Misnomers, Malapropisms, and other Catachrestic Abominations

In My Humble Opinion
21

Yes. They’re called “lexicographers” and they write dictionaries. They are not people who choose to post messages about their languages prejudices on message boards.

You might as well assert that a “cat” is an animal that has scales and swims in the water, and the dictionary is wrong because you say so.

The results of the discussion and ongoing analysis on the meaning of words are put in books. These books are called “dictionaries.” And if a dictionary lists a definition, and makes no note about the usage of that term, then it is there because the definition is considered legitimate and correct. Don’t get upset over the fact that they didn’t consult you about that decision.

But since you know more than any dictionary, let me ask you this, Ex, baby: if some benighted soul wants to figure out what a word really means, should he look it up in a dictionary, or should he send you an e-mail to you about it?

BTW, Bren – you’re absolutely right. Every example that Ex gives in his post directly contradicts what he is asserting. :rolleyes:

As far as accost is concerned, just because it meant something in the 19th century doesn’t mean it means the same thing in the 21st. Mouse has picked up additional meanings. Nice doesn’t mean what it did in Jane Austin’s time.

Your use the word “ego” in your post, but you’re not using that in its original meaning. So by your standards, you’re guilty of debasing the language, too.

Oh, I forgot. You’re the God of the English Language, so anything you do is correct. All hail! :rolleyes:

The cold hard fact is that language evolves organically and all the pissing and moaning about how it’s becoming imprecise and coarse and “oh dear me that usage gives me the vapors” won’t change that fact. People have been making your exact argument for decades, usually including words that earlier “experts” denounced in exactly the same terms they use. (Ever ride a bus, Ex, baby? Are we acting like an ignorant mob? And are you aware that people like you had the same strident objections to the words used in the previous sentences as you do to “willy-nilly”?)

Words change. You can no more stop or guide that change than you can stop or guide an avalanche. Someone who actually knows lexicography (as opposed to a poseur like yourself) understands this and gets out of the way.

22

Frankly, when I opened this thread I just KNEW that people would be piling on the OP, but the nastiness level is kind of over the top, IMO. Calling someone a putz because you disagree with his stance on modern usages of words seems a bit extreme to me, but anyway…

I will not address the validity of Ex Machina’s claims, since everyone is kicking his ass right now, but I do sympathize with the spirit of his post. My particular beef is not so much with the drift in word meanings (which I view as regrettable in some cases but inevitable, since usage does determine meaning in the final analysis), but with the possibility that one day, for instance, the word DEFINITELY will be spelled DEFINATELY because the world is full of morons who refuse spell this word correctly. I am on a mission from God to teach ALL of my seventh graders how to spell this word, from now unto eternity. Spelling drift troubles me more than meaning drift because it’s a mechanical error, not an organic alteration of meaning through usage, though I realize that many words in common use now, like “uncle” for instance, are the result of exactly that kind of drift. Sigh. Don’t know why I bother to fight it except, like you, it just bugs me.

All I can suggest is that you use the words correctly and hope for the best. Or become an English teacher like me and teach kids about word origins and linguistic drift, if, like me, you’re quixotic enough to find it worthwhile.

23

Rubystreak said, "though I realize that many words in common use now, like “uncle” for instance, are the result of exactly that kind of drift. "

How did it USED to be? Learn me this one.

24

On one hand, it’s stupid to claim that “embattled” doesn’t mean what it obviously does.

On the other hand, when I hear somebody use, oh, I don’t know, who’s for whose it makes me want to throw a temper tantrum.

25

EX MACHINA - your style and posting methods seem very familiar to me. Lib is that you?

26

Of the contrary comments I will only address this one because I suspected the misinterpretation would be made when I posted it.

In the exchange between La Follette and Kendall, the person citing the current dictionary for proof is analogous to GroundChuck (or whoever the dolt was who first dared contradict me), who cited a current dictionary to prove that certain definitions were acceptable. Kendall is analogous to me, and I say that the lexicographers who included the misuses as valid definitions in their dictionary were wrong.

