I’ll confine myself to areas where we disagree, because what fun is it to discuss our agreements?
Except for here. Granted, when folks have no idea how to use or interpret a word, they turn to a dictionary; similarly, if they find themselves in sudden doubt about how to use or interpret a word, they turn to a dictionary. Believe me, I love my dictionary, and look up words many times every week; however, I don’t look up words that I’m using and interpreting efficiently. My understanding of the language is shaped first by how folks are using it, and only second by something that describes how folks use it.
But basically, I think you’re right about this.
No! If I say livid meaning “bright from anger” and you understand livid to mean “bright from anger”, where’s the ignorance? Sure, you may not know the etymology of the word, but how is the etymology relevant here?
I was responding to above where you said, “Hopefully is fine as colloquial speech. It is not OK as written English.” Reread my comments in light of this quote and see if they make sense: this was the distinction I was rejecting. Sorry that was unclear; it was an example of poor language use on my part.
And that was poor language use on your part :). I DO care about language; it CAN be used for better or for worse. I just don’t think that the focus ought to be on fripperies like “hopefully” when we’re evaluating language use.
Sure, but my not knowing how to tapdance is a symptom of ignorance, too. Granted that language use in general is more central to the human experience than tapdancing; however, I do not believe that academic language use is any more significant.
Yes, but keep in mind that you are a smart person who cares. Many do not. They might never doubt their use of the English language, but simply identify themselves (in a vague, unconscious way) as people who don’t really “talk right” and leave it at that. They might never insist in an argument that their usage is right, leaving it to their betters (the dictionary or a literate person) to set them straight. Millions never get the “unsure” feeling whereof you speak, nor do they give a hoot. This is a problem I see in stating that common usage dictates correctness. It is definitely not a one-person-one-vote matter. Some people abstain, and many sign proxy statements.
But I must reiterate that many people–correctly or otherwise–have a “contract” with the dictionary and grammar book to dictate what they believe to be correct. Even though they themselves do not speak “correctly” all or even most of the time, they may still recognize that there are others who do. But, as you say, we basically agree here.
The trouble with the word “livid” is that I do not know what people are thinking when they use the word. It has essentially been ruined. To be sure, for most people it is just a word used vaguely in connection with the word/concept “anger.” If you try to use it meaning either “red” or “ashen,” you are likely to encounter misunderstanding. And this misunderstanding stems from ignorance of the word’s actual meaning. Again, as per the above comments, it comes more from not really caring about language than anything else.
Umm, me too. “Hopefully” to me is not a problem at all. Again, people go postal on this word mostly because they don’t understand that colloquial English need not conform to the standards of the written language.
Left Hand of Dorkness, thank you. I’ve come pretty close in the past to starting a pit thread about the language zealots who whine about “correct” and “proper” usage, even when there’s no ambiguity in meaning. You’ve done a much better job than I ever would’ve.
Here’s what I don’t get about the whole thing:
Considering that much of our formal language is the way it is because of the elite’s desire to distinguish themselves from the rabble, I just can’t take “ignorant misuse” of language seriously. If I’m looking down on another person cause I think they speak funny, that says a shitload more about me than it does about the person I feel superior to.
Yeah, it’s sad when a word, which used to have a very clear and distinct meaning, becomes just another multiple redundant synonym, but that’s the way it goes. If you wanna keep the historical usage alive in your group of friends, that’s cool, and if you wanna argue that preserving the old meaning makes mass communication easier, that’s cool, but when 90% of people use the new meaning, it isn’t because they’re ignorant of its “actual”, “proper”, or “correct” meaning. They’re already using the actual meaning of the word correctly and properly, and there a plenty of lingual purists out there who need to get this simple fact into their heads, even if it takes a power drill to do it.
And a little bonus info: Ze Germans use “hoffentlich” (which means “hopefully”) in the exact same way that the OP complains about. That is, they’ll often start out a sentence saying “hoffentlich” when they mean “Ich hoffe”. They also put their periods and commas outside of their quotation marks. I’ve taken on a lot of nonstandard usages in English because of Krautspeak. You can think I’m ignorant if you want, but I prefer to think of myself as a lingual revolutionary.
