Misnomers, Malapropisms, and other Catachrestic Abominations

[Bren_Cameron_1]

**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.

**

Neither am I. What I know about the history of the English language is a side-effect of an addiction to Arthurian literature, which led me to read translations of medieval lit, which had prefaces and notes and bibliographies that discussed the historical and cultural context in which the works had been written, and translation issues. I’m not an expert with a degree or anything.

[quote]
**

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.**
[/quote

I think, personally, that this is true–but it’s true because every conversation is a delicate negotiation of meaning. There never was, and never will be, a time when words have razor-sharp meanings, as you point out, because context is constantly changing, because speakers are constantly using things differently. (I suspect I’m agreeing with you here.)

But I don’t buy the idea that changes in meaning continue to increase fuzziness. A word isn’t like a knife, that you can grind away with too much sharpening, or damage by cutting things it wasn’t meant to cut. It’s not like there’s a pre-determined store of “meaning” that you run out of when you use too much. It’s far, far more flexible, and if, in context, the new meaning works, then it works–it’s as sharp as it needs to be. Context is everything.

…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.

That larger linguistic cloud you mention is undeniable–it’s there for every conversation, every communication. But it’s not hopeless, or damaging, that the negotiation in that case is a more complex thing. The way to be more certain that I’m receiving what you’re meaning to send is to engage in that negotiation so that you’re aware of where it is at a given moment–or as aware as one can be, it’s never going to be absolutely precise.

**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.**

No, it wasn’t intended to, really. That was a response to your opening idea, which was that the OP actually had a valid point. This was one of the OP’s statements–that faster change unguided by some authority would neccesarily lead to “homogenization” and no word having any meaning at all. It doesn’t. The OP does not have a point. The OP has a sermon to preach, with little thought behind it. You have some good points–but as you yourself point out in the course of your post, they don’t agree with the OP.

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.

Yes, having standardized spelling reduces the ambiguity of transmission–whether that standard is chat-room spelling or something you and I would be more used to. The discomfort is not because it’s not a valid standard, but because it’s not the standard you’re most used to. And you can’t judge its effectiveness if you haven’t actually engaged that standard and understand it fully. I can’t–I can hardly read it. But I’m not its intended audience, and I’m in no position to judge whether it communicates effectively to that audience or not.

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.

The key word here is “some.” Of course some standardization of meaning is good–it’s absolutely neccesary. But “standard” is not some fixed thing you can point to and say “this is it, the one, the only, the best standard, forever.” Standard is part of that constant negotiation, and you’re going to be using different standards depending on which negotiation you’re part of.

If you go into a jazz club having heard and learned nothing but formal, academic classical music, your first reaction is going to be, “what awful music! This is the worst classical music I’ve ever heard!” and you might wonder why the players, who clearly are playing instruments you’re familiar with and have some acquaintance with functional tonality, are being so careless about their music. Except they’re not careless–they’re playing jazz, not classical. The similarities between the standard you’re holding up as best and theirs are deceptive–it can make you think they’re working from an identical model, just with no concern for the quality or precision of their music. But the truth is, though the theory is similar, the two are very different, and you can’t judge the quality of one if all you know or value is the other.

The “unwashed,” “loutish” masses, who use English “carelessly” are often working from a slightly different model, they’re engaged in a different part of the negotiation, and if you find their usage careless and imprecise, it isn’t neccesarily because it is so, but because you, not being at the center of that particular cloud, don’t actually get the meaning–you’re either not the intended audience, or you’ve excluded yourself from understanding by refusing to acknowledge the existence or validity of another standard. What seems fuzzy to you is only fuzzy because you’re too far on the edges of the “cloud,” not because it’s objectively fuzzy. (Note that this is different from saying there aren’t people with little actual ability to speak or write well–there are stupid people even among the educated, no matter which dialect they speak. But that’s a separate issue.)

But language, as we use it every day, is an intuitive thing, we compose complex sentences on the fly at a fantastic speed and even those of us who think a lot about language speak and write largely by feel. We get habits down, and when the standard changes enough that our habits don’t quite fit anymore, we feel uncomfortable. I know I do. It’s understandable, but it’s not a sign of the Linguistic Apocalypse, or a sign that words are becoming less precise, or less meaningful.

There will always have to be one central standard commonly held for widespread communication–I’m not trying to say there shouldn’t be. But once again, that standard will never hold still. For one thing, the moment it does, it’s dead. For another thing, it can’t ever apply perfectly to every single English speaker even if it does. There will always be people at the edges, no matter what. And there will always be other negotiations going on around the eges that influence that central standard. Always have been, always will be.

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.

And my bottom line would be, the lot’s not vacant, it’s a park the community uses all the time, and what you’re looking at isn’t litter it’s benches and playground equipment.

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.

The facts presented show that change has ocurred for a thousand years with no direction, much of it grounded in mistakes. We don’t wear naprons anymore, and we don’t put a pease under a princess’ mattress or have a sundae with a cerise on top. Mistakes all, and the language survived them. Which “mistaken change” of the past ever actually, demonstrably harmed the language? If you can show me that any change has actually been a real, true detriment, that our modern dialect, or even the OP’s holy 19th century standard, was ever the worse for some older change, then I might acknowledge that faster and heedless might be damaging. But it’s always been heedless, and faster and more of the same doesn’t suddenly equal bad. And language isn’t like oil, it’s not something that can be used up, it’s a living and growing thing.

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.

I’m with you here, absolutely. I try to write well, when I post, when I work on my own writing, whenever. But I don’t try to use one style where another works better. And I don’t declare macaroni and cheese anathema because it’s not cordon bleu. Both have their place, and if both influence each other, I’m going to appreciate the result, not cry and moan because it’s not the same dish I had yesterday, or because macaroni and cheese isn’t high-class enough to be associated with gourmet food and not “corrupt” it.

[Czarcasm]

Lockdown.