I do not rely simply on current dictionary definitions to support my view. I rely on decades of reading, etymologies, and centuries of standard accepted usage.

Rubystreak mentioned spelling. Before the advent of dictionaries there was only an approximation regarding orthography. Educated people spelled words differently, but it didn’t matter as long as they were close or the words were phonetically recognizable. Dictionaries changed that, and it became an indicator of ignorance if a writer didn’t use standard spellings, and that continues to this day.

Standard meanings have much the same provenance. Dictionaries relied on current usage to establish meanings. When writing definitions they paid respect to classic literature.

If someone needed to translate English prose written in modern vernacular, he would need a dictionary which included recent corruptions of meaning. A dictionary would be useless in that regard if it didn’t include definitions in predominant usage. But folks who write for a living, or who use the English language as a tool of their trade, should not participate in that drift toward homogeneity. Why use the word “accost” when there is already a perfectly good word,“assault” that will do? One experienced with the language will hear the misuse as a huge clinker. But youngsters or others having their first exposure to the word will hear nothing wrong and their brains will file it under the context. Eventually there is no distinction between the words and one of the basic disciplines of writing erodes. The right word in the right context.

I guess if we all agreed that the symbol 3 now represented the number two then 3+3 would equal 4. Just don’t try to make sense of old timey mathematics though.

Here is another word which is being corrupted: plethora.

Plethora does not mean simply that there are a whole bunch of something. It means that there are too many or too much. The idea should be that there is an excess of the thing referred to. You may notice that there are very many fast-food joints. You might decide that there are too many, or a plethora of them. On the other hand you might notice that there are very many parking spaces available at the mall. But you would hardly conclude that there were too many. Unless maybe you saw a fast-food joint with one thousand parking spaces. Then that would be a plethora of spaces.

27

It can’t be Lib, he hasn’t proved Gode exists yet :slight_smile: in fact in another thread he’s calling all God believers unperceptive.
Lib’s only self susspended anyway, if he wanted he could come back (Mod’s willing).

Meanwhile…
I susspect Rubystreak may be refering to the old English dielect form ‘nuncle’, or may be refering to how the use of the term has spread from being specifically your parent’s male siblings (and their male spouces), too the broader use as a polite term for any of your parents friends.

28

**

**

But you see, this argument cuts both ways. How can you prove that your favorite edition of dictionary is more correct, or better, than any other? The dictionary is made by observing the use to which native speakers put various words. Kendall’s claiming a higher authority than any given edition of dictionary is no different than claiming that it is the speakers of English who provide the material for dictionaries, not the other way around. Indeed, your claim to know better than dictionaries is indistinguishable from the claim that dictionaries ought to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. Except you think what dictionaries should describe is not how people actually use language, but how you think they should. Any argument you use for your position will be equally applicable for your opponents.

I ask again, what makes you the final arbiter of proper English usage? What makes the definitions you advocate superior to any other? You haven’t been able to answer that. You talk about “decades of reading, etymologies, and centuries of standard accepted usage.” Well, the same is behind my usage and knowledge of English. The same centuries of standard accepted usage precede more recent innovations and shifts in meaning. “Centuries of standard accepted usage” is not unique to the dialect of English you are so attached to. Chaucer had centuries of standard accepted usage before him. So did Shakespeare. So do I. What makes your version of English better than mine, or theirs? You haven’t addressed that very important question, and without a suitable answer you’re without any basis for your assertions.

The homogenization of which you speak has not happened over the centuries before English had any kind of formally stated grammar or usage. Why should it happen now? Even the words you claim have been set in stone by centuries of accepted standard usage have themselves shifted over time, from other meanings, and picked up additional meanings along the way. Why are those shifts acceptable, but these others not? Why did those shifts not lead to “homogenization” when apparently any further ones will?

You can’t answer those questions, because the answers don’t suit your prejudice. So you just avoid it entirely and declare your preferences to be obviously and naturally better, and expect us to accept them.

You step in here and make high-handed proclamations about how we should write and speak, and then cast insults when we ask you to back up your claims. You convince no one, not without actual, solid reasoning to show, and you have none.

29

EX said:

Did you hit every branch falling out of the arrogance tree? Why would you jump on a board you supposedly are new to and express so much hauteur to bring attention to yourself? We have enough insecure people already on these boards…you are adding nothing here to the proverbial muck than virtual hot air. Mildly intelligent people get swept up and spat out on a daily basis here, I’d suggest adding something useful or at least non-arrogant.

As per the OP - Misuse gnarl :slight_smile:

30

Language is a living thing. Witness the doomed attempts of the Academie Francaise to keep the French language pure and undefiled. It is doomed to failure because language–any language–continues to take on a richness and depth because of the speakers of that language.

There are definitely phrases and word choices that make me cringe. Some will probably always be considered incorrect. Others will become acceptable over time, and it’s pointless to argue about their validity.

The study of the history and development of the English language is of particular interest to me. I find it fascinating to see how words and meanings have evolved. I hope our language continues to live and thrive and change according to our needs.

31

Ex Machina said, “Why use the word “accost” when there is already a perfectly good word,“assault” that will do? One experienced with the language will hear the misuse as a huge clinker. But youngsters or others having their first exposure to the word will hear nothing wrong and their brains will file it under the context. Eventually there is no distinction between the words and one of the basic disciplines of writing erodes. The right word in the right context.”

Part of the beauty of our language is that there are many, MANY words you can use that mean the same thing. If you want to soften your tone, you pick one word; if you want to scare your reader, you use another one. There is usually no single “right” word.

32

EX said:

quote:

<snip>…or whoever the dolt was who first dared contradict me<snip>…

Philosphr said, "EX said:

quote:

<snip>…or whoever the dolt was who first dared contradict me<snip>…

Did you hit every branch falling out of the arrogance tree? Why would you jump on a board you supposedly are new to and express so much hauteur to bring attention to yourself? We have enough insecure people already on these boards…you are adding nothing here to the proverbial muck than virtual hot air. Mildly intelligent people get swept up and spat out on a daily basis here, I’d suggest adding something useful or at least non-arrogant. "

Sounds like he’s been smoking from Collounsbury’s pipe, eh?

Did you hit every branch falling out of the arrogance tree? Why would you jump on a board you supposedly are new to and express so much hauteur to bring attention to yourself? We have enough insecure people already on these boards…you are adding nothing here to the proverbial muck than virtual hot air. Mildly intelligent people get swept up and spat out on a daily basis here, I’d suggest adding something useful or at least non-arrogant.

33

The vitriol this subject elicits is interesting. Now I know how a conservative feels when he tells the hippies to wear their hair shorter.

There is another phenomenon occurring which I find interesting. You seem to have decided that an argument has been settled and that it is now deemed no longer worthy to be discussed on your forum.

When I have been a senior member on another forum and a subject crops up which has already been discussed by current members, we simply repeat our argument civilly or refrain from involving ourselves in the discussion. We don’t attack the newcomer for wasting our time.

In other words, if you don’t like the subject, stay off the damn thread!

I have been a fan of The Straight Dope for over twenty years and I thought this message board would be used by decent intelligent people. I didn’t expect such a rude response as the first one to the OP. But from the ensuing posts I could see that I had entered a den of jackasses. You set the tone. You people are an embarrassment to the spirit of the Straight Dope.

Next lesson: Oxymoron - This word is used almost exclusively to refer to a fortuitous contradiction in terms such as “military intelligence” or “jumbo shrimp.” What is lost is the true meaning which is an intentional juxtaposition of contradictory terms for a rhetorical effect. The expression “a deafening silence” or “killing with kindness” are examples of true oxymora. George Will virtually singlehandedly obliterated the meaning by using the term to refer to every cutesy contradiction that he noticed.

All guilty parties, who have used the term incorrectly and pretentiously to impress others, and now feel like idiots because they have been exposed, prepare to cavil.

