Unimportant 'Language Missuses' 2: Mother May II

[Fiery Diamond]

Thread two is now operational! You can find the original thread here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?526616-Completely-unimportant-language-misuses-that-bug-you)

One issue I was thinking about earlier was the use of idioms. Sometimes we get so used to the idioms in our native language that we start to forget that they're idioms. This doesn't always happen - I doubt any English speakers think "raining cats and dogs" or "beating a dead horse" aren't figures of speech - but sometimes an idiom isn't overt enough to trigger recognition. A humorous incident that occurred when I was in school happened in my Spanish class. We were doing a unit on Spanish idioms; we were given the idiom, its literal English translation, and its actual meaning. This was fine for most of the idioms - but there was one that completely confused me, because the "actual meaning" we were given was an English idiom. Nobody else recognized that the English phrase was an idiom, and were thus completely perplexed that I struggled to understand: I had somehow never heard the English phrase before and didn't know what it meant, despite being familiar with the actual thing that the phrase refers to.

Side note: I'm unable to find reference to the supposed Spanish idiom on Google, which makes me doubt our textbook, so if any Spanish speakers can confirm or deny that this particular idiom exists in Spanish that would be interesting.

The English idiom: To stand somebody up

The supposed Spanish idiom translated to "to give someone a donkey."

Idioms: things people need to recognize are difficult to work out the meanings of, especially without context.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The English idiom: To stand somebody up

The supposed Spanish idiom translated to "to give someone a donkey."

Idioms: things people need to recognize are difficult to work out the meanings of, especially without context.

Never heard of that Spanish idiom. Are you sure it wasn't "get someone off a donkey"? ("ponerle a bajar de un burro", meaning severely insult someone). It's the closest one involving donkeys I can think of. Mind posting the original in Spanish?

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

Ahhh, a fresh thread where I can sit in a lawn chair with a metaphorical rifle, waiting for prescriptivists to chime in with grammatical statements I can shoot down.

It's gonna be a good thread.

[factotum]

Never heard of that Spanish idiom.

So what *would* you use in Spanish as the equivalent of standing someone up? (If you've not heard that idiom before, it basically means you invited someone on a date and they never turned up--no idea where it comes from).

[Vinyadan]

Last summer, I went to England on vacation with some friends. We had to meet at the hotel at 9pm. It starts to get dark, and I discover that I forgot my watch.

I find someone to ask.

ARE YOU WIMBLY FOURS MATE!? IM CRIMBO NINAN SIX APPLE SMIBBLY DID BIBBLY CHAP

I have no idea what he just said, and ask him to repeat

YOU WOT MATE?

He starts to laugh maniacally
Big Ben rings out
everyone stops in the friggin street
a carriage with the initials HM rides down the street
the friggin queen herself sticks her head out

OI YOU GITS DID YE HEAR THAT!? IT BE 6 BONG

driver pokes his head out

6 BONGERS!?

people start pouring out in the street

YA WANKERS IT BE CRIMBO SIX-A-BONG

store clerks and chimney sweepers chanting SIX A-BONG SIX A-BONG

I try to get away, the crowd is chocking me

SIX A-BONG SIX A-BONG OLLY JOLLY ITS SIX A-BONG

the lyrics drown everyone out, can't avoid dancers

BANG UP THE KNACKERS AND SMACK YER MUM-
ALL IN THE STREETS ITS SIX A-BONG

fish and chips being thrown into the air en masse at this point
https://i.ibb.co/sbrvDsN/This-is-my-reference-of-what-england-actually-looks-like-c7a7de822312b98c8a6d3efc1ab98424.jpg

(story not by me).

[Willie the Duck]

Rather famously, international tensions escalated for nearly the entire tenure of the USSR's Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev because people did not recognize his comments, "We will bury you (-transl.)!" as an idiom equivalent to the common US/British idiom, "It's your funeral!"

[Grey_Wolf_c]

So what *would* you use in Spanish as the equivalent of standing someone up? (If you've not heard that idiom before, it basically means you invited someone on a date and they never turned up--no idea where it comes from).

I don't know. "Leave thrown" ("Dejar tirado")? I just can't think of an appropriate idiom involving donkeys. I'm hardly an expert in Spanish idioms, though. Most of my knowledge comes from once spending a few weeks at a place where there was a courtyard tiled in idioms where I used to wonder and/or study, so I got to see them every day. Not that it helped me understand them - for example, to this day, I'm not entirely clear what they mean to imply with "When your neighbour gets their beard cut, soak yours" ("Cuando las barbas de tu vecino veas cortar, pon las tuyas a remojar"). Something about being ready for the inevitable?

ETA: it occurs to me that it may very well be a Central or South American Spanish idiom rather than a Castilian one. I would really not be familiar with those at all.

Grey Wolf

[Aveline]

Ahhh, a fresh thread where I can sit in a lawn chair with a metaphorical rifle, waiting for prescriptivists to chime in with grammatical statements I can shoot down.

It's gonna be a good thread.

It's all I come to the thread for, really.

[georgie_leech]

It's all I come to the thread for, really.

I dunno, there's at least some pathos in some of the topics brought up. That was mostly near the start, though I can't rule out the possibility of something else coming up.

[Peelee]

It's all I come to the thread for, really.
Hooray!

I dunno
Boo!

[georgie_leech]

Boo!

What can I say, I can accept that irregardless is now a word, even if I twitch a little every time I hear it :smalltongue:

[Grey_Wolf_c]

What can I say, I can accept that irregardless is now a word, even if I twitch a little every time I hear it :smalltongue:

The same thing happens to me every time I hear "utilize" instead of "use" (where "use" would have fit). And this is coming from someone who generally prefers Latin root words in English.

Grey Wolf

[Rockphed]

Fiery, it would help if you linked to this thread in your last post in the old thread.

[Lissou]

The English idiom: To stand somebody up

The supposed Spanish idiom translated to "to give someone a donkey."

Interesting! The French idiom "poser un lapin à quelqu'un" means "put down a rabbit to someone". As in, take the rabbit and put it down, not the euphemism that means killing it.


Rather famously, international tensions escalated for nearly the entire tenure of the USSR's Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev because people did not recognize his comments, "We will bury you (-transl.)!" as an idiom equivalent to the common US/British idiom, "It's your funeral!"

I was taught a similar story about a French leader sending the US the message "we demand your help" (that was during a war, can't remember which), not realising that "demander" (to ask for) and "to demand" (exiger) weren't the same thing. The US was not impressed.
As a side note, Google still tells you that "to demand" translates as "demander" in French.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Interesting! The French idiom "poser un lapin à quelqu'un" means "put down a rabbit to someone". As in, take the rabbit and put it down, not the euphemism that means killing it.

Soooo... what does it actually mean? To take someone down a peg? Or does it mean to stand someone up? If so, why?

Grey Wolf

[Lissou]

Soooo... what does it actually mean? To take someone down a peg? Or does it mean to stand someone up? If so, why?

Grey Wolf

Oh, sorry. Yes, it does mean to stand someone up.

[lesser_minion]

So, just responding to the last post Bohandas made last thread (and possibly embarassing myself):


Speaking of toponymic food names, why is "bologna" pronounced "baloney"? The name of the city in Italy isn't pronounced that way; it's pronounced how its spelled (except for the "g" being silent)

It's not a place name I've heard spoken aloud before, tbh, but the way I'd try to pronounce it "how it's spelled" comes out as something like 'ba-loan-ya', with the first syllable rhyming with the start of 'balloon' and the third syllable getting the same treatment as the 'gn' sequence in 'gnocchi', 'champignon', or the Spanish n-squiggle thing.

There doesn't seem like that much drift from there to 'baloney'. Or indeed from where you'd get if you didn't pronounce the 'g' at all ('ba-loan-ah').

[Willie the Duck]

It's not a place name I've heard spoken aloud before, tbh, but the way I'd try to pronounce it "how it's spelled" comes out as something like 'ba-loan-ya', with the first syllable rhyming with the start of 'balloon' and the third syllable getting the same treatment as the 'gn' sequence in 'gnocchi', 'champignon', or the Spanish n-squiggle thing.

There doesn't seem like that much drift from there to 'baloney'. Or indeed from where you'd get if you didn't pronounce the 'g' at all ('ba-loan-ah').

My assumption is that it is derived from the English adjective-ization of the term for 'meat from Bologna,' which would be (phonetically) 'bell-oh-neeze meet,' which got shortened to 'bell-oh-nee' and became it's own thing.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

the same treatment as the 'gn' sequence in 'gnocchi', 'champignon', or the Spanish n-squiggle thing.

The following language/letter combinations all produce that sound (/ɲ/), which as far as I know does not exist in English:

Spain/ñ (possibly the most famous, because the bastards put it in their country's name)
French/gn
Italian/gn
Portuguese/nh
Catalan/ny
Duth/nj

Googling it now, it seems Irish uses nn for the same. Wikipedia also goes into some detail over the difference between the /ɲ/ and /ni/ phonemes. I tend to use the latter, and feel bad about it.

Grey Wolf

[Aveline]

I decided recently that I should always use the anglicized spelling "baloney" rather than Bologna when describing something fraudulent, to divorce that sense of the word from the real city of Bologna. I wouldn't like it much if my own hometown's name were given that sort of widespread double meaning. Or I suppose I could just abandon that meaning entirely - it wouldn't be the first word I've eschewed.

Thoughts?

[georgie_leech]

I decided recently that I should always use the anglicized spelling "baloney" rather than Bologna when describing something fraudulent, to divorce that sense of the word from the real city of Bologna. I wouldn't like it much if my own hometown's name were given that sort of widespread double meaning. Or I suppose I could just abandon that meaning entirely - it wouldn't be the first word I've eschewed.

Thoughts?

You wouldn't be the first. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/baloney) I don’t think I've ever seen the Italian City version when I see someone call out something as false.

[lesser_minion]

My assumption is that it is derived from the English adjective-ization of the term for 'meat from Bologna,' which would be (phonetically) 'bell-oh-neeze meet,' which got shortened to 'bell-oh-nee' and became it's own thing.

I guess the intended pronunciation was probably closer to 'bolognese' (which would Anglicise roughly as "bollonnase"). Which I probably should have picked up on earlier, but my brain was probably disconnected at that time in the morning.

Like a few other people here, I've never seen 'Bologna' used to refer to anything other than the place, though. And I'm not that familiar with 'baloney' as a foodstuff either.

[georgie_leech]

I guess the intended pronunciation was probably closer to 'bolognese' (which would Anglicise roughly as "bollonnase"). Which I probably should have picked up on earlier, but my brain was probably disconnected at that time in the morning.

Like a few other people here, I've never seen 'Bologna' used to refer to anything other than the place, though. And I'm not that familiar with 'baloney' as a foodstuff either.

The... well, I was gonna say "meat," but... the processed meat stuff is usually referred to as balogna on this side of the Atlantic, as far as I can tell.

[lesser_minion]

The... well, I was gonna say "meat," but... the processed meat stuff is usually referred to as balogna on this side of the Atlantic, as far as I can tell.

I'm pretty sure I knew about the processed meat as a thing that exists, I just haven't been exposed to it in years.

[georgie_leech]

I'm pretty sure I knew about the processed meat as a thing that exists, I just haven't been exposed to it in years.

I just meant that when I see it in stores, it's still spelled "bologna," not "baloney."

[Xuc Xac]

I just meant that when I see it in stores, it's still spelled "bologna," not "baloney."

That's because "Oscar Mayer has a way with B-O-L-O-G-N-A!"

[Razade]

So, just responding to the last post Bohandas made last thread (and possibly embarassing myself):



It's not a place name I've heard spoken aloud before, tbh, but the way I'd try to pronounce it "how it's spelled" comes out as something like 'ba-loan-ya', with the first syllable rhyming with the start of 'balloon' and the third syllable getting the same treatment as the 'gn' sequence in 'gnocchi', 'champignon', or the Spanish n-squiggle thing.

There doesn't seem like that much drift from there to 'baloney'. Or indeed from where you'd get if you didn't pronounce the 'g' at all ('ba-loan-ah').

It's because, or so I've been told by people in the know, that places like Sicilia (which is Sicily) took the IA to be a Y sound and it just transferred over to other Italian places.

[Vinyadan]

In general, you can see -ia and -ius turning into -y in English pretty much everywhere. Italy, Pliny, Livy, Sicily, Hillary, glory, gay, history, Lucy, dysentery...

EDIT: By "Everywhere" I mean very frequently. There obviously are lots of -ia words that stayed that way, like India.

[Peelee]

In general, you can see -ia and -ius turning into -y in English pretty much everywhere. Italy, Pliny, Livy, Sicily, Hillary, glory, gay, history, Lucy, dysentery...

EDIT: By "Everywhere" I mean very frequently. There obviously are lots of -ia words that stayed that way, like India.

You talking about Indy (https://www.downtowntucson.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/RaidersLostArk_Feature.png)?

[halfeye]

Interesting! The French idiom "poser un lapin à quelqu'un" means "put down a rabbit to someone". As in, take the rabbit and put it down, not the euphemism that means killing it.


Soooo... what does it actually mean? To take someone down a peg? Or does it mean to stand someone up? If so, why?

Grey Wolf

That seems likely to refer to greyhound racing, perhaps with older styles of it, though it seems more apt with the current style where the "rabbit" is a stuffed toy on a rail.

[truemane]

What can I say, I can accept that irregardless is now a word, even if I twitch a little every time I hear it :smalltongue:

The most interesting/irksome change I see happening within my own lifetime is the use of an apostrophe and an s -'s- to denote a plural. Ten years ago it was something I'd have made fun of someone for. Now I see it on memo from very well-respected executives and business leaders, and I'm starting to see it in actual marketing out in the real world.

Drives me nuts. But I get it. Language changes. I just remind myself that, not that long ago, 'access' was something you had, not something you did. And that the number of times I split infinitives or end sentences with prepositions ("made fun of someone for") would have scandalized my elementary teachers.

[Vinyadan]

Does anyone know when people started writing English genitives with an apostrophe? I don't know other languages that do that.

[truemane]

As far as I know, it came into English from the way it's used in French to denote missing letters. And English at the time used -es as an ending to denote both plural and possession. Why the apostrophe came to be used for one and not the other, I don't know.

[Xuc Xac]

Does anyone know when people started writing English genitives with an apostrophe? I don't know other languages that do that.

The apostrophe indicates missing letters such as in contractions like "can not --> can't". The genitives always have the apostrophe because we stopped using the fully expanded forms of the words: "doges collar --> dog's collar". It's not the only place where English stopped using the full forms of words. You can see "won't" every day, but you never see "woll not" anymore.

[Peelee]

You can see "won't" every day, but you never see "woll not" anymore.

You only assume I willn't!

[Rockphed]

You only assume I willn't!

I'm fairly certain it should be "wiln't".

[truemane]

because we stopped using the fully expanded forms of the words: "doges collar --> dog's collar".

That bit of grammar only survives now in phrases such as 'filthy Hobbitses' and 'hates Bagginses forever.'

