It didn’t look like your were being specific when you said: “Dictionaries are descriptive. They keep track of how a word is commonly used; they don’t prescribe the “proper” use of the word.”
I was not being disingenuous.
I have read the thread.
Actually, you should. You first took offense at a quote I directed toward’s Homebrew, complete with his name in the quote tags. So, you would be wise to follow your own advice before dispensing it.
You’re mistaken. I feel neither hostile nor negative. I thought this was a clever thread and I wanted to participate in it. You took my first comment directed at Homebrew (and purely facetious) and somehow didn’t see that I was responding to him, and took offense. Then, you took offense at “disingenius,” when to stave off that possibility I stated that I was being disingenuous just in case you didn’t get it.
You’re being offensability and sensing hostility when none is offered.
You’re misinterpreting my posts. Completely. I bear you no ill will and hold no grudges, and haven’t had a problem with you or anything you’ve said in quite some time, until this post where you say I’m lying and attacking you.
Seeing as you’re making a mistake, I take no offense at your hostile tone or accusations. But, this is the third time, and it is getting a little tiresome.
I can’t imagine why I would hide hostility towards you. After all, we have always we have always been quite open with our hostility when we’ve felt it.
Take me at my word. You’re misunderstanding me and my intent. No big deal. I understand you’re receiving “snark on all channels,” but not from me.
A good idea, and I don’t disparage it. However, as others have pointed out, not all of your corrections were inarguably accurate, and some of what you personally consider a misuse the rest of the world considers proper. Language being a consensus evolutionary type of thing this means that you are mistaken in those instances.
I have none to your intent. I merely took issue with some of the thinking attached to your methodology, i.e. “Dictionaries are descriptive. They keep track of how a word is commonly used; they don’t prescribe the “proper” use of the word”
It seems to me that the common use is proper. Certainly it is once it makes it into the dictionary. Maybe I misunderstand in what sense could you construe the dictionary usage as “improper?”
Onve again, you’re being hostile unnecessarily. I’m not whining nor saying you’re infringing on my rights. I simply beleive you are mistaken to consider that a dictionary usage of a word isn’t “proper” especially when you don’t define proper.
Rather than getting all wound up with me, relax. Maybe we’ll have an interesting and informative discussion.
Not too vast an abstraction. They did try to make PI = 3, did they not?
Once again, I accept and understand. No problem. But let’s put that behind us.
Now to the discussion:
It seems to me that you are seeking to provide information about people making usages like:
“The aroura boreallis is a spectacular phoneme” when they mean phenomenom.
If this is all you intend than I agree and am wrong to misconstrue anything further. It seems to me that you do mean something further, though.
If I am correct in my interpretation of your posts (and please tell me if I’m not) you also have an issue with what I’ll call inefficient usages.
An “inneficient usage” would be when a precise word that exactly describes meaning exists, but another less accurate word is used, or it’s meaning stretched to fit context.
These inneficient usages degrade language and impede communication.
Is that a correct intepretation of your thinking?
If it is, I disagree. These inneficiencies and stretching of contexts allow for more shades of nuance and greater stylistic content, so I like 'em.
I also like new words like “disingenius” which seems positively Swiftian.
I haven’t read all of the other posts so I suppose someone has already said that an epitome is a brief summary of a text or an ideal example of something.
I’m not talking about when a word’s meaning is stretched, by usage, to denote an entirely new meaning, thereby stretching a language. I am talking–specifically, in this thread–about when a word is mistakenly used INSTEAD of a perfectly good, accurate, and fully nuanced word, to the point where the two words become one, and the “stretched” word’s original meaning is thereby lost, and the language is thereby diminished, not increased. Infer/imply is a classic example. Because of frequent misuse of infer to mean imply, the word infer has effectively been subtracted from the language, because to use it is to court imprecision, because there are so many people who are more familiar with its misuse than its “proper” (proper = accurate) use.
I can no longer use “epitome” correctly, to mean “average,” because so many people will assume I mean “exception.”
And this, that you don’t like–“Dictionaries are descriptive. They keep track of how a word is commonly used; they don’t prescribe the “proper” use of the word”–is a pretty accurate explanation of how dictionaries work. So I’m not sure of your definition.
A dictionary is more like a newspaper than a grammar text book. A dictionary only reports on usage; it does not suggest/recommend/enforce “proper” usage. And you keep objecting to my use of the word “proper,” but you keep not seeing that I put it in quotes, to acknowledge that it’s not, in fact, the “proper” word. Proper, no quotes, unironically suggests that spoken language has enforceable rules, and you better do what I say or I’ll rap your knuckles. “Proper,” in quotes, acknowledges the ridiculosity of the concept of enforceable usage. By putting it in quotes, I mean to suggest my WISH–not my DEMAND–that accuracy of definition and usage was as important to everyone else as it is to me. If it were, such things would be self “enforced,” and the authoritarion connotations of “proper” would not even have to ironicized; they’d be totally irrelevant to the discussion.
