispersed; that may as well be 'annihilated' from the point of view of the thing being decimated. Or at least, that was my understanding.

I don't believe dispersal is included in the definition. Sadly, the following is now the first definition of the term "decimation:"

The killing or destruction of a large portion of a population.

Personally, I don't equate 10% with "a large portion" of anything. Maybe I shouldn't be such a stickler for original meanings, but I can't help it. You can't just ignore the history of a thing, or it loses a lot of its meaning. Word definitions just should not be decided by democratic process, or else what's the point of etymology?

[Flame of Anor]

I completely disagree. English, and all other languages, are evolving, for better or worse, with the times, in response to and contingent upon cultural evolution.

Ah, the essential divide in linguistics, between the prescriptivists (yours truly) and the descriptivists (you). The professionals still haven't gotten anywhere reconciling them, so I think we'll have to agree to disagree.


Having slang terms added to the dictionary is nowhere near as bad as the frequency with which people simply use words incorrectly, such as saying "decimate" when they really mean "annihilate" or similar. :smallannoyed:

Sorry, "decimate" is a pet peeve of mine.

Thank you! I totally agree. Other offenders: "comprised of", "a whole nother"...

[Innis Cabal]

I don't believe dispersal is included in the definition. Sadly, the following is now the first definition of the term "decimation:"


Personally, I don't equate 10% with "a large portion" of anything. Maybe I shouldn't be such a stickler for original meanings, but I can't help it. You can't just ignore the history of a thing, or it loses a lot of its meaning. Word definitions just should not be decided by democratic process, or else what's the point of etymology?

But that's just the thing though...you're using one definition to nix out another on grounds it -isn't- the other definition. That isn't how it works. Decimate can mean the destruction of a large area/group/etc. It can also mean the Roman disciplinary tactic. If you look at the quotations of the very definition you used before...the word Decimate has been used for over three hundred years to mean "To destroy a lot of".

[Mercenary Pen]

The thing about decimate is that, while not literally correct, it does make sense. A full ten percent of an object is destroyed and the rest is dispersed; that may as well be 'annihilated' from the point of view of the thing being decimated. Or at least, that was my understanding.

As I understand it, the original decimation was used as a form of punishment in the roman legions- kill every tenth man in a force that was causing trouble in the hope that it would encourage the rest to behave themselves better. The whole point was to pacify without compromising combat effectiveness too much.

[Dispozition]

I...Huh? (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/schmick)

I am Australian. I'm fairly sure this word never existed. Just saying.

[SiuiS]

Apologies then. I had heard decimate was a drawing of lots. One in ten men in the unit were killed (possibly by the rest of the unit, depending on where I went for info), before being merged with other units. It just made sense that the now-reduced force would be ... Reconstituted somehow. Keeping them going never occured to me.

As for a tenth bein a large portion... It depends on the thing at hand, no? Burns over ten percent of my boy are far worse than losing ten percent of my hair. Since I equate decimation to organisms, losing any amount of vital structure is incredibly damaging. But again, it's all connotation.

Comprised of? It may be he hour, but I fail to see the issue there. Unless it should be composed of; I'm not entirely sure what comprised means. To the dictionary!

EDIT: never mind. A quick reconnoiter, and it occurs to me that 'comprise' is a word I have never used. Ever. It's always been composition or consistency with me. I'll have to rectify that.

[thompur]

If we are talking 'pet peeves', mine is when people use the word 'then' when they mean 'than'. 'Then' is an adverb. 'Than' is a comparative conjunction. It aint that hard!:smallfurious:

[Avilan the Grey]

There is good change in languages--evolution--and there is bad change--devolution.

This is false. All evolution of a langue is done because it is evolving to fit the need of the times.

[Hazzardevil]

Indeed. English can never die. Unlike French and other languages that try to limit the changes and influences from other languages and cultures, English accepts them like the literal bastard it is. And I love it for it. English is vital and free, it is no wonder it became the language of the world.

It's true it'll never die, but it isn't the bastard child, it's the bitch.

[Alchemistmerlin]

I remember when I declared English dead...I think I was in High School at the time.

Then I go back through my post history and find all the typos I never corrected. I hate past me.

English is dead! Long live English!

[Traab]

English is not dead. Quite the opposite in fact, it's just getting zhooshed up.

Use of proper english embiggens the smallest man.

[thompur]

Use of proper english embiggens the smallest man.

I always thought it was imbiggens. D'OH! I learned something new today.

[AtlanteanTroll]

English isn't dead, he's just faking it because he's on the run. He's still wanted for mutilating French and German.

[Jerthanis]

It's weird that you link evidence of English being a living language (as opposed to Latin, for instance) and claim it represents the death of English.

English will die when no one speaks it anymore, and thus, no longer has the drift we see expressed through new words being added to it.

[Fiery Diamond]

What interesting, lively debate!

Heh.

Anyway, my point of view on additions to language vocabulary is this: I don't particularly care whether things are officially accepted or not. In fact, don't don't particularly care whether they are in common use or not. If they make sense to me, I'll use them. If they sound stupid to me, I won't use them. If they are commonly used around me, I'll make an effort to learn what they mean, even if I think that they are stupid.

As for this specific list recently added to the Oxford Dictionary, I have mixed feelings about the words. But what really gets me is how LONG it takes for dictionaries to accept some words no matter how common and/or sensible while other words, even uncommon and/or ridiculous ones, get added quickly. To use this list (the one they link to, since I don't know how to find the complete one that includes the other words they have on that original page) to provide examples...

REALLY COMMON TERMS IN EVERYDAY USE (OFF-LINE)

Awareness bracelet (how did it take this long for this to be added?)
Bucket list (again, were these people under a rock?)
Confirmation bias

-okay, I'm gonna take a break for that one. Seriously, what the heck? HOW is it possible for this not to have been on there for a long time already? *head explodes*-

Meep (the tardiness on this one is forgivable, since it is more commonly used in certain demographics than in others)
Paperless (this has been around for more than five years. what is wrong with them?)
Pat-down (...what.)


REALLY COMMON TERMS IN EVERYDAY USE (ONLINE)

Newb (This -and variations- have been around for quite a while now)
NSFW (If I encountered someone who used forums or chats AT ALL who didn't know what this meant, I would be surprised)
Permalink (Firefox even thinks this is a word, which is more than it does for meep or newb)

TERMS THAT I, A RELATIVELY OBLIVIOUS PERSON, HAVE SEEN/HEARD

Bestie [relegated to slang, I see this as rather silly]
Coconut water [wasn't this called coconut milk before?]
Social graph [acceptable and non-silly]
Twittersphere [as goes the 'net, goes the word]
ZOMG [why is this being considered a term, exactly? That's almost like considering !!!!111!! a form of punctuation. Or "oh noes!" as a legit term.]

TERMS THAT MAKE SENSE TO ME AS REASONABLE (PREVIOUSLY UNSEEN)

Baby bump
Breadcrumb trail
Casino banking
Network neutrality
Overshare

TERMS I FIND ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS

eco-chic (Because I find the concept ridiculous)
insidery (weren't we already using insider as an adjective anyway?)
lappy (Strong Bad is a trendsetter! OH NOES!)
lifehack (doesn't even make sense. how is the term related to its definition?)
man flu (because men are the only hypochondriacs now?)
nekkid (what.)
'roid (because random abbreviations, especially ones I've never seen before, are worthy of being considered new terms)
unfollow (along with unfriend, which I assume they added earlier. But there's no fighting these, so I won't even try)

[Yora]

I...Huh? (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/schmick)

I am Australian. I'm fairly sure this word never existed. Just saying.

It's German and is correctly spelled "schick", coming from the french "chique" and means "nice looking" or "stylish".

English isn't dead, he's just faking it because he's on the run. He's still wanted for mutilating French and German.
I wouldn't say that. Old germans would say that, but for those under 40 it's more like we like what english did with the language and asking to show us how we could do the same. :smallbiggrin:

[TheSummoner]

Excuse me Hida Reju, could you repeat that? I couldn't hear you over the sound of me breaking my desk with my skull.

I get it... I get that slang has a place and a use... I get that people will use non-words in certain groups (or on the internet) for whatever reason... I just thought that dictionary people were suppose to make a distinction between that and actual words...

I mean... Its kinda (slang! non-word! I'll use it on the internet, but you wouldn't see me using it on a paper for example...) like how I see there being a need for a storage plant to deal with glowing green ooze. I just don't think the ooze should get into the drinking water.

Hmm... I wonder what will happen when some high school student writes a paper using some of this crap. The teacher would (rightfully) mark the paper down pretty low, but what if the student (accurately unfortunately) said "but they're real words, they're in the dictionary!"

So... Anyone remember that movie Idiocracy? Where 500 years in the future, English has become a mix of "redneck, valley girl, and inner-city slang"? Anyone else a bit frightened that this might be the first step... but with valley girl replaced by internet slang?

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to buy a new desk.

[DomaDoma]

I have never heard anyone utter the word "zhoosh", but maybe that's because I stay far, far away from anybody who shops at Neiman Marcus?

But seriously, the OED has never come down on the side of the language-purity crowd. If it's in common usage and they somehow come to learn about it in their admittedly ivory towers (now extra-outmoded by endangered species acts!), in it goes. Deal with it.

[Orzel]

You're telling me coconut water wasn't a word already?

Milk- The juice of a mature coconut' meat
Water- The juice of a young coconut

As the coconut matures, the juice, coconut water, turns into fleshy pulp. The pulp is then squeezed through cheesecloth to make thick coconut milk. The process is repeated 2-3 more times to make thin coconut milk!

/rage

[Dienekes]

Excuse me Hida Reju, could you repeat that? I couldn't hear you over the sound of me breaking my desk with my skull.

I get it... I get that slang has a place and a use... I get that people will use non-words in certain groups (or on the internet) for whatever reason... I just thought that dictionary people were suppose to make a distinction between that and actual words...

I mean... Its kinda (slang! non-word! I'll use it on the internet, but you wouldn't see me using it on a paper for example...) like how I see there being a need for a storage plant to deal with glowing green ooze. I just don't think the ooze should get into the drinking water.

Hmm... I wonder what will happen when some high school student writes a paper using some of this crap. The teacher would (rightfully) mark the paper down pretty low, but what if the student (accurately unfortunately) said "but they're real words, they're in the dictionary!"

So... Anyone remember that movie Idiocracy? Where 500 years in the future, English has become a mix of "redneck, valley girl, and inner-city slang"? Anyone else a bit frightened that this might be the first step... but with valley girl replaced by internet slang?

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to buy a new desk.

I'm always confused when I read this. What makes some words good and some words bad? If "zhoosh" or whatever other word catches on in 50 years it'll sound fine.

Take "swell" for example. That used to be a terrible slang I don't think anyone can claim it's not a word now. A word I like to use rather often.

I just don't see how the words really matter. They're sole purpose to me is to present an idea, if a word presents an idea then it's fine. I don't care if the language sounds like a mix of redneck, valley girl, and inner-city slang so long as the ideas the words are presenting are still intelligent and reasonable ideas. Since I don't think people are getting dumber, bring on the steady change to a new language. There is nothing majestic or awesome about our current language, it's just a language. In 500 years whatever language becomes dominant will also not be anything majestic or awesome, it'll just be another language.

[Fiery Diamond]

I'm always confused when I read this. What makes some words good and some words bad? If "zhoosh" or whatever other word catches on in 50 years it'll sound fine.

Take "swell" for example. That used to be a terrible slang I don't think anyone can claim it's not a word now. A word I like to use rather often.

I just don't see how the words really matter. They're sole purpose to me is to present an idea, if a word presents an idea then it's fine. I don't care if the language sounds like a mix of redneck, valley girl, and inner-city slang so long as the ideas the words are presenting are still intelligent and reasonable ideas. Since I don't think people are getting dumber, bring on the steady change to a new language. There is nothing majestic or awesome about our current language, it's just a language. In 500 years whatever language becomes dominant will also not be anything majestic or awesome, it'll just be another language.

Don't you mean awful? :smalltongue: /tongue in cheek about language change and archaisms

The thing is, not everyone feels the way you do about language. Some people DO feel that language is a majestic thing, and don't like it being mucked up by obnoxious crap. I'm not going to say I fall into either camp (yours or that one), but rather fall somewhere in the middle.

I mean, following your stated belief, poetry has no aesthetic value in its appearance or sound, just in its meaning. And I know a lot of people would find that concept offensive.

[Eldan]

Come on. You have been stealing and misusing German words forever now. This is hardly a new thing. "Angst" anyone? Schadenfreude? Zeitgeist?

[WhiteHarness]

DO NOT WANT!

I would rather see the dreadful modern youth culture that gives rise to this rash of new words die a messy death than bear witness to the end of my beloved language as I know it.

The pop-culture loving idiots who currently run things at the OED should be turned out onto the street and see their places taken by more sensible folks. I swear, it seems like the cast of characters from Absolutely Fabulous was left in charge of things there for the last decade or so...

[TheSummoner]

I'm always confused when I read this. What makes some words good and some words bad? If "zhoosh" or whatever other word catches on in 50 years it'll sound fine.

Take "swell" for example. That used to be a terrible slang I don't think anyone can claim it's not a word now. A word I like to use rather often.

I just don't see how the words really matter. They're sole purpose to me is to present an idea, if a word presents an idea then it's fine. I don't care if the language sounds like a mix of redneck, valley girl, and inner-city slang so long as the ideas the words are presenting are still intelligent and reasonable ideas. Since I don't think people are getting dumber, bring on the steady change to a new language. There is nothing majestic or awesome about our current language, it's just a language. In 500 years whatever language becomes dominant will also not be anything majestic or awesome, it'll just be another language.

If zhoosh catches on in 50 years... is used commonly... and not just in whatever niche it comes from (I have never heard anyone use it but maybe I just live under a rock...) then add it to the dictionary then. As Fiery put it, some of these are just obnoxious.

"ZOMG" for example... How the hell do you pronounce that? Is it a word or an acronym? If its an acronym, what the hell is the Z for? It's an internet thing... something that doesn't need explanation in itself... But once you add it to the dictionary, you can't ignore some of the questions that normally get brushed under the carpet as just being one of those odd things about the internet. Should hax0rs be added to the dictionary next? It's no less legitimate than ZOMG, NSFW, or Twittersphere.

If the English language has to be a whore, can't it atleast be a classy whore who makes a distinction between clients. German words, French words, Spanish words and the like... Fine. But internet slang... Comeon English, atleast use some protection... You don't want to know half of where the internet has been...

[Fiery Diamond]

Come on. You have been stealing and misusing German words forever now. This is hardly a new thing. "Angst" anyone? Schadenfreude? Zeitgeist?

Angst comes from German?

Learn something new every day.

[Eldan]

Yes. However, it just means "fear".

[druid91]

This is false. All evolution of a langue is done because it is evolving to fit the need of the times.

Not really.

Heck look at the spelling differences between america and england.

Gray-Grey
Color-Colour
Ax-Axe

Why? Because us americans decided to stick it to the man by purposefully mispelling everything. That is devolution.

To the point that my computer now does not accept grey as a word.:smallannoyed:

Just because change can be good doesn't mean it is. Even if necessary. It could very well be necessary for Evil McOverlordinstien to execute a hundred kittens a day in order to keep the cat population down. Does that mean it's good that a hundred kittens a guillotined in the streets?

[Dienekes]

Don't you mean awful? :smalltongue: /tongue in cheek about language change and archaisms

The thing is, not everyone feels the way you do about language. Some people DO feel that language is a majestic thing, and don't like it being mucked up by obnoxious crap. I'm not going to say I fall into either camp (yours or that one), but rather fall somewhere in the middle.

I know, but I don't understand why. There are thousands of languages currently being used. There were probably millions spoken over the course of human existence. I have yet to find a reason why English is so special. Not even English really, just current English. Sure I like it. I know it. To me it's my favorite language because I was born into it and I don't have to learn anything more to do what I want with the language.


I mean, following your stated belief, poetry has no aesthetic value in its appearance or sound, just in its meaning. And I know a lot of people would find that concept offensive.

Admittedly, I don't know or care much about poetry. So I don't tend to think about it when I say things. But aesthetic changes too. While I personally find it sounds like trash, rap is poetry of the inner-streets language and it is just as legitimate a poem as anything.

So long as there is a desire for a certain type of aesthetic it'll get made. Poets are not forced to use ZOMG or anything else. Also in the distant theoretical future where the language has gone to pots, new style and poems and visions of beauty will arise. What gives us the right to look down our noses at it?


If the English language has to be a whore, can't it atleast be a classy whore who makes a distinction between clients. German words, French words, Spanish words and the like... Fine. But internet slang... Comeon English, atleast use some protection... You don't want to know half of where the internet has been...

A whore is a whore no matter her clients.

I still haven't heard what makes German, French, and Spanish good to steal from but the internet not. A word is a word no matter where it comes from.

[TheSummoner]

Not really.

Heck look at the spelling differences between america and england.

Gray-Grey
Color-Colour
Ax-Axe

Why? Because us americans decided to stick it to the man by purposefully mispelling everything. That is devolution.

To the point that my computer now does not accept grey as a word.:smallannoyed:

Pff, you crumpet-munching tea-guzzlers just love adding unnecessary letters to everything. =P


So long as there is a desire for a certain type of aesthetic it'll get made. Poets are not forced to use ZOMG or anything else. Also in the distant theoretical future where the language has gone to pots, new style and poems and visions of beauty will arise. What gives us the right to look down our noses at it?

No, no one is forced to use any of it, but the fact that what amounts to internet gibberish officially being recognized as legitimate is something that I and others find irksome. Answer the question I posed earlier... What happens when some high school student writes a paper using these words and claims that he/she doesn't deserve to be marked down because "they're in the dictionary!"

As for what gives us the right to look down our noses at it... The fact that we are intelligent creatures (well most of us... I have my doubts about the Oxford people right now...), capable of making judgements on our own. If I think something is idiotic, I have the right to say so and give my reasons for thinking that.


A whore is a whore no matter her clients.

I still haven't heard what makes German, French, and Spanish good to steal from but the internet not. A word is a word no matter where it comes from.

Do you really not see the difference between a number of actual languages and a place where people look up videos of cats doing funny things? I could give several examples worse than cats, but I'd prefer to keep this forum-appropriate.

[Friv]

DO NOT WANT!

I would rather see the dreadful modern youth culture that gives rise to this rash of new words die a messy death than bear witness to the end of my beloved language as I know it.

The pop-culture loving idiots who currently run things at the OED should be turned out onto the street and see their places taken by more sensible folks. I swear, it seems like the cast of characters from Absolutely Fabulous was left in charge of things there for the last decade or so...

Thank you, sir, this is the funniest thing I've read all week.

[Eldan]

Not really.

Heck look at the spelling differences between america and england.

Gray-Grey
Color-Colour
Ax-Axe

Why? Because us americans decided to stick it to the man by purposefully mispelling everything. That is devolution.

To the point that my computer now does not accept grey as a word.:smallannoyed:

Just because change can be good doesn't mean it is. Even if necessary. It could very well be necessary for Evil McOverlordinstien to execute a hundred kittens a day in order to keep the cat population down. Does that mean it's good that a hundred kittens a guillotined in the streets?

Yeah, honestly. What were they thinking, just bastardizing the the spelling of innocent graeg, culur and aex like that. Barbarians.

[Fiery Diamond]

Admittedly, I don't know or care much about poetry. So I don't tend to think about it when I say things. But aesthetic changes too. While I personally find it sounds like trash, rap is poetry of the inner-streets language and it is just as legitimate a poem as anything.

So long as there is a desire for a certain type of aesthetic it'll get made. Poets are not forced to use ZOMG or anything else. Also in the distant theoretical future where the language has gone to pots, new style and poems and visions of beauty will arise. What gives us the right to look down our noses at it?

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't saying that "if we allow all this new bad-sounding stuff poetry will be of poor quality in terms of sound," I was saying that if you start from the premise that language has no value apart from meaning, aesthetic value in poetry can't exist. Not "it will be poor quality" or "it will be bad" but that the entire notion is nonexistent if meaning is the only value to language.

I'm perfectly fine accepting the idea of relative value, since all aesthetic value is relative. But if you say that certain qualities of language (sound and appearance, for example) are of NO value (which is implied by saying that transmitting meaning is the only aspect of language that has any importance), aesthetic value based on those qualities ceases to be considered valid.

And many people would not react favorably to that assessment.

[druid91]

Pff, you crumpet-munching tea-guzzlers just love adding unnecessary letters to everything. =P

Yes I do. *Takes a sip of tea and a bite of english muffin*:smalltongue:

Though that might have something to do with the fact that my grandmother loves england, and I spent a good amount of time in the presence of english camp councilers at summer camp every year.


Yeah, honestly. What were they thinking, just bastardizing the the spelling of innocent Graeg, Color and aex like that. Barbarians.

Graeg? You know, that sounds an awful lot like greg how would you feel if your dad named you grey? Color makes it sound like a gorrila is saying it IMO. Aex? Ay-ex? How would you even pronounce that?

Besides that wasn't my point. My point was IIRC it was done entirely to spite the british.

[Lord Seth]

No, no one is forced to use any of it, but the fact that what amounts to internet gibberish officially being recognized as legitimate is something that I and others find irksome. Answer the question I posed earlier... What happens when some high school student writes a paper using these words and claims that he/she doesn't deserve to be marked down because "they're in the dictionary!"Did you look at the definitions? Words like "zhoosh" and "shmick" are listed as informal.

Though some of these words seem odd as I've never heard them. I've never seen someone use zhoosh or shmick (the latter seems to be listed as Australian so that might explain it, but still never heard zhoosh), and I'm confused about the addition of "badware" because I've never seen that used either (malware yes, badware no). I can get why "femtosecond" would be added even though I've never seen it used before (it's a scientific/technical term), but I am confused as to the reasoning for adding some of these words when I've honestly never seen them used before.

[KillianHawkeye]

But that's just the thing though...you're using one definition to nix out another on grounds it -isn't- the other definition. That isn't how it works. Decimate can mean the destruction of a large area/group/etc. It can also mean the Roman disciplinary tactic. If you look at the quotations of the very definition you used before...the word Decimate has been used for over three hundred years to mean "To destroy a lot of".

Yes, but when used (incorrectly) in that manner, it no longer has any link to the root word decim-, it's just an overexaggeration of what the word originally meant. Sorry, but I'm a big fan of being able to figure out a word's meaning by seeing what word or words it is based on, rather than some other meaning that has been tacked on for no reason other than laziness and user convenience.


I just thought that dictionary people were suppose to make a distinction

And speaking of pet peeves, this is another of mine. It's "supposed to," people! :smallsigh:

Contrary to popular belief, English just isn't a great language for "sounding it out," especially considering the laziness and abbreviation with which the language is often spoken. Many words simply aren't spelled the way they sound.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Ax-Axe

I've never seen Axe spelled as Ax except for when people are really low on letters in Scrabble.

[Eldan]

Graeg? You know, that sounds an awful lot like greg how would you feel if your dad named you grey? Color makes it sound like a gorrila is saying it IMO. Aex? Ay-ex? How would you even pronounce that?

Besides that wasn't my point. My point was IIRC it was done entirely to spite the british.

Hey, you could also go with grewjaz, culur and akusi, if you prefer :smalltongue:

(I admit I had to look these up).

[Dienekes]

No, no one is forced to use any of it, but the fact that what amounts to internet gibberish officially being recognized as legitimate is something that I and others find irksome. Answer the question I posed earlier... What happens when some high school student writes a paper using these words and claims that he/she doesn't deserve to be marked down because "they're in the dictionary!"

If it's free-writing they shouldn't be graded down, but it's the teachers class and he/she will run it as they please. If it's a report then they should know there are words that should and should not be used. That is still true before this was made. I can think of numerous real words that have no place in an official paper.


Do you really not see the difference between a number of actual languages and a place where people look up videos of cats doing funny things? I could give several examples worse than cats, but I'd prefer to keep this forum-appropriate.

No. And you have yet to give me a reason to, other than apparent it being self evident. There are grotesque things on the internet? There were grotesque things happening in France, Spain, and Germany. People waste time on the internet? People waste time in France, Spain, and Germany. I don't see what that has to do with pilfering for words.


I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't saying that "if we allow all this new bad-sounding stuff poetry will be of poor quality in terms of sound," I was saying that if you start from the premise that language has no value apart from meaning, aesthetic value in poetry can't exist. Not "it will be poor quality" or "it will be bad" but that the entire notion is nonexistent if meaning is the only value to language.

I'm perfectly fine accepting the idea of relative value, since all aesthetic value is relative. But if you say that certain qualities of language (sound and appearance, for example) are of NO value (which is implied by saying that transmitting meaning is the only aspect of language that has any importance), aesthetic value based on those qualities ceases to be considered valid.

And many people would not react favorably to that assessment.

Ahh, alright. You make a point, though I do believe that in terms of crafting a language words are based off of their meaning. It is the business of poets and song writers and people with infinitely more imagination than me to take these simple syllables and create beauty out of them. It can be done no matter how harsh or soft or how many z's are used in a language and I will never speak out against their craft. But I think it is separate from the creation of words and getting them in the dictionary. Unless a poet invented their own word of course, but even then I expect it would only get in the dictionary through use and popularity not because of how absolutely beautiful sounding this sound was when one poet decided to write it down.

[SlyGuyMcFly]

"ZOMG" for example... How the hell do you pronounce that?


Zoh-ehm-jee or zow-ehm-jee. Natch. :smalltongue:


Me, I don't really care about this sort of thing. I try to spell properly because it's aesthetically pleasing, but I can't think of any reason "I've" is a better contraction than "u" aside from my rather subjective notion that it looks better.


To those complaining abot devolution of the language... what do you mean? Are there any historical cases of languages devolving into some sort of terrible mess that causes the collapse of the society that speaks it? Sorry, I'm being facetious, but I'd really like some elaboration on the point.

[Weezer]

Hey if proto-indo-european was good enough for our great great great great etc. grandparents it's certainly good enough for me. Why should we let our elegant and strong language devolve into this new fangled "indo-european", let alone languages like Sanskrit, Aramaic and Latin. Fight for the purity of our language! /snark

Really guys, language changes, if it didn't we wouldn't be able to talk about or even conceptualize the vast majority of our society.

[TheLaughingMan]

Besides that wasn't my point. My point was IIRC it was done entirely to spite the british.

Nah. Spiting the British is just a pleasant side-effect. :smalltongue:

[Warlawk]

English isn't dead, he's just faking it because he's on the run. He's still wanted for mutilating French and German.


According to a famous paraphrase of a quote by James D. Nicoll, "English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over, and goes through their pockets for loose grammar."

Personally, I'm not a big fan of this kind of slang being officially added to the dictionary but I suppose it's better than the language never changing.

[Avilan the Grey]

DO NOT WANT!

I would rather see the dreadful modern youth culture that gives rise to this rash of new words die a messy death than bear witness to the end of my beloved language as I know it.


I am confused. Since the only (and I mean ONLY) way a language can die, is if no new words or uses enters it... you want your language to die?

[Traab]

Zoh-ehm-jee or zow-ehm-jee. Natch. :smalltongue:


Me, I don't really care about this sort of thing. I try to spell properly because it's aesthetically pleasing, but I can't think of any reason "I've" is a better contraction than "u" aside from my rather subjective notion that it looks better.


To those complaining abot devolution of the language... what do you mean? Are there any historical cases of languages devolving into some sort of terrible mess that causes the collapse of the society that speaks it? Sorry, I'm being facetious, but I'd really like some elaboration on the point.

Zoe-Mah-God! I always pronounce it that way. Not sure why, but thats the way to pronounce it PROPERLY!

As far as internet slang goes, I pretty much count it as a separate dialect like Mandarin or Cantonese. Both are chinese, but both are different.

[Tirian]

Personally, I'm not a big fan of this kind of slang being officially added to the dictionary but I suppose it's better than the language never changing.

As someone noted before, it's the whole proscriptive vs. descriptive argument. I'm a pragmatist -- the ODO does not have the authority to decide which words are in English, it has the decision about which words to describe as a service to their customers. Indeed, the fact that I've never heard the words "schmick" and "zhoosh" before in my life is evidence that I should SUPPORT their being in a comprehensive dictionary, or else I'd have nowhere to go to find out what those words mean.

(As it turns out, the Oxford dictionaries are already dead to me, because UrbanDictionary is far more up-to-date and comprehensive.)

[Avilan the Grey]

As someone noted before, it's the whole proscriptive vs. descriptive argument. I'm a pragmatist -- the ODO does not have the authority to decide which words are in English, it has the decision about which words to describe as a service to their customers

Isn't it the same as in Sweden, where SAOL gets yelled at every year for "accepting" slang in their yearly revision, when they have to point out that they don't TELL you what is Swedish should be, but simply tell you what words are being used in Swedish?

[Tirian]

If that's the way it is. Which is the opposite of French, where the Academie Francaise actually does regulate the language. (Not that they have legal authority or grammar police, of course, but the dictionary is essentially compiled by the government.)

[Dvandemon]

I would like to request that the OP quickly change the thread title, English is most certainly not dead like it's bastard half-father, Latin. Languages change, if slang gets an listed as an informal word, why not? you don't have to use it, and if it irks you so much, get over it. It's really not a problem unless you make it one. It doesn't matter if it "starts a trend" the better words still exist, nothing really changes. If you don't like it so much you could just quit your day job and join the OED staff so you can prevent this kind of thing. :tongue:[QUOTE=TheSummoner;11136180]I"ZOMG" for example... How the hell do you pronounce that?QUOTE]

I always pronounced it the way it was spelled, like zombie but with a <<gee>> instead of <<bee>>. I'm guessing from the spelling that it's a interjection with the specific distinction of always being an all cap exclamation. :smalltongue:

[Flame of Anor]

Apologies then. I had heard decimate was a drawing of lots. One in ten men in the unit were killed (possibly by the rest of the unit, depending on where I went for info), before being merged with other units. It just made sense that the now-reduced force would be ... Reconstituted somehow. Keeping them going never occured to me.

As for a tenth bein a large portion... It depends on the thing at hand, no? Burns over ten percent of my boy are far worse than losing ten percent of my hair. Since I equate decimation to organisms, losing any amount of vital structure is incredibly damaging. But again, it's all connotation.

Comprised of? It may be he hour, but I fail to see the issue there. Unless it should be composed of; I'm not entirely sure what comprised means. To the dictionary!

EDIT: never mind. A quick reconnoiter, and it occurs to me that 'comprise' is a word I have never used. Ever. It's always been composition or consistency with me. I'll have to rectify that.

The problem with "comprised of" is that it doesn't mean anything. "Comprise" comes from the Latin meaning "take together", and thus if A comprises B and C, then this means A is made up of B and C. For something to "be taken together of" makes no sense.

Alternatively, B and C compose A, and A is composed of B and C, which may be where the confusion comes from, as "compose" and "comprise" sound similar.

All this to say that the only correct use of comprise is as follows: "A comprises B and C", where B and C are parts of A.


There is nothing majestic or awesome about our current language, it's just a language. In 500 years whatever language becomes dominant will also not be anything majestic or awesome, it'll just be another language.

I very much disagree with you on the first count, but I won't attempt the impossible task of arguing it, as it has a lot to do with perspective. The second count, however, where do you get that? 500 years ago people were speaking English which, while different, would be understandable by many modern English speakers today who had had, say, experience with Shakespeare. The increase in writing things down has only decreased the rate of language change. I think it very likely that 500 years from now our descendants will be speaking a form of English that we could understand without excessive trouble.

[Zevox]

Meh. As others have said, languages change, all the time. That has always been the case and cannot be stopped, like it or not. Whether this is accepted by "official" sources like the OED just determines whether they're doing their job and accurately recording how the language is actually used or not. Nothing more, nothing less.

Zevox

[Dienekes]

I very much disagree with you on the first count,

Go ahead and disagree with me. But I honestly don't see anything better or worse about modern English when compared to any other language in the world. I like it best, but that's mostly because I have learned it already and trying to learn other languages is a task I have no talent for.


The second count, however, where do you get that? 500 years ago people were speaking English which, while different, would be understandable by many modern English speakers today who had had, say, experience with Shakespeare. The increase in writing things down has only decreased the rate of language change. I think it very likely that 500 years from now our descendants will be speaking a form of English that we could understand without excessive trouble.

I used the number that the above poster I quoted used, based off some movie. I don't know the future and I won't pretend to be a linguist. In 500 years maybe I'll be able to communicate fine with people, or maybe Russian will become the dominant language in North America. Who knows?

But whatever language that pops up will just be another language that happens to be of use in North America and will be placed along with English, Spanish, French, and the cornucopia of Native American languages that have existed many of which have died out.

[warty goblin]

The problem with "comprised of" is that it doesn't mean anything. "Comprise" comes from the Latin meaning "take together", and thus if A comprises B and C, then this means A is made up of B and C. For something to "be taken together of" makes no sense.

Alternatively, B and C compose A, and A is composed of B and C, which may be where the confusion comes from, as "compose" and "comprise" sound similar.

Thus possibly indicating that we're not speaking Latin anymore. Either that or I forgot to pick up my toga from the drycleaners again...

Seriously though, words change in meaning over time. Digging hundreds or thousands of years back in their roots is quite interesting as a historical exercise, but doesn't say much about their correct usage here and now. Otherwise to pummel would still mean to strike with the pommel of a sword, and swashbuckling would have gone out of use about the same time as very small round shields stopped being the accessory of choice for hotblooded young men in medieval Europe.

[Axolotl]

I've always held that moving on from middle English was a mistake. If it was good enough for Chaucer it's good enough for everyone else.

[Yora]

Come on. You have been stealing and misusing German words forever now. This is hardly a new thing. "Angst" anyone? Schadenfreude? Zeitgeist?
If english speaking social scientiss havn't heard of Lebenswelt yet, somebody should tell them. I'm sure they'll love it. :smallbiggrin:

[Flame of Anor]

Go ahead and disagree with me. But I honestly don't see anything better or worse about modern English when compared to any other language in the world. I like it best, but that's mostly because I have learned it already and trying to learn other languages is a task I have no talent for.

I didn't say it was better than other languages, but each language has a unique character, and English's is especially interesting.

[Yanagi]

Contrary to popular belief, English just isn't a great language for "sounding it out," especially considering the laziness and abbreviation with which the language is often spoken. Many words simply aren't spelled the way they sound.

More basic than that, the relationship between phonemes (the set of sounds) that make up English and the graphemes (set of characters) to represent them is played very fast and loose. It's side-effect of the way English has taken in loanwords from many sources.

Sometimes many phonemes are represented by one grapheme, like -ch being used for cheese,m chutzpah, and loch, or the sounding distinction between capital-P Polish and polish. Even more complicated, many graphemes have overlap in how they're sounded, like cater/karst. That English has only five vowel graphemes and no consistent dipthong pronunciation makes "sounding it out" hard for ESL learners.

[Lord Seth]

You can't just ignore the history of a thing, or it loses a lot of its meaning. Word definitions just should not be decided by democratic process, or else what's the point of etymology?Do you complain this vigorously when people use the word "egregious" to mean "bad"?

[Avilan the Grey]

More basic than that, the relationship between phonemes (the set of sounds) that make up English and the graphemes (set of characters) to represent them is played very fast and loose. It's side-effect of the way English has taken in loanwords from many sources.

Finnish, as far as I understand it, is basically spelled EXACTLY as it sounds.

[Eldan]

Finnish, as far as I understand it, is basically spelled EXACTLY as it sounds.

Honestly, most languages I know are. English is just weird.

[Avilan the Grey]

Honestly, most languages I know are. English is just weird.

English is weird because it is basically (at least) three languages brutally forced together, plus loan words. This is also why English has so many words; many times there are three or more words that means the same thing.

Swedish has it's share of weirdness (somewhere in the early medieval period about 50% of our words got replaced by german, for example) but we didn't keep the old words, we outright replaced them.

Anyway, no. Almost no languages are to the degree of Finnish. Swedish, for example have several traps (you can't really never tell if a G is hard, or soft, for example, unless you have actively studied the language, or if a letter is silent or not).

[grimbold]

Honestly, most languages I know are. English is just weird.

yes english has a tendency to be weird

but not as weird as say chinese
however this may just be a problem for me, a westerner trying to learn it

[Flame of Anor]

Thus possibly indicating that we're not speaking Latin anymore. Either that or I forgot to pick up my toga from the drycleaners again...

Seriously though, words change in meaning over time. Digging hundreds or thousands of years back in their roots is quite interesting as a historical exercise, but doesn't say much about their correct usage here and now.

Yes, but grammarians agree that the rational meaning of comprise is the correct one here and now.


I've always held that moving on from middle English was a mistake. If it was good enough for Chaucer it's good enough for everyone else.

YES

[Mr. Scaly]

This thought's been going around for a good long while hasn't it? In high school English we actually had to read an essay by George Orwell on the subject. (http://orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit)

[Lord Seth]

Almost no languages are to the degree of Finnish.Japanese is extremely phonetic, with pronunciations being extremely constant. As far as I know, the only exceptions to the pronunciation rules are when the "ha," "he," or "wo" symbols are being used as particles, in which case they are pronounced "wa," "e," and "o," respectively. This really isn't a big deal, though, as it's easy to tell contextually if that's their usage.

Of course, then Kanji comes along and screws up everything, but Japanese is still extremely phonetic.

[Yanagi]

Finnish, as far as I understand it, is basically spelled EXACTLY as it sounds.

Interesting. The extent of my knowledge re: Finnish is owning a couple of Korpiklaani albums.

I was thinking of Hindi and Sanskrit, which use the Devanagari script, and have a very precise coding of phoneme = grapheme. Modern Hindi has added graphemes to accomodate new phonemes from English and Arabic.

To your point about English as a collision of three others...which three? I'd guess German and Latin, but I'm stumped for a third...Gaelic?

[Zevox]

To your point about English as a collision of three others...which three? I'd guess German and Latin, but I'm stumped for a third...Gaelic?
Anglo-Saxon (a Germanic language from the original settlers of England), Latin, and French (brought to the island by the Norman conquerors after 1066).

Zevox

[SaintRidley]

Interesting. The extent of my knowledge re: Finnish is owning a couple of Korpiklaani albums.

I was thinking of Hindi and Sanskrit, which use the Devanagari script, and have a very precise coding of phoneme = grapheme. Modern Hindi has added graphemes to accomodate new phonemes from English and Arabic.

To your point about English as a collision of three others...which three? I'd guess German and Latin, but I'm stumped for a third...Gaelic?

By German you really mean Anglo-Saxon.

Norman French, though it has done a bit of borrowing from Old Norse and the Brythonic and Gaelic languages native to Britain as well (some of our pronouns and prepositions owe their current forms to the Norse while the native British gave us some of our funnier little features - like the meaningless do we have when asking if someone performs an action and such).

As for Middle English, it is good enough for me. But should we have even gotten that far? Anglo-Saxon was a perfectly fine language. And it was good enough for Cynewulf and that should be good enough for all of us.

[The Big Dice]

Anglo-Saxon (a Germanic language from the original settlers of England), Latin, and French (brought to the island by the Norman conquerors after 1066).

Zevox
The Angles were far from the original settlers of England. Along with the Saxons and Jutes, they didn't arrive until the 5th or 6th century AD. The Romans came in the 1st century AD and found a developed (for the time) culture. And the Celts weren't the first here, either.

But they did give their name to the country and language. Shame the only real remnants of Anglo-Saxon in use now are the kind of words the board censor filters. Which is really down to the Normans and their influence.

[SaintRidley]

The Angles were far from the original settlers of England. Along with the Saxons and Jutes, they didn't arrive until the 5th or 6th century AD. The Romans came in the 1st century AD and found a developed (for the time) culture. And the Celts weren't the first here, either.

But they did give their name to the country and language. Shame the only real remnants of Anglo-Saxon in use now are the kind of words the board censor filters. Which is really down to the Normans and their influence.

Anglo-Saxon is a much larger part of what people use now than they realize. In order to demonstrate this, I bolded every word in your post that traces back to Anglo-Saxon.

In fact, it would be pretty easy to rewrite almost the entire post with only words that came from Anglo-Saxon English. The only sticking points would be things like proper names of peoples who were not Anglo-Saxon and the notation AD - though saying "six or seven hundred years after the coming of Christ" would be a completely Anglicized way of meeting that meaning. "Censor filters" is probably the only one that could not be done in a way I would find satisfactory.

[Welf]

Yes. However, it just means "fear".

Actually it doesn't. That's why they use it instead of fear. Angst has unlike fear the connotation of irrationality and can be a condition instead of just a feeling. Words are adopted to express new meanings.


The Angles were far from the original settlers of England. Along with the Saxons and Jutes, they didn't arrive until the 5th or 6th century AD. The Romans came in the 1st century AD and found a developed (for the time) culture. And the Celts weren't the first here, either.

But they did give their name to the country and language. Shame the only real remnants of Anglo-Saxon in use now are the kind of words the board censor filters. Which is really down to the Normans and their influence.

I wouldn't worry about that. A lot of English words - especially the basic ones like "do" or "that" - derive from the Anglo-Saxon's language. A surprising high number of words are even pronounced identically or very similar in modern German.

[Eldan]

Actually it doesn't. That's why they use it instead of fear. Angst has unlike fear the connotation of irrationality and can be a condition instead of just a feeling. Words are adopted to express new meanings.

I must admit, I was confused by that and had to look it up in the dictionary. It seems "Angst" really does have that connotation. I've never noticed that in my 24 years of speaking German. "Ich habe Angst" was always just the only way to say "I'm afraid" to me.