[Peelee]

I'm fairly certain it should be "wiln't".

That's the British version.

[truemane]

That's the British version.
I believe in England it's pronounced "innit."

[georgie_leech]

I believe in England it's pronounced "innit."

That's a real sep'ret bit of slang now, innit?

[Fyraltari]

So, just responding to the last post Bohandas made last thread (and possibly embarassing myself):



It's not a place name I've heard spoken aloud before, tbh, but the way I'd try to pronounce it "how it's spelled" comes out as something like 'ba-loan-ya', with the first syllable rhyming with the start of 'balloon' and the third syllable getting the same treatment as the 'gn' sequence in 'gnocchi', 'champignon', or the Spanish n-squiggle thing.

There doesn't seem like that much drift from there to 'baloney'. Or indeed from where you'd get if you didn't pronounce the 'g' at all ('ba-loan-ah').

So, should I ever want lasagna in an English-speaking diner, I would have to order some lasoney?

[factotum]

So, should I ever want lasagna in an English-speaking diner, I would have to order some lasoney?

Can't speak for lesser_minion but *I'd* pronounce that something like "lasarnya". No idea if that's even close to the original.

[Fyraltari]

It is. Except for that random r.

[Aedilred]

With my pedant hat on, I should note that the Italians call it "lasagne" as, if we're being strict about it, should we. A "lasagna" is a single sheet of pasta. Since the dish contains multiple sheets, it's lasagne (or lasagne al forno if you want to be specific) in the same way as we have a plate of spaghetti, not spaghetto.

With that said I'm not entirely sure that the English "lasagna" (which seems to be an American-only usage, ime) is directly derived from the singular Italian "lasagna" anyway or whether it is just rendering of the final vowel in "lasagne" in what sounds phonetically appropriate to an Anglophone ear (while apparently ignoring the phonetics of the rest of the word).

[Peelee]

With that said I'm not entirely sure that the English "lasagna" (which seems to be an American-only usage, ime)

What do you call it in the UK?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

What do you call it in the UK?

When I was there and ate it in restaurants, “lasagna”.

Always served last of the whole table and boiling hot, which meant you couldn’t get started before everyone else was done.

Grey Wolf

[Aedilred]

What do you call it in the UK?

Lasagne. Round my way at least.

[Peelee]

Lasagne. Round my way at least.

Y'all should use the English word for it instead of randomly slipping into Italian, then. :smalltongue:

[Lissou]

Huh. I've been calling it "lasagnas".

[darkrose50]

A few weeks ago at the grocery store I asked if they had any more gluten-free cakes. The young lady replied that they were SALE-DID. I am extremely tempted to ask at the grocery store if this is a term that they use for selling items on sale.

[Vinyadan]

What does that mean? "Salted"?

[halfeye]

SALE-DID.

Sold out?

Some characters

[Peelee]

Sold out.

[Sir_Norbert]

Y'all should use the English word for it instead of randomly slipping into Italian, then. :smalltongue:

In the UK it's written "lasagne" but pronounced as the English word (with a final schwa) rather than the Italian word with /e/.

[DavidSh]

The English word used to be "loseyns", but that was about 600 years ago, in the days before tomatoes.

[lesser_minion]

So, should I ever want lasagna in an English-speaking diner, I would have to order some lasoney?

Something like 'luh-zan-yuh' here. Which I'd also say just about qualifies as "how it's spelled", in that it's pretty intuitive as long as you know that it's not an English word (EDIT: unless you're feeling pedantic).

To continue the theme of food-related language misuses, there's always pronouncing 'paella' as 'pie-ell-uh', although I'm half-expecting to be told that that's actually correct and that only clueless English people try to pronounce it as 'pie-ay-uh'.

[Willie the Duck]

although I'm half-expecting to be told that that's actually correct and that only clueless English people try to pronounce it as 'pie-ay-uh'.

Or, worse yet, "actually, we really just call it 'rice with ____', it's only the foreigners that call it paella, regardless of pronunciation." I can't think of the actual example, but something vaguely like that happened with me.

[Peelee]

Something like 'luh-zan-yuh' here. Which I'd also say just about qualifies as "how it's spelled", in that it's pretty intuitive as long as you know that it's not an English word.

But it is, vis-a-vis the English language's unchecked imperialism and laissez-faire approach to vocabulary.

Fun fact, I used only English words in that sentence. :smallamused:

[Florian]

Funny. Being a German-speaker comes along with the knowledge that we will pronounce stuff differently and we're simply unable to pronounce certain things phonetically right without practice. We're pretty aware how it sounds when we "localize" terms and that they're more or less unrecognizable after the fact, which is quite often the butt of jokes around here, so most of us try to actually learn to phrase stuff in their original language.

As in, when talking amongst friends, family and acquaintances, we tend to use the "localized" terms when speaking about something like penne, spaghetti, lasagne and such, which will probably be pretty alien to outsiders, beyond that, we try to go for a proper pronunciation, mostly based on the "high" version of a language, else a commonly understood regional variant.

A "reverse miss-use": My native dialect is Bavarian, which is a good mix of German, Italian and French, which doesn't posses any written form and has very opaque rules borrowed from the roots of three different languages. In short, you write as you think that the words might sound. We started to use bavarian in our company group chat - 12 out of 15 employees are now complaining that they cannot understand a thing and that they cannot follow our conversation, like, at all.


But it is, vis-a-vis the English language's unchecked imperialism and laissez-faire approach to vocabulary.

Fun fact, I used only English words in that sentence. :smallamused:

Right, right....

[Peelee]

Funny. Being a German-speaker comes along with the knowledge that we will pronounce stuff differently and we're simply unable to pronounce certain things phonetically right without practice. We're pretty aware how it sounds when we "localize" terms and that they're more or less unrecognizable after the fact, which is quite often the butt of jokes around here, so most of us try to actually learn to phrase stuff in their original language.

An interaction between one of my cousin's SO and a waiter in an alpine restaurant sometime back in the early aughts:


Cousin's SO: Spaetzle, bitte. (pronounced spehch-leh)

Waiter: Spaetzle? (pronounces spaa-chl, IIRC)

CSO: Spehchleh.

W: Spaachl?

CSO: *sigh* Spaachl.

W: *goes off to put the order in*

CSO, to me: ****ing tourists.
German sounds fun.

[Florian]

German sounds fun.

It is.

High German is a very rational language and a good vehicle to transport information, as it´s pretty independent of additional context. Low German (aka the various dialects) is very good at transporting emotions and intent, but also very context-dependent (and also nearly unrecognizable to anyone not trained in it. I have a hard time understanding anyone speaking a dialect more than 400km removed from me... That's why we learn that stuff).

Edit: As an European, you're getting pretty used to it. You can learn "Parisian", aka High French, and be pretty hosed when trying to speak that in the Narbonne region, you could also learn "High Italian", aka the dialect of the Emiglia-Romana and be hosed when you're either in Southern Tyrolia (The speak Austria-Based German), the Veneto or Sicilia. it´s simply something you get used to. Should tell you a lot, Peelee, that I have less of a problem understanding your southern slang when you care to use it.

[Peelee]

It is.

High German is a very rational language and a good vehicle to transport information, as it´s pretty independent of additional context. Low German (aka the various dialects) is very good at transporting emotions and intent, but also very context-dependent (and also nearly unrecognizable to anyone not trained in it. I have a hard time understanding anyone speaking a dialect more than 400km removed from me... That's why we learn that stuff).

See, that's the problem. I can learn High German, there's plenty of resources. I want to learn Tyrolian German, because I want to be able to talk to my extended family (as in, read what they write on facebook, for example. Be able to understand all their casual dialect talk that google translate can barely get 40% of on a good day).

[Vinyadan]

It is.

High German is a very rational language and a good vehicle to transport information, as it´s pretty independent of additional context. Low German (aka the various dialects) is very good at transporting emotions and intent, but also very context-dependent (and also nearly unrecognizable to anyone not trained in it. I have a hard time understanding anyone speaking a dialect more than 400km removed from me... That's why we learn that stuff).

Edit: As an European, you're getting pretty used to it. You can learn "Parisian", aka High French, and be pretty hosed when trying to speak that in the Narbonne region, you could also learn "High Italian", aka the dialect of the Emiglia-Romana and be hosed when you're either in Southern Tyrolia (The speak Austria-Based German), the Veneto or Sicilia. it´s simply something you get used to. Should tell you a lot, Peelee, that I have less of a problem understanding your southern slang when you care to use it.

Nitpick: Standard Italian is actually the descendent of an artistic variant of the XIV century Florentine dialect, so it's closest to the dialects of modern Tuscany. Emilia has a fairly different dialect.

[Aedilred]

Something like 'luh-zan-yuh' here. Which I'd also say just about qualifies as "how it's spelled", in that it's pretty intuitive as long as you know that it's not an English word (EDIT: unless you're feeling pedantic).

To continue the theme of food-related language misuses, there's always pronouncing 'paella' as 'pie-ell-uh', although I'm half-expecting to be told that that's actually correct and that only clueless English people try to pronounce it as 'pie-ay-uh'.

English attempts to sound authentic have pedigree for mangling Spanish pronunciations, but "pi-ay-uh" is probably closer to being correct than "pie-ell-uh". But the Valencian "ll" sound is alien to English and difficult for Anglopone monoglots to hear distinctively (as compardd with Valencian "y" and Castilian "ll") so actually pronouncing it "correctly" is still rare.

To be honest, assuming that you're using the word in an English sentence, anyone complaining about your pronunciation of it with the English "ll", probably needs to get a life. If they're actually Spanish then I'll let them off, but even then. Indeed I find it difficult to say the word in an English context with the "correct" pronunciation without sounding like a pretentious oaf, and end up fudging it.. Obviously if you're going to be using the word in Spanish then it's important to get the pronunciation right.

On the other hand, anyone pronouncing "chorizo" with a rogue "t" sound is bad and wrong.


It is.

High German is a very rational language and a good vehicle to transport information, as it´s pretty independent of additional context. Low German (aka the various dialects) is very good at transporting emotions and intent, but also very context-dependent (and also nearly unrecognizable to anyone not trained in it. I have a hard time understanding anyone speaking a dialect more than 400km removed from me... That's why we learn that stuff).

Edit: As an European, you're getting pretty used to it. You can learn "Parisian", aka High French, and be pretty hosed when trying to speak that in the Narbonne region, you could also learn "High Italian", aka the dialect of the Emiglia-Romana and be hosed when you're either in Southern Tyrolia (The speak Austria-Based German), the Veneto or Sicilia. it´s simply something you get used to. Should tell you a lot, Peelee, that I have less of a problem understanding your southern slang when you care to use it.


Nitpick: Standard Italian is actually the descendent of an artistic variant of the XIV century Florentine dialect, so it's closest to the dialects of modern Tuscany. Emilia has a fairly different dialect.

Yeah... I'm not sure whether this is a terminological distinction between native languages, but High French and High Italian aren't terms one hears in English linguistics, or at least not any more. Moreover the "High" in High German refers to topography rather than social status - High(land) German as opposed to Low(land) German, with standard German being a dialect from the High German group.

There's also a dialect/language distinction to be wary of. Most of the regional languages of Italy are generally considered languages, rather than dialects, with standard Italian being a lingua franca. The dialect continuum makes classification a challenge, but the Emilian-Romagnol language sits somewhere between the languages of southern France and Tuscan (and its descendant Standard Italian).

In France, there was an official drive towards monolingualism much earlier than in Italy, and so in parts of the south of France (including around Narbonne) we have the curious coexistence of a native language (Occitan), and a distinct but not entirely dissimilar local dialect of French, with the standard French dialect also used for official purposes.

Compare, for instance, Britain, where English has been spoken in Wales for so long that there is a Welsh dialect of English in addition to the Welsh language itself, which is completely different. Of course, English and Welsh are much less closely related than French and Occitan, but the principle is the same. For a closer comparison to the situation in parts of France and Italy, whether or not Scots (as opposed to Scots Gaelic) is a language or a dialect of English is an ongoing debate. For what it's worth I'm firmly in the "language" camp, which makes most Scots speakers bilingual.


See, that's the problem. I can learn High German, there's plenty of resources. I want to learn Tyrolian German, because I want to be able to talk to my extended family (as in, read what they write on facebook, for example. Be able to understand all their casual dialect talk that google translate can barely get 40% of on a good day).

Alas, it has always been the case, for reasons that are understandable if regrettable, that many more resources are devoted to the foreign study of - and making the available the foreign study of - more widely spoken languages (which further entrenches their competitive advantage). If you want to learn one of the "big four" Romance languages in its standard form* then it's a piece of cake, and it's not too hard to find a Romanian teacher in any sizeable city (in the UK at least). But after that things tail off sharply. Demand for Catalan, which has between 5-10 million speakers and is more or less the sixth Romance language in terms of population and profile, was so low ten years ago that there was only one taught class in London - which means probably in England - and even that was cancelled due to undersubscription more often than not. (Things may have picked up lately).

If you want to learn Galician, or Neapolitan, your only hope of finding even a textbook will be if you already speak the relevant national lingua franca for that region. For something like Ladin or Romansh, you'll probably struggle even then.

I think this also contributes towards a belief among English-speakers at least that Latin Europe is much more linguistically (and consequently culturally) homogenous than it is, and the casual assumption that there are only five or six extant Romance languages, as opposed to the reality of more than twenty, is widespread.

*though with Spanish and Portuguese it's also worth checking which standard form, given divergence in even official dialects across the Atlantic

[Vinyadan]

Italian dialects are considered languages if you are a linguist, but they are called dialects by their own speakers. Children thinking that the language is called "indialetto" because they cannot tell that they are actually two words ("in dialetto") is something of a classic. Although there surely are exceptions in which the dialect is only called with the toponym or a translation of "our language".

I don't know enough Emiliano-Romagnolo to talk about its relative linguistic proximity with Tuscan, but one should not believe that they are too similar. They are separated by the most important isogloss among Romance languages (the La Spezia-Rimini line, aka Massa-Senigallia). I know that Wikipedia follows the bad convention of dividing Eastern Romance and Western Romance languages based on whether they are east of Italy, but the good convention is to call languages north and west of this isogloss Western, and those to the south and east Eastern. So Tuscan (as Standard Italian) is in the Eastern group, while Emiliano-Romagnolo is in the Western group (like French). Emiliano-Romagnolo in general belongs to a group of Northern Italian languages known as Italo-Gallic languages, in part because of the Gallic substratum, in part because they orbited close to French influence (to make an example, the city of Bologna used to pay to have French storytellers perform in its squares).

Not all Northern Italian dialects are Italo-Gallic - Venetian for example isn't.

To add another similar concept, if I have to nitpick my own previous nitpick, I shouldn't have said "XIV century dialect of Florence", but "XIV century Florentine [vernacular]", because no one calls the medieval variants/forefathers of modern Italian dialects "dialects".

