My damn front door takes 2 hands to lock. One to keep the door from opening into the house, and one to lock the deadbolt with a key. It’s a real pain in the ass when I have something in my arms.
Like blood n’ bone n’ stuff.
Or syringes I haven’t removed yet.
Is this correct or incorrect?- The care of articulated giraffe is way too labor intense.
It’s nonstandard, and in communicating with me, your meaning is obscured. I don’t know whether you’re talking about one specific giraffe or about the species, due to the lack of an article or pluralization.
Note that I’m in no way saying that all language use is as good as all other language use: I’m a huge proponent of using language to:
- Express yourself,
- Communicate, and
- Provide aesthetic pleasure.
However, calling language “correct” and “incorrect” too often gets in the way of these three goals. Considering the “nukular” to be incorrect:
- Inhibits a speaker from expressing herself,
- Needlessly throws up a barrier to communication, and
- Needlessly prevents the audience from receiving aesthetic pleasure.
I do recognize that when you’re speaking in a specific setting, for example, to members of the bourgeoisie or the intelligentsia, you’ll communicate more effectively and provide more aesthetic pleasure if you follow certain rules. Other rules will behoove you when you’re communicating to the good ol’ boy working at the car garage in deep Appalachia. Neither way is intrinsically better; what’s better is to possess the flexibility to modify your language in order to achieve the second and third goals.
Daniel
I think I just realized that your quote tags were a little, um, nonstandard :). Lemme answer some of your other questions:
I don’t see how: either an entity is discovered, like uranium, or it’s invented, like Twinkies. Somebody was the first person to use the word “window,” and I’d credit them with inventing the word, even though I don’t know who they were. Similarly, someone was the first person to make a biscuit with baking powder, and even though there were beaten biscuits before them, I’d credit them with inventing baking powder biscuits.
Sure thing–but that doesn’t mean that improv is incorrect in all settings. Following this analogy, the pronunciation “nukular” is not incorrect in all settings, and the phrase “more unique” is not incorrect in all settings.
Because “correct” and “incorrect” connote absolute qualities, I prefer not to use them. “Standard” and “nonstandard” work much better, reminding everyone that we’re talking about game rules, not universal rules, and that those playing soccer ought not freak out about basketball players who touch the ball with their hands.
Daniel
Left Hand of Dorkness,
Sorry about the quote tags. I’m mostly ignorant about how to us a computer.
I agree with your reasons for using language.
I used to correct people who I thought misused language until I finally realized that I didn’t know as much as I thought and it didn’t work anyway. But I get really tired of people saying “Oh, you know what I mean” when they have simply used the wrong word. I am reminded of Mark Twain’s remark when that was said to him. “Yes, I do know what you mean. I also know that is not what you said.” I understand that languages evolve, and that meanings mutate, but at any given point in time, if we cannot agree on what a word means, or how to use it, that really gets in the way of communication.
I guess the “nukular” reference has to do with Bush. I take your point, I really do, but it grates like hell every time I hear him say that. My aesthetic pleasure is diminished by hearing his pronunciation.
I have a friend who went to a law school where the words cooperation, corperation, and carburation were all pronounced exactly alike by most of the faculty and students (I’m not kidding.) Simply hearing the word was not enough to discern its meaning; the context was needed as well. To me, this gets in the way of communication.
The word “reticent” is being used more and more today as a cognate of “reluctant.” If this is allowed to continue we will have lost a perfectly good word and gained nothing.
It is now common practice for journalists and talking heads to refer to someone who is in jail, and for whom a bond has been set but not posted, as “In jail under a bond of (for instance) $50,000.” This is absurd. A bond is an agreement between two parties. Until it is posted idoesn’t really exist. Anyone who is in jail and under a bond has a bad attorney. The correct phrase is “in jail in lieu of bond.”
If I had said “reticulated” instead of “articulated” you would have known the species of giraffe.
I agree that badgering folks about pronunciation and usage is usually counterproductive. However, sloppy, lazy (and yes, sometimes incorrect) application of language, I submit, is even more a of threat to communication, expression, and pleasure.
No problem!
Absolutely. When there is genuine misunderstanding, then there is a problem. I tend to resolve that problem in favor of prevailing thought: if I use the word “reticulated” knowing that my audience probably won’t know what the word means, and my intent is not to educate the audience but to communicate “netlike” to them, then I’ll have failed. No high-minded principles, no statement that they should have known the word, will make the communication actually succeed: if I’m trying to communicate, I’ll have failed.
Note that teaching folks new words is a perfectly laudable aim; and if I’m willing to allow for less efficient communication in order to teach the new words, that’s totally fine.