Guess I learned something new.

[Flame of Anor]

Shame the only real remnants of Anglo-Saxon in use now are the kind of words the board censor filters. Which is really down to the Normans and their influence.

Well, actually--


Anglo-Saxon is a much larger part of what people use now than they realize. In order to demonstrate this, I bolded every word in your post that traces back to Anglo-Saxon.

Ah, wonderful, you've covered it. It really is strange how few people know that the backbone of Modern English really is straight from Anglo-Saxon.

I'll add that Norman French was for a long time mainly used by aristocrats, so the words it has given English are generally less everyday terms. For instance, words for food animals: the Anglo-Saxon words like cow, sheep, pig refer to the live animals, as the Anglo-Saxon peasant farmers would have done; whereas the Norman French words like beef, mutton, pork refer to the prepared meat, which the Norman French nobles would have been eating.

[Dr.Epic]

English is not dead. It's just in the negative Hit Points.

[Yanagi]

By German you really mean Anglo-Saxon.

Norman French, though it has done a bit of borrowing from Old Norse and the Brythonic and Gaelic languages native to Britain as well (some of our pronouns and prepositions owe their current forms to the Norse while the native British gave us some of our funnier little features - like the meaningless do we have when asking if someone performs an action and such).



Ahhhh...of course. By which I mean, I totally didn't think of that, nor synch up how the accompanying history (which I'm familiar with) corresponded to language change.

Slightly divergent...doesn't the existence of the Academie Francais tie back to the project of actually creating a unified French language, in part by supressing the region dialects? I had a friend who learned Breton and spoke of this?

[Partof1]

I notice nobody ever complains about "want" being changed. Once upon a time, I believe it meant lack, or need, rather than desire.

Note that I don't have a preference, just making an observation.

[warty goblin]

I notice nobody ever complains about "want" being changed. Once upon a time, I believe it meant lack, or need, rather than desire.

Note that I don't have a preference, just making an observation.

I still see it used in that capacity every now and again. It's a bit antiquated, but a phrase like "died for want of water" isn't that far out there.

[Flame of Anor]

Gradual continuous shifts, like want meaning "lack" going to meaning "desire", aren't very obnoxious to me, but I really hate the quick ones that completely pervert the meaning, like that of "comprise" (thankfully still not accepted by grammarians).

[Ravens_cry]

Anglo-Saxon (a Germanic language from the original settlers of England), Latin, and French (brought to the island by the Norman conquerors after 1066).

Zevox
And everyone else once the "Nation of Shopkeepers" got to them.:smallamused:

[stainboy]

Anyone who can say the words "eco-chic" or "Twittersphere" without rolling their eyes isn't speaking English. They use some other language where sentences are only grammatically correct if they make you sound like a colossal tool. I say we officially kick them out and let them form their own language based on burbling noises and flatulence.

[averagejoe]

I'm disappointed that, "Zounds," is no longer a legitimate curse, myself.

[ThirdEmperor]

English is dead? t3a8ag t3h c0rp$e!

[Ravens_cry]

I'm disappointed that, "Zounds," is no longer a legitimate curse, myself.
Eh, use it anyway, it adds a little colour to colourful language.

[grimbold]

Eh, use it anyway, it adds a little colour to colourful language.

also it was my favorite swear word in elementary school :smallbiggrin:
the other kids made fun of me and i told them to go watch scooby doo

ima have to start using that word again soon

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

Reading through this thread, most of the posts have had me going "are you serious? You must be joking" in my head. Attempting to control or prescribe meaning and usage is ridiculous and reactionary to me. Many of these neologisms will die, but some are likely to live and become perfectly ordinary words in the future, and which ones do will be decided by English speakers, not grammarians.

[The Big Dice]

I'm disappointed that, "Zounds," is no longer a legitimate curse, myself.

It's short for God's Wounds. It only became a swear word ("By God's wounds!" becoming "'Zounds!") because the church of the middle ages felt it was taking the lord's name in vain.

[SlyGuyMcFly]

This thought's been going around for a good long while hasn't it? In high school English we actually had to read an essay by George Orwell on the subject. (http://orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit)

Going back a bit further, one of Jane Austen's novels (Northanger Abbey, I think) contains an amusing conversation along the lines of this topic, and specifically the word "nice".

[WhiteHarness]

Thank you, sir, this is the funniest thing I've read all week. And you may have been the only one to pick up on the irony in that post...

[Eldan]

It's short for God's Wounds. It only became a swear word ("By God's wounds!" becoming "'Zounds!") because the church of the middle ages felt it was taking the lord's name in vain.

Huh. Interesting. I've only ever seen it written, I assumed it was pronounced more or less like "sounds".

[warty goblin]

Gradual continuous shifts, like want meaning "lack" going to meaning "desire", aren't very obnoxious to me, but I really hate the quick ones that completely pervert the meaning, like that of "comprise" (thankfully still not accepted by grammarians).

You are aware that comprise has been used in that capacity for three or four hundred years (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comprise) now, right? Hardly seems sudden to me.

[Fiery Diamond]

It's short for God's Wounds. It only became a swear word ("By God's wounds!" becoming "'Zounds!") because the church of the middle ages felt it was taking the lord's name in vain.

Not quite right. Why is it that everyone equates "swear word" with "profanity?" They don't mean exactly the same thing, just similar and related things. What you meant was "it only became profanity because ..." It was already a swear word, otherwise nobody would say it. All the "By [insert something, usually having to do with a deity or afterlife]" constructions are "swearing," regardless of whether they have a negative connotation or not. Essentially, it's "I swear by [x] that [y]" (or something similar), dropping the first and last parts and being transmuted into an interjection.


Huh. Interesting. I've only ever seen it written, I assumed it was pronounced more or less like "sounds".

That's what I thought, too. Live and learn, I guess.

[Tirian]

Huh. Interesting. I've only ever seen it written, I assumed it was pronounced more or less like "sounds".

It is, at least in this age. Whether either it or "wounds" was pronounced differently in the sixteenth century is left as an exercise to the reader.

[Ravens_cry]

I always pronounced it to rhyme with wound (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wound), as in winding.

[The Big Dice]

Not quite right. Why is it that everyone equates "swear word" with "profanity?" They don't mean exactly the same thing, just similar and related things. What you meant was "it only became profanity because ..." It was already a swear word, otherwise nobody would say it. All the "By [insert something, usually having to do with a deity or afterlife]" constructions are "swearing," regardless of whether they have a negative connotation or not. Essentially, it's "I swear by [x] that [y]" (or something similar), dropping the first and last parts and being transmuted into an interjection.
Swearing by something is actually making an oath.

Over time, swearing oaths became more and more unpopular in polite society. Eventually, the use of the term swearing an oath becomes swearing. And since profanity was already part of swearing and why it went out of vogue in the upper crust of society, the two terms became synonymous.

So while 'zounds isn't actually a profanity, it is literally a swear. Because the word is a contractions for "By god's wounds" it is an oath. Making it a swear word in a very literal sense.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Swearing by something is actually making an oath.

Over time, swearing oaths became more and more unpopular in polite society. Eventually, the use of the term swearing an oath becomes swearing. And since profanity was already part of swearing and why it went out of vogue in the upper crust of society, the two terms became synonymous.

So while 'zounds isn't actually a profanity, it is literally a swear. Because the word is a contractions for "By god's wounds" it is an oath. Making it a swear word in a very literal sense.

He wasn't contesting that it was a swear word, but that the reason for its being one because the church decided it was taking the lord's name in vain. It is a swear word by its very nature - not because of the church's influence, but became a profanity due to the church.

[Flame of Anor]

also it was my favorite swear word in elementary school :smallbiggrin:
the other kids made fun of me and i told them to go watch scooby doo

ima have to start using that word again soon

awesome


You are aware that comprise has been used in that capacity for three or four hundred years (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comprise) now, right? Hardly seems sudden to me.

The late 18th century is not three or four hundred years ago. Besides, as it says at the link, it was until recently an obscure usage.

[Talya]

Anglo-Saxon (a Germanic language from the original settlers of England), Latin, and French (brought to the island by the Norman conquerors after 1066).

Zevox

Not really. You've got some duplication there, and some unnecessary specifics, and are missing a whole language category.

English is a bastard hybridization of Teutonic (Old Germanic - which gives the wrong impression. English today has as much in common with Scandinavian tongues as it does with German) and Latin (which also comprises all romance languages, so including the French reinforcement to Latin from Norman influences is redundant), with liberal infusions of Arabic and Greek. Amazingly, we've taken very little from the Celts who were in the British Isles before English had even begun to form (and as has been stated, even the Celts were far from the first there).

[averagejoe]

also it was my favorite swear word in elementary school :smallbiggrin:
the other kids made fun of me and i told them to go watch scooby doo

ima have to start using that word again soon

I learned it from Spaceman Spiff myself. I rarely use it, but more because I forget.

I do use, "Hoisted by my own petard." Probably because I have more occasion to. >.>


It's short for God's Wounds. It only became a swear word ("By God's wounds!" becoming "'Zounds!") because the church of the middle ages felt it was taking the lord's name in vain.

Oh, I know that, or at least enough of it as makes no difference. I just like it.

[Alchemistmerlin]

The problem with declaring that certain words aren't "worthy" of being part of the language is that you are placing yourself above the people who use those words. You are essentially saying that you, and only you, are qualified to say what is and is not a word.

It is a short jump from there to classism, racism, and other wonderful forms of discrimination.

[Fiery Diamond]

He wasn't contesting that it was a swear word, but that the reason for its being one because the church decided it was taking the lord's name in vain. It is a swear word by its very nature - not because of the church's influence, but became a profanity due to the church.

Yes, that's what I was saying. Glad that I made sense to somebody at least. :smallbiggrin:

[Talya]

The problem with declaring that certain words aren't "worthy" of being part of the language is that you are placing yourself above the people who use those words. You are essentially saying that you, and only you, are qualified to say what is and is not a word.

It is a short jump from there to classism, racism, and other wonderful forms of discrimination.

There's legitimate change, but language isn't nearly as fluid as some would have you believe. There's a fine line between accepting legitimate change, and the ridiculous concept that "spelling or grammar are not important." Language is what we use to communicate -- to translate complex ideas into a portable medium that can be transferred to others. Some change is necessary to accomodate new ideas that did not exist before. Other change merely muddies the waters and makes communication more difficult. Without a defined and standard lexicon, precise communication becomes impossible.

[Alchemistmerlin]

There's legitimate change, but language isn't nearly as fluid as some would have you believe. There's a fine line between accepting legitimate change, and the ridiculous concept that "spelling or grammar are not important." Language is what we use to communicate -- to translate complex ideas into a portable medium that can be transferred to others. Some change is necessary to accomodate new ideas that did not exist before. Other change merely muddies the waters and makes communication more difficult. Without a defined and standard lexicon, precise communication becomes impossible.

Except clearly the people using these words ARE communicating.

If communication is becoming impossible for you then the language is not dying, you are simply falling behind.

[Talya]

Except clearly the people using these words ARE communicating.

If communication is becoming impossible for you then the language is not dying, you are simply falling behind.

Absolutely not. You are correct, that the small groups that use certain new "words" are communicating, but they are harming their ability to communicate with the rest of the world as a whole. This is especially true with words where the vernacular usage "drifts" away from the original. Incorrect usage (like the aforementioned 'decimate') sets the stage for legitimate misunderstandings as the words suddenly have very different meanings for different people.

New words occasionally catch on and gain widespread use, this is how language forms. As words move from slang to formal language, if one wishes to avoid becoming anachronistic they need to learn them. However it still behooves anyone who wishes to communicate effectively with others outside their immediate circle of friends to choose words carefully, and use only well established and precisely defined words when possible.

[Flame of Anor]

The problem with declaring that certain words aren't "worthy" of being part of the language is that you are placing yourself above the people who use those words. You are essentially saying that you, and only you, are qualified to say what is and is not a word.

It is a short jump from there to classism, racism, and other wonderful forms of discrimination.

Noooo. I'm not saying I'm better than people who use language incorrectly. I'm saying I use language better than they do.

[DomaDoma]

Absolutely not. You are correct, that the small groups that use certain new "words" are communicating, but they are harming their ability to communicate with the rest of the world as a whole. This is especially true with words where the vernacular usage "drifts" away from the original. Incorrect usage (like the aforementioned 'decimate') sets the stage for legitimate misunderstandings as the words suddenly have very different meanings for different people.

New words occasionally catch on and gain widespread use, this is how language forms. As words move from slang to formal language, if one wishes to avoid becoming anachronistic they need to learn them. However it still behooves anyone who wishes to communicate effectively with others outside their immediate circle of friends to choose words carefully, and use only well established and precisely defined words when possible.
I mostly see where you're coming from, but in the specific case of the word "decimate", well, I don't think this culture really has much occasion to use a word for systematically killing every tenth person.

[Flame of Anor]

I mostly see where you're coming from, but in the specific case of the word "decimate", well, I don't think this culture really has much occasion to use a word for systematically killing every tenth person.

Well, and we don't have much use for a word that means a crafter of bows, but that doesn't mean that "bowyer" should get a different meaning because we're so short on combinations of letters.

[Ravens_cry]

Well, and we don't have much use for a word that means a crafter of bows, but that doesn't mean that "bowyer" should get a different meaning because we're so short on combinations of letters.
Jargon is special because it is a restricted sub-section of language. If the greater English community "decides" that bowyer means something different, then it does in that sense, but it will still have the present meaning in technical language.

[Talya]

I mostly see where you're coming from, but in the specific case of the word "decimate", well, I don't think this culture really has much occasion to use a word for systematically killing every tenth person.


The correct modern use of decimate is "to destroy a significant portion of." (Ten percent is significant, so its historical useage makes this appropriate anyway.) Incorrect modern usage (and all too common) is "to obliterate."

[Alchemistmerlin]

Absolutely not. You are correct, that the small groups that use certain new "words" are communicating, but they are harming their ability to communicate with the rest of the world as a whole. This is especially true with words where the vernacular usage "drifts" away from the original. Incorrect usage (like the aforementioned 'decimate') sets the stage for legitimate misunderstandings as the words suddenly have very different meanings for different people.

New words occasionally catch on and gain widespread use, this is how language forms. As words move from slang to formal language, if one wishes to avoid becoming anachronistic they need to learn them. However it still behooves anyone who wishes to communicate effectively with others outside their immediate circle of friends to choose words carefully, and use only well established and precisely defined words when possible.

So, to summarize;

"People who are communicating just fine with people within their social sphere and clearly living their lives but can not communicate with me/the larger group I define as necessary for communication are wrong and should change to fit my definitions because they are correct."

Well, when you put it that way...

[Talya]

So, to summarize;

"People who are communicating just fine with people within their social sphere and clearly living their lives but can not communicate with me/the larger group I define as necessary for communication are wrong and should change to fit my definitions because they are correct."

Well, when you put it that way...

Not what I said. If the only people you ever needed to communicate with, ever, were in your small limited sphere, then you'd be fine. This is how dialects originate. But even before the Internet, the entire world started being one big community. As an example, if you post here, you're communicating with people from dozens of countries, dozens of cultures and dialects -- even if you only count people for whom English is their first language. Mix in the people trying to understand us for whom English is something they learned in school, and suddenly it becomes very important to communicate using standard accepted words, or else you will be misunderstood.

You're only wrong to the extent the words you choose fail to convey the ideas you are trying to communicate. If your choice of words confuses your target audience because your vocabulary is not standard, then yes, you are "wrong."

[DomaDoma]

So, to summarize;

"People who are communicating just fine with people within their social sphere and clearly living their lives but can not communicate with me/the larger group I define as necessary for communication are wrong and should change to fit my definitions because they are correct."

Well, when you put it that way...

So if you stay in a certain subculture, you don't have to worry about communicating clearly with somebody from another subculture? Because then we're on the road to out-and-out dialects.

[warty goblin]

So, to summarize;

"People who are communicating just fine with people within their social sphere and clearly living their lives but can not communicate with me/the larger group I define as necessary for communication are wrong and should change to fit my definitions because they are correct."

Well, when you put it that way...

If by summarize, you mean distort into a parody, then yes.

Otherwise it's a completely reasonable position. If you allow your language to become too narrow it loses the ability to communicate easily and fluidly with others. This definitely can happen - at work we communicate in a dense haze of references to past events known only to us, obscure pieces of music, and simply made up terms. Now we can also turn this off at will, but if I spoke like that to everybody, I'd be unable to effectively communicate with all but about three people.

It's pretty reasonable to think that this would be a problem. I've certainly met people for whom this is the case, and it's really quite sad.

[Fiery Diamond]

There's legitimate change, but language isn't nearly as fluid as some would have you believe. There's a fine line between accepting legitimate change, and the ridiculous concept that "spelling or grammar are not important." Language is what we use to communicate -- to translate complex ideas into a portable medium that can be transferred to others. Some change is necessary to accomodate new ideas that did not exist before. Other change merely muddies the waters and makes communication more difficult. Without a defined and standard lexicon, precise communication becomes impossible.


Absolutely not. You are correct, that the small groups that use certain new "words" are communicating, but they are harming their ability to communicate with the rest of the world as a whole. This is especially true with words where the vernacular usage "drifts" away from the original. Incorrect usage (like the aforementioned 'decimate') sets the stage for legitimate misunderstandings as the words suddenly have very different meanings for different people.

New words occasionally catch on and gain widespread use, this is how language forms. As words move from slang to formal language, if one wishes to avoid becoming anachronistic they need to learn them. However it still behooves anyone who wishes to communicate effectively with others outside their immediate circle of friends to choose words carefully, and use only well established and precisely defined words when possible.


Not what I said. If the only people you ever needed to communicate with, ever, were in your small limited sphere, then you'd be fine. This is how dialects originate. But even before the Internet, the entire world started being one big community. As an example, if you post here, you're communicating with people from dozens of countries, dozens of cultures and dialects -- even if you only count people for whom English is their first language. Mix in the people trying to understand us for whom English is something they learned in school, and suddenly it becomes very important to communicate using standard accepted words, or else you will be misunderstood.

You're only wrong to the extent the words you choose fail to convey the ideas you are trying to communicate. If your choice of words confuses your target audience because your vocabulary is not standard, then yes, you are "wrong."


If by summarize, you mean distort into a parody, then yes.

Otherwise it's a completely reasonable position. If you allow your language to become too narrow it loses the ability to communicate easily and fluidly with others. This definitely can happen - at work we communicate in a dense haze of references to past events known only to us, obscure pieces of music, and simply made up terms. Now we can also turn this off at will, but if I spoke like that to everybody, I'd be unable to effectively communicate with all but about three people.

It's pretty reasonable to think that this would be a problem. I've certainly met people for whom this is the case, and it's really quite sad.

I'm going to go ahead and say that Talya put it quite well. I think that she is correct. And no, "let's put all these words that certain subcultures have in a dictionary (even if the words aren't precisely defined) and that makes it the rest of the world's fault if they don't understand now" is not a valid counterargument.

[Lord Seth]

The problem with declaring that certain words aren't "worthy" of being part of the language is that you are placing yourself above the people who use those words. You are essentially saying that you, and only you, are qualified to say what is and is not a word.

It is a short jump from there to classism, racism, and other wonderful forms of discrimination.Er...no it isn't. Not at all.

[GolemsVoice]

I still think that clinging to "right" definitions is wrong, and in a way arrogant. So if you were to ask 1000 people what exactly they would think decimate means, and 950 give you an an answer along the lines of "to destroy a significant portion of", thatn that's what it means in modern day English. Now, if someone would say that it means "to completely destroy", you could say he was wrong, but I'd use decimate in the above sense any time. I wasn't even aware of the original meaning.

Another example: in many parts of Germany, "Servus" is a friendly greeting. Now, those clever folks who studied Latin will know at once where it comes from. It means "I am your slave" or "I am here to serve you". Does anybody still mean it this way? Not at all. So today, outside of Latin texts, Servus is a friendly greeting. Because it has changed this way. Insisting on retaining it's original meaning is backwards and narrow to me.

[Talya]

I still think that clinging to "right" definitions is wrong, and in a way arrogant. So if you were to ask 1000 people what exactly they would think decimate means, and 950 give you an an answer along the lines of "to destroy a significant portion of", thatn that's what it means in modern day English. Now, if someone would say that it means "to completely destroy", you could say he was wrong, but I'd use decimate in the above sense any time. I wasn't even aware of the original meaning.
"To destroy a significant portion of" is an acceptable definition for decimate. This definition is derived from the original. It likely started as a metaphor (Roman businessman crying about his drop in sales: "our profits were decimated, just like Caesar's 9th legion!") It retains its links to the original meaning and the spirit of it. I have no issues with such a usage. It's those other 50 people (and I'd bet it's more like 200 out of 1000, not 50) who will say it means "to obliterate." Those are the ones with the problem.