I think you keep moving the goal-posts in terms of “epitome”. How about you provide a half-dozen examples of sentences in which you think “epitome” is correctly used, and an equal number where it is incorrectly used. Personally, I think a lot of your issues with it’s usage have to do with using “the” before it. How can you say that K.K. Dobbs is the average example of an american actress? Seems to me she’s more like an average example.
I have looked om both Merriam-Webster dictionaries and the OED and I can’t find any usage of “epitome” that connotes average. Perhaps you are identifying “average” with “typical” which I don’t think is quite right.
An epitome is a summay of a written text or it is a typical example of a type. An example of the latter could be, “In my opinion Dennis Rodman is the epitome of the modern, spoiled-rotten, professional athlete.”
Hmmmm. I always use infer to mean deducing something from something already said, i.e the content is already in the statement. I pull it out by inferring.
To imply is to put something into a statement that may or not be there, but which cannot be deduced directly…
True, but you still have “typical” and maybe even “quintessential, average , usual” so “epitome” wasn’t exactly holding up that standard by itself. On the other hand, “exceptional” is kind of out there by itself and could use some help.
An interesting way to judge these things might be to take a look at how many synonyms exist for the meaning being lost, and how many exist for the meaning being gained. It’s a move from the former to the latter, than it would be a net gain for language. Otherwise it would be a net loss.
I agree it’s accurate. I don’t see how the dictionaries definition isn’t proper, or “proper.”
I think I see what you mean by “proper.” It’s your preferred usage. Usually you prefer the most established “older” precise or prime usage of the word.
All I can say is that if I’m interviewing you, and you use “comprise” where “compose” belongs, you drop a few notches. But then, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it misused in written form in a professional setting. I don’t think comprise has been so misused that the meaning has changed. To use “comprise” for “compose” is still wrong.
Yes, “typical” is closer than “average.” But the connotation is that it is not exceptional’ “average” is still closer than “best,” and most people use epitome to mean “best.”
Epitome would not be the correct word in your example if you mean to suggest that Rodman is the MOST spoiled professional athlete; only that he’s representative of a TYPE of modern professsional athlete.
The point of language is communication. Precise communication, I’m not shy to say, is better than imprecise communication. When the speaker and the listener both know precisely what the word in use means, there is greater precision than when one thinks it means one thing, and the other something else. I’m not a conservative, in that I welcome new meanings and new nuances in an evolving language. But when a word starts to lose precision because of widespread misuse, then I feel compelled to dumb down my own usage–to avoid such lazily misused words–in order to be sure of communicating precisely. This feels a little bit like lazy, stupid people are making it harder for ME to communicate clearly. This is why I started this thread in the pit, because that really pisses me off.
Look at “niggardly.” This word has effectively been subtracted from the language because of stupid people. And enough people use “infer” when they mean “imply,” that it’s just more precise to avoid it altogether. Another subtraction. Ditto “comprise.” If you use it correctly, you’re more likely to get a look of bewilderment than a look of comprehension. Subtractions, all.
As a side note, I have finally discovered the answer to the age old question, regarding the sense/nonsense of “I could care less.” I figured out where it comes from!
I was reading something old, I forget what, and came across this phrase: “I know not, and could care less.”
The point of language is communication. Precise communication, I’m not shy to say, is better than imprecise communication. When the speaker and the listener both know precisely what the word in use means, there is greater precision than when one thinks it means one thing, and the other something else. I’m not a conservative, in that I welcome new meanings and new nuances in an evolving language. But when a word starts to lose precision because of widespread misuse, then I feel compelled to dumb down my own usage–to avoid such lazily misused words–in order to be sure of communicating precisely. This feels a little bit like lazy, stupid people are making it harder for ME to communicate clearly. This is why I started this thread in the pit, because that really pisses me off.
Look at “niggardly.” This word has effectively been subtracted from the language because of stupid people. And enough people use “infer” when they mean “imply,” that it’s just more precise to avoid it altogether. Another subtraction. Ditto “comprise.” If you use it correctly, you’re more likely to get a look of bewilderment than a look of comprehension. Subtractions, all.
As a side note, I have finally discovered the answer to the age old question, regarding the sense/nonsense of “I could care less.” I figured out where it comes from!
I was reading something old, I forget what, and came across this phrase: “I know not, and could care less.”
:rolleyes: :dubious: