Hell, Yoda was 900 years old and after all those years…
Learned to talk right, he did not… 
Nah. He talks the same way he did when he was young, and refuses to change with the times, saying:
My language, degrading it is.
Yeah, I grokked it. Hard as it may be to believe, I’m able to recognize sarcasm in writing, sometimes even without the help of retarded smilies.
Look: if everywhere I go for coffee they tell me it’s $0.25 a cup and they then tell me that my quarter is the wrong currency and say a quarter is my $1 bill, does that mean my dollar bill is actually a quarter? Even though it says “One Dollar” all over it and my quarter says “one quarter”? In other words, what authority am I supposed to trust: the currency itself, which states on it its worth, or the person(s) trying to take my money? Just because a lot of people are deluded or believe something to mistakenly be the case doesn’t make it so. And yes, I understand language isn’t as rigid, but you’re the one who brought up the analogy. Are you honestly saying words cannot be misused?
As I thought I already said, my unabridged dictionary (as well as several usage/reference books) noted that it was commonly used but not perfectly fine to use in that way. Admittedly, my dictionary is a bit old - from the late '60s, I think - but as I also noted, Bill Bryson’s Dictionary of Troublesome Words (2002) also made the same case. So, fine, I’ll give up on “disinterested”; I’ll even grant that you’re much, much smarter than I could ever hope to be and have a comprehension of English that substantially dwarfs mine. How about “fortuitous”? I have yet to see a cite anywhere that doesn’t claim its meaning of “fortunate” was anything but the result of uninformed people using the word incorrectly.
No, I think people who use words without knowing what they mean are lazy and willfully ignorant. If I was talking to you and said I was interested in hermeneutics, and on further conversing you found I thought it meant the study of hermits because the first four letters were similar, would you figure it was just my dialect, or would you figure I was fucking ignorant? Similarly, if I were to tell you that I was extremely “disfortunate”, I’m fairly sure you’d understand what I meant, but would you congratulate me on my ability to mix-and-match roots to form startling new words a la Koko the gorilla or would you tell me I was using the incorrect term?
What, you mean like dictionaries? If I’m interested in enriching my vocabulary, I’m going to use language reference books so that I can find the right words to use to express what I mean to say, and hence hopefully speak clearly. If these books state a certain word is often misused, I’m going to pay attention to it so I don’t make that mistake and come off sounding like I’m putting on airs. Take such claims with a grain of salt? Fine. I’ll try to do that.
Yeah, it would be great if we lived in a utopia, but surely you must realize people judge you on how you speak. You may be a genius, but if you (the generic you)can only offer simplistic, monosyllabic responses or mindless cliches or assloads of slang, I (and, I’m betting, you [the specific you]) am going to conclude you’re none too bright.
I’m betting again that you aren’t so lax with your students - if a word is misused, I’d assume you correct them on it. Or is written English different than spoken? If so, why? If all that’s really important is whether or not you can grasp what’s being said? Maybe because English has elitist rules that should be followed?
Oh, is that what it was? Well, at the risk of sounding like even more of an asshole to you, let me say:
I can only hope that someday I’ll know as much about tolerance as you, Sample. Maybe I’ll grow up to be a priest, or a psychologist, or a relief aid worker, or even a teacher. Wouldn’t that be swell! Maybe one day I’ll stop using value judgement slurs against people I don’t know for trivial matters like cutting me off in traffic or making misogynistic remarks even when there are no women around to hear them. Just like all the good people.
Thanks for allowing me my freedoms, O Swami, despite the fact that you disagree with me. Believe it or not, I actually (hope I’m using that correctly) listen to what you have to say; I just think you’re being disingenuous on a few points. I’ll give you “disinterested”, even, like I said.
But, once again, I’m pitting people who USE WORDS WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THEY MEAN IN AN EFFORT TO SOUND “SMARTER”. Your trying to make this about my “narrow view” of what’s acceptable makes you seem sanctimonious, IMO.