Another example: in many parts of Germany, "Servus" is a friendly greeting. Now, those clever folks who studied Latin will know at once where it comes from. It means "I am your slave" or "I am here to serve you". Does anybody still mean it this way? Not at all. So today, outside of Latin texts, Servus is a friendly greeting. Because it has changed this way. Insisting on retaining it's original meaning is backwards and narrow to me.

Another example of metaphor which maintains its obvious links through language drift.

These examples merely show you are arguing against something we are not saying. Language drift definitely happens, and is not a problem. What is a problem is ensuring that the language you use today means what you think it means to the majority of your audience.

[druid91]

I still think that clinging to "right" definitions is wrong, and in a way arrogant. So if you were to ask 1000 people what exactly they would think decimate means, and 950 give you an an answer along the lines of "to destroy a significant portion of", thatn that's what it means in modern day English. Now, if someone would say that it means "to completely destroy", you could say he was wrong, but I'd use decimate in the above sense any time. I wasn't even aware of the original meaning.

Another example: in many parts of Germany, "Servus" is a friendly greeting. Now, those clever folks who studied Latin will know at once where it comes from. It means "I am your slave" or "I am here to serve you". Does anybody still mean it this way? Not at all. So today, outside of Latin texts, Servus is a friendly greeting. Because it has changed this way. Insisting on retaining it's original meaning is backwards and narrow to me.

Well call me arrogant then, like you couldn't anyway:smalltongue:, We have words, they mean things.

If one man knows how to fix a TV, and a thousand don't are you going to let them dictate how it gets fixed because there are more of them? Same thing.

And as for decimate... it's in the word. Deci=ten. I figured that out without someone telling me. Not the whole history of it, but the ten thing. Then my granddad told me.

As for your second example, life is full of things like that. Pleasantries that literally mean one thing but really don't take on that meaning anymore.

For example "At your service." What does that sound like?
It's no different. The two meanings are not mutually exclusive.

And to me insisting on following whatever people decide to vomit up and call language is a recipe for disaster. Would you allow a class of kindergarteners to rewrite the entire language with no limits?

[Zevox]

If one man knows how to fix a TV, and a thousand don't are you going to let them dictate how it gets fixed because there are more of them? Same thing.
Not the same thing at all. How a TV works is a fixed science, based on the technology that makes it work. How a language works is not. What a word means is determined by what the speakers of the language consider it to mean, not what it used to mean, or what linguists or grammarians or whoever else considers themselves an authority on the matter want it to mean. It is very much the case that if the overwhelming majority of people disagreed with a linguist or grammarian on what a word means today, that would mean the linguist or grammarian was wrong, not the people.

Zevox

[Avilan the Grey]

Another example: in many parts of Germany, "Servus" is a friendly greeting. Now, those clever folks who studied Latin will know at once where it comes from. It means "I am your slave" or "I am here to serve you". Does anybody still mean it this way? Not at all. So today, outside of Latin texts, Servus is a friendly greeting. Because it has changed this way. Insisting on retaining it's original meaning is backwards and narrow to me.

We have the same idea, but here it is slang: "Tjenare" is a way of greeting a friend in some Swedish dialects, and that comes from "Tjänare" (servant) which is in turn shortened from "Jag är din tjänare" (I am your servant).

However at least in Swedish, and I think it's the same in Germany (AFAIK) "Servus" / "Tjänare" has NEVER meant Slave. It has meant Servant, which actually is different. A slave might be a servant, but servants are not slaves.
The word's LATIN roots might have meant "Slave", but it sure doesn't mean that now, or even 500 years ago.

[dehro]

I don't mind english, or other languages, evolving to fit the needs of an evolving society. what annoys me is when a language borrows a word from another one for no reason at all (because there could be perfectly sensible ways to say something without "branching out", or one could always just invent another word in one's own language)... especially if they do it wrong too.

case in point: I wonder how many of us forumites ever have done any "footing" without it having to be censored for being something gross and semi-pornographic...
more people than you'd think, because "footing" was/has been/is (I'm not sure whether it's still used) how italians called "jogging"..or running about sweating a ton, if you prefer.

[Kato]

However at least in Swedish, and I think it's the same in Germany (AFAIK) "Servus" / "Tjänare" has NEVER meant Slave. It has meant Servant, which actually is different. A slave might be a servant, but servants are not slaves.
The word's LATIN roots might have meant "Slave", but it sure doesn't mean that now, or even 500 years ago.

Hey, it's only in Bavarian, we other Germans don't go around calling people slaves :smalltongue:
Well, I'm not exactly sure where it comes from, your explanation sounds reasonably enough though saying I'm someone's servant even though servant is Diener in German and doesn't sound at all like 'servus' is a bit weird. But I'm no linguist or anything.


More general... I really don't mind using English to say things I feel would be more difficult to explain in German It's when people think they are using German but instead slaughter and torture it when I get angry. Yes, I know languages evolve and change but when what I hear hurts my ears I can't help it.

[Lord Vukodlak]

It has finally happened, the last bastion of the English language has fallen prey to the Internet. There is no hope make your time AHAHAHAHA

http://oxforddictionaries.com/page/newwords_may2011_us

May what god, goddess, or ideal you worship have mercy on your souls.

Some people said the same thing abotu "doh"

[Talya]

Oh, and for the record, there ain't nothin' wrong with the word "ain't."

[Alchemistmerlin]

We have words, they mean things.

No, they don't.

That's what you don't get. There is no cosmic tablet. Much like money isn't worth anything unless we decide it is, words don't mean anything unless we decide they do. If most people decide a word means something other than what you are sure it means, you are wrong.

Definitions are not definite, there is no absolute (Only the Sith speak in absolu...wait.) Most especially, you are not qualified to decide what is and is not a word because those qualifications do not exist.

In closing, this is why English degrees are a bad idea.

[Talya]

No, they don't.

That's what you don't get. There is no cosmic tablet. Much like money isn't worth anything unless we decide it is, words don't mean anything unless we decide they do. If most people decide a word means something other than what you are sure it means, you are wrong.

Definitions are not definite, there is no absolute (Only the Sith speak in absolu...wait.) Most especially, you are not qualified to decide what is and is not a word because those qualifications do not exist.

In closing, this is why English degrees are a bad idea.

This "relative" approach to language, if taken to its logical extreme, makes all communication impossible, as nobody has any standards, authority, or common ground for understanding anything said by anyone else. Failing the Reductio ad absurdum litmus test makes it both logically and practically unsound.

[Kageru]

This "relative" approach to language, if taken to its logical extreme, makes all communication impossible, as nobody has any standards, authority, or common ground for understanding anything said by anyone else. Failing the Reductio ad absurdum litmus test makes it both logically and practically unsound.
I don't think your Reductio ad absurdum works, since the result isn't a realistic result of saying that words mean what the majority says they mean.
Taking it to it's extreme only works if you ignore reality. Yes if everybody had his own meaning for a word you couldn't use it to communicate. But that is entirely unrealistic. People don't randomly change the meaning of the words they use and they learn the words from others so at least a sub group knows the same meaning. New words or changed meanings spreading isn't an instant process and not everything changes at once. Simple "inertia" prevents changes which are so big or so fast that somebody living while they happen would become unable to communicate.
It might become harder to read old texts but denying the existence of a correct definition doesn't lead to communication becoming impossible.
After all languages existed a long time without a real authority or hard standards. (Today we have dictionaries which can be used as a standard, but most people only look up words they don't know, which means that for most words they use definitions they learned from others not dictionary definitions.)
Regarding common ground well I see nothing in Alchemistmerlin posts which prevents the existence of a common ground. Saying that words mean what most people think they mean actually suggest that these people have a common ground.

[thompur]

All this talk reminded me of this (http://youtu.be/Aa5XLny8Wmc).

[Talya]

Regarding common ground well I see nothing in Alchemistmerlin posts which prevents the existence of a common ground. Saying that words mean what most people think they mean actually suggest that these people have a common ground.


Ah, but Alchemistmerlin says that words do not have meanings. He also says that people are "not qualified to decide what is and is not a word because those qualifications do not exist." This means that "what most people think they mean" doesn't matter.

I have stated from the start that the common usage of any word, its vernacular, is it's real, official meaning. That is what Oxford attempts to find, and even so, it allows for various alternates based on regional differences and large minorities. The usage decides the meaning...but not the usage of one person, or even a small group of people. The authority on any language is "the people that speak it." Where you deviate substantially from that group, you are wrong, and responsible for any miscommunications that deviation causes.

I mostly get the impression that people who argue against this really didn't like language classes in school. The simple fact is they are the most important thing you ever did (or didn't) learn. Communication is, far and away, the most important thing to function in human society, more than math, sciences, other practical skills. Complex language is what sets us apart from and above most other animal species, and treating it lightly, as if its unimportant, is a grave mistake.

[warty goblin]

This "relative" approach to language, if taken to its logical extreme, makes all communication impossible, as nobody has any standards, authority, or common ground for understanding anything said by anyone else. Failing the Reductio ad absurdum litmus test makes it both logically and practically unsound.

On the contrary, it's by construction practical - words mean what we decide they mean, and that decision is carried out through use. Since the decision making is collective and made during lots of iterations over reasonably long periods of time language can't reduce to the absurdity of losing communicative power for everyone. It certainly can for individuals or small groups that are highly isolated from the majority, but that's a separate issue.

Nor is it's 'failure' of reducto ad absurdum at all relevant. Humans do not behave in logical ways, and tend not to carry things out to their logically extreme end states for the simple reason that doing so is usually obviously stupid. Sure I could go through the dictionary, re-assign all the meanings, and start going around referring to people as bacteria and running as taking a nap, but why would I do that? It's obviously stupid.

(And technically it doesn't fail reducto ad absurdum, since there's no contradiction in language being incapable of communication. This is amply demonstrated by putting two people without a language in common in a room together. They won't get a hell of a lot of communicating done with language, and when they do start to do so it'll be in an agreed upon language they create.)

[Talya]

On the contrary, it's by construction practical - words mean what we decide they mean

Alchemist directly argued against that statement. Which makes it odd that you're arguing with me, since what you're saying here is the same thing I've been saying throughout.

Words mean what we say they mean. They do not mean whatever some individual or small group decides they mean at any given time -- not for the majority that they are trying to communicate with -- they are absolute, they have meanings. Those meanings change and drift with the vernacular, but they are meanings. Alchemist is saying they are not. He is taking the approach that language is a completely fluid thing and we can misuse it however we want and expect to be understood; that language has no authority.

Edit: A secondary point is you do not only need to know the meaning of words now in order to communicate. You also need a reasonable historical knowledge of the language and how it has drifted in order to be somewhat fluent. One need not necessarily be conversationally fluent in Shakespearian English in order to get by, but it sure helps. A knowledge of important literature is a part of very basic language and communicational and cultural skills, and being able to read that literature means knowing not just what language is now, but how it has drifted since that time, and the origins and purposes of the words, even if they are no longer used that way. Understanding the original use of "decimate" is important to truly understanding the modern usage of "decimate," even though they differ. The relationships are important. Taking at least a partially holistic approach to anything always give one a better understanding of a whole. A heart surgeon who understands the rest of the human body is a better heart surgeon. An engineer with some hands on technical background in his area of expertise becomes a better engineer. It's true in every aspect of study.

[GolemsVoice]

Edit: A secondary point is you do not only need to know the meaning of words now in order to communicate. You also need a reasonable historical knowledge of the language and how it has drifted in order to be somewhat fluent. One need not necessarily be conversationally fluent in Shakespearian English in order to get by, but it sure helps. A knowledge of important literature is a part of very basic language and communicational and cultural skills, and being able to read that literature means knowing not just what language is now, but how it has drifted since that time, and the origins and purposes of the words, even if they are no longer used that way. Understanding the original use of "decimate" is important to truly understanding the modern usage of "decimate," even though they differ. The relationships are important. Taking at least a partially holistic approach to anything always give one a better understanding of a whole. A heart surgeon who understands the rest of the human body is a better heart surgeon. An engineer with some hands on technical background in his area of expertise becomes a better engineer. It's true in every aspect of study.


I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing agains letting the history of words influence the way they are spoken now. So if you go around berating people that decimate should only be used in a situation where someone destroys a tenth of a military unit for purposes of discipline, despite the fact that the word has now broadened it's meaning, you are, as you said so well, wrong. My Oxford dictionary doesn't even list this definition anymore, only "to detroy a large part of sth." If we used every word only in the sense that is was orignially intended for, we would constantly be carrying around giant etymological lexica, which, while amusing enough, severely hinders everyday life. And I disagree that understanding the history of a word is all that important. It is certainly useful, and it is a nice bonus, but I can use many words without knowing anything about their history.

That's why I brought the examples I brought. Servus is a friendly greeting I can use for someone I know well. But saying "I am your servant" sound strange. So It's strange to complain that people are using "servus" wrongly, because they don't mean it in the original sense of the word (although it is true, of course, that, even back then, nobody REALLY offered to be someone's servant.)

And yes, words are meaningless, and only the people using them fill them with meaning. If enough people use a different meaning for a long enough time, the meaning simply will change. Alchemist isn't arguing that we can use language anyway we want, just that there is no inherent connection between a thing and a word. Thus, as you said, if I went around and used the word "house" to mean "car", no one would understand me, and I would be wrong. But I would only be wrong because the meaning of house is commonly agreed upon among English speakers.

[Talya]

I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing agains letting the history of words influence the way they are spoken now. So if you go around berating people that decimate should only be used in a situation where someone destroys a tenth of a military unit for purposes of discipline, despite the fact that the word has now broadened it's meaning, you are, as you said so well, wrong. My Oxford dictionary doesn't even list this definition anymore, only "to detroy a large part of sth." If we used every word only in the sense that is was orignially intended for, we would constantly be carrying around giant etymological lexica, which, while amusing enough, severely hinders everyday life.

I believe I've already said several times here that the current correct definition of "Decimate" is "to destroy a significant portion of". I feel like you guys are arguing with me then saying the same thing.

Here's my premises, as stated in this thread:

1. Language does drift. This is not a problem, or wrong. The current correct meaning of any word is determined by modern dominant usage. Hells, you don't even need it to be a "dominant" usage, just a reasonably common one. That's why dictionaries have several definitions for almost every word.

2. Precise Language is important. Language is what we use to communicate. Using it well means using it in a manner that those around you can understand. Complaining that the current defininition of "Decimate" doesn't match the archaic definition is silly. (Knowing the archaic definition puts a whole new spin on the current definition though, as they are obviously very closely linked. It helps to know that when you use the verb decimate, you're using a metaphor.) However, a significant number of people misuse decimate by using it to represent "obliterate" or "destroy." This has the potential to cause great confusion as it's not the proper definition now, nor is it related to the original.

3. Given 1 & 2, Having an authority for language is important. It isn't that Oxford gets to determine the meaning of words for us. They don't. They, and other dictionary publishers have taken it upon themselves to be gatherers of information, and determine how we, the speakers of the English language, use the words in that language. Thinking of OED as an authority is wrong. They are merely the messengers of the authority. The true authority is the common usage of the language by those who speak it. OED supplies that for us. Citing it is not an example of an appeal to some nonexistent authority. It is showing what the current definitions of the language are. Do they make mistakes? Sure. But not nearly as many as any of us do individually, so we'd probably do better trusting them.

4. Imprecise or incorrect use of language does is not excused by any elements of 1, 2 or 3. Learn your vocabulary. Know the words you use. There is a correct use (or several correct uses), and many wrong uses for any given word. Make sure you get it right.

And while we're on the subject of imprecise language, my personal, biggest pet peeve, directed at nobody in particular at the moment:

Rogue (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rogue)
Rouge (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rouge)

They may look a like, but they sound very different and mean very different things. Learn the difference.

[Welf]

And as for decimate... it's in the word. Deci=ten. I figured that out without someone telling me. Not the whole history of it, but the ten thing. Then my granddad told me.

Just a hypothetical example: Maybe the use of decimate as a synonymy for obliterate indicates a new concept of destruction. If a military unit is decimated, or a industry, it becomes less, but the rest is still can function. If a tenth of a complex system like a computer is removed it stops being a computer, because it can't function as a such, although most of it's mundane material components still are present. Decimate in that context would indicate that the English speakers are aware of the increasing complexity of the things they encounter.
Of course that is crap, but it's a example of how changing meanings can make sense and how they can enrich the language. If we always brand changes in usage as wrong languages can't develop.


Words mean what we say they mean. They do not mean whatever some individual or small group decides they mean at any given time -- not for the majority that they are trying to communicate with -- they are absolute, they have meanings. Those meanings change and drift with the vernacular, but they are meanings. Alchemist is saying they are not. He is taking the approach that language is a completely fluid thing and we can misuse it however we want and expect to be understood; that language has no authority.

I think you define language to narrow. What about dialects or technical language? They use words different, sometimes they change meanings, but more often they add meanings and nuances to words. Are their users using the language wrong because of that?

[GolemsVoice]

I think that I attacked some points to strongly and some even wrongly, I apologize.


2. Precise Language is important. Language is what we use to communicate. Using it well means using it in a manner that those around you can understand. Complaining that the current defininition of "Decimate" doesn't match the archaic definition is silly. (Knowing the archaic definition puts a whole new spin on the current definition though, as they are obviously very closely linked. It helps to know that when you use the verb decimate, you're using a metaphor.) However, a significant number of people misuse decimate by using it to represent "obliterate" or "destroy." This has the potential to cause great confusion as it's not the proper definition now, nor is it related to the original.

But if there's a significant number of people using the word in this way, should we not change the dictionary to include this meaning as well? This is a real quetion, not a rethorical one. When does a "wrong" usage become "right"?



If one man knows how to fix a TV, and a thousand don't are you going to let them dictate how it gets fixed because there are more of them? Same thing.

But this is what irks me. No, I don't, of course, but that implies that there is someone who "knows" language, and thus has the skills needed to "work" with language, and everybody else doesn't. This, obviously, is wrong.

EDIT: Maybe you misunderstood alchemistmerlin, Talya. I think he is simply saying that there is no inherent connection between a word and the thing it refers to. This is a quite common idea in linguistics. So, technically, you could use any word to refer to any thing, but you could NOT expect to be understood.

[Talya]

But if there's a significant number of people using the word in this way, should we not change the dictionary to include this meaning as well? This is a real quetion, not a rethorical one. When does a "wrong" usage become "right"?

No, because it directly contradicts the more common usage of Decimate by the majority. Putting both meanings would be like listing "Aye: 1) Yes. 2) No." As such, there would be absolutely no way to use the word in a precise way, as the meaning would always be unclear. If at some point, "obliterate" became the most common meaning, well, that would be ugly, but it would change the definition. (and it wouldn't be the first time a word has come to be used for a mild "opposite" of what it once did.)

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I'd say it's quite simple. If I say, to use your 'decimate' example, "Caesar's legion was decimated", people are going to understand what I mean: A large portion of it was destroyed. All is well so far.
If I use 'decimate' incorrectly, say... "The gigantic tactical missile decimated the toy car", people are... funnily enough, still going to understand me. They will know that I mean that the car was completely destroyed, even if I used the word 'wrong'. In that case, I would say as long as people understand what I mean by the word, I am using the word right.

Here's another example, from what I THINK is local slang.
Legit, short for legitimate, meaning lawful, following the standards or rules, or meaning born in wedlock.
However, my peers and I use the word "legit" in the following context: "Yo, dude, was that a legit Ferrari that just drove down the rode?" "Yeah, man!" "Duuuuude." "I know, man!"
We both know that 'legit' means 'actual' in that sense. In that sense, I am using the word right, as my intended audience fully understands what I mean by the word. 'legit' can also mean simply 'cool', or 'awesome', in a method that's totally contrary to the dictionary definition.
"So, I broke into that old abandoned factory this weekend. It was so sketchy!" "Legiiiit!"

[Ravens_cry]

"To destroy a significant portion of" is an acceptable definition for decimate. This definition is derived from the original. It likely started as a metaphor (Roman businessman crying about his drop in sales: "our profits were decimated, just like Caesar's 9th legion!") It retains its links to the original meaning and the spirit of it. I have no issues with such a usage. It's those other 50 people (and I'd bet it's more like 200 out of 1000, not 50) who will say it means "to obliterate." Those are the ones with the problem.

"Significant" is another interesting word. In normal speech, it often means a large proportion, while in statistical jargon it basically means "greater than random chance", which is often quite small. So when a scientist says there is a "significant link between <substance/> and <disease/>" what most people will take from that are completely different things than what the scientist meant.

[GolemsVoice]

If at some point, "obliterate" became the most common meaning, well, that would be ugly, but it would change the definition.

I actually meant a majority of people in that question. So much for precise language :smallwink:


In that case, I would say as long as people understand what I mean by the word, I am using the word right.

I wouldn't go that far. But I would say you're using it less incorrectly than if you would have said "painted it green" or something equally silly.