Ironically, the proper adverb form for “I’ll be with you in a moment” is “I’ll be with your presently”, but “presently” is now being frequently misused as “currently” instead of “in the very near future”.
Pizzabrat-dude- I have this big fat Websters Unabridged- and you know what- it say’s you’re wrong. It also says (meaning 1 & 2) that you’re a “pedant”, and since it really is an “unabridged” it also says you’re an “asshole”.
Yes it is. Everyone gets a vote because everyone owns the language. Otherwise you are saying that some source somewhere is the definitive English. There is no such source. No one is the one true keeper of English.
All dictionaries are descriptions of how the language is used, not instructions. And they are merely an opinion of what is the correct description at one particular time in one or more particular cultures. This is why dictionaries differ. They depend on their country of origin, their intended readership and their publish date.
Sure, if you find yourself in a minority of one over a word, and everyone says ‘huh?’ when you use it, then you have a problem. Until you convince enough people to accept and understand your usage then you’re either wrong or misjudging your audience. And if others do pick up on it and use it the same way then congratulations, you have just contributed to a living language.
This is how languages work. There are no authorities of the language, only students of the language. There is no standard, only standards.
You missed my point! Some people willingly cede their vote to the dictionary and other authorities. It were as if you told the masses, “Your usage dictates correctness,” but 90% of them shouted back to you, “Well, we trust whatever is in the dictionary.”
I just don’t get all this voting stuff. You vote on something when there’s one central decision that has to be made. Language isn’t a government: it’s a free market. And just as we don’t vote on which food we’re all going to make and eat for lunch, we don’t vote on how we’re going to use words.
If you make a food no one likes, then you go out of business. If you speak in a way that no one understands, then you don’t get your message across. Voting don’t enter into it.
trandallt, I’m not sure what we’re arguing over at this point. You say that you’d teach your kids yesterday’s language, but I think you misunderstand the point of my distinction between yesterday’s speech and today’s speech. I’m not literally talking about 24 hour periods here. Would you teach your kids that the second-person subjective singular pronoun is “Thou” or “You”? My guess is that you’d teach them today’s language: you’d teach them to say “You.”
If you’d do that, then hopefully you’d also teach them other aspects of modern language use: you’d teach them that adverbs can modify entire clauses, you’d teach them that infinitives may be split with impunity, you’d teach them that “awesome” is used to express pleasure. You’d teach them how to communicate with folks today, not how to communicate with folks yesterday.
Of course I’m not arguing that you should teach them Humpty-Dumpty speech. Don’t teach them that words can mean anything they want the words to mean. Remember my rule: language for communication is useful to the extent that the audience easily understands the speaker’s idea. And of course words have common meanings that facilitate this understanding, and of course there are rules for word use that facilitate this understanding.
My problem, as I thought was clear, is not with these common meanings, nor with these common rules. My problem is when folks suggest that a rule that works perfectly well for a certain speaker and audience, or collection of speakers and audiences, is somehow less valuable than a rule that works perfectly well for a different group of speakers and audiences. Insecure tweakers who complain about “hopefully” are the problem, not folks who use “hopefully” in a way that the audience easily understands.
Now, you just read those too words and figured out they mean “too simple.” So, communicated was effected. Fine for a message board, but should I use this baby talk seriously in a formal speech? The no-brainer answer is, “no.”
Now, if you are willing to ponder why the answer is no, then you will begin to see why your position is, in fact, too simple. There are many different communities and overlapping strata within the world of English, within even just American English. Although you don’t wish to recognize it, there are people who are recognized as authorities on “proper” English, and people willingly follow them. These authorities publish books like dictionaries and usage manuals that people willingly follow–to some degree or another.
English isn’t a free market; that’s not an apt analogy. For one thing, there is no competition, at least not much, and people are not constantly shopping for different products. It is more like an aristocratic government, in which some people have much more authority than others. Even in subcultures like rap, you are going to have style setters and authorities on what’s cool or acceptable.
Language is about a hell of a lot more than communication. It is an important medium for social control. Until this aspect gets taken into consideration, I say, “Choo chimple.”