There are people like that. But has it ever occured to you that someone might use a word the wrong way, simply because they believe it to be the right way. There are words with ambigous meanings or the speaker might have heard someone they thought was an authority use a word in the wrong way.
I think it’s rude to correct people you don’t know and if you think you actually have the high ground here, you might set an example, by using the language in a way to inspire poeple you do know. Pitting a nameless “you” is just grandstanding.
Children learn what they are taught. If their parents baby talk to them “do my widdow sweedum deedums wants hims BA BA…???” then that’s what the child will learn.
This shoujldn’t even have to be said, but for crying out loud. Comparing a baby just learning how to speak to adults who should know lose from loose and so on is ridiculous and illogical.
He’s ranting. That’s what the pit is for. Unless it’s passed into common usage to be a different forum.
As to the “use language in a way to inspire people you do know” it doens’t seem to work that way. That is, using words correctly, such as the loose/lose or mute/moot example doesn’t seem to work. A real sweetheart in a fitness group to which I belong is very active in the group. She is one of the worst abusers of teh whole “loose weight” thing I’ve ever seen. This group gets thousands of posts in a week. With the correct use of the word “lose” being used in the majority of cases. She reads and responds to many of these posts and STILL uses “loose” for 'lose".
I’ve never seen anyone correct her. As I said, she’s a total gem, the sweetest nicest person. But I’ve seen lots of posts where it was fairly clear that the word was used correctly SEVERAL times more than it needed to be in an effort to “guide” our resident darling.
She had several other misuses and misspellings as well, but in a fitness page, that seemed to be just the worst.
Yeah. Apparently I’ve done it myself in this very thread. And people corrected me. What’s the problem? Oh, wait:
You think it’s rude, I think it’s helpful. There was a new guy at work, first day on the job, who had a huge booger hanging out of his nose. I told him, “You’ve got a huge booger hanging out of your nose.” A couple of co-workers had seen him before I had, and none had said anything - in fact, most expressed surprise that I was so blunt about it. But what’s worse: him going through the whole day like that, with countless customers and co-workers noticing it (they wouldn’t have been able to miss it, trust me) and feeling highly embarrassed at the end of the day when he went home and noticed it in the mirror, or the more minor embarrassment of knowing just I (and two other co-workers) had seen it? He thanked me (and seemed sincere), BTW.
I don’t think “high ground” applies here. If there’s a correct and an incorrect meaning, and I inform you of the correct meaning, does that make me morally superior? No, it means I know the meaning and you don’t. Same thing applies when I misuse a word. And the fact that there are fucking idiots in the world who misuse words doesn’t equate to everybody who misuses words being a fucking idiot. I never meant to imply that was my position.
If “pitting a nameless “you” is grandstanding”, then I’ll use the examples in the OP: I pit The Faint and Eric Bogosian. Is that OK with you? And for “fortuitous”, I’ll pit, let’s say, my friend Jerry and my old boss. There. I hope we all feel that we’ve grown because of this.
My sentimonies exactly, this sort of thing really aggravazes me.
[/Simpsons ref]
I always wanted some just desserts. With ice cream, please.
That’s a great quote. And thanks for the support.
And hey, no need to apologize, either. I certainly don’t take any insults here personally. When arguing, people get passionate about shit, and sometimes end up feeling like they’re being a jerk when they’re more calm and reflective. I don’t count that as points off on the coolness meter, unless what they’re saying is blatantly hateful and offensive. Which I don’t think you were. I still disagree with you, but fuck it, that’s what makes this all fun.
There’s no reason I can see why you can’t be critical and still be compassionate. I mean, compassion’s a worthy goal, but it doesn’t mean everything everybody does is immune to criticism, right?
Ayn Rand was fluent in several languages, but she chose to write in English because of its elegant precision, the shades of meaning, the subtle concepts for which other languages don’t even have words. This allowed her to convey exactly the meaning she intended. I maintain that the language is poorer when those shades and subtleties are lost.
