This holiday season, I’ve started hearing “gift” as a verb a lot. Sure, “regift” has been around a few years now, but I’m not sure I’ve encountered the verb “to gift” much before. Certainly not on this scale.
It’s actually an old naval phrase from the days when the sailors on the ship were referred to collectively as “the hands”. It’s also where the phrase “old hand” comes from as well.
Anyway, the full phrase was “All hands on deck!”, meaning that everyone was needed because of some sort of crisis- maybe a solely nautical one like very heavy weather, or maybe something having to do with combat.
So by that usage, an “all hands” meeting would mean everyone is needed because of a crisis. Unfortunately, it’s been watered down to merely mean a meeting where everyone is required to be there, and not necessarily because of any crisis.
This really grates…*
If someone said “I’ve got a present to gift you…” I’d say “You can gift it back to where you got it.
And don’t call me until you can stop randomly making nouns into verbs.”
…
*Guess I’m especially grate-ful this holiday season…
You could say you are going to jet to California to visit friends.
Because saying “alum” sidesteps the issue of gender and gendered Latin plurals. Sure we could say “alumnus”, “alumnuses”, “alumna” and “alumnas”, but you can see already how confusing that can get. Or if you opt for the Latin plurals, do you pronounce them according to the Anglicized conventions of law, science, and medicine; or do you follow the convention of the RC Church? Much easier just to say “alum” and “alums” and be done with it.
I kind of like “alumnoid”, because you can say that without specifically implying that the person in question actually graduated.
Unfortunately it sounds like a metal … “all-new electric car, 600-mile range on one charge, rustproof alumnoid body …”
That’s not a universal truth. In fact, the majority of English words are not gradually being replaced by shorter equivalents. It’s just a certain subset: those which are rather common yet cumbersome.
I would not put “request,” “question,” “asking price,” “initial bid” etc. in that subset. Outside of business English, I have not seen any tendency to replace those words with shorter ones. And “ask” is definitely business English.
And, as the other thread about corporate neologisms shows, business is generally a non-preferred dialect of English. Those who use it are generally looked down upon outside the profession. It’s seen as self-important and deliberately obfuscating, full of doublespeak and inventing words for concepts that already exist in order to make tje meaning less intuitive to parse.
I would argue that is a large part of why “ask” as a noun is so reviled. It’s part of business English, and, since people think poorly of that dialect, they don’t want it leaking into the general population.
I’d also point out that “ask” isn’t all that easy a word to say. It’s notoriously among some of the more difficult words to say. The [sk] combination at the end of a syllable is considered difficult. Children tend to have trouble learning it. Some dialects change the sound, like the AAVE “aks” or cross-dialect reduction of the [k] portion, particularly when said quickly before another consonant. This, plus the longer vowel also makes it a longer one syllable word, longer than the aforementioned “bid.”
I don’t see that usage taking over anytime soon. The noun “ask” isn’t remotely as ubiquitous as email, nor is it an abbreviation. There are other much more common words that people would normally use, including the word “want” (as in “whatcha want for 't?”) No, they aren’t 100% synonyms, but that is nearly always the case.
The hatred for “ask” as a noun is widespread, and it is not a part of street slang or other places where hated words commonly become more accepted English. I don’t really think it will catch on any time soon.
Then again, if predicting what words were common was simple, it wouldn’t be language. The one universal truth about language is that it always changes, often in unexpected and seemingly illogical ways.
You have misunderstood how and why dictionaries are made.
So gruntled you are not? 
No, I have not. You, however, have rather badly misunderstood my entire point. Instead you appear to want to start an argument by dragging in what I presume to be the old canard about how all dictiionaries are supposed to be descriptive.
The fact of the matter is that all general-purpose dictionaries have both descriptive and prescriptive utility, and the balance varies according to the linguistic philosophy of its compilers. In the long run they are descriptive to the extent that they necessarily capture the lexicon of the language at any point in time. In doing so, they also provide, not only definitions, but etymologies, pronunciation guides, and often example usages including illustrations of common instances of misuse, or common instances of confusion between similar words such as “affect” and “effect”, or “flout” and “flaunt”, as well as annotations indicating a word to have a meaning considering informal, archaic, vulgar, or otherwise unsuitable in certain contexts. Contrary to our friend’s opinion that the English language has no arbiters, it in fact does not lack authoritative reference sources rich in etymological background and stylistic guidance.
So gruntled you are not?
Got an uncle who’s annoyed by words that are clearly opposites, for which the original word doesn’t exist.
(btw, is there a word for these?)
So he’ll congratulate you by saying that was very ept of you. Possibly because you were ebriated…
You might start reading here:
TLDR: It’s English. Therefore it’s complicated.
Sometimes those apparently negative prefixes are actually negatives; other times not. E.g. inflammable means “able to burn.”
To which one can add these observations:
-
“inarticulate” (=not articulate), “inflexible” (=not flexible), and many other such words seem to confirm the notion that the “in-” prefix creates an antonym, even though “inept” and the like have no original root (the OED does mention “ept” and “eptitude”, but these are humourously deliberate back-formations first used by the New Yorker columnist E.B. White).
-
But “inflammable” means exactly the same thing as “flammable”.
-
But “invaluable” means “very valuable”.
Honestly, English makes so little logical sense that one might almost prefer the version of it so beautifully described in Engish As She Is Spoke.
Incidentally, English As She Is Spoke is in the public domain and available free from Project Gutenberg.
That one never made any sense to me as a child. The “in” doesn’t actually ADD anything- inflammable and flammable mean the exact same thing. That, and the fact that “in” usually means “not”, as in indestructible, indominable, indefatigable, inaccurate, inaudible, etc…
So it’s totally understandable that people would misunderstand that one; the prefix is meaningless AND it doesn’t jibe with the dozens, if not hundreds of other words prefixed with “in”.
Perhaps we are referring to different things. I am speaking of an anglo counterpart to the Académie Française (“France’s official authority on the usages, vocabulary, and grammar of the French language” according to Wikipedia (Académie Française - Wikipedia)). Also, as a resident of Montreal since 2013 and previously between 1989 and 1992, I am constantly exposed to the activities of the Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF), which will levy fines against Quebec businesses with inappropriate signs or incorrect words on restaurant menus (see “Pastagate” as described here: Pastagate - Wikipedia). I am personally not aware of any Anglo so if you can educate me it would be greatly appreciated.
But did it inflame you?
Clearly, “inflammable” derives from “inflame” (which typically, at least in modern parlance, does not refer to combustion) which is probably a corruption of something like “enflame”. Perhaps the proper form should be “enflammable”, but that sounds a little less entense.
The classic mangling of English was the sign at the Milwaukee airport just past security that marked the “recombobulation area”, but that is fair enough because “discombobulate” is a ginned-up word like “humongous”.
And my understanding is that “gruntle” is a real, albeit archaic, coinage. I may have been misled: the tale I heard was that it describes copulation in the presence of a skirt or dress being worn by one party (or a “full gruntle” if both parties are so attired), but the source was from a strange page on the Utilikilts website.
Don’t worry, or really worry?..
The liquid inside your child’s Happy Fun Zeppelin is inflammable.
See, this is why the in/flammable thing bothers me. It could result in real confusion, hopefully without real consequences.
(I’d love to hear an actual anecdote,if anyone’s got one).