34

And still lectures and pronouncements, never actually addressing pertinent questions. I’d be more than happy to consider your point if you were able to articulate any sort of actual justification for it besides “I said so.”

It’s clear you’re getting a rise out of feeling intellectually superior, in much the way a certain kind of fundamentalist, coming to the board and preaching salvation and the damnation of those who disagree with him, might. He takes satisfaction out of being better than all those unsaved folks who are so hostile to his spiritual perfection. Rather than actually discuss or answer questions, he only offers repeated assertions and lectures. He feels superior, but only displays his own blindness and intellectual bankruptcy.

Whether you do this because lecturing feeds your arrogance, or because you enjoy watching others respond to your insults and feel justified when you’re opposed, it’s clear you’re not interested in any sort of actual thinking. I strongly recommend a LiveJournal code. You could have a “word a day” column and everything, and it wouldn’t clutter up the SDMB’s bandwidth. In any event, further “lessons” here only serve to make you look more foolish.

35

At the risk of drawing fire, I’m going to side with portion of what dear old [bEx** has said. But read what I have to say before activating flamethrowers please.

He’s attacking a modern symptom, which others have said is a long-term ongoing process. You’re both mostly right and you’re both talking past each other.

Consider this:

In days gone by, the vast majority of the populace was illiterate. What was written was by and for the elite. History was the recorded exploits of the elite, and literature was the writings of, by, and for, the elite.

Yes, langauge and usage drifted over time, but that drift was almost exclusively powered by the elite: the few, the wealthy, the educated.

Contrast that with the modern era.

In the last 50-100 years of mass-popular media and near universal reading and writing skills, many things have changed. History now includes the stories of all, or at least most, of society. Literature (loosely defined as all paid-for writing) is written to appeal to mass tastes, not elite tastes. And although we’ve made great strides in mass education, I think it’s fair to say, at least in the USA, that we’ve got a long way to go with raising all our kids to be well-educated. Many can barely read and most have an abysmal vocabulary.

So if the modern dictionary writers are recording the modern linguistic drift, it’s a much more democratic, i.e non-elite, drift.

And since damn near everything happens faster today than it did 100 years ago, the drift rate is greater than it was.

I really think that the point behind old [bEx**'s lament was that in the old days the slow-moving ship of language was carefully steered mostly by experts, whereas now the mob is behind the wheel as we roar at high speed towards who-know-what end.

Note I am NOT asserting a difference in the profesionalism, dedication or methodology of the dictionary writers over the years. I assert merely that today they pay attention to a wider range of more rapidly-changing influences than they once did.

In both cases the language was/is subject to continuous change, but the change is now quantitatively different enough that it is making a qualitative difference.

Crudely put, the Unwashed Masses were butchering the King’s English in 1500. But nobody cares now because said butchery never made it into the dictionaries or literature then to be carried forward to now.

But now the Unwashed Masses are writing the dictionaries through their large-scale presence in the written record. And the damage going forward will be different from the changes wrought to date.

The project of the last 100+years has been the democratizing of almost all of human endeavor, and the recent spreading of education and freedom to ever more of the so-called Third World will accelerate that trend.

We all need to consider what happens when the louts of the world are, by sheer force of numbers, permitted to overwhelm the cultural power of the heretofore elites.

My politics are in favor of the masses over entrenched wealth, but my intellectual biases argue that uneducated free will freely exercised is a very dangerous thing in a complex society built over centuries.

The long-term solution is not to deny the uneduated their exercise of free will, but rather to free them from ignorance through quality education for all.

But until then the barbarians are at least somewhat inside the City, and that can have uncomfortable side effects, particularly for those who consider themselves part of the now less-relevant elite.

Shields UP<g>.

36

Damn I wish I would be more careful with my tags.

37

Now, see, LSLGuy, that was a cogent argument for your position. I don’t agree with it, but you did back up assertions with reasons instead of proclamations.