In general, the most important fact to keep in mind when talking about Italian dialects is that they generally aren't derived from Italian. They are Romance languages that developed autonomously from Latin, so there can be massive divergence, and they often are not mutually intelligible. There also are local variants of Italian, generated by the influence of local substratum, and they are quickly getting more and more different.

Yes, there is no "high Italian". It's a frequent misunderstanding among Germans, because High German is, in a way, the highest language on the prestige scale, being used by the Goverment, Press, TV, and so on. Generally, you speak of standard Italian. It's a language with an odd story, in that it diverged from Florentine in the XIV century, as Italy's most important medieval writers composed their main works. Their influence meant that other writers imitated their language, and so standard Italian existed for many centuries as a crystallised, rarely spoken, literary language. It became more widespread with the introduction of obligatory elementary instruction, but only really started displacing dialects after WWII. Right now, most dialects are clearly falling from use, Venetian being an important exception. On the other hand, Italian is now subject to change with a speed that was previously unknown.

[Florian]

@Aedilred:

I guess that is something that got garbled during translation. We tend to mark the standardized version of a language by either adding the prefix high or school, mark regional variants by adding the region as a prefix or use an official name, should one be known. Example uses:
- I learned British English/Oxford English in school.
- I learned High/School French in school.
- I never bothered to properly learn High/School Italian, but speak the venetian and sicilian italian dialects.
Note that we tend to drop the name of the language and just use the prefix if the context is supposed to be understood. So it´s "British", "Oxford" or "Venetian".

@Peelee:

You're out of luck then. Unless we're talking about recognized and protected minorities, it´s rare for local dialects/sub-languages to be taught in any meaningful way outside of family and friends.

[Peelee]

@Peelee:

You're out of luck then. Unless we're talking about recognized and protected minorities, it´s rare for local dialects/sub-languages to be taught in any meaningful way outside of family and friends.

Oh, I'm more than aware. The simple solution is to just get really rich, move there for a bit, learn it from the source, then be confounded by all the High German from pretty much any other source Id hear German from.

[Florian]

Oh, I'm more than aware. The simple solution is to just get really rich, move there for a bit, learn it from the source, then be confounded by all the High German from pretty much any other source Id hear German from.

Ok, it might sound a bit unintuitive, but it´s easier to start with learning High German and then going for the dialects. Most of us are capable of switching between/mix and match dialect and High German just fine, so this gives you a leg up.

Bit off topic, but you don't need to be rich, like at all, to move here (meaning D/A/CH countries). The way our societies and internal markets are structured mean that we are generally considered to be poor in direct comparison (net income, personal level), but counter that by having an extremely low total cost of living.

[Peelee]

Ok, it might sound a bit unintuitive, but it´s easier to start with learning High German and then going for the dialects. Most of us are capable of switching between/mix and match dialect and High German just fine, so this gives you a leg up.

Bit off topic, but you don't need to be rich, like at all, to move here (meaning D/A/CH countries). The way our societies and internal markets are structured mean that we are generally considered to be poor in direct comparison (net income, personal level), but counter that by having an extremely low total cost of living.

First off, that's good to know, thanks!

Second, I do need to be rich if I'm going to keep the house down here and also hang out over there for a while!

[lesser_minion]

On the other hand, anyone pronouncing "chorizo" with a rogue "t" sound is bad and wrong.

I literally have no idea whether or not I pronounce chorizo correctly. I pronounce it as basically English but with a lisp at the end, i.e., something like 'chur-eeth-oh'. I've also heard 'chur-its-oh' and 'hur-eeth-oh'. I wouldn't be surprised if there were also attempts at pronouncing it with an Italian or French 'ch', but I haven't encountered those personally.

[georgie_leech]

I literally have no idea whether or not I pronounce chorizo correctly. I pronounce it as basically English but with a lisp at the end, i.e., something like 'chur-eeth-oh'. I've also heard 'chur-its-oh' and 'hur-eeth-oh'. I wouldn't be surprised if there were also attempts at pronouncing it with an Italian or French 'ch', but I haven't encountered those personally.

Martha Figueroa-Clark, a linguist in the BBC pronunciation unit for more than 10 years, says the question of how to say "chorizo" comes up a lot.

The usual pronunciation in English is chuh-REE-zoh, although chuh-REE-soh, chorr-EE-zoh and chorr-EE-soh (-orr as in sorry) are also certified as pronunciations in British dictionaries. (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39735870)

Probably the closest thing to authority we're gonna find with a quick google. The articles goes on to talk about more Spanish pronunciation, and then points out some common mispronunciations.

[Fyraltari]

With how much english-speaker discuss the pronunciation of their words, you’d think that the International Phonetic Alphabet would have a more widespread use.

[lesser_minion]

With how much english-speaker discuss the pronunciation of their words, you’d think that the International Phonetic Alphabet would have a more widespread use.

I know that it's a thing, but I only found out about it in the last couple of years and I haven't taken the time to learn it.

Anyway, 'chorizo', 'paella', and 'lasagne' are all pretty directly lifted from Spanish and Italian, and I don't really think of them as 'our' words, even though they see a lot of use in English.

[Willie the Duck]

With how much english-speaker discuss the pronunciation of their words, you’d think that the International Phonetic Alphabet would have a more widespread use.

People changing the very way they function in their day-to-day lives requires a lot of buy-in*, when for the most part people run into other people who pronounce or mispronounce things the same way that they do. As globalism has reduced borders and cheap/free cross-border communication has made people more aware of the world outside their own neighborhoods, things have changed, but not much nor as fast as some predicted.
*See countries slowly change to decimalized currency or the metric system, or for a more direct corollary, how people haven't switched to languages like Esperanto, despite it supposedly solving communication problems.

[Peelee]

I know that it's a thing, but I only found out about it in the last couple of years and I haven't taken the time to learn it.

Anyway, 'chorizo', 'paella', and 'lasagne' are all pretty directly lifted from Spanish and Italian, and I don't really think of them as 'our' words, even though they see a lot of use in English.

But it is, vis-a-vis the English language's unchecked imperialism and laissez-faire approach to vocabulary.

Fun fact, I used only English words in that sentence. :smallamused:
Whoah, déjà vu!

[Fyraltari]

People changing the very way they function in their day-to-day lives requires a lot of buy-in*, when for the most part people run into other people who pronounce or mispronounce things the same way that they do. As globalism has reduced borders and cheap/free cross-border communication has made people more aware of the world outside their own neighborhoods, things have changed, but not much nor as fast as some predicted.
*See countries slowly change to decimalized currency or the metric system, or for a more direct corollary, how people haven't switched to languages like Esperanto, despite it supposedly solving communication problems.

I meant rather than use "chuh", "REE", and such who are still really ambiguous, not as a replacement for the roman alphabet.

[lesser_minion]

Whoah, déjà vu!

Yes, they are English words, but there's a difference between a loanword and one that we grew ourselves.

[Willie the Duck]

I meant rather than use "chuh", "REE", and such who are still really ambiguous, not as a replacement for the roman alphabet.

So did I, and implementing use of International Phonetic Alphabet, or the like, in one's everyday life is something that requires a lot of buy-in (for very little gain for most people in their day-to-day lives, as discussed above).

[Peelee]

Yes, they are English words, but there's a difference between a loanword and one that we grew ourselves.

Similarly there's a difference between the money I mugged a guy for and the money I made for work, but they spend the same.:smalltongue:

[Vinyadan]

It's odd for me to see how some people have knee-jerk reactions about importing loanwords, seeing it as acceptance of a cultural invasion, and how English-speakers instead see themselves as doing the mugging when they import words.

[halfeye]

It's odd for me to see how some people have knee-jerk reactions about importing loanwords, seeing it as acceptance of a cultural invasion, and how English-speakers instead see themselves as doing the mugging when they import words.

That's probably because the words seem to migrate towards English in both cases.

[Vinyadan]

This will probably make you laugh, but I had never noticed how you write misshapen until now. I thought it was mishappen, as in, something that "happened" the wrong way and now looks very weird.

[ForzaFiori]

Yes, they are English words, but there's a difference between a loanword and one that we grew ourselves.

How long does it take for a loanword to become "self-grown"? A lot of our words were originally on loan from France, and then we just never gave them back. (Yes, the English Language is THAT neighbor). Over 1000 years, a lot of those words have changed, but some are still close enough for us to have cognates with the Romance languages. At what point did those "loans" from Norman French become a self-grown English word?

Heck, go back prior to the Norman invasion, and the language was a cross between the languages of the Angles and the Saxons, which would again cause the same problem. I'm a little less familiar with that point in history, but I'd assume that there was probably a similar system of borrowing and slowly changing until at some point the language just "popped" into existence, and suddenly the words aren't loan words anymore?

I personally love loan words, and once they get to the point of fairly standard use, I'd just say that they're also an English word. Especially if we do not use the word in the same way anymore, like how the dish in Italian is "lasagne," and the noodle itself "lasagna," but in English, the dish is "lasagna" and the noodles "lasagna noodles."

On the topic of pronunciation, I think that a certain amount of attempting to pronounce a loan word correctly is OK, especially if you have the ability to pronounce the sound in question. For example, with Paella, I think you should at least know that they "ll" is pronounced closer to a "y" than to an "l" and pronounce it as such. I'd also expect the person to be able to make the correct vowel sounds (or again, at least get close) since all of the pure vowels in romance languages are used in English too. ((Though as an aside, this may be due to my hatred of people pronouncing my name as F-eye-or-eye instead of Fee-or-ee)) But you can go too far and sound pretentious: don't start putting on a Spanish accent if you don't actually have one.

On the other hand, if the word is from one of the Khoisan languages (the ones famous for using clicks in their words) I understand (and I would hope a native speaker would too) that people who don't speak those languages don't know how to make the correct sounds, or even really that close to them. And the same is true in reverse - If someone borrows an English word, I wouldn't get mad that they can't pronounce "th". Most languages don't, and even in English, we have native speakers who can't get that sound down. But I would prefer if they used a sound that was close (an f, d, or t for instance) than just picking a random sound to replace it with, perhaps because the sounds look similar when written (ala the Spanish "ll" and English "l". They look similar, but your better off going with another sound that's actually closer)

[Peelee]

How long does it take for a loanword to become "self-grown"? A lot of our words were originally on loan from France, and then we just never gave them back. (Yes, the English Language is THAT neighbor).

Indeed, I've got some beef with the whole "loanword vs self-grown" thing.

[Fyraltari]

It's odd for me to see how some people have knee-jerk reactions about importing loanwords, seeing it as acceptance of a cultural invasion, and how English-speakers instead see themselves as doing the mugging when they import words.
Many English-speakers are still in denial about England having been conquered by Frenchmen and will insist that William and his French speaking Christian vassals of the king of France who lived in France were totally Vikings because their great-great grandfathers lived in Scandinavia.

How long does it take for a loanword to become "self-grown"? A lot of our words were originally on loan from France, and then we just never gave them back.
Actually ya did. Budget, tennis and a few other words were loaned back by us frenchies. Linguisticae has a video on that I would link to were I not on phone.

(Yes, the English Language is THAT neighbor). Over 1000 years, a lot of those words have changed, but some are still close enough for us to have cognates with the Romance languages. At what point did those "loans" from Norman French become a self-grown English word? All words are loanwords if you go far enough back. Except onomatopae I guess.


On the topic of pronunciation, I think that a certain amount of attempting to pronounce a loan word correctly is OK, especially if you have the ability to pronounce the sound in question. For example, with Paella, I think you should at least know that they "ll" is pronounced closer to a "y" than to an "l" and pronounce it as such. I'd also expect the person to be able to make the correct vowel sounds (or again, at least get close) since all of the pure vowels in romance languages are used in English too. ((Though as an aside, this may be due to my hatred of people pronouncing my name as F-eye-or-eye instead of Fee-or-ee)) But you can go too far and sound pretentious: don't start putting on a Spanish accent if you don't actually have one.
Not sure what you mean by ‘‘pure’’, but there are plenty of vowel sounds in French that native English-speakers plain cannot pronounce. I once let an Irish family call me by another (etymologically close) first name than mine because that one they actually can pronounce.

[Aedilred]

I would say that the point at which a loanword stops being a "live" loanword and becomes fully adopted is when it gets adapted. Of course, it would always remain an historic loanword, but that becomes largely irrelevant to anyone except etymologists and linguists. "Self-grown" is probably the wrong word, though, as it's hard to see how something can be both self-grown and borrowed. I suspect that this is little more than a problem of terminology.

Take the word, for instance, "surrender". This was originally a loanword from French, but has been adopted as both a noun and a verb with a full English declension, so it's now an English word.

Compare, say, "karate", which can be used as a noun, an adjective, or, in some forms, a verb of sorts, but is always "karate" and never gets modified as one might expect from an English word; I'd therefore argue it remains a loanword.

To take a more descriptive approach and a less systematic one, a rule of thumb would be when it stops being commonly written in italics, although that might be a little too narrow.

I don't agree though that all words are loanwords originally. Although the jury is still out on the original development of language, the majority of (real) languages will probably retain a core group of words which can trace their roots right back to the origin of the language. They will have mutated along the way, of course (in the same way that animal species have all evolved) but there is a difference between that and importing a word from a foreign language.


Nitpick: Standard Italian is actually the descendent of an artistic variant of the XIV century Florentine dialect, so it's closest to the dialects of modern Tuscany. Emilia has a fairly different dialect.
That was sloppy of me, but I was operating on the overly casual basis that most of the Romance languages are really quite similar in a number of ways and therefore although the Emilian language might not be that closely related to Italian on the family tree, to a lay reader they will look fairly similar - albeit not mutually intelligible. Having formally studied three of them, plus Latin, I find that the remainder often look very familiar. Except Romanian, which is weird.

[Florian]

How long does it take for a loanword to become "self-grown"?

Depends on your level of isolation and ongoing cultural exchange.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

one of the Khoisan languages (the ones famous for using clicks in their words)

Relevant!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4z-lkVYwu00

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

I used to be able to do that! When I was around 6 or 7, my parents hosted a South African priest named Father N[click]yobo, who taught me how to pronounce his name. That skill is now lost to the sands of time. I feel Stephen Fry there, though, it's amazing to hear it in action, so smoothly.

[Zigludo]

Haven't read through the entire thread, but have we been over "X AM in the morning" and its ilk yet?

I'm not sure if it's incorrect, exactly, but it's redundant and has become a peeve of mine. I've never given anyone else guff about it, but I still catch myself saying it from time and time and cringe.

[Florian]

Haven't read through the entire thread, but have we been over "X AM in the morning" and its ilk yet?

I'm not sure if it's incorrect, exactly, but it's redundant and has become a peeve of mine. I've never given anyone else guff about it, but I still catch myself saying it from time and time and cringe.

*Shrugs*

Don't use the AM/PM format around here and absolutely don´t care for it in any way, so it is always helpful when it is mentioned.

[Vinyadan]

https://assets.amuniversal.com/e8774a508f03012eb06d001dd8b71c47

[Peelee]

https://assets.amuniversal.com/e8774a508f03012eb06d001dd8b71c47

Not like he didn't deserve it.

[lesser_minion]

So, my complaint about these isn't really that people get them wrong, it's that they were added to the language like this in the first place (but let's face it, using words to evolve the language in a stupid and confusing way is about as big a language misuse as you can get):

Judgement: the ability to make good decisions.
Judgment (same pronunciation): a decision made by a judge or a magistrate in court.
Complement: lots of jargon meanings (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/complement), but mostly used when talking about things that accompany other things.
Compliment (same pronunciation again): the opposite of an insult.
Complimentary: free of charge.
Complementary (you guessed it): complements something else.


Although credit where it's due, they did abolish the 'judgement'/'judgment' nonsense over in the colonies.


Not like he didn't deserve it.

Can't disagree there.

[Aedilred]

Alright, here’s one likely to be controversial: extraneous “of”s associated with adjectives. It’s all over the place but here are two real examples just to indicate exactly what I'm talking about and to prove I'm not making it up:


It’s not that unique of a thing to say”.

“How big of a deal is an extra half degree of global warming?”

The (marked) “of”s in these statements or questions are not only unnecessary but make no grammatical sense.

This can be seen when the sentence is unscrambled; to take the Guardians example: "The thing that I said is not that unique”.

There’s no room for an “of” in that sentence and logically the only place it could go to match the original phrasing would be to produce the sentence “the thing that I said is not a very unique of thing”.

Extrapolating further, this would lead to “of” between all nouns and adjectives, such as “White of House” or “United of States of America”, which are obvious nonsenses.

It bothers me mostly, I think, because I only noticed it relatively recently (within the last 6 years; the Guardians quote is an early example) and initially, predominantly in Buzzfeed headlines. In that time it’s spread like wildfire including to some people who should know better (for instance, reason.com). It’s particularly egregious in headlines, where the usual drive is to save space by removing extraneous words even where in normal discourse they would be required. Here they’re adding words for no reason.

I suspect that much of this is due to a lack of confidence, where ordering the sentence in that way leads to what seems like a fragile construction, and consequently adding a beat to be on the safe side, even though it makes no sense, and that’s why it’s caught on so widely and so quickly.
It may also be due to confusion with the related phrasing along the lines of “how much of a jerk are you” which can also be differentiated on the basis that the basis for comparison is with a noun, and therefore it is something to which the “of” can legitimately hook. It’s not very elegant, but it does make sense.

Now, I am aware that there is a poetic tradition of putting “of” between nouns and adjectives, for instance in the Louis Armstrong classic “What a Wonderful World”:

I see trees of green…
But critically, here, the relationship is the other way round to the phrasing that bugs me, and is explicable by a missing word (“made” or “composed”, etc.) which isn’t the case in the above examples. Also, it’s poetry.

[Lissou]

Totally agreed about the "of". In Harry Potter, it always tripped me to read that Hagrid was "a giant of a man". Can't he just be a giant man, which is something I understand, rather than sounding like he's a giant belonging to a man?

[Sir_Norbert]

I completely agree, though I'll note that "a giant of a man" is not an example. "Giant" in that phrase is a noun, not an adjective, and this is a much older and perfectly acceptable usage. I've never really analysed it before, but I suppose that "of" is used there because it means, more or less, "a giant belonging to mankind".

[Vinyadan]

"A giant of a man" was used by Johnny Cash in 1972 (A Thing Called Love), so I guess it's not very recent. I found a use in 1915 (https://books.google.it/books?id=b9k5AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA654&dq=%22a+giant+of+a+man%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJ1_mHyfLhAhWN2aQKHdSLAs44ChDoAQg3MAM#v =onepage&q=%22a%20giant%20of%20a%20man%22&f=false).

[Lissou]

It's true that the example is a bit different, because "a man" isn't an adjective.
But hey, talking about "of" made me think about my own gripe :P

About it being old, are only recent uses allowed on the thread? Sorry if that's the case!

[georgie_leech]

It's true that the example is a bit different, because "a man" isn't an adjective.
But hey, talking about "of" made me think about my own gripe :P

About it being old, are only recent uses allowed on the thread? Sorry if that's the case!

It's more like when the misuse is old and common enough, it sort of just becomes a "use." :smalltongue:

[Xuc Xac]

It's more like when the misuse is old and common enough, it sort of just becomes a "use." :smalltongue:

Speaking of "misuse", is the thread title supposed to be the plural of "missus"?

[Vinyadan]

It's true that the example is a bit different, because "a man" isn't an adjective.
But hey, talking about "of" made me think about my own gripe :P

About it being old, are only recent uses allowed on the thread? Sorry if that's the case!

I think it's fair play for whatever grinds your gears!

[Lissou]

Speaking of "misuse", is the thread title supposed to be the plural of "missus"?

No, someone suggested we spell it wrong on purpose for the title of the second thread, and it stuck. I think it's just meant to torture all of us :P

[veti]

Many English-speakers are still in denial about England having been conquered by Frenchmen and will insist that William and his French speaking Christian vassals of the king of France who lived in France were totally Vikings because their great-great grandfathers lived in Scandinavia.

Objection! William's people were vassals of the Duke of Normandy, not the King of France. To claim that they owed allegiance to France as some sort of superior obligation to that of Normandy - would very likely have earned you a one-way ticket to an execution. (It's one of the things that got Joan of Arc into so much trouble, a few hundred years later.)

If some peasant had tried to claim that they had an allegiance to France, rather than Normandy, even the King of France probably wouldn't have thanked them for it, because such a claim would have undermined the whole feudal order.


Actually ya did. Budget, tennis and a few other words were loaned back by us frenchies. Linguisticae has a video on that I would link to were I not on phone.
All words are loanwords if you go far enough back. Except onomatopae I guess.

Yup, all words in all living languages are derived from something, mostly from - other languages. There's no shame in that, any more than there is in being descended from Other People.

I would say that a loanword remains loaned as long as people don't forget its origins. Someday we may forget that "paella" was ever a Spanish dish and then the word will become generic English, but that day is at least a generation or two away yet.

[Fyraltari]

Objection! William's people were vassals of the Duke of Normandy, not the King of France. To claim that they owed allegiance to France as some sort of superior obligation to that of Normandy - would very likely have earned you a one-way ticket to an execution. (It's one of the things that got Joan of Arc into so much trouble, a few hundred years later.)
That is only true insofar as that the concept of France did not exist yet. However if you asked those people wether they we’re vassals to the king of France, they would have said yes, as their duke, William, was a vassal to the king. If you find that insufficient to be French then there were [i]no[\i] French had the time as Normandy wasn’t more independent or culturally distinct than Champagne or Artois.

[Lissou]

Wait, if there was no France, how could he be the King of France?

[Florian]

Wait, if there was no France, how could he be the King of France?

The concept of a nation state is a rather modern one and is heavily based on land and borders. The feudal hierarchy was a rather fluid one, as it was primarily based on the web of vassalage, allegiance and alliances between individuals, houses and bloodlines. It did take quite a while for stuff to consolidate in such a way that nation states would emerge, in part only after replacing the feudal order with (absolutist) monarchies.

It would also be more correct to state that he was the "king of the people who identified themselves as francs".

[Fyraltari]

Wait, if there was no France, how could he be the King of France?

It was in 1204, that Philp the second changed his title from Rex Francorum (king of the Franks) to Rex Franciae (King of France). As far as I can tell this was the first time people started to speak of France as a geopolitical entity.

[factotum]

It was in 1204, that Philp the second changed his title from Rex Francorum (king of the Franks) to Rex Franciae (King of France). As far as I can tell this was the first time people started to speak of France as a geopolitical entity.

Which was 138 years after the Norman invasion, so you've just contradicted your own statement that William of Normandy was a vassal of the King of France. :smallsmile:

[Fyraltari]

Which was 138 years after the Norman invasion, so you've just contradicted your own statement that William of Normandy was a vassal of the King of France. :smallsmile:

No, I’m just not pedantic enough to make a difference between the two titles until after it becomes relevant to the conversation. William was a vassal if the king of the Franks which is one of the many things that make him Frankish/French.

[Florian]

Which was 138 years after the Norman invasion, so you've just contradicted your own statement that William of Normandy was a vassal of the King of France. :smallsmile:

Consider the three things that make up a nation state as we understand it: A land, a border, a people. Previous understanding was more concerned with the people and took land and border for granted, the switch from "king of the francs" to "king of france" was more or less a minor one and the result of consolidation.

Ok, granted, I might be less pedantic there because I'm from Germany, which managed the whole consolidation very late and is practically a baby country in comparison. Ok, a peculiarity about the german language that might help to explain something: A lot of the terms we use are descriptive and you will notice the repeated use of the suffixes of -land and -reich. Deutschland, Frankreich, Österreich and England are simply the lands of the german, franc, austrian end english people, that's it.

[ForzaFiori]

Alright, here’s one likely to be controversial: extraneous “of”s associated with adjectives. It’s all over the place but here are two real examples just to indicate exactly what I'm talking about and to prove I'm not making it up:

When I was taking Italian, they had a word "ci," that even though it already had plenty of uses (its the pronoun for us, as well as meaning there or here), sometimes appears (at least to me, and my prof. agreed) to be completely redundant, for example, if someone asks if you are coming with them, the natural response in Italian would be something like "Si, ci vengo", but there's nothing in that sentence not conveyed by just saying "si, vengo", except that the second one sounds terse. My prof. said it was all about your word rhythm, words like that help everything flow sometimes when your speaking or something like that. I'd assume it's similar in English and other languages with random redundancies.

Personally, my favorite is when someone "has got" something (Almost always done with a contraction, like I've got, he's got, etc). You don't need both. If you've got something, then you have something. No need for the word got to be in there.

On the duchy of normandy/france thing: While the Norman's did speak french, and were "french" in culture, it's worth nothing that it had only been 100 years since they had invaded the duchy. There were still some parts of their culture that were held over, and their French is known to be slightly different from the rest of French. So they weren't still vikings, but they were no more french than an aquitanian - someone who spoke a similar language and maybe sent some money to Paris once a year. Back then France was an incredibly weak feudal state - the King could only really count on being listened to within a few miles of Paris before he hit lands that belong to vassels who (in practice if not legally) could over rule him if they had wanted to.

[Vinyadan]

loyal readerships ≠ royal leadership (but it was a fun misread)

About the discussion at hand, it would be interesting to compare contemporary texts. For example, the Normans in Italy were compared by the Byzantines, as far as I can remember, with their own Northmen (the various mercenaries and settlements in Eastern Europe), possibly because of the name; but the also Byzantine Alexiad simply calls them Keltoi, "Gauls/Celts". The Normans spoke French (oil), in a local version, like not having the c- > ch change (which doesn't really mean too much, since local variation will always exist). But I don't know about their everyday customs; I expect the populace to have retained their old (romance) culture, and the nobility to have a few Northern habits.

And England should also not have existed, by royal style, until 1154. I wonder what William conquered, then?

From my point of view, it makes no sense to try and understand when people started use "France", because it becomes a mess from it being an English word. Francia was used since the "beginning", since Chlovis I (466 – 511), and referred to all of the territories held by his Franks. When the Frankish Empire broke up, there were definitions like "Francia occidentalis" opposed to "Francia orientalis". When the name Francia orientalis became disused, the French state was referred to as simply Francia. I assume that Anglia also existed as a concept for a long time before it was adopted by the king.

In general, while being powerful, litigious, and as independent as they could get away with (so, a lot), the vassals of the King of France well very well aware of being his vassals and of the reciprocal obligations. Respecting them, that was another matter.

I personally wouldn't call William's men Frenchmen or Franks, if only to avoid confusion (although it would be interesting to check out what medieval sources called them; translations tend to change such names into something the readers can understand). In general, this kind of definitions can be a mess. Isidore of Seville called the inhabitants of the Visigothic Kingdom "Goths", in spite of them being essentially the same people as before the Goths got there, and keeping their earlier language and religion.

I don't know how widespread a feeling of loyalty towards the king was. I tried searching for prayers for him in liturgy, but I couldn't get earlier than Philippe le Bel.

[darkrose50]

MSN.com had a list of terms that "no one uses anymore". I was rather shocked that they did not have the answers. They were like "here is a term, who knows where it came from".

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/100-slang-terms-from-the-20th-century-no-one-uses-anymore/ss-BBML6No?li=AAgfLCP

Submarine races: an excuse to bring a romantic partner to the seaside at night, hopefully under a full moon, park the car, and make out. [It sounds pretty predatory and creepy if the girl was clueless, but I would imagine that it was well-known slang and/or a joke].

See you on the flip side: referencing the other side of a record. Basically I will see you later.

[Aedilred]

On the duchy of normandy/france thing: While the Norman's did speak french, and were "french" in culture, it's worth nothing that it had only been 100 years since they had invaded the duchy. There were still some parts of their culture that were held over, and their French is known to be slightly different from the rest of French. So they weren't still vikings, but they were no more french than an aquitanian - someone who spoke a similar language and maybe sent some money to Paris once a year. Back then France was an incredibly weak feudal state - the King could only really count on being listened to within a few miles of Paris before he hit lands that belong to vassels who (in practice if not legally) could over rule him if they had wanted to.

Insofar as the question "Were the Normans French?" can be answered, I think the answer has to be "yes, insofar as it's possible to use the word "French" to describe anyone of the period who lived outside the Isle de France". As has been said, in 1066 the Normans spoke French, or at least a langue d'oil mutually intelligible with it; their culture had been Francified, and they were subject to the French king. They did have a culture distinct from the Isle de France, but no moreso than Aquitaine, or the Languedoc, or (particularly) Brittany. Ultimately, they may not have been French, but they were more French than they were anything else.

As has been noted, the nation state as we currently think of it is a relatively modern development, and the idea of France as a singular political entity didn't really develop until the later Middle Ages - probably roughly occurring during the period between Philip II and Charles VIII. My understanding is that "France" as we now think of it was finally forged in the crucible of the Hundred Years War, which ended with the total victory of the French kings, not only over the foreign kings who had ruled parts of France for centuries, but over their most powerful vassals too. There was still the Mad War to contend with but that seems to have been the last gasp of old feudalism.

I believe contemporaries called them Normans, which seems about right. They're not French, per se, but they're not Danes or Norse either; they're their own thing. Normandy was a sufficiently powerful and relevant entity in its own right to merit its own designation independent of the kingdom of France. England, after all, wasn't the only place the Normans (after becoming Norman) conquered.


Ok, granted, I might be less pedantic there because I'm from Germany, which managed the whole consolidation very late and is practically a baby country in comparison.
Though ironically in the period we're talking about, Germany was arguably more of a recognisable kingdom than France was: it held itself together rather better during and following the decline of the Carolingians. The Investiture Controversy did some damage a few years later, partially repaired under the Hohenstaufens, before their own collapse took the kingdom as a meaningful entity with it.



I don't know how widespread a feeling of loyalty towards the king was. I tried searching for prayers for him in liturgy, but I couldn't get earlier than Philippe le Bel.
I believe that the first Capetian king to exercise meaningful authority outside the immediate confines of his own demesne was Louis the Fat (and before him, Rudolph, almost 200 years earlier), although the extent to which this was expressed as actual personalised loyalty, who knows.

