Aquatic ape response is out of date. There is a broken link at the bottom of the page that should point to here. Also a critique of that critique might be worth pointing to, which can be found here.
That “critique of that critique” would be more impressive if it were written in literate English (the word “infamous” does not mean what the author apparently thinks it does), and if it did not use the old Wegener whine. (Wegener had one correct idea – that the continents move – and several completely wrong theories built around it; when the theory of plate tectonics was developed – not by Wegener – it was accepted immediately.)
In fact, the whole “critique” is nothing but the usual cry of “They’re being big ol’ meanies!” that is the Nuclear Deterrent of loonies everywhere.
Thanks, iouatp, we’ll fix the broken link. And welcome to the Straight Dope Message Boards, glad to have you with us.
It will be up to the author, bibliophage, whether he wants to add the other link you’ve provided.
What’s wrong with the use of “infamous” in that article? (I presume you’re talking about the first sentence of the article.) “Infamous” means “ill-reputed,” right? That seems to be what the author means by the term.
-FrL-
It looks completely correct in context to me as well.
It contrasts infamous, known widely and usually unfavorably, against well known. Good choice of words, in other words.
There is no Wegener whine either that I see.
On the Wegener page, the author merely comments on why Morgan used Wegener as an analogy. And he makes exactly the point the JWK makes, leading me to think that JWK saw the link but didn’t bother to read the actual page.
Nothing about that increases the chances of the AAH hypothesis being true. The chances are certainly zero. But false criticism works against the defenders of science and makes the complainants more defensive. It’s both wrong and counter-productive, a bad combination.
“Infamous” means having an exceedingly bad reputation, a downright nasty reputation, a hateful reputation. To use it merely to mean “unpopular in some circles” is an act of wanton verbicide.
And it does use the Wegener whine, and, furthermore, defends its use. “Oh, that Jim Moore is so nasty – insisting on facts and logic! Lions! Murder! Fascists! It’s not fair!”
Frankly, the whole thing turns my stomach.
Infamous, like most words in the English language, has more than one meaning.
I dare say it does, but “unpopular in some circles” is not one of them. It’s a nasty word, an insulting word. One of its definitions is “of a crime, sufficiently heinous as to cause the perpetrator to lose certain of his rights as a citizen”.
The words “terrible”, “horrible”, and “awful” have already been ruined by this kind of abuse, and “notorious” is trembling on the edge. I don’t want to see it happen to “infamous”, too.
So what? The author was not using the word as meaning “unpopular in some circles” but as your own quoted definition of “having an exceedingly bad reputation” which is an exactly proper meaning of the word. In context, he was saying that the AAH has a reputation that could lose you your reputation if you advocate for it. Great word choice. You are simply wrong on this.
a) Tough shit; that’s the way the language works.
b) You can believe anything you want about the proper meaning of words, but if you hold to a meaning that is not the norm and castigate someone for using the word that way without explanation, people will quite properly put the onus on you for not making your own usage clear.
c) This is all moot. The author used the word correctly in the first place, and you are out of line for defending your improper criticism.
On the contrary, in context, he could not mean that, unless he’s even more scatterbrained than he seems, for he applies it both to the Aquatic-Ape nonsense and to Moore’s refutation thereof.
Everybody dies; so let’s abolish medicine, eh?
No. Language is a tool, and, like any other tool, requires care. A tool that is abused soon uses its usefulness.
I cannot make head nor tail of that.
He did not use it correctly, as I point out above. He vulgarly used a big word for a small meaning, or repeated a misusage that he had heard elsewhere, or simply was not thinking clearly enough to mean anything in particular at all.
In other words, your excuse for not responding to a critique of your inability to read the plain words of an ordinary sentence is pleading your inability to read the plain words of an ordinary sentence. A remarkable admission.
Everybody is born, changes every single day, and eventually dies. Let’s celebrate life and change. And death is an inevitable part of the process.
You can try to elevate your mistake to philosophy. But it’s still a mistake.
I suggest you take the time to reread carefully the passage that you wrote and I quoted; it is completely incoherent.
A lovely justification for suicide, whether in the literal sense, or in the mere suicide of the intellectual faculties. I choose not to be a suicide.
You have not even attempted to show that I have made a mistake.
Oh, good grief. The lowest form of Internet argument.
“Begone! I negate your posts! Your dictionary definitions mean nothing against my awesome powers of ignoring the written word!”
Piffle.
You can have the last word. Whatever it is, I’m sure that it will be infamous in any definition.
May I suggest (as poster, not as moderator) that y’all might want to re-read the chapter of ALICE that involves Humpty Dumpty?
Cite?
I’m serious. Provide me a citation–an example of a case in which language change has been established to have led to a loss of the usefulness of the language in question.
-FrL-
The passage is completely coherent. I can’t see what you’re difficulty is.
I do believe its author meant to put a “not” before “using,” but that much is clear from context. Even without the “not” the passage is grammatically impeccable–it just doesn’t quite mean what its author meant it to mean.
-FrL-
Ask any translator, especially of drama, about the difficulties caused by the destruction of “thou” in English.
“I don’t have indigestion” and “I haven’t got indigestion” used to mean two different things.
Have you ever tried to do Shakespeare with amateurs?
As C. S. Lewis said (playing on a once-popular warning sign in English parks),
“Let no one say, and say it to your shame,
That there was meaning here before you came.”
Are you advocating that we ought to change the language to include it again? 
But seriously, I’ve never seen this fact about English (that it has no distinction between politeness registers for the second person pronoun, right?) cause a translator to have to do more than mention the fact that the familiar form was being used. (I’ve just been reading a Calvino novel in which this occurs, in fact.) I see a difference here, but not a serious difficulty, and certainly no lack of “usefulness.”
And what were those two different things?
I don’t see the relevance. What does this have to do with the usefulness of current language vs. Shakespearean language?
-FrL-
[spoiler]‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.’[/spoiler]
Now, now, Khadaji, at least finish it off with Humpty’s retort: “The question is which is to be master, me or the word.l” (I’m paraphrasing from memory, don’t have me copy handy.)