The book I mentioned is a stunning work by one of the world’s foremost linguistic scholars. Obviously I can’t quote in whole slabs of text from it here, but if you are interested in the topic it’s a must-read.
What kind of objective evidence supports your assertion?
Sorry, but it’s not true that in general languages become more regular. The problem is that languages are a mix of several different levels which don’t interact with each other in an easy way. When a language becomes more regular in one respect, it becomes less regular in another respect. I would urge everyone who wants to know about this to read The Unfolding of Language by Guy Deutscher. It’s a great introductory book on how and why languages change.
I’m not doubting the authority of your cite, but just curious what the evidence it presents is.
I really am willing to be swayed by your cite. I just need to see what your argument is.
So . . . the universal definition of every word, phrase, and idiom in the English language is limited specifically and strictly to the contexts in which **groman **has anecdotally heard it? Good to know.
Not sure I’d characterize it as misspeaking, necessarily. It’s well-ingrained enough in the language (in my opinion) that it’s an idiom, just like many other seemingly nonsensical idioms. I use the phrase knowing full well that its idiomatic meaning is the opposite of its literal meaning. Just like I’ll use the word “literally” hyperbolically. (Of course, know your audience and all that. I’ll avoid these idioms in certain contexts.)
Don’t they? “Awful riches” and “Awesome riches” both mean wealth that inspires awe.
Seconded and “amen brother”-ed. And doubly so with languages which borrow generously, such as English. The advantage is a richer range of ability to express. The disadvantages are increasing discombobulation around prescriptivist “rules” and diminishing precision.
They once did. Both meant “inspiring awe.” They also both meant “dreadful,” too. Eventually things sorted themselves out.
I’ve touted this books many times myself. It’s “introductory,” though, only in the sense that it’s not a formal academic tome. It’s more than a bit dry at times and contains a lot of densely communicated information. Definitely not a ha, ha, here’s the merry history of language type of book. And it covers language rather than merely English, which also makes for slow going. But worth reading every page if you have any real interest in the subject.
The spelling of “awkward” is quite awkward.