[Sir_Norbert]

They did have a culture distinct from the Isle de France, but no moreso than Aquitaine, or the Languedoc, or (particularly) Brittany.

It bugs me when people mush together common phrases into single words, like "moreso", "everytime", or the hideous "alot".

"Everyday" is especially bad because there is already a word "everyday", and it doesn't mean "every 24 hours". So all those supermarket advertisements are actually saying in bright bold letters that their products are ordinary and mediocre.

[halfeye]

It bugs me when people mush together common phrases into single words, like "moreso", "everytime", or the hideous "alot".

As you probably know, "alot" is actually a word, meaning (more or less) allocate. I've a feeling that "moreso" is old, though I can't remember any examples. There is a distinct difference between maybe (which means perhaps) and may be, which means perhaps it will exist.


"Everyday" is especially bad because there is already a word "everyday", and it doesn't mean "every 24 hours". So all those supermarket advertisements are actually saying in bright bold letters that their products are ordinary and mediocre.

They probably know and hope that their customers don't.

[Gnoman]

As you probably know, "alot" is actually a word, meaning (more or less) allocate.


That word is normally spelled "allot", not "alot".

[halfeye]

That word is normally spelled "allot", not "alot".

Right. Spelling is difficult for me, I do care about it, I make a lot of corrections, but sometimes one escapes me entirely.

[ForzaFiori]

And England should also not have existed, by royal style, until 1154. I wonder what William conquered, then?


Well, I don't know what Edward the Confessor or Harold Godwinson called themselves (I would assume that at least right at the start of his conquest, William would take the same title as his predecesor for continuity), but according to some real quick googling, Alfred the Great (who was one of the first to unite most of what we now call England) called himself King of the Angles and Saxons, and his son Aethelstan was the first called King of the English/Rex Anglorum. This would have been about 100 years prior to the norman conquest however.

William conquered England kinda right in the middle of it really solidifying it's boarders it seems. The 7 kingdoms had been around for a while, but they had only been fully unified under Aethelstan, and then a generation or two later I believe were conquered by Cnut to form the North Sea Empire, which may have pushed back the formation of a unique, independant nation-state (It's hard to form your own country when your part of another one. Not impossible, but hard)

[Xuc Xac]

Personally, my favorite is when someone "has got" something (Almost always done with a contraction, like I've got, he's got, etc). You don't need both. If you've got something, then you have something. No need for the word got to be in there.


I'm not sure I understand your point. Maybe I'm just too hungry to focus. I not eaten breakfast yet.

[factotum]

(I would assume that at least right at the start of his conquest, William would take the same title as his predecesor for continuity)

Factoid I heard once: William never referred to himself as a conqueror, because as far as he was concerned Edward the Confessor had promised him the crown and thus his invasion was just him acquiring something he already owned.

[ForzaFiori]

I'm not sure I understand your point. Maybe I'm just too hungry to focus. I not eaten breakfast yet.

This is something I only had pointed out to me relatively recently, as opposed to something that has bugged me forever, which may be why I see it all the time in real life right now.

the phrase "I have got the item" (usually, this phrasing is used when "have" is in a contraction, so it'd be more likely heard as "I've got the item") and "I have the item" mean the same thing: There is an item in your possession right now. Yet the first has the extra word "got" in the sentence. The word is doing nothing.

Several languages have instances like this (the only one I can name off the top of my head is the word "ce" [it might be "ci", spelling is not my forte in my native language, let alone a second or third one] in Italian, meaning "there", but which is occasionally used with average (to have) in places similar to this), where a word that normally carries meaning appears in a sentence and is really doing nothing. Note that there are exceptions, such as if you are trying to emphasise that you did, indeed bring the item ("didn't you say you didn't have the item?" "No, I HAVE got the item"), but that is not the way the phrase is most often used.

Most of the language specialists I've asked (I've never done any research on it or anything, so I don't know where they get their info from) say that the main theory is it's there basically to make the language flow off the tongue better. Again, I don't know where that idea comes from, I've just heard it from English and Italian professors, and seen mention of similar things in other languages on places like DuoLingo and other language learning sites.

I hope this clarifies for you :smallbiggrin: I'm also generally having trouble focusing by the time I get to come on this website to, so I'm sure it's not my most logically thought out stuff going onto the message boards. If not, I'll try again :smalltongue:

[Xuc Xac]

I hope this clarifies for you :smallbiggrin: I'm also generally having trouble focusing by the time I get to come on this website to, so I'm sure it's not my most logically thought out stuff going onto the message boards. If not, I'll try again :smalltongue:

No. I said "I not eaten" to point out to you that the "have" in "have got" is the perfect auxiliary and not the same as the verb "to have". They cover the same situation but they aren't identical. Some dialects (like mine) distinguish between them.

"I have the item" = only describes the present moment : "I currently possess the item (I may have obtained it in the past or picked it up just now, but that information isn't provided)"
"I got the item" = describes the past : "I obtained or received the item in the past (and I may or may not still possess it)"
"I have got the item" = describes the past event that has an effect continuing in the present : "I obtained or received the item in the past and I still possess it now"

"I got" can be used for a future event to emphasize the certainty of its completion (i.e. it's as good as done). For example, when a ball is flying through the air and you're certain that you'll catch it, you'd say "I got it!" before catching it to let your teammates know that it's in your control and they should stay out of the way instead of trying to help.

In "I got" and "I have got", the verb is "to get". In "I have", the verb is "to have".

[ForzaFiori]

No. I said "I not eaten" to point out to you that the "have" in "have got" is the perfect auxiliary and not the same as the verb "to have". They cover the same situation but they aren't identical. Some dialects (like mine) distinguish between them.

"I have the item" = only describes the present moment : "I currently possess the item (I may have obtained it in the past or picked it up just now, but that information isn't provided)"
"I got the item" = describes the past : "I obtained or received the item in the past (and I may or may not still possess it)"
"I have got the item" = describes the past event that has an effect continuing in the present : "I obtained or received the item in the past and I still possess it now"

"I got" can be used for a future event to emphasize the certainty of its completion (i.e. it's as good as done). For example, when a ball is flying through the air and you're certain that you'll catch it, you'd say "I got it!" before catching it to let your teammates know that it's in your control and they should stay out of the way instead of trying to help.

In "I got" and "I have got", the verb is "to get". In "I have", the verb is "to have".

The only problem is, at least where I am, people use have, got, and have got essentially interchangeable, even when you don't need to emphasis or point out that difference. (with exceptions such as in baseball, where you pretty much only call a ball using "I've got it"). If someone shows up at your house and brings you a sixpack, they might walk in and say "I have beer," "I got beer," or "I've got beer" and really what they mean is "I brought beer." or "I have beer with me, right now." Even if you bring it from home and it's been sitting around your house forever (so there's no reason to emphasis that you, at some point, obtained this beer) you might still say "I've got beer!" when you walk in. All they mean is "I have beer." but they add extra words that dont matter. Yes it's still a legitimate sentance, but what is the point of adding that you obtained it? Of course you did! how else could you have it now? Unless you want me to know that you went by the store special just for this, or that I owe you moeny or something, there's no need to point it out.

[halfeye]

I was once told that "got" is always redundant and should never be used. It was a long time ago, but I don't remember how long.

[Peelee]

I was once told that "got" is always redundant and should never be used. It was a long time ago, but I don't remember how long.

I got that lesson too. Turned out, they got it all wrong.

[veti]

I was once told that "got" is always redundant and should never be used. It was a long time ago, but I don't remember how long.

My English teacher said something like that when I was about 14. "Try leaving the word 'got' out, usually the sentence will work fine without it."

A few years later, when I took up journalism, I realised that's a good test for every other word as well.

[Vinyadan]

Odd, using "I've got" is one of the first things you are taught when learning English as a second language.

[Peelee]

What matters here is that the present tense of get is acceptable, and but may god have mercy on your soul if you attempt the past or past participle.

[137beth]

When there is a film adaption of some other medium, and then later the same source material is adapted into another movie, it bugs me when people refer to the second film adaption as a "remake" of the first film adaption.

[Aedilred]

When there is a film adaption of some other medium, and then later the same source material is adapted into another movie, it bugs me when people refer to the second film adaption as a "remake" of the first film adaption.

Oooh, yeah, that bugs me too. To be entirely fair about it, sometimes it's not entirely clear-cut, and I suspect that usually, though not always, it's because the people saying it aren't aware of the original source material (though that doesn't make them right).

[factotum]

Oooh, yeah, that bugs me too. To be entirely fair about it, sometimes it's not entirely clear-cut, and I suspect that usually, though not always, it's because the people saying it aren't aware of the original source material (though that doesn't make them right).

Case in point: the famous Alfred Hitchcock movie "Psycho" was based on a 1959 novel by Robert Bloch. The 1998 movie is pretty close to being a shot-for-shot and line-for-line copy of the 1960 movie, so I think it would be entirely fair to call it a remake of the movie, not a second adaptation of the novel.

[Fyraltari]

Yes, I would say that depends how much is taken from each previous works.

[Bohandas]

Two things always bothered me about the song "America"

The first is that the tune is plagiarized, but that's beyond the scope of this thread

The second, and more to the point here, is that I can't figure out what the phrase "My country tis of thee" is supposed to mean. Translated into more modern English I'm pretty sure it would be "My country is of you", which doesn't seem like it has any meaning. The best guess I have is that it means something like "My country is also your country" but I'm far from sure of that, since it's rendered as if someone typed the intended meaning into Google Translate and translated it into five different languages and then back into English.

[georgie_leech]

Two things always bothered me about the song "America"

The first is that the tune is plagiarized, but that's beyond the scope of this thread

The second, and more to the point here, is that I can't figure out what the phrase "My country tis of thee" is supposed to mean. Translated into more modern English I'm pretty sure it would be "My country is of you", which doesn't seem like it has any meaning. The best guess I have is that it means something like "My country is also your country" but I'm far from sure of that, since it's rendered as if someone typed the intended meaning into Google Translate and translated it into five different languages and then back into English.

My country, it is of you... sweet land of freedom, I sing of you. It makes more sense with the context of the next line.

[Bohandas]

It still doesn't make sense and parsing it like that makes the next line not make sense either (and conversely it does make sense on its own, ie "Sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing". Which is a bit Yoda-ish but still has a clear meaning

"it is of you" is not a valid construction in the english language.

[halfeye]

"it is of you" is not a valid construction in the english language.

It's poetic English, so that's usually the case.

"'Tis" is definitely an old timey/poetic abbreviation for "it is".

[veti]

"it is of you" is not a valid construction in the english language.

It makes sense if you insert a bit of punctuation:

My country, tis of thee - sweet land of liberty! - of thee I sing!

That is to say, the "sweet land" bit is a parenthetical aside in the apostrophising of his subject.

It's bad poetry, I'd say, but that's par for the period it was written.

[Bohandas]

It makes sense if you insert a bit of punctuation:

My country, tis of thee - sweet land of liberty! - of thee I sing!

That is to say, the "sweet land" bit is a parenthetical aside in the apostrophising of his subject.

It's bad poetry, I'd say, but that's par for the period it was written.

Ok, that makes sense now

[Jon_Dahl]

I wrote a paper on multilingualism that discusses this thread, the previous thread (i.e. 'part I'), and a thread found on a Finnish discussion forum. The paper was the final coursework for a course on multilingualism for postgraduated* English majors. The paper was graded a 4 on a scale of 0-5. If someone wants to read the paper, please PM me.

*MA level

[Peelee]

I wrote a paper on multilingualism that discusses this thread, the previous thread (i.e. 'part I'), and a thread found on a Finnish discussion forum. The paper was the final coursework for a course on multilingualism for postgraduated* English majors. The paper was graded a 4 on a scale of 0-5. If someone wants to read the paper, please PM me.

*MA level

How often am I referenced?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I wrote a paper on multilingualism that discusses this thread, the previous thread (i.e. 'part I'), and a thread found on a Finnish discussion forum. The paper was the final coursework for a course on multilingualism for postgraduated* English majors. The paper was graded a 4 on a scale of 0-5. If someone wants to read the paper, please PM me.

*MA level

Can you post the abstract, at least?

Grey Wolf

[Jon_Dahl]

How often am I referenced?

Zero times, I'm afraid.


Can you post the abstract, at least?

Grey Wolf

Do you have to write an abstract for each and every coursework that you write in your country? Geesh, that's hard... I'm glad I don't study there. In other words, there is no abstract. It is very, very rare that we write abstracts here. I could write one if you wish, though.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Do you have to write an abstract for each and every coursework that you write in your country? Geesh, that's hard... I'm glad I don't study there. In other words, there is no abstract. It is very, very rare that we write abstracts here. I could write one if you wish, though.

Not for every coursework, no, but you made it sound a bit bigger than regular coursework. I certainly had to write abstracts for every major delivery - final year projects and the like. Heck, I remember I was asked to do the equivalent of an abstract for a coding project, once.

If you don't have one already written, then I'd be nice to hear the TL;DR instead. Depending on what your a prioris and conclusions are, it might pique my interest enough to want to read the whole thing.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

Zero times, I'm afraid.

Hopefully that won't affect the quality of your paper.

Hopefully.

[Jon_Dahl]

Not for every coursework, no, but you made it sound a bit bigger than regular coursework. I certainly had to write abstracts for every major delivery - final year projects and the like. Heck, I remember I was asked to do the equivalent of an abstract for a coding project, once.

If you don't have one already written, then I'd be nice to hear the TL;DR instead. Depending on what your a prioris and conclusions are, it might pique my interest enough to want to read the whole thing.

Grey Wolf

Once I get my current paper finished, I will do this.

[georgie_leech]

Not for every coursework, no, but you made it sound a bit bigger than regular coursework. I certainly had to write abstracts for every major delivery - final year projects and the like. Heck, I remember I was asked to do the equivalent of an abstract for a coding project, once.

If you don't have one already written, then I'd be nice to hear the TL;DR instead. Depending on what your a prioris and conclusions are, it might pique my interest enough to want to read the whole thing.

Grey Wolf

...Huh. On reflection, an Abstract is sort of like an academic TLDR, isn't it?

ETA before any of my professors hear about this: I mean, you very much shouldn't just read the abstract and think you understand a given work, but it has a similar function of giving you an overall view of the work so it's easier to put things into the context they are intended.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

...Huh. On reflection, an Abstract is sort of like an academic TLDR, isn't it?

It is absolutely a teal deer. A bit more formal, of course, but a teal deer nonetheless.

Grey Wolf

[veti]

...Huh. On reflection, an Abstract is sort of like an academic TLDR, isn't it?

An abstract is a substitute for reading the work, in the same way as the blurb on the back of a book. It won't tell you all about the contents, but it should let you decide with confidence that you don't care enough to read the rest.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

An abstract is a substitute for reading the work, in the same way as the blurb on the back of a book. It won't tell you all about the contents, but it should let you decide with confidence that you don't care enough to read the rest.