I said no one true keeper. If there is no one source for all that is correct, then everyone must be the source. Or are you saying that there’s a collective in charge someplace? Who appoints them?
Anything can be prescriptive if you want to read it that way. I’ve only ever read a dictionary as descriptive.
For the content. A UK dictionary is at odds with many practices in US speech. Does this mean US English is incorrect and the UK dictionary is right. Or vice versa? Or is it an obvious case of the dictionary’s accuracy is only in describing a particular standard of English?
There are no authorities of the language, only students of the language = no one has the right to say this is how it should be said, because I say so, they only have the right to say my studies have shown this is what is said.
There is no standard, only standards = There is no single standard English, that you are incorrect to deviate from. There is only standards of English that you should try and apply where and when they are best suited. (e.g. written formal, casual colloquial, work-place business, street slang, child-friendly, US, UK, Australian). All are equally correct.
And the dictionary is based on…? Their usage! Who creates words, defines their meanings and moulds grammar? Hint: it’s not dictionaries and it’s not ‘authorities’.
Nothing goes in a dictionary that hasn’t first been out there among those self same people. They are the one’s writing the dictionary.
Crap for logic. I say that there is an aristocracy, or rule by the few.
Funny that you should mention it, but in France there is an actual body that rules or at least tries to rule. The lordship of the English tongue is maintained in a far less formal manner.
And many of the people who you assert are the source (“everyone”) do indeed view the dictionary as prescriptive.
Yes, a particular standard.
Because you say so. Well, I guess that makes you yourself the de-authoritizing authority. Others disagree and tend to view the lexicographers, grammarians, and best writers of the English language (past and present) as the arbiters of correctness and good taste.
Correct within their sphere, 'tis true. If we agree on this, then where is the disagreement?
Lazy thought. Of course dictionaries and authorities serve as arbiters of correctness and taste, were it not so, why would we even be having this discussion? We’re having this discussion because so many people believe that authorities exist. And if they believe that they do, then they do. End of chat.
True. But only a simpleton would aver that the book itself is the authority. It is obvious that there are people behind the book, the lexicographers, who are aware of the history of English words and their current usage. They are the authorities.
True story: no I didn’t. I looked at them twice, couldn’t be bothered to figure out what you meant by them, and skipped them, going on to read the rest of your post. Which proves my point, rather than proving yours :).
Your language use failed, not because “choo chimple” isn’t in the dictionary, but because your audience couldn’t (or wouldn’t) understand what you meant. Which is what I’ve been saying all along.
I’ve qualified myself a couple of times, and I’ll remind you here of these qualifications. In addition to communicating, language can communicate efficiently, and it can communicate beautifully. Nonstandard language can create obstacles in both efficient and beautiful communication. If I’d really cared, I could’ve puzzled out your “choo chimple,” and understood you–but it wouldn’t have been efficient. Many folks want to communicate efficiently; were that your desire, you would’ve failed.
Since your next couple paragraphs were predicated on a false understanding of how someone would react to your language, I’ll skip them :).
Note your use of the passive voice to avoid specificity. Sure, there are people who “are recognized” as authorities–but they’re not recognized as authorities by everyone, and their language is not recognized as “proper” by everyone.
Story goes that in 1988. Bush the Elder’s handlers ordered him to drop the g from the end of participles, so that he’d sound more folksy, so he’d sound less formal, so he’d get more votes. In this circumstance, the “proper” way of speaking for him was to say “walkin” and “talkin,” not “walking” and “talking.” His specific linguistic choice achieved his specific goal: what possible sense does it make to claim that this linguistic choice was “improper”? What authorities would say so, and what fool would recognize them?
Aristocratic government? Boy, where you been? That’s just silly. Is it your impression, then, that the real power-holders in our society are English teachers? Is it your impression that people can proofread hold the reins of power in the United States? No: people who can proofread are called secretaries, and English teachers across the country drink themselves to sleep every night, powerless and miserable.
Yes, language is a tool for social control, but prescriptivist grammarians are absolutely, irrevocably, inarguably not the ones exercising said control. The people using language to control society are misunderestimating things and are talking about nukular weapons.