**

I’m not sure you can say this with any certainty, exactly because the writing that we have is all educated. There isn’t much in the way of codification of English until, I think, the 17th century. So while written English may all have been in elite hands, those elite hands were not living in a vacuum sealed off from other people, and we have very little way of measuring just how much exchange and influence there was between the way the literate and the non-literate used language. And there was not a single standard those educated, literate English speakers were adhering to. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is written in an entirely different dialect of English than The Canterbury Tales, even though they were written about the same time. Which one was “proper” or “standard”? They’re both considered masterpieces of the English language, but you’d hardly think SGGK was in English, to look at it today.

But why are you assuming that it’s damage? We have no way to tell, as I said, that the changes in the past were all entirely controlled by the elite and literate. And English isn’t exactly the language of the elite in the middle ages–Latin is, something that led, when English finally did begin to acquire a set of formal standards, to those same non-louts trying to force English to fit the standards of Latin. Rather loutish, in my view, but there it is.

I contend that the assumption that changes in the future must neccesarily be damaging is unfounded, especially since we have little or no way of telling just how changes came about before the 17th century, when a unified standard did begin to be codified.

I would also contend that nothing damages the English language unless it destroys its ability to communicate ideas, or its adaptability, which includes, but is not limited to, its ability to change meanings of words and also to wholesale steal them wherever it finds them and assign whatever meaning speakers see fit. A shift in denotation or connotation, adding a new meaning, or dropping an old one, does not impoverish the language as much as would freezing it solid until some suitably erudite committee can condescend to allow us to use some innovation in our writing.

Does using “accost” to mean a more confrontational encounter than it used to diminish our ability to communicate? “Assault” is too strong, frankly, and using “accost” this way gives a nuance previously unavailable. Rather than decrease the range available, it increases it, and the older meaning is hardly unavailable to anyone with a library card and the ability to figure out a word’s meaning from context. If I use the word, and intend the more common meaning, I am communicating my idea precisely. If, on the other hand, I insist on using it’s older meaning, my listeners will not understand me, or will assume I’m being deliberately archaic. The right choice is the one that communicates, not the one a reference book says is right even though no one will understand me.

Even among the unwashed, a word that does not serve a purpose won’t be used. The idea that leaving the language in control of some loutish mob will lead to utter chaos, with no word meaning anything in particular, is nonsense. Words will be kept that communicate ideas, ideas that need communicating will be assigned words, and meanigs will shift as speakers need them to. Even when the language was supposedly in the control of the elite, the common people likely spoke as they wished, assigned what meanings they wished to what words they used, and were understood. “Vulgar” speakers of English had not descended into gibberish in the centuries before literacy became widespread. They certainly weren’t restrained by reading Chaucer, or by compulsory education, and still the language survived, even if it wasn’t as fashionable and elegant a dialect as the educated spoke. So why should it do so now?

38

Bren_Cameron,

I am by no means a professional linguist nor historian. I was proposing a scenario which I surmised was likely to be true as best we can determine across the mists of history, rather than asserting a set of unassailable facts. So your initial doubts about my contentions are taken in good graces.

I have a concept I call the “Linguistic Uncertainty Principle” which I haul out when debates start to turn on “precise” definitions of terms. It’s hardly original; I’m confident the linguistics profession has an official term for it, although I have no clue what it might be.

It holds that, like its particle physics counterpart, that any given word only has so much precision. You (anyone) can’t refine it any more precisely than X. Putting the word under a magnifying glass just reveals fuzziness. And a microscope only reveals a more deep-seated fuzziness.

The concern with fast changing language, or where words begin to adopt multiple shades of quite similar meaning, is that the Uncertainly rises. Communicating clearly becomes like trying to thread a needle first wearing gloves, then mittens and finally boxing gloves.

Our old friend Ex seemed to say that many words were focussed to razor-sharpness at some halcyon day in the past. Poppycock I say.

But I do beleive he’s generally on the right track by (indirectly) asserting that many words are becoming less focussed than they once were.