[druid91]

Here's another example, from what I THINK is local slang.
Legit, short for legitimate, meaning lawful, following the standards or rules, or meaning born in wedlock.
However, my peers and I use the word "legit" in the following context: "Yo, dude, was that a legit Ferrari that just drove down the rode?" "Yeah, man!" "Duuuuude." "I know, man!"
We both know that 'legit' means 'actual' in that sense. In that sense, I am using the word right, as my intended audience fully understands what I mean by the word. 'legit' can also mean simply 'cool', or 'awesome', in a method that's totally contrary to the dictionary definition.
"So, I broke into that old abandoned factory this weekend. It was so sketchy!" "Legiiiit!"

And it is speech like this that has, in part, lead to my voluntary isolation from my "peers".

Perhaps I have a unusual outlook on things, but my communications teacher once told me something, right along with "Words mean things because most people decide they mean things."

And that was, the more important something is to a group of people the more words they are likely to have for that idea or subject.

To me there is a large difference between all the various words that involve things being destroyed.

What I'm trying to say is that by trying to homogenize the language, you are getting closer and closer to newspeak. By limiting language you limit ideas.

I really don't care so much about new words, so long as they take the effort to not sound completely idiotic.

I mean really, Schmick? Just saying it in attempt to describe something as "smart and stylish" simply does not mesh. The best things have actual meanings, schmick sounds artificial, and not in the good way.

Real words, they feel like something, the word has a... power to it.

I say cool and you think blue, ice, winter...
I say hot, you think red, fire, summer...
I say satellite you picture something in orbit.

Some words stick. These words are real.
There can even be more than one word that sticks. This is ok. As it's almost guaranteed that they won't have the exact same meaning.

Words that someone made up simply to be a fad? No.

Schmick is empty inside. No soul.
Mani-pedi is likewise empty to me.

Words have a soul, they absorb their meaning.

Most of these words simply do not. A couple have potential. Even though I hate to say it.
But most are hollow mockeries of the words they claim to be.

[VanBuren]

The soul of a word?

What a vague and nebulous concept!

[Ravens_cry]

@druid91:
Ah, but all words have a transitory period before they are fully accepted. Maybe it will be like 'cool', and stick, or maybe it will be like 'totally radical' and become a laughable anachronism, at best. While it is happening, you can't know. 'They' is increasingly being used to denote a gender neutral singular, even though this is 'incorrect'. In time, I think it will become accepted and therefore 'correct', but I might be wrong. I do know I use it, and I am generally understood.

[Zevox]

Real words, they feel like something, the word has a... power to it.

I say cool and you think blue, ice, winter...
I say hot, you think red, fire, summer...
I say satellite you picture something in orbit.

Some words stick. These words are real.
You have those associations because you grew up learning what those words mean and seeing those associations when other people used them. They aren't just magically an inherent part of those terms, they're a result of their widespread use and the meanings, associations, and connotations ascribed to them by those using them.

In other words, all language, and all words, are artificial. They are human creations, not some part of nature we just discover. New ones sound strange to you only because you're not familiar with them and their use, not because they're somehow more artificial, or lack some magic quality that makes them "real" or "stick."


Words have a soul, they absorb their meaning.
They do not. Words are nothing more than sounds, and icons we use to represent those sounds visually. We ascribe meaning to them, they have none in and of themselves. To claim otherwise is just ludicrous.

Zevox

[druid91]

The soul of a word?

What a vague and nebulous concept!

Yep just like anything else worth having a good arguement over.


@druid91:
Ah, but all words have a transitory period before they are fully accepted. Maybe it will be like 'cool', and stick, or maybe it will be like 'totally radical' and become a laughable anachronism, at best. While it is happening, you can't know. 'They' is increasingly being used to denote a gender neutral singular, even though this is 'incorrect'. In time, I think it will become accepted and therefore 'correct', but I might be wrong. I do know I use it, and I am generally understood.

That is usage, a phrase. That is changing a word. To be honest, as long as all the important meanings of a word are kept and it's somehow related to the original meaning I don't care. Decimate to mean destroy a large portion of? Sure, not technically correct but you got your point across.

It's when you get fools using infamous as famous that irritates me.


You have those associations because you grew up learning what those words mean and seeing those associations when other people used them. They aren't just magically an inherent part of those terms, they're a result of their widespread use and the meanings, associations, and connotations ascribed to them by those using them.

In other words, all language, and all words, are artificial. They are human creations, not some part of nature we just discover. New ones sound strange to you only because you're not familiar with them and their use, not because they're somehow more artificial, or lack some magic quality that makes them "real" or "stick."


They do not. Words are nothing more than sounds, and icons we use to represent those sounds visually. We ascribe meaning to them, they have none in and of themselves. To claim otherwise is just ludicrous.

Zevox

The problem with that theory, is new words hit me just fine.
For example, I've been trying with varying degrees of success to learn japanese and make it stick.

Neko, I would understand that word just as plain as if someone shouted cat, and have in fact caught myself thinking neko instead of cat. It wasn't even something I saw much of, I saw it once in the "this is a dog and this is a cat" kindergarten level, and once in a proverb. But that word stuck. The sounds fit together in a way that just seems to mean cat.

Some words just work in a way that others don't.

iggabato and noca, Do either of them sound like legitimate words? Do they sound like they mean something? Or does it sound like I typed gibberish into my keyboard?

Suppose I told you iggabato means cool and stylish. Could you imagine anyone using it?

What if I said noca means be careful? Would you accept that as a word?

Keep in mind that I have heard one of these used in real life, and even then, after being told what it meant and why it was, never used it.

You might be content with words that are random jumbles of sound with an explanatory footnote. But me? I expect higher quality.

[Weezer]

It's kind of interesting watching this argument go on, it's the quintessential divide between old philosophy and modern philosophy. Older philosophy was all about metaphysical forms that language connected too, which is basically what druid91 is saying with his arguments about how words have souls and 'good' words feel like what they mean. Newer philosophy on the other hand rejects that notion to embrace the idea that language (and pretty much everything else in fact) has no inherent meaning besides that which we ascribe to it, which is more in line with what Zevox says. I personally agree with what Zevox says but with one added bit.

The fact that words have no inherent meaning does not diminish their power, their majesty, their ability to change the world. It actually in some ways makes them more affective because in a sense words are humanity, how we shaped it and how it now shapes us is fundamental to who we are, it is what makes us human. Without the everchanging and mutable language we have created we wouldn't be who we are and if we freeze language, limit it's development and lock it into place we do the same to ourselves.


I'm going to finish with a quote here from Nietzsche, he's talking about truth but it applies equally to language:

A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short, a sum of human relations which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.

[VanBuren]

Yep just like anything else worth having a good arguement over.

Yeah, but at least those discussions are things that can be defined at some point.


The problem with that theory, is new words hit me just fine.
For example, I've been trying with varying degrees of success to learn japanese and make it stick.

This doesn't disprove his theory so much as it highlights your personal aesthetic tastes.


Neko, I would understand that word just as plain as if someone shouted cat, and have in fact caught myself thinking neko instead of cat. It wasn't even something I saw much of, I saw it once in the "this is a dog and this is a cat" kindergarten level, and once in a proverb. But that word stuck. The sounds fit together in a way that just seems to mean cat.

Not to me. Clearly the word Neko has no soul, then.


Some words just work in a way that others don't.

Can you prove that this is due to anything other than personal taste?


iggabato and noca, Do either of them sound like legitimate words? Do they sound like they mean something? Or does it sound like I typed gibberish into my keyboard?

I could buy that they are words from a different language. Obviously they're not native to the English language, like many words.


Suppose I told you iggabato means cool and stylish. Could you imagine anyone using it?

What if I said noca means be careful? Would you accept that as a word?

I'd just use cool, stylish, and be careful since those expressions are familiar and common to me. Whether or not I could imagine a future generation using those words is of no consequence to whether or not those words are used. Presumably those words will eventually pick up the cultural baggage that our established words already have.


Keep in mind that I have heard one of these used in real life, and even then, after being told what it meant and why it was, never used it.

You might be content with words that are random jumbles of sound with an explanatory footnote. But me? I expect higher quality.

Quality is an inherently subjective evaluation. You're appealing to a quality in these words that, quite frankly, does not exist.

[druid91]

Yeah, but at least those discussions are things that can be defined at some point.



This doesn't disprove his theory so much as it highlights your personal aesthetic tastes.



Not to me. Clearly the word Neko has no soul, then.



Can you prove that this is due to anything other than personal taste?



I could buy that they are words from a different language. Obviously they're not native to the English language, like many words.



I'd just use cool, stylish, and be careful since those expressions are familiar and common to me. Whether or not I could imagine a future generation using those words is of no consequence to whether or not those words are used. Presumably those words will eventually pick up the cultural baggage that our established words already have.



Quality is an inherently subjective evaluation. You're appealing to a quality in these words that, quite frankly, does not exist.

And so can words having souls. It just likely won't get to that point.:smalltongue:

Maybe. But there is indeed a reason people speak different languages.

Really? You immediatly question the sanity/sobriety of someone who seriously tried to call a cat a neko? It feels entirely out of place with no connection to it's meaning at all?

Nope, just like you can't prove that words having no inherent meaning is due to your personal tastes.

Iggabato is simple gibberish that I thought up on the spot, Noca was a shortening of "No capsize". Don't capsize, be careful. I heard it in a sailing group.

Except, it does exist. Quality is subjective. If I'm more willing to use certain words because they feel a certain way, well then it has that quality. It may not be a quality you value or even notice. but it is there nonetheless.

[Zevox]

The problem with that theory, is new words hit me just fine.
Then there is something strange about you and how you react to sounds. This does not change how words and language work. They are human constructs, every bit as artificial as a computer or building. They can no more posses meaning outside our own minds than a building could be constructed without us (or a similarly intelligent species).


Neko, I would understand that word just as plain as if someone shouted cat, and have in fact caught myself thinking neko instead of cat.
Whereas I would only have any idea that it meant that because I've played video games where cat-girl monsters were called "Nekomata." Not coincidentally, these were Japanese-made games.


iggabato and noca, Do either of them sound like legitimate words? Do they sound like they mean something?
They cannot "sound like they mean something." Their sound has nothing to do with their meaning. There is no inherent connection between sound and meaning. We ascribe the latter to the former in order to communicate, and nothing more.

As such, in the sense that neither is a word in any language I am familiar with, no, they do not "sound like they mean something." I could certainly see them being words in a language I am not familiar with, or in a regional dialect I am not familiar with, or I could see them becoming English words if they caught on with the speakers of the language. Certainly they sound no stranger to me than "Nekomata" or any number of other Japanese terms I've encountered playing video games, or any number of terms I learned in my Spanish classes in High School, such as "trabajar" or "creer." Heck, "noca" is only a letter or two away from some existing english words, like "coca" or "mocha," so it sounds less foreign to me than "Nekomata" or "trabajar."


Suppose I told you iggabato means cool and stylish. Could you imagine anyone using it?
Sure.


What if I said noca means be careful? Would you accept that as a word?
I would believe you if you told me it meant that in some other language, or that someone used it as a regional dialect of some sort. Obviously it isn't a widespread english term, so I wouldn't buy that.

Zevox

[druid91]

Then there is something strange about you and how you react to sounds. This does not change how words and language work. They are human constructs, every bit as artificial as a computer or building. They can no more posses meaning outside our own minds than a building could be constructed without us (or a similarly intelligent species).


Whereas I would only have any idea that it meant that because I've played video games where cat-girl monsters were called "Nekomata." Not coincidentally, these were Japanese-made games.


They cannot "sound like they mean something." Their sound has nothing to do with their meaning. There is no inherent connection between sound and meaning. We ascribe the latter to the former in order to communicate, and nothing more.

As such, in the sense that neither is a word in any language I am familiar with, no, they do not "sound like they mean something." I could certainly see them being words in a language I am not familiar with, or in a regional dialect I am not familiar with, or I could see them becoming English words if they caught on with the speakers of the language. Certainly they sound no stranger to me than "Nekomata" or any number of other Japanese terms I've encountered playing video games, or any number of terms I learned in my Spanish classes in High School, such as "trabajar" or "creer." Heck, "noca" is only a letter or two away from some existing english words, like "coca" or "mocha," so it sounds less foreign to me than "Nekomata" or "trabajar."


Sure.


I would believe you if you told me it meant that in some other language, or that someone used it as a regional dialect of some sort. Obviously it isn't a widespread english term, so I wouldn't buy that.

Zevox

Interesting theory.

That falls apart when you realize that it is at least partially instinctive the way we react to sounds. A scream, a laugh, Gutteral speech... it goes on and on.

The idea that words are just sounds simply doesn't hold up. There is a reason certain sounds were chosen. because it sounds like an older world and simply mutated, or because it sounds like the object or idea.

[Partof1]

Words are not sounds, though. Any word can have a given sound. You can scream "murder" or "kitten" in the same manner, and it still implies fear, regardless the word.

To someone who doesn't know english, the words have no meaning, the sounds would.

[Zevox]

Interesting theory.

That falls apart when you realize that it is at least partially instinctive the way we react to sounds. A scream, a laugh, Gutteral speech... it goes on and on.
This is, again, because we come to associate those things with the circumstances under which they are used. People scream when they are in danger or otherwise frightened, as a natural reflex (probably) to alert others of their danger or fear, so we come to associate that sound with that meaning. If we reflexively laughed in such circumstances, we would instead associate laughter with danger or fear. Most likely a scientist in the proper field could deduce why the one came into being instead of the other - at a guess, screams may be the easiest loud noise for creatures with our kind of vocal organs to create - but this doesn't make that meaning any more inherent or less dependent on our mental associations for its existence.

Zevox

[VanBuren]

And so can words having souls. It just likely won't get to that point.:smalltongue:

You're not approaching this very constructively then.


Really? You immediatly question the sanity/sobriety of someone who seriously tried to call a cat a neko? It feels entirely out of place with no connection to it's meaning at all?

I only understand a connection because I have been informed that one exists. The word "neko" does not, to me, imply cat. Nor does the Japanese onomatopoeia look right to my eyes. This, I attribute to the familiarity I have with the western terms, rather than any metaphysical concept.


Nope, just like you can't prove that words having no inherent meaning is due to your personal tastes.

Burden of proof.


Iggabato is simple gibberish that I thought up on the spot, Noca was a shortening of "No capsize". Don't capsize, be careful. I heard it in a sailing group.

And?


Except, it does exist. Quality is subjective. If I'm more willing to use certain words because they feel a certain way, well then it has that quality. It may not be a quality you value or even notice. but it is there nonetheless.

Just because you perceive doesn't mean it does truly exist outside of your own thinking.

[Craftworld]

English is not dead. Quite the opposite in fact, it's just getting zhooshed up.

"English is the language that lurks in the shadows that beats up other languages and rifles through their pockets for spare vocabulary."
-The Blackbird
I don't remember what we were all talking about though...

[druid91]

You're not approaching this very constructively then.



I only understand a connection because I have been informed that one exists. The word "neko" does not, to me, imply cat. Nor does the Japanese onomatopoeia look right to my eyes. This, I attribute to the familiarity I have with the western terms, rather than any metaphysical concept.



Burden of proof.



And?



Just because you perceive doesn't mean it does truly exist outside of your own thinking.

It was more me attempting to be witty about the fact that I never get to make the point I was originally trying to make and end up distracted into something else.:smallwink:

Maybe it's just me. I was thinking in the terms of college level communications courses in first grade. Obviously not the exact words but the concepts.

Burden of proof? Have I not presented an argument that works? If the sounds of words have no inherent meaning why choose those sounds? Am I to believe that an intelligent construct as complex as the english language came about by a mob of caveman saying "Ooh, ohh TREE TREE?" Or similar methods? I can accept random chance in nature, in human created things I can't. You don't just ducktape a pig to the front of your car do you?

[Talya]

inherent

Our words have meanings. They do not have inherent meanings. The meanings of words have been assigned by those who speak the languages to the particular collection of sounds that make up the word. The sounds have no meaning apart from our assignment, so the meaning is not inherent. Words exist because we make them up.

There is no logical path or evidence of there being any universal inherent meaning in the sounds we utter. But, just because they have no inherent meaning, does not mean that, at any given time, the meaning the words possess is not absolute and "official." The fact that language slowly changes over time does not in any way make it less exact at any given moment.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I really wish I had more to impart to this discussion, but DAMN this is fun and interesting to read!

[Da'Shain]

Burden of proof? Have I not presented an argument that works? If the sounds of words have no inherent meaning why choose those sounds? Am I to believe that an intelligent construct as complex as the english language came about by a mob of caveman saying "Ooh, ohh TREE TREE?" Or similar methods? I can accept random chance in nature, in human created things I can't. You don't just ducktape a pig to the front of your car do you?He's saying the burden of proof is on you because there is no indication that the word "tree" has more inherent meaning than the word for "tree" in any other language. Else, everyone would speak English instinctively, which is obviously not the case; English is neither the oldest language nor has the most native speakers, and is looked upon by many non-English speakers as a mongrel language that doesn't have much internal consistency but must be learned because it happens to be the current language of "international discourse".

The mere fact that other languages have words for the same concepts and entities as English really pokes holes in any argument that a specific sound or group of sounds has "soul" or is universally the "correct" word. Language is a human construct which, in fact, did arise more or less how you sarcastically describe up there (oversimplifying of course). The sounds have meaning only because we ascribe it to them collectively, which is almost certainly how it came about in the first place.

[druid91]

Our words have meanings. They do not have inherent meanings. The meanings of words have been assigned by those who speak the languages to the particular collection of sounds that make up the word. The sounds have no meaning apart from our assignment, so the meaning is not inherent. Words exist because we make them up.

There is no logical path or evidence of there being any universal inherent meaning in the sounds we utter. But, just because they have no inherent meaning, does not mean that, at any given time, the meaning the words possess is not absolute and "official." The fact that language slowly changes over time does not in any way make it less exact at any given moment.

Just because we gave them the meanings they have does not make it any less inherent.

Whether bob down the street or even if the whole world doesn't like it. Cold means cold. We could ignore that fact, or speak a different language. But you can't change it.

To me every language is dead, it's simply some have successors.

If eventually cold was no longer used that is a different language then english as I know it. You plain and simple cannot change the language without making it a new one.

How does this relate to what I said above?

Because yes we assigned the meaning. Because tree sounded particularly treelike to someone a long time ago.

And just like a man given a sword becomes a swordsman or dead, these words either became full fledged words or died.


He's saying the burden of proof is on you because there is no indication that the word "tree" has more inherent meaning than the word for "tree" in any other language. Else, everyone would speak English instinctively, which is obviously not the case; English is neither the oldest language nor has the most native speakers, and is looked upon by many non-English speakers as a mongrel language that doesn't have much internal consistency but must be learned because it happens to be the current language of "international discourse".

The mere fact that other languages have words for the same concepts and entities as English really pokes holes in any argument that a specific sound or group of sounds has "soul" or is universally the "correct" word. Language is a human construct which, in fact, did arise more or less how you sarcastically describe up there (oversimplifying of course). The sounds have meaning only because we ascribe it to them collectively, which is almost certainly how it came about in the first place.

The problem with that is I never said english was the only option. In fact I actually mentioned equally regarding the words neko/cat as the same thing.

Different names for the same entity.

Specific sounds. There are multiple ways to make sound convey something. Neko/cat argument again.

What I am arguing against is plain and simple gibberish masquerading as words.

[Flame of Anor]

I'm just going to say that pretty much everybody who hasn't already should study Tolkien's work to get a much better understanding of this sort of thing.

[Da'Shain]

Just because we gave them the meanings they have does not make it any less inherent.

Whether bob down the street or even if the whole world doesn't like it. Cold means cold. We could ignore that fact, or speak a different language. But you can't change it.

To me every language is dead, it's simply some have successors.

If eventually cold was no longer used that is a different language then english as I know it. You plain and simple cannot change the language without making it a new one.

How does this relate to what I said above?

Because yes we assigned the meaning. Because tree sounded particularly treelike to someone a long time ago.

And just like a man given a sword becomes a swordsman or dead, these words either became full fledged words or died.The English language you learned as a child has been dead and buried for some time, then, as there are plenty of new additions and shifts in meaning that have happened even over the last twenty years or so.

And a man given a sword does not automatically become a swordsman; that's ridiculous. A swordsman is someone who uses a sword, and usually also carries the connotation of skill with it.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Using the example of the word "tree", you can actually trace the descent of the word from Proto-Indo-European. In which case, you can also see how what is, in effect, various pronunciations of the SAME WORD slowly changed their meaning, and in other languages, became a completely different word.
It comes from the Old English word treow, which comes from the Proto-Germanic Trewan, which still means tree, which comes from the Proto-Indo-European deru, which means oak. So, the word went from meaning a specific type of tree, to meaning any tree. However, the same word went down a different path to mean 'spear' in Greek: Doru. So, for a greek person, the word for 'spear' is not because it sounds spearlike, it's because it's connected to the idea of 'wood'.

Where the PIE *deru- comes from, we cannot tell. However, if we look at all the different words for 'tree', the words are WILDLY different. In Basque: zuhaitz. In Arabic: Shajarat. In Welsh: Coeden. Chinese: Shu. Albanian: Peme. If I understand what you're saying properly, you're saying that, at some point, someone had to say "Shajarat. That sounds like that object over there!", and yet others go "Peme. That pokey sticky thing looks like a 'Peme'..."? And yet both somehow embody the 'soul' of the idea of a tree? All those sounds, as different as Puno for Filipino and mti for Swahili, they all somehow instantly represent 'tree', because those sounds just inherently are 'tree'?

[Zevox]

If the sounds of words have no inherent meaning why choose those sounds?
Because we required some way to communicate with each other, and assigning meaning to sounds when we posses the ability to both create and hear sounds was a functional way to do that.

Here, if you're so convinced of your position, explain this: the word "saber." In English, it is the name of a type of sword. In Spanish, it means "to know." It is of course pronounced slightly differently due the languages' differences, but is noticeably very similar in sound (to the point where a regional accent could conceivably render them identical in sound), and obviously identical in spelling. Yet the meanings could hardly be more different.

Or hell, how about words that have multiple meanings that are the exact opposite of each other even in the same language? The English word "cleave" for instance, can mean either "to cut, split, or divide" or "to adhere closely, stick, or cling." It is pronounced identically in either case.

Zevox

[druid91]

Using the example of the word "tree", you can actually trace the descent of the word from Proto-Indo-European. In which case, you can also see how what is, in effect, various pronunciations of the SAME WORD slowly changed their meaning, and in other languages, became a completely different word.
It comes from the Old English word treow, which comes from the Proto-Germanic Trewan, which still means tree, which comes from the Proto-Indo-European deru, which means oak. So, the word went from meaning a specific type of tree, to meaning any tree. However, the same word went down a different path to mean 'spear' in Greek: Doru. So, for a greek person, the word for 'spear' is not because it sounds spearlike, it's because it's connected to the idea of 'wood'.

Where the PIE *deru- comes from, we cannot tell. However, if we look at all the different words for 'tree', the words are WILDLY different. In Basque: zuhaitz. In Arabic: Shajarat. In Welsh: Coeden. Chinese: Shu. Albanian: Peme. If I understand what you're saying properly, you're saying that, at some point, someone had to say "Shajarat. That sounds like that object over there!", and yet others go "Peme. That pokey sticky thing looks like a 'Peme'..."? And yet both somehow embody the 'soul' of the idea of a tree? All those sounds, as different as Puno for Filipino and mti for Swahili, they all somehow instantly represent 'tree', because those sounds just inherently are 'tree'?

You got the basic idea, but missed the part where I said words mutate.

but pretty much. It really all depends on how you see something.

Do they embody the exact same thing? Likely not.

Do they embody the vast concept that is "tree"

And before you laugh at me for calling that a vast concept. First think of all the scientific descriptions of a tree. How it interacts with everything. And then think about all the poetic applications. What it could represent. Does a tree represent strength? Complacency? How about a forest?

How do you see a spear? Do you see it as a peice of wood that happens to have a pointy end? or do you see it as a spear? A thing worthy of it's own word all it's own?

Languages reflect the worldview of those who speak them. I do not share the world-view of those who make the words. So to me. they have no meaning. No soul. Not that I can see.

Maybe you share enough of a worldview with the creater that you understand. Or maybe you are simply arguing for the sake of an arguement.

But the soul of a word is shaped by it's maker. And you can't get rid of it once it's there. Maybe it falls out of use. But it's still there.

Dangit. In attempting to explain more about this than normal I seem to have both defeated and supported myself at the same time.:smalleek:

:smallsigh: At least this time I didn't make myself look like a lunatic.


Because we required some way to communicate with each other, and assigning meaning to sounds when we posses the ability to both create and hear sounds was a functional way to do that.

Here, if you're so convinced of your position, explain this: the word "saber." In English, it is the name of a type of sword. In Spanish, it means "to know." It is of course pronounced slightly differently due the languages' differences, but is noticeably very similar in sound (to the point where a regional accent could conceivably render them identical in sound), and obviously identical in spelling. Yet the meanings could hardly be more different.

Or hell, how about words that have multiple meanings that are the exact opposite of each other even in the same language? The English word "cleave" for instance, can mean either "to cut, split, or divide" or "to adhere closely, stick, or cling." It is pronounced identically in either case.

Zevox

Because we are dealing with two different cultures creating languages to reflect different realities?

You seem to be under the delusion that I am arguing that there is one word that is the one true soul word! NO OTHER WORD IS VALID!!!!

No just that some words have a soul you cannot remove that. And that after the initial crafting the word cannot simply be called back.

And that other words are ridiculous, sound horrible, and simply don't fit.

I could maybe with a little strain imagine schmick as part of another language. But it would be the language of a people I wouldn't understand in the slightest. Certainly not english.

As for cleave, You don't see the connection?

You take an axe and cleave a log in two. seperating it.

You do the same act but the axe doesn't cut all the way through and is tightly embedded into the log.

The same action. Both results.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Mmm, I think I get what you're trying to say, but it's still contingent on the audience, and the speaker. What our point is, is that if you take away any humans to parse the sounds, the sounds are just that: sounds. Without a human to make meaning of the sounds, the sounds aren't words. It is the HUMAN that makes a sound into a word, and what that word is depends on what their understanding of it is, what the speaker of the word's intention is, and what society agrees the word is. Without all that, the word is just sound. So I would argue that the meaning is not inherent in the sounds at all, the meaning is in the complicated interplay between speaker, audience, and society.

[Flame of Anor]

It is of course pronounced slightly differently due the languages' differences, but is noticeably very similar in sound (to the point where a regional accent could conceivably render them identical in sound)

SAY-ber and sah-VAIR could be pronounced the same? Not likely.

[Zevox]

SAY-ber and sah-VAIR could be pronounced the same? Not likely.
I was always taught to pronounce the Spanish version "sah-BAIR," not "VAIR" :smallconfused: . Regional difference perhaps?


Because we are dealing with two different cultures creating languages to reflect different realities?

You seem to be under the delusion that I am arguing that there is one word that is the one true soul word! NO OTHER WORD IS VALID!!!!
You argued that those words meant what they did because they sounded like they meant that, and even claimed you could determine such meaning in a completely foreign language with your "neko/cat" example. You further disagreed with me when I argued that sounds have no inherent meaning and that meaning is simply assigned to it by us humans.

That argument cannot exist if you also claim that those same sounds can have completely different meanings to different people. Either the meaning is inherent to the sound, as you claimed, in which case things like "cleave" make no sense, or it is assigned by the people speaking or hearing it, as I claimed and your statements in this quote would indicate.


No just that some words have a soul you cannot remove that. And that after the initial crafting the word cannot simply be called back.

And that other words are ridiculous, sound horrible, and simply don't fit.
And these are utterly illogical nonsense arguments with no basis in reality that make words out to be magical things that would possess meaning even in the absence of humans to speak and understand them.


As for cleave, You don't see the connection?

You take an axe and cleave a log in two. seperating it.

You do the same act but the axe doesn't cut all the way through and is tightly embedded into the log.

The same action. Both results.
And you don't see how that would be an argument for assigned meaning rather than the meaning being inherent to the sound?

Zevox

[Whiffet]

Ah, quite a fascinating discussion. Differing views on language... fascinating, indeed.

I think that humanity managed to do well enough in the past when there weren't standards, so why worry too much about it now? Why, as recently as a few hundred years ago there weren't even strict standards for spelling. It's kind of fun to find copies of, say, some of the Federalist Papers and look for words that are spelled several different ways in the same paper. I entertained myself in history class a couple years ago by doing that. I assume that's why there are problems like color/colour today (since that was brought up earlier and it was stated that was language devolution).

I consider words to be like paper money. The meaning is there solely because enough people are willing to go along with it.

[SaintRidley]

I was always taught to pronounce the Spanish version "sah-BAIR," not "VAIR" :smallconfused: . Regional difference perhaps?


Spanish makes no phonemic distinction between the sounds represented by the letters b and v. They are pronounced identically and as a sound somewhere in between what English uses (since English makes a distinction between the sounds, they sound drastically different to English speakers.

Of course, the very fact that different languages have certain sounds but lack others and distinguish between similar sounds differently is all evidence toward the complete arbitrariness of the relationship between sound and meaning.

[Ravens_cry]

There is an interesting effect that may show the sounds we use to represent things are not completely arbitrary. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouba/kiki_effect)

[Ozymandias]

Here's a different argument (one that is interesting although I don't endorse it) for "semantic existentialism," i.e. the idea that meaning is not solely created by a speaker.

There is a possible world (metaphysical jargon for "it could have been that"), Twin Earth, which is identical to earth in every respect except that the chemical formula of what they call 'water' is XYZ. So call XYZ "twater."

Twater is identical to water in every respect except for chemical formula (this doesn't make any sense scientifically, but that isn't relevant to the thought experiment.) Hence, my experience with water is the same as Twin Me's experience with twater.

When I say "Water" I refer to H20, but when Twin Me says, "Water" he refers to XYZ. But our experiences (and brain states) have been the same. So it seems there's something external to me that affects what the usage of the word refers to.

[Flame of Anor]

As for cleave, You don't see the connection?

You take an axe and cleave a log in two. seperating it.

You do the same act but the axe doesn't cut all the way through and is tightly embedded into the log.

The same action. Both results.

That's actually not true.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cleave

[druid91]

You argued that those words meant what they did because they sounded like they meant that, and even claimed you could determine such meaning in a completely foreign language with your "neko/cat" example. You further disagreed with me when I argued that sounds have no inherent meaning and that meaning is simply assigned to it by us humans.

That argument cannot exist if you also claim that those same sounds can have completely different meanings to different people. Either the meaning is inherent to the sound, as you claimed, in which case things like "cleave" make no sense, or it is assigned by the people speaking or hearing it, as I claimed and your statements in this quote would indicate.


And these are utterly illogical nonsense arguments with no basis in reality that make words out to be magical things that would possess meaning even in the absence of humans to speak and understand them.


And you don't see how that would be an argument for assigned meaning rather than the meaning being inherent to the sound?

Zevox

No what I said was that I had no trouble accepting the word neko to mean cat.

There are similar cases with other words. My point is, real words feel like words.

That sound is now cleaves'. That word owns that sound. No other word can ever claim to be cleave without retaining that spirit.

You give a word an idea, you push all of this thought into crafting this word. And it comes out with power. You can say something.

Or you can spend five minutes and have a word as hollow as a pinata.

Cold? OR sginiatkasn?

Neko/cat OR jaura

Utterly illogical? No, merely considering words to be nothing but sounds is illogical. Words are ideas. And Ideas and words have power.

No humans around, a stereo screams run and a dog will run. Words don't need humans, all they need is something to understand and use them.

Nope. Because the sound took the meaning.

In short. Yes we did assign meaning. But this isn't a "I put you into this world I can take you out of it" situation. It's too late. Irrevocable. That word now has a meaning you can't take away. A word is not the sum of it's parts.

Keh

Aa

Teh

Does that mean anything? Nope. Zero value in saying that.

But C-A-T Does.

It has the inherent irremovable meaning. Even if noone exists to use it.

[Fiery Diamond]

I waited to long to get back to this thread and it got away from me. First, I want to refer back to the previous discussion...


To begin:


I'd say it's quite simple. If I say, to use your 'decimate' example, "Caesar's legion was decimated", people are going to understand what I mean: A large portion of it was destroyed. All is well so far.
If I use 'decimate' incorrectly, say... "The gigantic tactical missile decimated the toy car", people are... funnily enough, still going to understand me. They will know that I mean that the car was completely destroyed, even if I used the word 'wrong'. In that case, I would say as long as people understand what I mean by the word, I am using the word right.

To that I would respond with this:


I wouldn't go that far. But I would say you're using it less incorrectly than if you would have said "painted it green" or something equally silly.

To continue:


Here's another example, from what I THINK is local slang.
Legit, short for legitimate, meaning lawful, following the standards or rules, or meaning born in wedlock.
However, my peers and I use the word "legit" in the following context: "Yo, dude, was that a legit Ferrari that just drove down the rode?" "Yeah, man!" "Duuuuude." "I know, man!"
We both know that 'legit' means 'actual' in that sense. In that sense, I am using the word right, as my intended audience fully understands what I mean by the word. 'legit' can also mean simply 'cool', or 'awesome', in a method that's totally contrary to the dictionary definition.
"So, I broke into that old abandoned factory this weekend. It was so sketchy!" "Legiiiit!"

I would take much issue with this if you attempted to use this outside of your group. If you attempted to use this slang outside of your little grouping that uses it, you would be wrong. Not only should you not expect others to understand you, but you should be aware that it is highly regionally specific and that other will NOT understand you. And in no way should this be just added to some dictionary under some heading like "slang" just so that you can point to the dictionary and say, "See! It's your fault for not knowing that I use the word this way!"

If you only used it in your group, then you could expect to be understood (and I have no problem with that), but society at large is under no obligation to accept your usage as correct.


"Significant" is another interesting word. In normal speech, it often means a large proportion, while in statistical jargon it basically means "greater than random chance", which is often quite small. So when a scientist says there is a "significant link between <substance/> and <disease/>" what most people will take from that are completely different things than what the scientist meant.

This irritates me. This is precisely why I feel that one of two things should happen to rectify the situation:

a) Society gets better educated on the statistical/scientific usage of the word. This is unlikely for a number of reasons, not the least of which is people's love of remaining ignorant on the grounds that they "don't care" or "don't need to know."

b) Scientists STOP USING THE WORD THIS WAY IN ANY INTERACTION WITH NON-SCIENTISTS (though they can still do so in interaction with scientists). This one is more feasible and in my opinion should happen.
There is a large communication gap caused by the completely different definitions of the word. One side or the other needs to change, and the scientists are better equipped to do so.



Just a hypothetical example: Maybe the use of decimate as a synonymy for obliterate indicates a new concept of destruction. If a military unit is decimated, or a industry, it becomes less, but the rest is still can function. If a tenth of a complex system like a computer is removed it stops being a computer, because it can't function as a such, although most of it's mundane material components still are present. Decimate in that context would indicate that the English speakers are aware of the increasing complexity of the things they encounter.
Of course that is crap, but it's a example of how changing meanings can make sense and how they can enrich the language. If we always brand changes in usage as wrong languages can't develop.

I would agree with this... to a point. But just because we shouldn't automatically brand all changes as wrong doesn't mean we should be obliged to automatically accept all changes as legitimate.


I think you define language to narrow. What about dialects or technical language? They use words different, sometimes they change meanings, but more often they add meanings and nuances to words. Are their users using the language wrong because of that?

Edit: Sorry, I quoted so many things I overlooked this. Anyway: When they use the words that way in their specific settings (that is, within the regions they are used that way or when interaction with others in that technical field) then no, they are not wrong. If they attempt to use the dialect-specific or technical language meanings of the words outside of their specific settings then yes, they are wrong. Simple.


The beginning of the new topic and everything said on the new topic by this person.

You can believe what you like, but I'm going to agree with Talya, Zevox, and others who are don't believe what you profess to believe. I personally find your stance to be rather odd and inconsistent with itself.


@druid91:
Ah, but all words have a transitory period before they are fully accepted. Maybe it will be like 'cool', and stick, or maybe it will be like 'totally radical' and become a laughable anachronism, at best. While it is happening, you can't know. 'They' is increasingly being used to denote a gender neutral singular, even though this is 'incorrect'. In time, I think it will become accepted and therefore 'correct', but I might be wrong. I do know I use it, and I am generally understood.

I would agree with this. I would also add, however, that while they are still in this transitory period where their fate is uncertain, we should not yet be adding them to any "official" dictionaries. Only once they are fully accepted should they make there appearance in the dictionary: this standing the test of time litmus test is something that most of the words I contest that were added in that batch to the Oxford Dictionary have not passed yet.



Our words have meanings. They do not have inherent meanings. The meanings of words have been assigned by those who speak the languages to the particular collection of sounds that make up the word. The sounds have no meaning apart from our assignment, so the meaning is not inherent. Words exist because we make them up.

There is no logical path or evidence of there being any universal inherent meaning in the sounds we utter. But, just because they have no inherent meaning, does not mean that, at any given time, the meaning the words possess is not absolute and "official." The fact that language slowly changes over time does not in any way make it less exact at any given moment.

Very true.


On the whole, the person in this thread I agree most with is Talya. She puts this way better than I ever could. I suppose it's because of her greater mastery of language. :smalltongue:

[SaintRidley]

No humans around, a stereo screams run and a dog will run. Words don't need humans, all they need is something to understand and use them.

Nope. Because the sound took the meaning.


Two points which make your argument bad:

1) Your choice of wording implies that the stereo emits the sound loudly, and loud noises are likely to cause animals to flee by virtue of instilling fear.

2) Let's assume the volume is not an issue and the dog hears run and runs as a direct result. Your argument is still assuming humans because the only way a dog will run as a direct result of hearing that word is if it has been trained by humans.



Allow me to pose a question in the form of a poem.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.


"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.


`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

The whole point of this poem is to demonstrate how random arrangements of sounds can make "words" that are not and even conjure up primitive associations of meaning where no meaning exists. Do these words have soul despite the fact that they were deliberately constructed to sound like words without being words, to sound like they have meaning without having meaning?

[Whiffet]

Yes we did assign meaning. But this isn't a "I put you into this world I can take you out of it" situation. It's too late. Irrevocable. That word now has a meaning you can't take away. A word is not the sum of it's parts.

Keh

Aa

Teh

Does that mean anything? Nope. Zero value in saying that.

But C-A-T Does.

It has the inherent irremovable meaning. Even if noone exists to use it.

You can't just change the meaning of a word... because you can't get everyone else to go along with the change that quickly. People do slowly alter their usage of some words, stop using other words, and even add words. Nothing is inherent. Words are representations of ideas for the purpose of communication. If more people are using it differently or no one is there to use a word at all, it does not still have the old definition.

[Fiery Diamond]

Two points which make your argument bad:

1) Your choice of wording implies that the stereo emits the sound loudly, and loud noises are likely to cause animals to flee by virtue of instilling fear.

2) Let's assume the volume is not an issue and the dog hears run and runs as a direct result. Your argument is still assuming humans because the only way a dog will run as a direct result of hearing that word is if it has been trained by humans.



Allow me to pose a question in the form of a poem.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.


"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.


`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

The whole point of this poem is to demonstrate how random arrangements of sounds can make "words" that are not and even conjure up primitive associations of meaning where no meaning exists. Do these words have soul despite the fact that they were deliberately constructed to sound like words without being words, to sound like they have meaning without having meaning?

I hate doing this, but even though I disagree with the druid, I'm going to have to say something here that's similar to what the druid said. The part of what you said that I put in bold. I think that that's exactly what druid means when druid says that a word has soul. Compare the "made-up words" in that poem, which sound like words and sound like they have meaning (the soul bit) to the following gibberish: simlnoskffeeskjl seoiuouasngianslithowrt. Those do not look or sound like words at all, even foreign language words. There is some unquantifiable, and indeed, unqualifiable [side note: Firefox tells me that "unqualifiable" is not a word, and I'm too lazy to check whether any dictionary says it is. However, it's fairly obvious what I mean: you can't measure it in terms of quality. Look back to my initial post about using terms if they make sense regardless of whether they are words. The purpose is to communicate, and if English doesn't have unqualifiable as a word, then this void needs to be filled.] property of collections of sounds that makes them "sound like words." Whether they "sound like words" will vary a great deal on the person listening to them, but just as there are some traits that all languages have in common, there are some things that will not "sound like words" to anyone who grew up listening to any language. Like adsgkjvneslbskdfjlnhslkfhbdslfkj, which was a result of random keyboard bashing.

Er... I'm not sure what I was trying to say anymore. Oh, right, it was that even though I disagree with druid, I understand where druid is coming from.


You can't just change the meaning of a word... because you can't get everyone else to go along with the change that quickly. People do slowly alter their usage of some words, stop using other words, and even add words. Nothing is inherent. Words are representations of ideas for the purpose of communication. If more people are using it differently or no one is there to use a word at all, it does not still have the old definition.

I don't agree with the last sentence. If more people are using it differently, the old definition might be archaic, but the old definition still exists. And it is my personal opinion that people should make an effort to learn archaic definitions of words. Otherwise they might watch that silly movie "The Three Caballeros" and think that "We're three caballeros, three gay caballeros" in the theme song means that the characters are singing about being homosexual when they clearly are using the older usage that has been nearly entirely usurped by the modern one at this point.