Not quite.

An abstract is supposed to remove the middle bits of the work - it tells you both the priors and the conclusion. If you are interested in either, then you can read the full work to judge if the data and methodology stand up to scrutiny.

A (well-written) TL;DR should do the same: jump from set-up to punchline/conclusion/resolution and, if your interest is piqued, you go back and read the whole story.

A blurb, on the other hand, is not supposed to give away the ending. It is supposed to give you the set-up only. Take the best* blurb ever written:

Death is missing – presumed ... er ... gone. Which leads to the kind of chaos to always expect when an important public service is withdrawn.

Ghosts and poltergeists fill up the Discworld. Dead Rights activist Reg Shoe – "You Don't Have to Take This Lying Down" – suddenly has more work than he had ever dreamed of. And newly deceased wizard Windle Poons wakes up in his coffin to find that he has come back as a corpse. But it's up to Windle and the members of Ankh-Morpork's rather unfrightening group of undead to save the world for the living.

Meanwhile, on a little farm far, far away, a tall, dark stranger, by the name of Bill Door, is turning out to be really good with a scythe. There's a harvest to be got in. And a different battle to be fought.

Notice that all it does it tells you were the story start, not where it will end.

Grey Wolf

*obvious hyperbole is hopefully obvious

[Fyraltari]

By contrast the worst blurb ever written award goes to the French edition of the End of Eternity which somehow manages to give the wrong set-up and spoil one of the end twists.

[Vinyadan]

"drain dead".

[Fyraltari]

Oh, I really want to learn French! Mmmm, it is so romantic

This is so confusing for native French speakers. We think the Italians are the romantic ones.

[Peelee]

This is so confusing for native French speakers. We think the Italians are the romantic ones.

Ooooohhhhhhh, I get it!

[Vinyadan]

This is so confusing for native French speakers. We think the Italians are the romantic ones.

I imagine this dialogue

"You have such a romantic language."
"But yours is even more romantic!"
"Ha ha, no, no, really, yours is the most romantic."
"No, I think that one goes rightfully to you. After all, we already have our spot for producing the best wines in the world, and..."
"WHAT THE **** DID YOU JUST SAY, YOU ********?!"

[Peelee]

I imagine this dialogue

"You have such a romantic language."
"But yours is even more romantic!"
"Ha ha, no, no, really, yours is the most romantic."
"No, I think that one goes rightfully to you. After all, we already have our spot for producing the best wines in the world, and..."
"WHAT THE **** DID YOU JUST SAY, YOU ********?!"

"You have Rome. Yours is more Romantic. QED."
"Mamma mia!"

[Willie the Duck]

I imagine this dialogue

"You have such a romantic language."
"But yours is even more romantic!"
"Ha ha, no, no, really, yours is the most romantic."
"No, I think that one goes rightfully to you. After all, we already have our spot for producing the best wines in the world, and..."
"WHAT THE **** DID YOU JUST SAY, YOU ********?!"

The fun part is you can have this go with either one starting.

[Fyraltari]

I imagine this dialogue

"You have such a romantic language."
"But yours is even more romantic!"
"Ha ha, no, no, really, yours is the most romantic."
"No, I think that one goes rightfully to you. After all, we already have our spot for producing the best wines in the world, and..."
"WHAT THE **** DID YOU JUST SAY, YOU ********?!"

Hey! Stop hacking my phone!

[Jon_Dahl]

Not for every coursework, no, but you made it sound a bit bigger than regular coursework. I certainly had to write abstracts for every major delivery - final year projects and the like. Heck, I remember I was asked to do the equivalent of an abstract for a coding project, once.

If you don't have one already written, then I'd be nice to hear the TL;DR instead. Depending on what your a prioris and conclusions are, it might pique my interest enough to want to read the whole thing.

Grey Wolf

It took me a while because I had to finish another essay and I had a six-hour D&D session to DM today.

Instead of writing an abstract, I decided to copy and paste the whole conclusion section. Why? I read that an abstract has 100 to 500 words. This paragraph from the conclusion section is only 130 words, so it should stand as an abstract under any definition.

In terms of multilingualism, metapragmatics and linguistic purity, we can see four phenomena on Giant in the Playground and Futisforum2.org discussion forums. First, cyber bullying is a convenient and straightforward way to force one’s views on linguistic purity on others and this phenomenon is compounded on Futisforum2.org forum by giving a platform and an established method how to shame forum members who code-switch between Finnish and English. Second, one-off instances of marked code-switching annoys Finnish speakers while non-standard English annoys English speakers. This shows that there are clearly different standards of linguistic purity in these linguistic communities. Third, it is relevant where loanwords come from. This is important eo ipso. Fourth, multilingualism prevails: negative reactions against multilingualism and linguistic variation inspire some people to use non-standard English and code-switching.

[Bohandas]

This one's not a misuse per se, it's actually something that was formerly correct. It still bugs me though....

What's up with the way the letter "s" sometimes appropriated other letters' characters in the older forms of English and German?

Ie. there was big s ("S") and little s ("s") like we have now, but there was also long s ("f") and, in german, eszett/double s ("B"). Even assuming they did need additional forms of the letter "s", why did they use characters that were already used by other letters in the same alphabet

EDIT:
And yes, I know the characters are distinct in serif fonts, but those are only a thing in calligraphy and type. They're going to look the same handwritten.

[Fyraltari]

I was taught to write estzetts with a vertical "tail", and since no word starts with a estzett it is completely impossible to mistake it with a capital b.

[factotum]

The long "s" doesn't usually have the crossbar that lowercase "f" does, so it's still a distinct letter even when handwritten. The German double-S actually looks more like a Greek letter beta than a capital B in my experience. In any case, it's not like they chose those letters to match others, it's that those letters evolved in parallel and just happen to look similar.

[Bohandas]

The long s has half a crossbar on the left side which doesn't cross over into the right side of the letter. Unless you don;t write it carefully, in which case it probably will

[Vinyadan]

This one's not a misuse per se, it's actually something that was formerly correct. It still bugs me though....

What's up with the way the letter "s" sometimes appropriated other letters' characters in the older forms of English and German?

Ie. there was big s ("S") and little s ("s") like we have now, but there was also long s ("f") and, in german, eszett/double s ("B"). Even assuming they did need additional forms of the letter "s", why did they use characters that were already used by other letters in the same alphabet

EDIT:
And yes, I know the characters are distinct in serif fonts, but those are only a thing in calligraphy and type. They're going to look the same handwritten.

You should look into ancient Greek. Uppercase sigma Σ, C, lowercase σ, ς, c.

[Gnoman]

The long s has half a crossbar on the left side which doesn't cross over into the right side of the letter. Unless you don;t write it carefully, in which case it probably will

THis appears only in later versions of the character, and isn't universal. The most common variant has no nub.

[Xuc Xac]

What's up with the way the letter "s" sometimes appropriated other letters' characters in the older forms of English and German?

Ie. there was big s ("S") and little s ("s") like we have now, but there was also long s ("f") and, in german, eszett/double s ("B"). Even assuming they did need additional forms of the letter "s", why did they use characters that were already used by other letters in the same alphabet


And what's the deal with B and R? Why did they just stick some extra bits on P instead of making new letters?

The truth is that there were a lot of different forms for each letter. The long s was just one of the last to fall out of use. Lowercase "a" used to look like "cc"! At least the long s served a useful function in saving paper. Space - saving glyphs like long s or writing "nn" as "ñ" were the medieval equivalent of data compression to save bandwidth.

The eszett ß is a ligature of a long s and a short s. It was used so much that it just became its own letter. Just like the "et" ligature became & or the long i became j.

[Jon_Dahl]

Here is a list of my favorite languages misuses.

English: "Was it mean?" (meaning: What does it mean?).

Finnish: "Salamia" ("salamis" in the partitive case) as opposed to "salamoita" ("rays of lightning" in the partitive case).

Finnish: "Haltian luvalla" ("with the elf's permission") as opposed to "haltijan luvalla" ("with the owner's permission"). Official sources state that haltia and haltija are both 'owner', but this decision has nothing to do with how people actually use and understand Finnish.

Portuguese: "Louca" (a crazy woman) as opposed to "louça" (dishes). Sometimes adding a ç is a pain in the butt, so in some cases a normal c is used instead. This can cause (amusing) miscommunication. I laughed with tears in my eyes when a native speaker of Portuguese asked me in WhatsApp if I leave crazy women around my bed.

[veti]

. I laughed with tears in my eyes when a native speaker of Portuguese asked me in WhatsApp if I leave crazy women around my bed.

Kinda makes more sense than leaving dishes around your bed. Or is that just me?

[Jon_Dahl]

Kinda makes more sense than leaving dishes around your bed. Or is that just me?

Context: We were talking about my unconventional and disorganized urban bachelor lifestyle. I hope it makes more sense now.

[Wardog]

A recent coinage that bugs me, because it doesn't mean quite what I would assume it means:

"Plant-based diet".

Based on normal English use, I would assume that means a diet in which plants are the main components. However, it has recently started appeared as a synonymn/euphemism for "vegan diet" (i.e. only plants and nothing else).

IMO, the "based" is unneccessary and confusing. What they are actually talking about is simply a "plant diet".

[Willie the Duck]

IMO, the "based" is unneccessary and confusing. What they are actually talking about is simply a "plant diet".

On a technical level, for sure. On a cultural level, we tend to talk about "the noun diet" (the grapefruit diet, the quinoa diet, and so on) as 'a diet' one goes on for a time to lose weight. So 'plant diet' might communicate to many that it was similar to going vegan for a restricted period of time to achieve certain ends (weight loss, determining if you feel better after cutting out ____, etc.), as opposed to (at least attempting to) changing your ongoing food consumption pattern to exclude non-plant material.

[Aedilred]

Here is a list of my favorite languages misuses.

English: "Was it mean?" (meaning: What does it mean?).

I suspect, indeed, am all but certain, that they're not saying "was it mean" but "what's it mean?" thus contracting "does" to "'s".

Unless they're writing it down, in which case they're just wrong.

[lesser_minion]

A slightly weird one: "begging the question".

Using "begging the question" to refer to the logical fallacy relies on obscure meanings of the words. It's not really wrong because you can use the phrase this way and be understood -- but you're using the language in a way that abandons common sense for no benefit.

This one's particularly weird because I think I may be more likely to be more irritated when people get this more right.

[georgie_leech]

A slightly weird one: "begging the question".

Using "begging the question" to refer to the logical fallacy relies on obscure meanings of the words. It's not really wrong because you can use the phrase this way and be understood -- but you're using the language in a way that abandons common sense for no benefit.

This one's particularly weird because I think I may be more likely to be more irritated when people get this more right.

I dunno, both uses more or less work out to "sure, but that assumes that thing we're discussing is true."

[lesser_minion]

I dunno, both uses more or less work out to "sure, but that assumes that thing we're discussing is true."

I'm not really seeing that.

When you use it to mean the same thing as "prompts the question" or "raises the question", you're saying, "as a result of this X that we've just said, we now need to ask Y".

The logical fallacy meaning -- "your argument depends on your conclusion being true" -- comes from Latin, and people don't really use the word 'question' like that any more. Which begs the question: why can't we just come up with another term for the logical fallacy?

[Wardog]

A slightly weird one: "begging the question".

Agree. I think that's a particularly irritating example of a more general language misuse, namely "insisting that one specific technical meaning is the only valid meaning of a word of phrase".

[lesser_minion]

A recent coinage that bugs me, because it doesn't mean quite what I would assume it means:

"Plant-based diet".

Based on normal English use, I would assume that means a diet in which plants are the main components. However, it has recently started appeared as a synonymn/euphemism for "vegan diet" (i.e. only plants and nothing else).

IMO, the "based" is unneccessary and confusing. What they are actually talking about is simply a "plant diet".

I presume it's "plant-based" rather than "plant" because you're eating plant products, not just plants.

Also, a vegan diet and a plant-based diet aren't quite the same thing. IIRC, veganism is defined as avoiding animal cruelty/exploitation wherever it's practical to do so, which means that what's vegan depends on the situation and varies from person to person, whereas a given food is either plant-based or it isn't.

There are also cases such as honey (clearly plant-based, probably not vegan) and the meat animal from The Restaurant at the End of the Universe (potentially vegan, definitely not plant-based).

Of course, I'm not vegan, so I could be wrong about all of that.

[Lissou]

Honey is indeed not vegan. However I believe mushrooms are, and they're not plants, they're fungi. But I don't know if they're part of a "plant-based diet", they could very well be.

[Bohandas]

A slightly weird one: "begging the question".

Using "begging the question" to refer to the logical fallacy relies on obscure meanings of the words. It's not really wrong because you can use the phrase this way and be understood -- but you're using the language in a way that abandons common sense for no benefit..

IIRC it's not even obscure senses, it's a straight-up mistranslation of the original latin phrase

[halfeye]

A slightly weird one: "begging the question".

Using "begging the question" to refer to the logical fallacy relies on obscure meanings of the words. It's not really wrong because you can use the phrase this way and be understood -- but you're using the language in a way that abandons common sense for no benefit.

This one's particularly weird because I think I may be more likely to be more irritated when people get this more right.

Actually, I am the opposite, when I hear or see "begging the question" and it isn't the logical fallacy, that really irritates me.

It's a name that accurately describes what's happening in the case of the logical fallacy, and it was almosd only used for that until relatively recently, but then ignorant people heard it used for it's proper purpose and misunderstood what was being said, and wanting to use long words without bothering to learn what they mean, misused them. Claiming that ignorant misuse isn't misuse if everybody does it is silly. Language depends on people understanding what other people are saying, if you use the wrong words, other people will rightly think you mean something you don't want them to think you mean.

[veti]

Claiming that ignorant misuse isn't misuse if everybody does it is silly. Language depends on people understanding what other people are saying, if you use the wrong words, other people will rightly think you mean something you don't want them to think you mean.

But if enough people use "the wrong words", then an intelligent listener will be aware that the meaning is not the same as it was. And thus the "understood" meaning - which, as you seem to accept, is the only meaning that matters - will have changed.

But somehow this feels like a very familiar argument, and I feel reasonably sure you must have heard it before.

[Fyraltari]

Actually, I am the opposite, when I hear or see "begging the question" and it isn't the logical fallacy, that really irritates me.
That's your prerogative.


and wanting to use long words without bothering to learn what they mean, misused them.
"Begging the question" is exactly as long as "raising the question" and not higher vocabulary.

Claiming that ignorant misuse isn't misuse if everybody does it is silly. Language depends on people understanding what other people are saying, if you use the wrong words, other people will rightly think you mean something you don't want them to think you mean.
If everybody does then it isn't misuse, because if everybody does it then that's how the language evolved.

[lesser_minion]

Actually, I am the opposite, when I hear or see "begging the question" and it isn't the logical fallacy, that really irritates me.

(snip)

It's true that the phrase may only be a thing in the first place because of people using it for the logical fallacy. But that still doesn't mean that it's the people using it to mean what they expect it to mean who are in the wrong. They don't have any reason to believe that they're using it in any way other than how a reasonable person would expect it to be used.