If you apologists for bad grammar say you don’t make assessments of a person’s intelligence by his use of language, I won’t believe you. Maybe you feel guilty about it, but I think it’s perfectly reasonable to value intelligence and education over lack of same. No one is saying the less educated don’t deserve to live, or anything extreme like that, but certainly education and the ability to understand and convey concepts accurately are to be valued.
Here’s the problem. The name of currency is set by a governmental authority. The existence of authority is in this case unquestioned.
What you can BUY with the currency–its value–is set by the marketplace. There’s no authority in the marketplace. Or, rather, there’s millions of authorities.
The meaning of a word is analogous to the value of currency, not to the name of currency. We use currency to exchange goods and services; we use words to exchange meaning. The value of our currency is determined solely by what we can get for it; the value of our language is determined solely by what we can communicate with it.
What does that even mean? I don’t understand in what way it’s not “perfectly fine.” Is it unethical? Is it contrary to observed fact?
If you’re saying it’s poor business English, I’ll accept that, but I’ll mock you for wanting business English to appear on the Internet. Otherwise, I don’t know what “perfectly fine” means.
In this case, you’d be communicating ineffectively, because you were unaware of how people would interpret your use of the word. That’s poor communication.
However, if you said you were disinterested in hermits, I would understand what you meant: you would use a word in a way that accurately conveyed your meaning to me. That’d be good communication.
See the difference?
No.
Daniel
[hijack! hijack!]
Nordic, allow me to take this opportunity to welcome you to the boards. I first noticed you over in one of the cat-killer threads, and you seem like an intelligent, articulate poster. Glad to have you here! (Also, you have agreed with my POV in both cases. 
)
[/hijack]
Thanks, Dung Beetle! That makes me feel good.
Although…in the cat killer thread I was cursing like a drunken truck driver, so if that was your first impression of me, I’m a little embarassed.:o Still, your assessment was favorable, so I’ll take it. That subject touched a nerve, is all.
Well, “perfectly fine” was his terminology; I just echoed it in my response to him. Check post #28 in this thread for a cite I gave of the usage being deemed incorrect (or not perfectly fine) by the dictionary’s Usage Panel.
Yeah, I do; if you’d read my posts here - or even just post #22 - you’d notice that I said I’d be willing to give in on “disinterested”, but “fortuitous” can still lead to misunderstanding. I even gave an example. You want to know another problem I have with language? Peope who don’t pay attention to what’s been said.
Ah, an example of usage as the model of clarity.
OK, one more small rebuttal, then I’m off to bed.
Yes, when it first came into usage, it did. And if this was the 1600s, I wouldn’t have pitted such a usage (and not just because I wouldn’t have been alive and the internet didn’t exist). As things are, in the modern world, if I told you I was gay, I imagine you’d think, at the very least, I was ignorant if I told you I only understood the term to mean “happy”.
My point, however, is that if something IS in common usage, then there’s no sense in which it’s NOT perfectly fine to use it (outside of the business-English usage, which I’ve already covered). So the distinction you’re making between “common usage” and “perfectly fine” is nonexistent.
Look, your lack of consistency isn’t my problem. If you’ve given up on disinterested, then stop arguing it.
Hey, if you gave me something besides two stupid choices, I wouldn’t have to reject them both. I mean, I coulda said “Mu!” but that would probably not communicate well with you.
Daniel
So let’s see. Word A originally had meaning X, but over the course of time it accrued meaning Y. You acknowledge this can and has happened.
Why, then, can word A not shift back to meaning X now? Why must it be locked into meaning Y? Is acceptable language shift something that only happened in the past, and any shifts now are simply degradation of the language?
Of course there are rules concerning language. There are also rules concerning physics. If a physicist observes something that contradicts one of his rules, what does he try to change? The rule, or the thing being observed?