[Ravens_cry]

This irritates me. This is precisely why I feel that one of two things should happen to rectify the situation:

a) Society gets better educated on the statistical/scientific usage of the word. This is unlikely for a number of reasons, not the least of which is people's love of remaining ignorant on the grounds that they "don't care" or "don't need to know."

b) Scientists STOP USING THE WORD THIS WAY IN ANY INTERACTION WITH NON-SCIENTISTS (though they can still do so in interaction with scientists). This one is more feasible and in my opinion should happen.
There is a large communication gap caused by the completely different definitions of the word. One side or the other needs to change, and the scientists are better equipped to do so.


You've run into the problem of jargon. Unfortunately, neither 'solution' is very feasible.
Imagine if when playing, say, D&D, instead of using the word 'save', the rules books described the concept each time the concept was used. The rule books would be hard slogging to read and many, many times the length. Jargon is a shortcut for specialized use within a specialized fields.
Going back to 'significant', this trouble often arises because a scientist will use the word in a paper, the paper will be quoted in media for science minded individuals, like 'Scientific American', and it in turn will be quoted by the mass media, where many people will not. So the blame may not rest on the scientist, but on being quoted many times removed by people who only have a partial understanding. In truth, the solution you consider infeasible may very well be the best one. We live in a society brimming with specialized occupations and associated jargon. While no one person can learn them all, it behoves us to learn the basic ones for ones we will commonly encounter, like statistical terms used by scientists.

Now for my pet peeve, the common use of a single word to describe all manner of wondrous and fascinating phenomena that deserve individual description. 'Epic' seems be commonly used among my circle of friends. Now, epic is a good word, it has a nice, big sound, like the massive stone letters in the poster for Ben Hur. But when it is used to describe everything from video games to fast food burgers, it gets diluted. It becomes less . . .epic. So what was a wonderful word will be eventually discarded like a banana peel, empty of all meaning, a cliché. There are other examples, but epic is a particularly good word. It pains me to see it so sorely abused.

[Whiffet]

I don't agree with the last sentence. If more people are using it differently, the old definition might be archaic, but the old definition still exists. And it is my personal opinion that people should make an effort to learn archaic definitions of words. Otherwise they might watch that silly movie "The Three Caballeros" and think that "We're three caballeros, three gay caballeros" in the theme song means that the characters are singing about being homosexual when they clearly are using the older usage that has been nearly entirely usurped by the modern one at this point.

Point conceded. As long as there are remains of that older definition to be found somewhere, the old definition still exists.

[Flame of Anor]

Significant just means "making a sign". So it depends on how much of a thing it takes to make a sign for you (whether a sign of statistical correlation or whatever).

[SaintRidley]

As I'm understanding druid, he's saying the soul of a word lies in its meaning. I'm trying to get at, then, the question of if a word can have a soul if it doesn't have a meaning.

There is a difference between merely sounding like there's a meaning and actually having a meaning, and that difference comes from people assigning meanings.

Incidentally, the big stumbling block in druid's approach is to say that words have inherent meanings that we have assigned to them. As it happens, humans assigned the word inherent with a meaning that makes it impossible for a meaning to be inherent to a word as a result of being assigned that meaning (as assigning a meaning is putting the meaning in from outside and the meaning is thus the exact opposite of inherent).

I mean, it's easy to arrange letters in a way that produces a sound combination that sounds like a word.

porsuffinate

schlite

fligg

eukrid

But they don't have meaning, there's nothing inherent to them. I could assign them meanings and start using them and maybe over time they would catch on, first in the small linguistic community of my group of friends and on from there. Perhaps someday complete strangers from the opposite end of the country could be heard saying those words and meaning what I assigned to them.

The fact that the meaning and the word are together, that eukrid is used to mean "evoking the smell of an overflowing litter box" is a completely arbitrary arrangement. Meanings and words don't magically float together, and the sounds of the word don't really figure into the meaning much at all.

To say that a word sounds like a word and it has soul and means what it means because its soul calls out to that meaning is to argue for words having a sort of Platonic ideal, which simply is not the case.

[GolemsVoice]

Your right in that words can have strong ideas connected to them. As you said, there is a strong connection between colours and emotions, for example. But it is us humans who make these connections. Think of the word cool, that has now come to mean "something extraordinary, something good". Before this slang caught on, cool didn't have that meaning. A "cool" car would just be a car that's not very warm, and this phrase would sound strange. It doesn't sound strange now. Has the "soul" of "cool" suddenly expanded? Or is it rather that enough people kept using it long enough in it's new sense, and it stuck?

Of course new words might look strange. We're just not used to them. But take another example. I study at a university, and as such, I'm bound to use academic words that are considered very "smart". So sometimes, it happens that I use an expression which comes perfectly natural, but my friends don't understand me, nor would they associate the word with the concept. Where's it's soul, then? Is there only soul to me? The word is old, it has been used for a long time, and it's deffinitely accepted.

Saying that words have no inherent meaning does NOT mean that we can't associate strong concepts with them. Just that those meanings depend on OUR association between the word and the thing it represents, not on something innate in the word. Saying "tree" is the best word for this plant because it obviously represents "tree" is a circular argument.

[Ravens_cry]

Not to mention more then a little xenophobic, considering all the other words for the symbol 'tree' there is in other languages. To steal a metaphor from math, tree is the numeral, not the number.

[VanBuren]

Not to mention more then a little xenophobic, considering all the other words for the symbol 'tree' there is in other languages. To steal a metaphor from math, tree is the numeral, not the number.

Much as I disagree, druid never claimed that English was the only true language for these purposes. For instance, "neko" was just as legitimate as "cat".

Now, I don't see any particular reason why they are more legitimate than calling the creature a "flurple", other than that nobody else would understand what I was referring to because I just came up with it three seconds ago.

[Ravens_cry]

Much as I disagree, druid never claimed that English was the only true language for these purposes. For instance, "neko" was just as legitimate as "cat".
I guess I didn't think that one through. I was more commenting to the comment directly above mine than the thread as a whole.


Now, I don't see any particular reason why they are more legitimate than calling the creature a "flurple", other than that nobody else would understand what I was referring to because I just came up with it three seconds ago.
Nor any less legitimate. If you can get enough people to agree with you that, yes flurple is a perfectly good word for what we presently call a cat, than here's a video of a cute flurple (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Bmhjf0rKe8).

[Yanagi]

If the sounds of words have no inherent meaning why choose those sounds?

Technically this is a fallacy, but I'll have a go at it:

Admittedly, I'm not clear what you mean by "sounds," but barring misuse of the word you're talking about the mechanical, phonetic level of sounds in speech. If you actually mean root forms or etymological particles, then we're in an entirely different ballpark...but you're still wrong for different reasons.

The human orthographic range includes 107 consonants and vowels modified by 31 diacriticals (accents)...not counting further differentiation by tone, stress, or length. The literally represent all the sounds one can make with a human tongue, mouth, teeth, lips, and breathing. Almost all of them are used somewhere in a language system, but no language uses the entire 107; few use even half. Standard American English uses about fifty sounds, and would be considered a phoneme-rich language that has incorporated a lot if loanwords. Hawaiian--isolated on an island with little linguistic drift--uses about thirty.

There are actually functionally extinct sounds--the laryngeal ḫ was an Indo-European phoneme that died out with the Hittite language--as well as diiminished ones: there's a maybe fifteen Sanskrit words still in use that use the vowels ḷ and ḹ. There's also a bevy that you won't hear without some serious travel, like the five distinct clicks in Khoisan languages--ʘ ǀ ǂ ǁ and ǃ

Every language has a phonic set; taxonomies of language familes can chart both the passage of sets--such as Sanskrit to Hindi--and the slip-transitions that occur as new languages diverge. In living spoken languages one can also chart regional phonetic slips: yeah, accents aren't just an oddity...they're the smallest discernable transitions in human language. A simple example of such slippage moving from trivial to non-trivial would be the Proto-Indo-European words for deity/sky god, deiwus and dyaus, from which derive:

Germanic Tiwaz, Indo-Iranian deva/daeva, Baltic dievas, Finnish-Estonian tievas, Latin deus, Greek θεός/Theos, Celtic Duw, Mandean dialect Taus

...though not arranged in meaningful order. You can literally track the transformation through time and space, as one phoneme elides into being a different one. So even within a geneaological linguistic transition, sound is not stable to meaning.

Using the same "god/sky god" concept, jumping across families of languages further damages the "sounds having meaning" proposition: the same concept develops in Semitic languages in an entirely different path: in Sumerian...technically a language isolate...the very same construct is derived from the root AN, "sky," into DINGIR, "sky god." DINGIR in turn is connected to the Old Turkic Tengri and the Mongolian Tengeri--a /d/ to /t/ transition being a natural elide--.

Yet the exact same DINGIR cuneiform was read in Akkadian as ilum, part of a cognate family of Northwestern Semitic languages:

Phoenician 'l, Hebrew el, Aramaic elim, Ugaritic il, Canaanite eli, Arabic ilah

...and this is all just examples frpm a chunk of Eurasia. The broader you expand the language sample across families--thereby controlling for taxonomic kinship--the less coherence you get correlating phonic particles with meaning.

[Flame of Anor]

The fact that the meaning and the word are together, that eukrid is used to mean "evoking the smell of an overflowing litter box" is a completely arbitrary arrangement.

Hmm...I think someone may be subconsciously thinking of "putrid"... :smallwink:

[SaintRidley]

Hmm...I think someone may be subconsciously thinking of "putrid"... :smallwink:

Actually, I just picked the last word and looked around the room (basement, doing laundry), and noticed the downstairs neighbors' litter box.

Certainly wasn't an intentional similarity.

I could just as easily said that porsuffinate is the word we should use for when one begins sweating as a result of a hot shower.

[Hida Reju]

So all of the arguments on the evolution of a language aside.

Do the people of this website think that including chat language abbreviations and things like Eco-Chic belong to something other than slang? It feels like it takes words that already exist and bashes them over the head to make it a watered down gutter trash way to say things like "Lappy".

Really do you want internet slang to turn into our next language?

[Eldan]

And why not? English has tons of words that are already just words with the endings sliced off. Look at every Latin/Greek word that ends in "-ismus/-ismos" that became just "-ism". So, I don't think further shortening of words, i.e. "Laptop" to "Lappy" is all that horrible.

[Hida Reju]

And why not? English has tons of words that are already just words with the endings sliced off. Look at every Latin/Greek word that ends in "-ismus/-ismos" that became just "-ism". So, I don't think further shortening of words, i.e. "Laptop" to "Lappy" is all that horrible.

Ok, pick any story you like, start editing the words with newer shorter words.

Do not forget to replace ever entry of laugh or laughter to LOL.

Oh and lets just replace all comments on stylish to things like Eco-chic or schmick. In fact lets just start editing every new book or article with the new and improved versions of each of these words.

Go ahead do a few in your head and if you can still take it seriously and enjoy it then. I for one think it puts us one step from taking Ebonics seriously. So I leave you to it I will not bring it up any more since opinions differ and I have stated mine you are free to have yours. You have my reason now.

[GolemsVoice]

And, as many others say, Oxford isn't telling us to use these words whenever we can, or that these are words that can be used anytime, even in scientific papers. These words are marked [slang] or [informal] for a reason. Yet these words exist, and are seemingly widespread enough that Oxford considers them important enough to include. It's the same with racial slurs. Do I want/like these words in any language? Likely not. But they are used widely (or have been used, in some cases) so they belong into a dictionary, at least a few of the best known.

How is "Lappy" watered-down gutter trash? Don't you think you're being quite extreme here? Not to mention elitistic and arrogant. How do YOU define "good" words? Are some words the best? Are some words barely tolerable? Why? Are the most scientific words the best? The most poetic? The shortest?

[Eldan]

Ok, pick any story you like, start editing the words with newer shorter words.

Do not forget to replace ever entry of laugh or laughter to LOL.

Oh and lets just replace all comments on stylish to things like Eco-chic or schmick. In fact lets just start editing every new book or article with the new and improved versions of each of these words.

Go ahead do a few in your head and if you can still take it seriously and enjoy it then. I for one think it puts us one step from taking Ebonics seriously. So I leave you to it I will not bring it up any more since opinions differ and I have stated mine you are free to have yours. You have my reason now.

May I remind you that you just used "OK", which stands for the incredibly stylish "Oll Korrect", but are complaining about "LOL"? Seriously?

[The Big Dice]

May I remind you that you just used "OK", which stands for the incredibly stylish "Oll Korrect", but are complaining about "LOL"? Seriously?
Or did it (http://www.miketodd.net/encyc/okay.htm)? There's a LOT of potential sources of the term Okay to have come from. And nobody can say for sure which one is true. Or if multiple sources are the place it came from.

[Eldan]

Or did it (http://www.miketodd.net/encyc/okay.htm)? There's a LOT of potential sources of the term Okay to have come from. And nobody can say for sure which one is true. Or if multiple sources are the place it came from.

Interesting read. I must admit, I did not know that. Still, at least half of those point to it being an abbreviation.

[averagejoe]

That's the thing of it, I think. Whatever the truth of the matter is, most arguments about language certain words or language being, "Worse," than others is about separating people into camps, whether the sorter knows they're doing it or not. The words you use are like the verbal uniform you wear. I'm not going to try to say whether or not anyone is correct in saying that certain words shouldn't be used, but it does put people in, "Good," and, "Bad," camps for convenient sorting.

Of course, people have many subtle ways to do this, and we all do it to some degree. Just saying.

[thompur]

I'm very curious; Is there any other language as gloriously, majestically,beautifully F@&KED UP as English? I would think the homonyms alone would drive non-native speakers batsh!t crazy. To, Too, Two: There, Their, They're; Here, Hear; But, Butt; Wood, Would, for example.

I think this (http://youtu.be/osK2qKA5pZw) helps to illustrate my point.

[Flame of Anor]

A guy I vaguely know who runs a dry-cleaners is a Korean immigrant, and he pronounced "cough" as "cugg". He was quite taken aback on learning of all the different pronunciations of "-ough"...

[Lord Seth]

I'm very curious; Is there any other language as gloriously, majestically,beautifully F@&KED UP as English?Give Japanese a try sometime. And I've heard Chinese might be even worse.

[DomaDoma]

Give Japanese a try sometime. And I've heard Chinese might be even worse.
I understand Japanese, for all the wacky conjugations it has, is at least relatively regular about them. Also, it's not tonal. And I don't think Chinese has a phonetic alphabet. (EDIT: My bad. There is one. It's all of a hundred years old, though.) So yeah, Japanese might be slightly more difficult than English, but any Chinese language could flatten it for difficulty.

[Eldan]

Yeah. English's got nothing on Chinese in homonyms.

[Yanagi]

Do the people of this website think that including chat language abbreviations and things like Eco-Chic belong to something other than slang? It feels like it takes words that already exist and bashes them over the head to make it a watered down gutter trash way to say things like "Lappy".

Dictionaries have included entries on trends in slang since Samuel Webster.

Also, there's an important functional aspect to including slang: people with limited English are going to need to look up terms regardless of how fleeting and trendy they are.


Give Japanese a try sometime. And I've heard Chinese might be even worse.

Chinese is rife with homonyms. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_language#Grammar_and_morphology)

You'll sometimes see one speaker "sketch" a homonym's kanji with their fingertip on the palm of the other speaker's hand during conversation.

[Avilan the Grey]

I'm very curious; Is there any other language as gloriously, majestically,beautifully F@&KED UP as English? I would think the homonyms alone would drive non-native speakers batsh!t crazy. To, Too, Two: There, Their, They're; Here, Hear; But, Butt; Wood, Would, for example.

I think this (http://youtu.be/osK2qKA5pZw) helps to illustrate my point.

Swedish is much easier in that regard; however we have a similar yet opposite problem: Several words with identical spelling means different things... often with the same pronunciation too.

Example: Gift (married) and Gift (poison), Låt (let) and Låt (tune), Tal (speech), Tal (number), Få (allow) and Få (few) etc. Likely explanation in these cases is one of the words has it's roots in old norse, and the other is imported german or french, or just more modern slang.

[Lord Seth]

In regards to Chinese and Japanese, I know Chinese has some legs up on Japanese in terms of wonkiness, namely its lack of alphabet (which Japanese has) and the fact that you'll need to know two or three times as many symbols to be fluent. But I've been told that Chinese symbols are much more consistent in how they're pronounced, whereas in Japanese a symbol can have a completely different pronunciation based on what other symbols it's being used with. Of course, that is complete hearsay. I also don't think Chinese has the extreme emphasis Japanese has in regards to formality in the language either (seriously, the whole freaking language changes based on your relationship with the person you're talking to and the formality of the setting), but I could be completely wrong about that. That's why I said I wasn't certain whether Chinese was actually worse.

[Worira]

I consider Japanese's two separate alphabets and logographs on top a point against it, myself.

[Eldan]

From what I understand, the "completely different pronunciations" come from the Kanji having both Chinese and Japanese pronunciations, both of which are used in Japanese. That's hearsay, though.

[DomaDoma]

In regards to Chinese and Japanese, I know Chinese has some legs up on Japanese in terms of wonkiness, namely its lack of alphabet (which Japanese has) and the fact that you'll need to know two or three times as many symbols to be fluent. But I've been told that Chinese symbols are much more consistent in how they're pronounced, whereas in Japanese a symbol can have a completely different pronunciation based on what other symbols it's being used with. Of course, that is complete hearsay. I also don't think Chinese has the extreme emphasis Japanese has in regards to formality in the language either (seriously, the whole freaking language changes based on your relationship with the person you're talking to and the formality of the setting), but I could be completely wrong about that. That's why I said I wasn't certain whether Chinese was actually worse.

Well, for one thing, there are several different Chinese languages, all of which use the same ideograms, so depending on who you're talking to, pronunciation won't be remotely consistent.

Mandarin is a relatively good lingua franca, though.

Yeah, formality is a huge conjugation issue in Japanese, but that will just out you as a foreigner who doesn't get the culture. Getting the tone wrong in Chinese - which is ridiculously easy to do if you weren't raised on it - will make you completely incomprehensible. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-_P_H9gMmo)

EDIT: Eldan, the first Japanese script was imported direct from Chinese, but it didn't map very well and mainly exists as a pain in the backside of historians. It's undergone some reforms since. But yeah, various kanji can still be read in various completely different ways, hence the terrifying Japanese notion of wordplay you'll find in, say, Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei.

[Smiling Knight]

The Chinese tones comments are 100% percent correct. I struggle a great deal with them, and you really can't get them wrong. At one point I said "fetus" instead of "green moss" while reciting poetry. The teacher barely kept a straight face.

[Lord Seth]

I consider Japanese's two separate alphabets and logographs on top a point against it, myself.I disagree. While Japanese having two different alphabets is initially a point against it when you first start learning it, once you have them memorized it really helps a lot in deciphering meaning from a passage quickly by seeing where the "splits" are; that is, when it switches from one of its three writing systems (Hiragana, Katakana, Kanji) to another one. Because Japanese has no spaces (another goofy aspect of it), you need everything you can to separate words.

[dehro]

Swedish is much easier in that regard; however we have a similar yet opposite problem: Several words with identical spelling means different things... often with the same pronunciation too.

Example: Gift (married) and Gift (poison)

that right there? terrible example :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

[warty goblin]

that right there? terrible example :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

It would make the murder trial of somebody accused of poisoning their spouse rather interesting to be sure.

[dehro]

quite so.

btw, this debate is incomplete without

this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2cCZX106AE)

[thompur]

quite so.

btw, this debate is incomplete without

this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2cCZX106AE)

or this (http://youtu.be/EAYUuspQ6BY) as well.

[SlyGuyMcFly]

or this (http://youtu.be/EAYUuspQ6BY) as well.

Or, like, this? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZstwKJ8cps&feature=related).

[Yanagi]

From what I understand, the "completely different pronunciations" come from the Kanji having both Chinese and Japanese pronunciations, both of which are used in Japanese. That's hearsay, though.

On-yomi and Kun-yomi pronunciations.

Apparently if you're savvy to Japanese there's a lot of written humor--like in manga--based on on- versus kun- pronunciation and on homonyms and near-homonyms. There used to be groups that translated One Piece and would explain all the language jokes...most of which related to people naming attacks...which were hilarious even to a non-speaker when spelled out. Most involved food.

There's also a lot of cleverness with homonymous kanji in names: for example, the three Yamada Asaemon all changed out one or more kanji in the given name, so they "meant" different things if read as words instead of syllables.


The Chinese tones comments are 100% percent correct. I struggle a great deal with them, and you really can't get them wrong. At one point I said "fetus" instead of "green moss" while reciting poetry. The teacher barely kept a straight face.

I reduced the entire staff and several customers of a Vietnamese restaraunt to tears of laughter trying to pronounce the name of what I ordered. Vietnamese has six tones that I apparently butchered mercilessly: they absolutely refused to tell me what I said.

[thompur]

Or, like, this? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZstwKJ8cps&feature=related).

That was great.
I also like this (http://youtu.be/CNk_kzQCclo).
Also this (http://youtu.be/hHhYLJMi7CE).