And as any given word becomes less focussed, the precision with which I can use it to carry an idea from my head to yours goes down. That is, after all, the only purpose a word serves. It is a medium of transmission for human thought.

Under conditions of rapid linguistic evolution I am less certain of your definition of the terms I use. So I am less confident that you are receiving the concepts I’m trying to send.

And for broadcast communications, such as here where perhaps 50 people will read my rambling, I now have to deal with an larger linguistic meaning cloud, like physics’ electron probablility clouds. 50 folks with a wide dispersion of interpretation will collectively receive a fuzzier message than 50 folks with more narrow dispersion. Hence the use of professional jargon in any field of endeavor from gardening to rocketry.

In your summation you said “The idea that leaving the language in control of some loutish mob will lead to utter chaos, with no word meaning anything in particular, is nonsense.”

I agree. You’ve correctly identified that the logical limit case is, as usual, illogical. But that does nothing to refute my contention that fuzziness is increasing relative to the past, and most importantly, at a faster rate.

I think most of us are uncomfortable with the idea of chat-room spelling becomg the widespread standard. Having standardized spelling is valuable because it reduces the ambiguity of transmission.

Likewise, having some stadardization of meaning is good, and more is better. There can also be too much of a good thing, but I hardly think we’re in danger of crossing that boundary.

My bottom line: Careless collective usage leaves all of us with a blunted and less useful tool. It’s a problem loosely akin to a tragedy of the commons, or to the way a vacant littered lot attracts more litter than a clean one does.

Like washing one’s hands after using the bathroom, the main value of good usage accrues to the folks around you. I for one would be happier if the people who use language professionally such as magazine and newspaper writers and TV people would be more careful about their usage.

Am I tilting at windmills? Yes, a bit.

But to blithely assert that nothing has changed about this situation in 300-ish years is akin to asserting that the supply of oil is infinite because it hasn’t run out yet. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the facts presented.

Finally, I’m not about to propose something like the French Academy; that’s silly. But there ought to be a better way, a middle way, where professional people take pride in their workmanship and amateurs like to follow. I’m no chef, but I try to cook in an elegant style now and again and with some success.

39

Kalhoun: “An uncle” is a corruption of “a nuncle.” Shakespeare used ‘nuncle,’ but by now, we’ve completely converted to ‘uncle.’

For more of these spelling drifts, check out

http://wordsmith.org/awad/archives/1103

And for the record, the level of acrimony on this thread is a bit ridiculous. Have none of you the slightest sense of irony? When Ex Machina said “the first dolt who dared contradict me,” did it never occur to you that he was being hyperbolic? That’s how I took it, but then, I didn’t get my panties all in a bunch in the first place either. If you really dislike the OP so much, Pit him, but leave this thread alone. It’s funny that you accuse Ex of ranting, preaching, or pendantic lecturing, when he is by FAR not the only one engaging in such behavior.

I can get as hot under the collar as anyone about the English language (though my hobby horse is spelling, not usage, which I feel powerless to fight), but not to the point where I’m hurling epithets… unless you spell DEFINITELY wrong. Then I’m gonna burn your house down and piss on the ashes.

Kidding.

40

Because of the uncivil tone of the posts in this thread (with the exception of a few) I will no longer be reading them. Instead I will only post the lessons.

Nemesis is not a synonym for ‘enemy’ or ‘foe’ or ‘rival’. A nemesis is an entity that exacts righteous vengeance. Nemesis was the Greek goddess of retribution. When someone is trying to get away with something they don’t deserve their ‘nemesis’ gives them their comeuppance.

A person with whom you share a mutual hatred is not, by that fact alone, your nemesis.

The opposing football team with whom you have a traditional rivalry is not your nemesis.

Elliot Ness was Al Capone’s nemesis. But Al Capone was not Elliot Ness’s nemesis.

Now all of you “Living Language” idiots who disagree with me can just keep your stupid pinhead mouths shut, or you will expose yourselves as the uneducated morons that you are. Accept the fact that I am your nemesis, revealing your ignorance and delivering you to a hell of abject shame.