Additionally, I would suggest that it's more likely that people started using it with its modern meaning specifically because it doesn't look like "long words". The modern meaning fits quite well with the words used.

I also don't think, were I to respond to someone's argument with "this begs the question", that there would be many people who aren't wondering what question is being begged (in general, I don't like to refer to logical fallacies by name, because people very frequently use them in a way that gives the impression that they're expecting someone to stop the debate and dock their opponent ten points or something).

[halfeye]

It's true that the phrase may only be a thing in the first place because of people using it for the logical fallacy. But that still doesn't mean that it's the people using it to mean what they expect it to mean who are in the wrong. They don't have any reason to believe that they're using it in any way other than how a reasonable person would expect it to be used.

However, they're using a phrase they don't understand. Another one that sometimes comes up is "Eminence gris". It sounds as if it might mean grey face, perhaps implying shadowy background figures, but what it actually means is someone whose job is to keep an important person's appointments diary, and the person keeping the appointment diary makes a profit out of selling connections to the important person without the important person being officially aware that they're doing that.


Additionally, I would suggest that it's more likely that people started using it with its modern meaning specifically because it doesn't look like "long words". The modern meaning fits quite well with the words used.

It's a phrase. It has a particular meaning. Using it without that meaning sounds clever to the ignorant, but it really, really isn't.


I also don't think, were I to respond to someone's argument with "this begs the question", that there would be many people who aren't wondering what question is being begged (in general, I don't like to refer to logical fallacies by name, because people very frequently use them in a way that gives the impression that they're expecting someone to stop the debate and dock their opponent ten points or something).

The reason people act as if logical fallacies are bad arguments, is because they are bad arguments. If you are begging the the question, you are talking non-sense. The reason begging the question is excentionally bad, is because on the surface it sounds persuasive, but it's actually nonsense.


That's your prerogative.

Darn skippy.


If everybody does then it isn't misuse, because if everybody does it then that's how the language evolved.

Language can grow, or it can shrink. Abuse of phrases like "begging the question" are cases of the language shrinking. I'm in favour of the language growing, and of redundancy (more different ways of saying things). When phrases with clear meanings are lost, or when old words get new uses without losing their old ones, then the language shrinks and becomes harder to use.

[Willie the Duck]

Actually, I am the opposite, when I hear or see "begging the question" and it isn't the logical fallacy, that really irritates me.

It's a name that accurately describes what's happening in the case of the logical fallacy, and it was almosd only used for that until relatively recently, but then ignorant people heard it used for it's proper purpose and misunderstood what was being said, and wanting to use long words without bothering to learn what they mean, misused them.

However, they're using a phrase they don't understand. Another one that sometimes comes up is "Eminence gris". It sounds as if it might mean grey face, perhaps implying shadowy background figures, but what it actually means is someone whose job is to keep an important person's appointments diary, and the person keeping the appointment diary makes a profit out of selling connections to the important person without the important person being officially aware that they're doing that.

It's a phrase. It has a particular meaning. Using it without that meaning sounds clever to the ignorant, but it really, really isn't.

I think this perspective is perhaps a little overly tuned towards the assumption that the actions of others is done with the purpose of unjustifiably thinking highly of themselves. I've really not seen evidence for that in the greater world of people using the English language. So far as I can tell, people who use 'that begs the question' to mean something along the lines of, 'that suggests/implies/evokes the question' do so because they believe it to be a correct usage of the term, either due to ignorance of the original meaning, or (as evidenced on this thread) perhaps ceding the term to it's modern usage as a lost battle. I don't think I've ever seen someone use it as a form of 'trying to sound smart' because I don't think anyone thinks that it makes one sound smart. Certainly not people unaware of its original meaning (and those people who are aware certainly would not be impressed with misusing it/using it in the only-recently-deemed-(possibly)-acceptable form). There doesn't seem to be a set of people for whom the misuse of the term would be an impressive act, such that anyone would ever use it to be impressive.



The reason people act as if logical fallacies are bad arguments, is because they are bad arguments. If you are begging the the question, you are talking non-sense. The reason begging the question is excentionally bad, is because on the surface it sounds persuasive, but it's actually nonsense.

I think you are misunderstanding lesser_minion's point. It is the people throwing around the accusation of committing a logical fallacy that they are trying not to be, because they feel those are the people who still think they are in high school debate. While the formalized logical fallacies are genuine argumentation mistakes, and pointing them out in the logical argumentation of others is a plausible way of showing that perhaps someone else's argument isn't as thought-out as they think, declaring someone else's argument to be a fallacy also often seems to be done by people who only think they have a rock solid argument and why doesn't everyone else see it?, or at least those of us who frequent the internet have all met that guy (https://shortpacked.com/comic/strawmanning) at one point or another.

[Fyraltari]

However, they're using a phrase they don't understand. Another one that sometimes comes up is "Eminence gris". It sounds as if it might mean grey face, perhaps implying shadowy background figures, but what it actually means is someone whose job is to keep an important person's appointments diary, and the person keeping the appointment diary makes a profit out of selling connections to the important person without the important person being officially aware that they're doing that.
If you insist on using expressions to mean what they originally mean, then you are wrong. An "Éminence grise" is indeed a shadowy decison maker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89minence_grise).


It's a phrase. It has a particular meaning. Using it without that meaning sounds clever to the ignorant, but it really, really isn't.
Nobody is using it to sound clever, it's a very common turn of phrase.



Language can grow, or it can shrink. Abuse of phrases like "begging the question" are cases of the language shrinking. I'm in favour of the language growing, and of redundancy (more different ways of saying things). When phrases with clear meanings are lost, or when old words get new uses without losing their old ones, then the language shrinks and becomes harder to use.
A language with less synonyms is not harder to use (if anything it's probably simpler what with having less words to memorize). You may prefer languages that have a larger width of vocabulary but that does not make them objectively better. Mistakes is one of the most prominent ways languages evolve, get over it.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

when old words get new uses without losing their old ones, then the language shrinks and becomes harder to use.

TIL that a word going from one meaning to two is an indication of a language shrinking.

Wait, no I didn't. Because that makes absolutely no sense. In fact, it begs the question.

Grey Wolf

[lesser_minion]

The reason people act as if logical fallacies are bad arguments, is because they are bad arguments. If you are begging the the question, you are talking non-sense. The reason begging the question is excentionally bad, is because on the surface it sounds persuasive, but it's actually nonsense.

There's a difference between thinking of logical fallacies as kinds of argument you need to watch out for because they look better than they really are, and thinking of them as magical trap cards that instantly win you the debate if their conditions are met. There's not actually much need to mention a logical fallacy by name in an argument, and I don't think it's uncommon for people who do so to be thinking more along the lines of "trap card".

[halfeye]

There's a difference between thinking of logical fallacies as kinds of argument you need to watch out for because they look better than they really are, and thinking of them as magical trap cards that instantly win you the debate if their conditions are met.

The point about logical fallacies is that they only happen if you are arguing illogically. So yes it's a trap an argument can drive into, and if you drive into it you have invalidated your argument. Logic is basically arithmentic for language, if you've generated a logical fallacy, you've argued something that's similar to, but usually a lot more complex than, saying that 2 + 2 = 5 (maybe more like 250 + 249 is exactly = 500).


There's not actually much need to mention a logical fallacy by name in an argument, and I don't think it's uncommon for people who do so to be thinking more along the lines of "trap card".

Right, but it's a legitimate trap by the rules of argument, and if you've triggered it, your argument is mistaken. It may be that you misspoke due to ignorance of the rules of argument, but ignorance is not immunity, and if your argument is inherently illogical (that is, if the basic structure of it is illogical, rather than some phrase of it being badly worded by mistake), then people shouldn't agree with you because you are wrong.

Most of the time we don't need to go deeply into logic (and it's as deep as maths if you really want to dive in), but being aware of the basics is essential if you have any interest in arguing, like being aware of basic arithmetic is necessary to shopping.

[georgie_leech]

For a productive discussion though, it's usually a better idea to just explain what's wrong with the argument. Just saying "that's a fallacy" doesn't actually do anything to steer the discussion back into logical territory. I mean, if they're doing it accidentally, they're apparently not aware of what the fallacy is. If they're intentionally arguing fallaciously, they're not arguing in good faith to begin with and probably won't stop just because you point it out.

Just saying "begging the question" or "strawman" isn't going to convince them to change their mind.

[lesser_minion]

Right, but it's a legitimate trap by the rules of argument, and if you've triggered it, your argument is mistaken. It may be that you misspoke due to ignorance of the rules of argument, but ignorance is not immunity, and if your argument is inherently illogical (that is, if the basic structure of it is illogical, rather than some phrase of it being badly worded by mistake), then people shouldn't agree with you because you are wrong.

If I'm pointing out a flaw in someone's reasoning, I don't want them to hear "therefore you're wrong and I'm smarter than you QED". Yet that's precisely what I'd expect them to hear if I throw the name of a logical fallacy in their face, especially if I don't even bother to explain how they've committed the fallacy in this context and then show how that undermines their argument.

And if an opponent is in full "someone is wrong on the internet" mode and writing 600 paragraph arguments with 432 independent lines of reasoning, you're probably better off just being honest and throwing a TL;DR at them (or, better, politely commending them for their effort) than going on a hunt for logical fallacies to use against them.

[veti]

The point about logical fallacies is that they only happen if you are arguing illogically. So yes it's a trap an argument can drive into, and if you drive into it you have invalidated your argument.
No, you have argued illogically. Logic is not the only form of argument. If your goal is to persuade others of your case, logic is one of the weakest tools around. (Chiefly because of my favourite fallacy, the is/ought problem.)


Most of the time we don't need to go deeply into logic (and it's as deep as maths if you really want to dive in), but being aware of the basics is essential if you have any interest in arguing, like being aware of basic arithmetic is necessary to shopping.
Logic is the science of philosophy, not argument. If you are arguing in pursuit of Truth, then logic is your friend - but almost nobody does that. If you are arguing in pursuit of agreement or approval, on the other hand, you would do better to study rhetoric.

[Bohandas]

Re. "begging the question" I would argue that, from a purely lingusitic standpoint, the logical fallacy is the less correct use of the phrase. This is because that sense of the phrase cannot be arrived at from the meanings of the individual words. The other "to raise an issue" meaning is, conversely, obvious from the words in the phrase (albeit a littke sloppy due to omitting the word "for")

[Wardog]

If I'm pointing out a flaw in someone's reasoning, I don't want them to hear "therefore you're wrong and I'm smarter than you QED". Yet that's precisely what I'd expect them to hear if I throw the name of a logical fallacy in their face, especially if I don't even bother to explain how they've committed the fallacy in this context and then show how that undermines their argument.

On top of that, often when I see people calling out fallacy names to counter people's arguments, I don't think they have actually understood the argument being made.

For example, slippery slopes. When I see someone arguing against something on the grounds that it is a slippery slope, the essence of their argument is usually "x is bad, because it enables and/or increases the risk of bad thing y". To counter such an argument, I suggest you would have to show that the link between x and y is weak or nonexistant, or that there are good safeguards in place against y happening, or that y isn't actually bad. But just dismissing it with a shout of "Slippery slope fallacy!" is not going to convince them, because it has failed to understand and counter their actual argument.

[Vinyadan]

On top of that, often when I see people calling out fallacy names to counter people's arguments, I don't think they have actually understood the argument being made.

For example, slippery slopes. When I see someone arguing against something on the grounds that it is a slippery slope, the essence of their argument is usually "x is bad, because it enables and/or increases the risk of bad thing y". To counter such an argument, I suggest you would have to show that the link between x and y is weak or nonexistant, or that there are good safeguards in place against y happening, or that y isn't actually bad. But just dismissing it with a shout of "Slippery slope fallacy!" is not going to convince them, because it has failed to understand and counter their actual argument.

Yes, my general experience with invoking fallacies is that the invoker is either misunderstanding what the speaker is saying, or he is trying to invalidate what the speaker said because of assumptions about his inner being, or the invoker simply doesn't know what that fallacy is.

Which I guess is why I have never seen anyone use them in real life. Fallacies are hard. They require both good comprehension skills and previous knowledge. And there's also that certain fallacies miss the point. "Killing people is wrong, so lynching Rohirrim is wrong" may be a fallacy in theory, but in practice it gets the relevant message through: if the Rohirrim are people, you can't special-case killing them just because they are Rohirrim, so you should stop the lynching.

[Willie the Duck]

The point about logical fallacies is that they only happen if you are arguing illogically. So yes it's a trap an argument can drive into, and if you drive into it you have invalidated your argument. Logic is basically arithmentic for language, if you've generated a logical fallacy, you've argued something that's similar to, but usually a lot more complex than, saying that 2 + 2 = 5 (maybe more like 250 + 249 is exactly = 500).

Logic is (something very different from, but within the context of this discussion, approximates) arithmetic for language. Calling out supposed logical fallacies in online internet discussion is not the same thing. It is more akin to (if others' experience is similar to mine) the first refuge of people incapable of actually forming an argument sufficient to convince others*.
*and how could anyone disagree with them, they are being 100% perfectly logical, this opposition must be some mamby-pampy post modernist claptrap lover who doesn't understand the pure supremacy of logic (nevermind that it hasn't been successfully argued).

In the absolutely pure case that someone has mistakenly made an argument that logically reduces to 2+2=5, then yes, pointing out the failure in logic would absolutely be the appropriate response. This doesn't happen much, and for the most part, when people think their opponent has made such a mind-bogglingly ridiculous logic mistake, they are usually mistaken.


For a productive discussion though, it's usually a better idea to just explain what's wrong with the argument. Just saying "that's a fallacy" doesn't actually do anything to steer the discussion back into logical territory. I mean, if they're doing it accidentally, they're apparently not aware of what the fallacy is. If they're intentionally arguing fallaciously, they're not arguing in good faith to begin with and probably won't stop just because you point it out.

Just saying "begging the question" or "strawman" isn't going to convince them to change their mind.

That's the difference between winning at high school debate (although that also requires some power of convincing, exactly when 'proving to myself how right I am' really is beneficial is hard to quantify), and actually changing minds.

[halfeye]

That's the difference between winning at high school debate (although that also requires some power of convincing, exactly when 'proving to myself how right I am' really is beneficial is hard to quantify), and actually changing minds.

I remember someone (Dawkins?) recounting a conversation they had with a member of a debating team who said they preferred to debate in support of an idea they believe is wrong, which the person reporting the conversation thought was a totally inappropriate attitude, and I agree that that attitude is utterly inappropriate.

[Fyraltari]

It’s perfectly possible to both explain the error in logic and name it. Indeed it generally helps to explain it. Fallacies are tricky things and it is very easy to commit some without realizing it. Happens to me often. The only fallacy I don’t bother giving an explanation to is the strawman because
1) that’s a well-known term and
2) it is the sign of someone who is not interested in making conversation.

