Thank you! Now I just have to learn to pronounce it!
You may be assuming facts not in evidence.
I was going to ask whose quote this was, but googled instead and found:
“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.”
–James D. Nicoll
I like them both!
English is a living language spoken in many countries of course it will change and evolve into another form of English that is more adapt to the future
Yep. [URL=“https://www.amazon.com/Mother-Tongue-English-How-that-ebook/dp/B00T3DR56C/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1473882921&sr=1-1&keywords=mother+tongue”]Another warning.](Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue: The Untold History of English - John H. McWhorter - Google Books)
Bastardization would be doubleplus ungood.
Hah! Waaaaaaaay before 1066, laddie. Way before then.
The Vikings, and before them the Romans, and a few Celtic words here and there, and who knows what else before our Angle and Saxon fore-speakers left the mainland.
Perhaps a note to overzealous finders of fault might be in order. I was mildly amused by the incongruity between a word like “scrumdiddlyumptious” and the venerable standing of the Oxford English Dictionary, since by recognizing the word this august institution was in effect affirming its linguistic legitimacy. As one can see from the letter’s closing line, the whole point was to create a little joke based on the use of language grossly inappropriate to the circumstances. IOW, what you just said. There was no linguistic moralizing intended.
If either you or he has the understanding that this is “both impossible and pointless”, then you’re at odds with Steven Pinker’s exact words.
You’re making an effort to justify something that I already agree with. Also, see above. But let’s look at an expression like “for all intensive purposes”. It’s not creative, not interesting, not expressive, but just a silly mistake that comes from mishearing and adds nothing to the language. I don’t really care what label you put on it, but it would surely benefit the speaker, and the interests of the language, if he was aware of the original expression and that his version is essentially gibberish.
How many of the words the OP is exercised about are originally English? I’m thinking, none?
This post has been ironied by the Ironer!
The OED may be “venerable”, but that does not mean that every word it contains is “legitimate”. The role of a dictionary like the OED is not to recognise the “best” words, but to record all the words that have come into general use in English, including the lowest and most vulgar slang.
I’m all about orthography, and “for all intensive purposes” appears to be an orthographic error–I’ve never heard someone enunciate this phrase clearly enough that I can detect it as a spoken substitution.
“For all intents and purposes” is almost entirely idiomatic, however: nobody uses this phrase parsing the word “intents” separately from the word “purposes.” They’re just using an idiom/cliche. If the idiom changes through use to “intensive purposes,” I’ll find myself unable to give a shit. If the underlying meaning remains the same, idiom is idiom.
Well, there’s another one we’ll just have to disagree on. Here’s the thing. Words have meaning, and “for all intents and purposes”, though a common idiom, nevertheless has a meaning that can be readily inferred from its constituent words. And in fact the words can be, and are, separated and used individually in equivalent expressions, such as “for all practical purposes …”. “Intents and purposes” is a sort of legalistic redundancy meaning “for any intent, purpose, or objective that you can think of …”.
“For all intensive purposes” is meaningless gibberish and IMHO is an example of an undesirable mutation of language because, since it arises from ignorance, it obfuscates without offering any redeeming qualities of its own. One should be able to embrace the evolution of language with whole-hearted descriptivist zeal and still be able to say to someone, in the appropriate time and place, “stop saying stupid shit”.
An evil genius is in the room with you when you read this phrase in an email. She says she’s gonna kill your wolfpup unless you correctly divine the meaning intended by the writer of the email, and she’s gonna call up the email’s writer to verify the intended meaning. You’re telling me you’re gonna let a puppy die rather than hazard a guess as to what meaning the author intended?
If you guess right, of course, you have to let your “meaningless gibberish” claim die. Quite the dilemma!
Stop saying stupid shit.
Hay, O.P., don’ bovver me, take iddup with Noah Webstuh!
Seriously, the stuff in the OP goes back about 200 years to a wave of spelling reforms which are now standard in, basically, one polity of the Anglosphere.
I’m bemused at the fury. I’m not sure what to do about. Burn Yankee dictionaries, I s’pose?
Excuse me:
I’m not sure what to do about Noah Webster’s spelling reforms, which appear to be the source of OP’s irritation. Burn Yankee dictionaries, I s’pose?
I got as far as “the Sound-it-out Brigade,” & quit. Does it get more livid and/or purpler?
The Ironer? Groovy! I’ve got a whole basket of stuff that needs pressed. I just hope my electric doesn’t go out with the storms we’ve got coming through.
Maybe the OP would be happier if we all went back to grunts and bopping each other over the head with sticks, because that was good enough for Unga and Thag back in the Paleolithic and it should be good enough for us now.
“Could” and “not”, but none of the others. But really, the OP seems to have more of a stick up his ass about spelling conventions rather than words.
If bastardization is wrong, I don’t want to be right.
Thag hit Unga with a stick because he was bastardizing grunting.
Nicholl’s version doesn’t fit on a t-shirt. 