[warty goblin]

I reduced the entire staff and several customers of a Vietnamese restaraunt to tears of laughter trying to pronounce the name of what I ordered. Vietnamese has six tones that I apparently butchered mercilessly: they absolutely refused to tell me what I said.

I once went to German class on an unusually warm day and proceeded to describe myself as exceedingly horny.

(For those that don't know in German you use haben (have) for your temperature, while sein (to be) describes you personally. Thus saying "I'm hot" means, well, I'm hot in a way that has nothing to do with the sun. The same situation is true for cold as well, I think somebody else once informed the class they were sexually frigid.)

[Yanagi]

Worst gaffe in a language I theoretically know: trying to stay "American fast food has a lot of preservatives" to my French hosts.

Preservatif is French for condom.

[warty goblin]

Worst gaffe in a language I theoretically know: trying to stay "American fast food has a lot of preservatives" to my French hosts.

Preservatif is French for condom.

In light of my... experiences working in food service, protection probably isn't a bad idea.

[FatJose]

There are negative cases of language "evolution"...they just die off because they don't work. Like, one that I hope dies as soon as possible. It has become a new slang term of urban youth in my neighborhood to use the term "scary" when referring to a coward. As in, he isn't someone who strikes fear in people, he is filled with the scare. So...scary.

...yeeeeaaaaahhhh....

These new words that have been announced aren't words. They're abbreviations, sound effects by people who couldn't think of an actual word, and little play words for things that have names already. It isn't evolution, it's decay. It doesn't add to language and it doesn't bring an extra layer of nuance to words. It simply is bad. I am not putting "Zhoozh" or whatever down when playing Scrabble and it shouldn't even be something one has to explain why.

[DomaDoma]

These new words that have been announced aren't words. They're abbreviations, sound effects by people who couldn't think of an actual word, and little play words for things that have names already. It isn't evolution, it's decay. It doesn't add to language and it doesn't bring an extra layer of nuance to words. It simply is bad. I am not putting "Zhoozh" or whatever down when playing Scrabble and it shouldn't even be something one has to explain why.

I'd say that the following are legitimate concepts that lacked brief words to describe them:

-femtosecond
-free running
-social graph (even if it is stupid)
-net neutrality
-bridezilla (even if there is a reality show by that name. I think.)
-man flu (the male strains of wimpiness really don't get enough press)
-man cave
-memory foam
-awareness bracelet
-baby bump (even though I've mostly seen this one on rag mags)
-bankster (but don't let me near anybody who often uses this word)
-confirmation bias (how was this not in the dictionary already?)
-overshare
-pat-down (synonym for "frisk", but see: "confirmation bias")
-savior sibling (if this happens outside of Jodi Picoult)
-unfollow (see: "social graph")

That's a fair amount.

[Gnoman]

There are negative cases of language "evolution"...they just die off because they don't work. Like, one that I hope dies as soon as possible. It has become a new slang term of urban youth in my neighborhood to use the term "scary" when referring to a coward. As in, he isn't someone who strikes fear in people, he is filled with the scare. So...scary.

...yeeeeaaaaahhhh....

These new words that have been announced aren't words. They're abbreviations, sound effects by people who couldn't think of an actual word, and little play words for things that have names already. It isn't evolution, it's decay. It doesn't add to language and it doesn't bring an extra layer of nuance to words. It simply is bad. I am not putting "Zhoozh" or whatever down when playing Scrabble and it shouldn't even be something one has to explain why.

Of course not. There's only one "z" in the bag, and there's little point in wasting a blank on a second Z.

[Tirian]

Worst gaffe in a language I theoretically know: trying to stay "American fast food has a lot of preservatives" to my French hosts.

Preservatif is French for condom.

The French probably think that American food causes pregnancy anyways, by the frequency with which we will say "Je suis plein" to mean "I am full".

[Hida Reju]

I'd say that the following are legitimate concepts that lacked brief words to describe them:

-femtosecond
-free running
-social graph (even if it is stupid)
-net neutrality
-bridezilla (even if there is a reality show by that name. I think.)
-man flu (the male strains of wimpiness really don't get enough press)
-man cave
-memory foam
-awareness bracelet
-baby bump (even though I've mostly seen this one on rag mags)
-bankster (but don't let me near anybody who often uses this word)
-confirmation bias (how was this not in the dictionary already?)
-overshare
-pat-down (synonym for "frisk", but see: "confirmation bias")
-savior sibling (if this happens outside of Jodi Picoult)
-unfollow (see: "social graph")

That's a fair amount.

I am going to have to disagree on most of those.

Baby Bump???? Man Cave??? I accept them as slang that should be forgotten but never as something to be used or remembered. Most of these words already have things to describe them its just laziness or a lack of vocabulary that lead to their use.

[Comet]

laziness

Practically all changes to language occur because people want to be able to communicate certain thoughts with less effort. And I think it's entirely okay. Heck, anything else would be sort of silly. Sure, you can make grand poems and be all arty with your words, and that's fine, but in the end language is about getting stuff done and these words get stuff done, namely by communicating very specific units of meaning with little to no extra efford required to explain and describe stuff at length.

[VanBuren]

Of course not. There's only one "z" in the bag, and there's little point in wasting a blank on a second Z.

Look, if I'm backed into a corner and that's my best option...

[Avilan the Grey]

I am going to have to disagree on most of those.

Baby Bump???? Man Cave??? I accept them as slang that should be forgotten but never as something to be used or remembered. Most of these words already have things to describe them its just laziness or a lack of vocabulary that lead to their use.

As Comet said... this is the most common motivator for changing a language. Why do you think you stopped writing English as they did in the 15th century? As complicated and illogical the spelling of English words are, the "laziness" has forced the language to actually be several hundred times easier. Which is a GOOD thing.

This is a "Get off my lawn" argument, I feel. "My Great-Great-Great grandfather spelled it "sche" instead of "she" and if that was good enough for him we all should still do it!". :smallwink:

[SaintRidley]

Gif álystest þu þæt Engliscspræc ne áwende, þu þearft him cwellan.

Yif þou wist þat English change notte, þou must nedys kill it.

If thou wantest English ne'er to change, thou must needs kill it.

If you want English to never change, you have to kill it.

[Yhynens]

Apparently if you're savvy to Japanese there's a lot of written humor--like in manga--based on on- versus kun- pronunciation and on homonyms and near-homonyms.

I'm still reading through the topic in a rather haphazard manner, and as a Linguist I have a flippin ton to say that is probably mostly going to fall on deaf ears because this stuff is extremely complicated, but as a Japanese speaker I just want to say: there isn't just a lot of humor like this, it is almost all of it. Puns are practically the entire basis of Japanese-language humor, and if you don't speak Japanese--hell, if you only speak it as well as I do--you're going to miss no small amount of the jokes. Probably almost all of them.
I've always theorized this is because Japan doesn't have sarcasm the way a lot of other cultures do, but that's just a baseless joke, really (I mean, aside from the fact that Japan doesn't have sarcasm.)
As far as the "different" writing systems in Japanese, it's basically necessary that you can read them all to understand something as common as a newspaper. The entire orthographic system more or less depends on you knowing at least the 1000 most common kanji and hiragana, and katakana's so similar to hiragana that if you only knew the hira variety that would probably take large amounts of intentional ignorance.

Anyway... Language evolves constantly in terms of lexicon, but grammar evolves considerably slower. I've gone to entire talks dedicated solely to whether or not a language was moving from marking parts of speech by constituent order or a case marking system. A long time ago the "ne" part of negating a verb in French was all that was required, but now the "ne" is the part that can be dropped (the entire thing with rien, jamais, personne, etc came about sometime more recently in terms of French's 2000+ year history. I'm not a historical linguist, so my knowledge is limited here, really--and I'm going off of my memory so this might be a bit flipped.)
More to the point, there's absolutely no negative to adding words to the lexicon, especially slang words which aren't even intended to be used by the entire populous that speaks a given language, and there is absolutely no--read, zero--influence by dictionaries on the way people speak. Okay, there might be the smallest, tiniest amount, but in the face of how we learn words, it hardly effects anything. Yeah, you're going to look at that zoozh word and then say "Well, that's dumb" and then... you're not going to say it, even if some dictionary writers are saying it is a legitimate word. The amount of people who think it's cool and start saying it solely by seeing it in a dictionary is very, very small compared to the number of people who hear it and repeat it, and the influence those few individuals have on the speaking populous is even smaller, unless you're like, Obama. As far as grammar and syntax, there's not really anything English teachers can do to get AAVE speakers to stop using a habitual be, as in "I be styling" to mean "I am regularly styling."

Unrelated fun fact: I don't have numbers here, but did you know people who go to University have almost twice as many words in their lexicons as people who don't? I always liked that.

That ended up being a lot longer than I intended. I'm going to keep reading the topic and see if anything else comes to mind.

[Avilan the Grey]

Gif álystest þu þæt Engliscspræc ne áwende, þu þearft him cwellan.

Funny thing is as a Swede, I can actually almost make out what that means without using much of my English skills.

edit: I think my choice for the last sentence would be "You must kill it" to keep it in line with the others.

[Yhynens]

Looks like you guys are better than I thought at first! At least, on the whole. Couple things I didn't see covered:
(long post, spoilered for your convenience)



Compare the "made-up words" in that poem, which sound like words and sound like they have meaning (the soul bit) to the following gibberish: simlnoskffeeskjl seoiuouasngianslithowrt. Those do not look or sound like words at all, even foreign language words. There is some unquantifiable, and indeed, unqualifiable ... property of collections of sounds that makes them "sound like words."

Actually, that's not true at all. The reason Carroll's words look like words is because they map to well-known phonotactics, or sets of phones in certain positions of a word/syllable, while your words do not. There's no language (to my knowledge) that has sequences of sounds like "skjl" or even "mlno" really, and speakers who are even passively knowledgeable about foreign languages can realize that--in addition to the fact that they're just plain hard to say.
Incidentally, the idea that individual phones (sounds, /s/) carry meaning isn't even held by most Linguists, but it's an idea I kind of like (provided, of course, you're talking about meaning within a specific subset of speakers--ie, English speakers.) I actually saw some people hinting at this topic in a few places. There's definitely some evidence of some effect, but we hardly understand the extent of it yet, especially if there's any dramatic cross-linguistic effects.


Communication is, far and away, the most important thing to function in human society, more than math, sciences, other practical skills. Complex language is what sets us apart from and above most other animal species, and treating it lightly, as if its unimportant, is a grave mistake.
Which should be extremely evident by the fact that every developmentally normal human is capable of learning language on their own, just by listening to people speak. These "language classes" we have really just serve to make people upset that they're not performing as well as they should be, when in fact, no one speaks that well. When improperly taught, I imagine (and have seen evidence to the fact) that they can cause serious emotional problems for people who were raised in a non-"standard" dialect.


I would take much issue with this if you attempted to use this outside of your group. If you attempted to use this slang outside of your little grouping that uses it, you would be wrong. Not only should you not expect others to understand you, but you should be aware that it is highly regionally specific and that other will NOT understand you. And in no way should this be just added to some dictionary under some heading like "slang" just so that you can point to the dictionary and say, "See! It's your fault for not knowing that I use the word this way!"

If you only used it in your group, then you could expect to be understood (and I have no problem with that), but society at large is under no obligation to accept your usage as correct.
Um, but if only using it within the social group makes it correct, then how would language propagate? Being from the midwest, I NEVER heard legit, but when I heard it I thought it was goofy and fun so I adopted it--in fact, that happened in my college dorm, and the entire floor basically adopted it, more or less ironically. Just cause we heard some chick say it, who wasn't even in our group.

It's certainly true society is under no obligation to accept the usage as correct, but it certainly seems like society is coming to that point, and it never would have gotten there if people weren't using slang outside of their regular groups.

The next thing you say about "significant," as well as most of the rest of the post, seems to derive from the same idea... but you also seem to forget that people can use other words to clarify, which is probably all the scientists should be doing. Certainly, just not using a highly useful word would hamper their ability to communicate effectively. Additionally, people can kind of figure out when you're not using a word the same way they do, merely be examining the scene. I'm not saying it can't cause misunderstandings, just that the rate and ease with which we learn new words and new senses of words is pretty flippin crazy and probably shouldn't be discounted. Yeah, you definitely shouldn't throw down a bunch of Legits or Zomgs in a job interview, but I'd hope most adults understand when to use appropriate registers.


I think this (http://youtu.be/osK2qKA5pZw) helps to illustrate my point.
Giving you props just for the I Love Lucy link, since I'm already quoting a bunch of stuff. A notable problem with English is that the dialects can be so far spread, especially where vowels are concerned, that we can't really standardize our writing system for things like this. If we all started spelling words the way they sound (ie, using the international phonetic alphabet) we'd all be spelling them differently. Of course, that's not to say English orthography is simple, because it is certainly not.


Anyway, some dang good thought went into this topic. You guys all rock, whether or not I agree with you. Yes, even you.

[Yanagi]

I'm still reading through the topic in a rather haphazard manner, and as a Linguist I have a flippin ton to say that is probably mostly going to fall on deaf ears because this stuff is extremely complicated

My infodumps to center around social sciences, but I understand the frustration/drives involved.

I don't know if as a linguist you've devoted time to the Indic branch of Indo-European family, but that's where most of my workaday language skills lie: Passable Hindi, functional Sanskrit, and enough Punjabi and Bengali to properly swear at a street vendor. My personal love of language comes from the ability to witness the lexical changes as one moves region by region through the subcontinent, until at some point the dropped bits of grammar from the casual dialect add up to a seperate language. My first Sanskrit professor...an odd Dutch fellow named Witzel...took this concept even farther: he found it terribly amusing to track sentences the remained grammatical and more-or-less lexically coherent all the way from Eastern Europe to South Asia.

[Worira]

Gif álystest þu þæt Engliscspræc ne áwende, þu þearft him cwellan.

Yif þou wist þat English change notte, þou must nedys kill it.

If thou wantest English ne'er to change, thou must needs kill it.

If you want English to never change, you have to kill it.

Hey, who are you calling "thou"?

[Yhynens]

@Yanagi:
Nah, my background's mostly in Psycholinguistics, and I only speak Japanese and French (in addition to my native ((Midland) American) English) but that sounds totally awesome. Do you have any examples on you? With glosses/translations, ideally?

There seem to be some other people here with more than a passing interest in/knowledge of Linguistics, so hopefully we could all enjoy it :D.

[SaintRidley]

Funny thing is as a Swede, I can actually almost make out what that means without using much of my English skills.

edit: I think my choice for the last sentence would be "You must kill it" to keep it in line with the others.

I considered must, but as there is little to no difference in meaning I just decided to go with "have to." Must doesn't seem to get used too much anymore in my experience.




Hey, who are you calling "thou"?

Informal setting.

Linguistics heavily touches on the field I'm going into (Anglo-Saxon studies is very interesting to approach from that direction), so I've invested a bit of time in studying etymology more than anything else.

I've read a few papers that have given me some rather interesting ideas on the Germanic languages that I need to start gathering data to properly study. Apparently there are a number of words with no clear-cut Indo-European root that are cognate throughout the Germanic languages that seem to share what may be more than a coincidental similarity with
words from the Semitic family.

They seem to be concentrated largely in words relating to warfare and seafaring.

I'm hoping to find time this summer to do some work on that.

[averagejoe]

I'm still reading through the topic in a rather haphazard manner, and as a Linguist I have a flippin ton to say that is probably mostly going to fall on deaf ears because this stuff is extremely complicated, but as a Japanese speaker I just want to say: there isn't just a lot of humor like this, it is almost all of it. Puns are practically the entire basis of Japanese-language humor, and if you don't speak Japanese--hell, if you only speak it as well as I do--you're going to miss no small amount of the jokes. Probably almost all of them.

Fall on what now?


Edit. Stupid double post. If someone could get rid of this.

Actually you can do it at the top of the edit screen. I can get it this time, though.

[SaintRidley]

Thanks, joe. I'll keep that in mind in the future too.


Funny thing is as a Swede, I can actually almost make out what that means without using much of my English skills.

Forgot to ask, but I'm curious. How would it read in Swedish? I'd like to know.

[Avilan the Grey]

Forgot to ask, but I'm curious. How would it read in Swedish? I'd like to know.

Actually to be honest, re-reading this I realize I use about 50% English knowledge and 50% Swedish in reading this:

Gif álystest þu þæt Engliscspræc ne áwende, þu þearft him cwellan

How my brain interpreted this:

Gif = If (English), álystest (unknown) þu = du (Swedish) þæt = det (Swedish) Engliscspræc = "Engelskspråk" (Swedish, not a real word but close enough to be understood) ne no (English) áwende = använda or vända (Swedish) þu = du (Swedish) þearft = därför (Swedish) him = him (English) cwellan = "killen" ("English")

Basically, read out, skipping the words I couldn't guess, it becomes either:

"If Du Det Engelskspråk no använda du därför him killen", which in more readable Swedish becomes "Om du det språk Engelska ej använda, du dödar det därför", or even more correct: "Om du inte använder Engelska språket så dödar du det".

However this does not make sense in context, since it means "If you do not use the English Language, you kill it".

The other interpretation of áwende that my brain came up with, vända, means turn, or turn around, but in older Swedish also change of other things than directions.

So with that in mind instead it becomes:

"If Du Det Engelskspråk no vända du därför him killen", which becomes "Om du det språk Engelska ej vända, du dödar det därför", or in modern Swedish: "Om du inte ändrar Engelska språket så dödar du det".

[Eldan]

Ooh, let me do the same for German. It's interesting. Sadly, I can't dig out the old/middle German, which would probably be much closer.

Gif álystest þu þæt Engliscspræc ne áwende, þu þearft him cwellan


Gif = Wenn. Sadly, there's no "if" in German.
álystest = same as with Swedish above: no idea, but from the context, I'd assume it means "want", more or less.
þu = du.
þæt = dass.
Engliscspræc = Not entirely translatable, but similar to "die englische Sprache", "the English Language".
ne = nicht
áwende = ändert
þu = du
þearft = musst. Interestingly, it sounds very similar to "du darfst", "you are allowed to"
him = ihn. "Ihn" is technically the male pronoun here, while "language" is a feminin word, so correctly, it would be "sie".
cwellan = "killen". That verb is actually used in German these days, but came in from English relatively recently, I'd think. "Töten" is more correct. So...

Wenn du nicht willst, dass die englische Sprache sich* ändert, musst du sie töten.

*sich: itself, basically. It sounds more correct like that, as "changes itself" instead of just "ändert", "changes".

And now for fun, the same in my weird dialect of Swiss German:

Wenn'd* nöd wotsch, dass sech Änglisch** änderet, denn*** muesch es**** töte.

*"du" is shortened to "d" relatively often in such sentences
** "die Englisch Sprooch" is not really used.
*** "then", basically.
**** "it". While "the english Language" as a whole is feminine since the noun "Sprache" is feminine, just "Englisch" is neuter. Confused yet?


Any other Germanic languages willing to chime in?

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Gif álystest þu þæt Engliscspræc ne áwende, þu þearft him cwellan

As someone who speaks only English and French, which is not so applicable here:

Gif is obviously If.
þu is you
þæt is that
Engliscspræc turns into English-speak, which obviously means the language English.
ne is the negative, like in French!f
þu is again, you
þearft is interesting, because I can somehow translate it to "have to' in my mind. I think it's like, thearft, have't, have to?
Him cwellan is easy, it's just Him Kill. Yay
So
If something you that English language not , you have to kill him. Yaaay!

[SaintRidley]

This is awesome.

Yeah, that older meaning about turning around and change for awendan is exactly the right interpretation there.

If you look really hard it's possible to find where alystest (from alystan) bears remarkable similarity to the word lust and is probably where the word got its "want, desire" meanings.


Literal word for word:

If wantest thou that the English language not change, you must it kill.

We should really get ourselves a thread for comparison of sentences in Germanic languages. It could be fun. Plus, it would teach me some words to keep an eye out for if I wind up over your way and unable to speak the language.

[Avilan the Grey]

This is awesome.

Yeah, that older meaning about turning around and change for awendan is exactly the right interpretation there.

If you look really hard it's possible to find where alystest (from alystan) bears remarkable similarity to the word lust and is probably where the word got its "want, desire" meanings.


Literal word for word:

If wantest thou that the English language not change, you must it kill.

We should really get ourselves a thread for comparison of sentences in Germanic languages. It could be fun. Plus, it would teach me some words to keep an eye out for if I wind up over your way and unable to speak the language.


As I said I took awendan to mean either one of two things: Använda (modern meaning simply "use" but the root is meaning closer to "turn to your advantage" or maybe "make good use of" AFAIR, or "Vända" (turn, as stated above).

First time I noticed how close this language was to Swedish was in a Tolkien book where he had printed the complete Beowulf (non-translated) and I could read several sentences and make sense of them.