That being said, one must stay wary of the Fallacy Fallacy: a reasoning ring fallacious does not mean its conclusions are wrong and before disproving somebody’s position one should care to prove theirs.

[Bohandas]

For example, slippery slopes. When I see someone arguing against something on the grounds that it is a slippery slope, the essence of their argument is usually "x is bad, because it enables and/or increases the risk of bad thing y". To counter such an argument, I suggest you would have to show that the link between x and y is weak or nonexistant, or that there are good safeguards in place against y happening, or that y isn't actually bad. But just dismissing it with a shout of "Slippery slope fallacy!" is not going to convince them, because it has failed to understand and counter their actual argument.

The issue here is that they don't understand the fallacy, and in this case have basically imagined one that doesn't exist. The slippery slope is a class of arguments that can be either fallacious or not and that at its core simply states that causes are followed by effects (which is true in any situation not involving either a bootstrap paradox or indeterminacy)

[lesser_minion]

The issue here is that they don't understand the fallacy, and in this case have basically imagined one that doesn't exist. The slippery slope is a class of arguments that can be either fallacious or not and that at its core simply states that causes are followed by effects (which is true in any situation not involving either a bootstrap paradox or indeterminacy)

That's one of the reasons why I'd expect any attempt to call out a logical fallacy to show how the reasoning complained of commits the fallacy, and how that undermines the overall argument.

Another reason is that if they genuinely didn't notice the fallacy, then they're going to need it pointed out to them properly anyway.

A third reason is that RPG forums have a handful of bonus 'fallacies' that were only fully explained in ancient forum posts on boards that don't exist, meaning that unless you were both on the internet and playing tabletop games 15 to 17 years ago, you're going to need them explained to you anyway.

[Wardog]

The only fallacy I don’t bother giving an explanation to is the strawman because
1) that’s a well-known term and
2) it is the sign of someone who is not interested in making conversation.
Or that they've misunderstood your argument (or you've misunderstood their criticisms of your argument).

[Fyraltari]

Or that they've misunderstood your argument (or you've misunderstood their criticisms of your argument).

When someone misunderstands somebody’s point as something ridiculous, they ask as in ‘‘do you really mean that it would be moral to sacrifice babies to Ahriman? Because that can’t be right’’ or some such.

When they simply state that the ridiculous thing is what you’ve been plain and simple, they are strawmanning.


Alternatively, they think you are a moron.

[Bohandas]

A third reason is that RPG forums have a handful of bonus 'fallacies' that were only fully explained in ancient forum posts on boards that don't exist, meaning that unless you were both on the internet and playing tabletop games 15 to 17 years ago, you're going to need them explained to you anyway.

Some of them are actually relevant to non-RPG discussions as well. I've seen people commit the Oberoni Fallacy in plenty of civics discussions, claiming things like "such-and-such law isn't actually unjust because the police and courts don't enforce it strictly"

[Bohandas]

I would like to restate my contention that "begging the question" is a poorer turn of phrase when used in the sense of the logical fallacy than it is when used otherwise. The name of the logical fallacy is purely idiomatic, based on a mistranslation of the latin phrase "petitio principii", which according to wikipedia actually means something closer to "assuming the initial point", which is a much more accurate description of the fallacy. "begging the question" on the other hand is little more than word salad as far as the fallacy is concerned; it can be seen clearly enough how they got it from "petitio principii" but if you don't already know what it means it means nothing. Conversely its meaning is relatively clear when used to mean "raise a question" as in this case kt is simply missing the word "for" ("begs for the question").

[halfeye]

I would like to restate my contention that "begging the question" is a poorer turn of phrase when used in the sense of the logical fallacy than it is when used otherwise. The name of the logical fallacy is purely idiomatic, based on a mistranslation of the latin phrase "petitio principii", which according to wikipedia actually means something closer to "assuming the initial point", which is a much more accurate description of the fallacy. "begging the question" on the other hand is little more than word salad as far as the fallacy is concerned; it can be seen clearly enough how they got it from "petitio principii" but if you don't already know what it means it means nothing. Conversely its meaning is relatively clear when used to mean "raise a question" as in this case kt is simply missing the word "for" ("begs for the question").
I strongly disagree.

[Willie the Duck]

"begging the question" on the other hand is little more than word salad as far as the fallacy is concerned; it can be seen clearly enough how they got it from "petitio principii" but if you don't already know what it means it means nothing. Conversely its meaning is relatively clear when used to mean "raise a question" as in this case kt is simply missing the word "for" ("begs for the question").

Sure, begging the question as a contraction/slight word omission version of 'begs for the question' makes sense in a modern framing, but 'begs the question as in 'beggaring the question' as in impoverishing the question part of the equation by assuming the answer in the answer absolutely makes sense. It's not a competition and they both can be accurate/appropriate at the same time. Neither of them are really a natural feeling phrase, but both work with explanation.

[Bohandas]

Sure, begging the question as a contraction/slight word omission version of 'begs for the question' makes sense in a modern framing, but 'begs the question as in 'beggaring the question' as in impoverishing the question part of the equation by assuming the answer in the answer absolutely makes sense. It's not a competition and they both can be accurate/appropriate at the same time. Neither of them are really a natural feeling phrase, but both work with explanation.

I doubt that's the real explanation though. The impression I got was that it meant they were asking ("begging") for their conclusion to be included as one of the initial assumptions

[Fyraltari]

I doubt that's the real explanation though. The impression I got was that it meant they were asking ("begging") for their conclusion to be included as one of the initial assumptions

No, somebody just got their Latin wrong and everyone rolled with it. Happens surprisingly often.

[Peelee]

No, somebody just got their Latin wrong and everyone rolled with it. Happens surprisingly often.

The only correct language is early homonid grunting sounds. (https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2015-01-02)

[Fyraltari]

The only correct language is early homonid grunting sounds. (https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2015-01-02)

Reformist trash. True language purists use pheromones.

[Peelee]

Reformist trash. True language purists use pheromones.

Clubs over the head are the purest form of communication.

[DavidSh]

Clubs over the head are the purest form of communication.
I would prefer diamonds, thank you very much.

[Peelee]

I would prefer diamonds, thank you very much.

Fine. Clubs over the head are the purest form of diamonds.:smalltongue:

[Vinyadan]

Whenever I read stuff like "corruption" referred to language change, I want to strangle the speaker.

[Xuc Xac]

Whenever I read stuff like "corruption" referred to language change, I want to strangle the speaker.

Because they're talking while you're trying to read? Is that distraction really annoying enough to kill someone for it?

[Vinyadan]

Because they're talking while you're trying to read? Is that distraction really annoying enough to kill someone for it?

I think I wrote that because it was in a SMBC comic, so I read it, but I could see the speaker.

[Willie the Duck]

I doubt that's the real explanation though. The impression I got was that it meant they were asking ("begging") for their conclusion to be included as one of the initial assumptions

In my mind, they both sound equally like a stretch. So far as our searches have born fruit, there doesn't seem to be a 'real explanation' better than "16th century translator's rendering of Aristotle's 'petitio principii,' which would more accurately have been 'assume the conclusion.'"

[Bohandas]

I know it's a mistranslation. That was just my thinking as to how they got to that particular mistranslation and how it stuck. In terms of English it is, as I said before, absolute nonsense.

[veti]

In my mind, they both sound equally like a stretch. So far as our searches have born fruit, there doesn't seem to be a 'real explanation' better than "16th century translator's rendering of Aristotle's 'petitio principii,' which would more accurately have been 'assume the conclusion.'"

Waitaminute, Aristotle wrote in Latin?

[Peelee]

Waitaminute, Aristotle wrote in Latin?

After Sophocles wrote Oedipus Rex, Greeks writing in Latin just became the popular thing to do. :smalltongue:

[Rockphed]

(in general, I don't like to refer to logical fallacies by name, because people very frequently use them in a way that gives the impression that they're expecting someone to stop the debate and dock their opponent ten points or something).


The reason people act as if logical fallacies are bad arguments, is because they are bad arguments. If you are begging the the question, you are talking non-sense. The reason begging the question is excentionally bad, is because on the surface it sounds persuasive, but it's actually nonsense.

Just because someone uses a bad argument does not mean their conclusion is wrong. Implying that it is is even its own sort of logical fallacy.


I think you are misunderstanding lesser_minion's point. It is the people throwing around the accusation of committing a logical fallacy that they are trying not to be, because they feel those are the people who still think they are in high school debate. While the formalized logical fallacies are genuine argumentation mistakes, and pointing them out in the logical argumentation of others is a plausible way of showing that perhaps someone else's argument isn't as thought-out as they think, declaring someone else's argument to be a fallacy also often seems to be done by people who only think they have a rock solid argument and why doesn't everyone else see it?, or at least those of us who frequent the internet have all met that guy (https://shortpacked.com/comic/strawmanning) at one point or another.




The point about logical fallacies is that they only happen if you are arguing illogically. So yes it's a trap an argument can drive into, and if you drive into it you have invalidated your argument. Logic is basically arithmentic for language, if you've generated a logical fallacy, you've argued something that's similar to, but usually a lot more complex than, saying that 2 + 2 = 5 (maybe more like 250 + 249 is exactly = 500).

Right, but it's a legitimate trap by the rules of argument, and if you've triggered it, your argument is mistaken. It may be that you misspoke due to ignorance of the rules of argument, but ignorance is not immunity, and if your argument is inherently illogical (that is, if the basic structure of it is illogical, rather than some phrase of it being badly worded by mistake), then people shouldn't agree with you because you are wrong.

Most of the time we don't need to go deeply into logic (and it's as deep as maths if you really want to dive in), but being aware of the basics is essential if you have any interest in arguing, like being aware of basic arithmetic is necessary to shopping.

Logic is only part of one of the 3 pillars of rhetoric: logos. The other 2, pathos and ethos, do not depend at all on logical argument. Now, pointing out that someone is arguing illogically can undermine their connection with the audience (pathos) or their personal credibility (ethos), but it is not guaranteed to do so. Also, if you do so without actually showing better logical progression, you fall into the aforementioned fallacy that just because someone's logic is bad does not mean that their conclusion is wrong.

[georgie_leech]

Also, if you do so without actually showing better logical progression, you fall into the aforementioned fallacy that just because someone's logic is bad does not mean that their conclusion is wrong.

My go-to example:

"Flat Earthers are bad.
Bad people are wrong.
Therefore, the earth isn't flat."

Blatant ad hominem, hints of non-sequitor, yet the Earth stubbornly refuses to contort itself to make the conclusion wrong.

[Vinyadan]

My go-to example:

"Flat Earthers are bad.
Bad people are wrong.
Therefore, the earth isn't flat."

Blatant ad hominem, hints of non-sequitor, yet the Earth stubbornly refuses to contort itself to make the conclusion wrong.

I like how this can be a haiku

Man with a blue plate
the horse stumbles on its rider
Night on the South Pole.

[halfeye]

Just because someone uses a bad argument does not mean their conclusion is wrong. Implying that it is is even its own sort of logical fallacy.

It does mean that their conclusion isn't proved from their assumptions.

You can argue anything from anything, it's only the logical arguments that prove anything, and even those only prove stuff if the assumptions are true.

If you don't mind not proving what you are asserting, you can say any rubbish, but people who are interested in the truth will probably call you out on it.

[Rockphed]

It does mean that their conclusion isn't proved from their assumptions.

You can argue anything from anything, it's only the logical arguments that prove anything, and even those only prove stuff if the assumptions are true.

If you don't mind not proving what you are asserting, you can say any rubbish, but people who are interested in the truth will probably call you out on it.

If you assert that people are wrong simply because their logic is bad, you are engaging in just as much magical thinking as the people engaging in logical fallacies. Furthermore, the only people who are interested in "the truth" are philosophers. The proper result of a real debate is correct action. You will, if you pay any attention to politics, notice that pretty much everyone engages in lying about what is going on because they think the lies are close enough to the truth to pass muster and that the truth will support their chosen actions anyway. Simply calling out such people for engaging in logical fallacy will get you nowhere. If you want to derail their rhetoric, and thus change the way people react to their ideas, you need to also show where their logic should lead. After all, politicians lying is nothing new, but politicians using facts that, when logically followed, highlight option B as better than option A while clamoring for option A to be followed tend to do less well in their next election.

[veti]

If you want to derail their rhetoric, and thus change the way people react to their ideas, you need to also show where their logic should lead. After all, politicians lying is nothing new, but politicians using facts that, when logically followed, highlight option B as better than option A while clamoring for option A to be followed tend to do less well in their next election.

That little word "should" is under appreciated. It does a lot of work in arguments, carries a tremendous deal of weight, but it is hardly ever acknowledged for what it is.

In logic, "should" suggests a test. "If my premises are correct, then Thing A should also be true, therefore if we check for the existence of A, we can infer something about the possibility that our premise is true."

But in rhetoric it means something quite different. It means "The world would be a better place if this were true." Which, of course, assumes that you and your audience share a common understanding of what makes the world "better". Therefore it's a word that only works on people who already see you as on their side. Others will hear it as haranguing, or worse, threatening.

[halfeye]

If you assert that people are wrong simply because their logic is bad, you are engaging in just as much magical thinking as the people engaging in logical fallacies.

I don't think I said that in the post you quoted.

If someone's logic is bad, then whatever they were trying to prove, wasn't proved by what they said in the section of what they said that was illogical.

If you want to argue that what someone said was true despite them saying it in an illogical way, then you need to find a way to say it that makes logical sense, and that is based on true assumptions.

[Willie the Duck]

Waitaminute, Aristotle wrote in Latin?

Ha! I didn't even notice that! Looks like there is a missed step. Aristotle would have started with τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς αἰτεῖν, "asking for the initial thing." I am guessing that Prior Analytics must have been widely available in Latin for it to be mistranslated into English.

[Vinyadan]

Ha! I didn't even notice that! Looks like there is a missed step. Aristotle would have started with τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς αἰτεῖν, "asking for the initial thing." I am guessing that Prior Analytics must have been widely available in Latin for it to be mistranslated into English.

Most of Aristotle's works weren't available to the Latin West for a long time. They were translated to Latin in the XII-XIII century, in Venice and in Spain (famously by king Alfonso el Sabio = the Wise, who had the Arab versions translated into Latin). Both Prior Analytics and Sophistical Refutations (the two works where the petitio principii is discussed) were among them. After that, they were pretty much everywhere.

Oddly enough, the Arab world, which had put a lot of thought on Aristotle during the previous centuries, stopped studying his work around the same time these translations were made, while the West adopted Ibn Rushd's commentaries on Aristotle, who wouldn't really impact the Arab world until the XIX century.

[Bohandas]

I just remembered another common misuse that really bugs me.

In the settings of several mobile applications that I've used there's an option to choose whether to save files to "internal memory" or the "SD card", but this is not what the setting actually does. The "internal memory" setting saves the files to a portion of internal memory that I can't navigate to in other programs without root level access and the "SD card" setting saves the files to a portion of internal memory that I CAN navigate to in other programs without root level access, but neither option actually saves to the SD card