Believe me, it bugs me, too. But I regard it as partly a personal problem, and partly a failure on Bush’s part to please me. (Not that he has any trouble displeasing me, but that’s another rant).
HOWEVER, I also know that in military circles, “nukular” is the common pronunciation, even with folks who spend their lives working with the horrific devices. Bush may know that he’s already not got the vote of pointyheaded liberals like myself, and he may know that military folks think “new-clear” sounds awful pinko, and so he may pronounce it in the way that military folks, whom he aims to please, like to hear it pronounced.
Plenty of words in English change their pronunciations over time. Plenty of English words aren’t pronounced the way they’re spelled. Nuclear is gradually becoming one of those words, and however much I dislike thesound of it, the proper role of a grammarian is to observe, IMO.
So? Where I live, “bear” as in “bear witness” is pronounced the same as “bear” as in “grizzly bear” and “bare” as in “bare nekkid.” Simply hearing the word is not enough to discern its meaning; the context is needed as well. Fortunately, this doesn’t get in the way of communication, since you can almost always tell from context what the meaning is.
Not at all: in English, the word “fast” means both to remain still (such as “stand fast”) and describes rapidity (as in “run fast”). The fact that a word gains a new meaning does not diminish the previous meaning. Words gain new meanings, new connotations and denotations, all the time.
Again, I’m unsympathetic. This is called an idiom, and everyone knows what the idiom means. Just like everyone knows what the idiom “I could care less” means, and it only trips anyone up when some pointyheaded academic comes along and, out of boredom, insecurity, or deep-seated loathing of their mother, to make an issue out of it.
You assume too much about my knowledge of giraffes :).
After all that, I’ll backtrack a bit: there are occasions where language use is so nonstandard that I don’t really mind calling it incorrect. “Put you’re hand right their” is a great example: the misspellings trip up many readers, and though we know what the writer means, the glaring misspellings slow our reading down, decreasing the communication’s efficiency to the point that I’d be willing to call it incorrect.
Usually when threads like this come along, though, the complaints in it are trivial and often pointless misunderstandings of how language works. Complaining about words like “flammable” is tantamount to complaining about words like “children” and is only marginally more sensible than complaining about the direction the wind is blowing.
Daniel
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I have just a few quibbles.
I live not that far from you, so I understand about regional dialects. I also agree that context is important in discerning meaning. But it is easier to understand someone if a constant appeal to context is not required. If I were sitting in a class about some kind of legal matter and the two words “corporation” and “cooperation” were pronounced the same context alone might not be enough to provide meaning.
P.S. Where in the world is “bear” pronounced differently when placed in front of “witness” and behind “grizzly”?
The problem is that reticent has a meaning that is similar to reluctant, so context will not be sufficient to discern meaning. Eventually the meaning of reticent will be lost.
. If it’s an idiom it’s a relatively new one. I’ll grant you that context provides sufficient meaning in this case, and the battle is lost anyway. Still bugs me, though.
The rest of your post has been so polite I have to assume that tbis jibe was not directed at me. Let me assure you that I am no academic and that my energies, while possibility misdirected, are not the result of boredom or any of that other stuff.
Depending on how closely an area adheres to the Uniform Building Code and the Americans with Disabilities Act - the circle and triangle plaques are defined in the codes. I can say that San Francisco requires them without exception. I was working at a small business that was doing some remodeling on the sales floor, and they couldn’t pass final inspection until they went out and bought the combined triangle-on-circle sign for the unisex restroom, even though no work had been done in the restroom.
Wharever Dan’l Boone’s from. Ah shot me a bar.
People who take others to their Doctor appointment. OK, maybe you are scared, maybe you wanna take your wife/husband significant other. But gramma and the kids and the whole rest of your trailer park should stay home! The waiting room is not built for large for groups and I should not have to sit on the floor because you are not smart enough to leave the freaking family at home.
Though I like the Dan’l Boone response, I was just kidding around, making the point that your friend’s classmates weren’t introducing homophones to the language; on the contrary, they’re well-established.
Hmm…I’m skeptical. From my admittedly limited knowledge of language growth, words rarely lose a meaning entirely except when the meaning itself is outdated. Can you give me a sample word which no longer has the rich meaning it once had? Also, can you give me a sample sentence in which the meaning of “reticent” is unclear?
No, it’s not directed at you; it’s more my frustration with other folks who, I fear, just alienate people from grammar. I am a pointy-headed academic (in my heart of hearts, anyway), and I adore the study of grammar, am passionate about gerunds and participles and comma placement; my absolute favorite job ever was tutoring freshmen college kids on writing papers. It drives me batty to see folks who use grammar as a weapon of class distinction instead of as a tool for communication, expression, and beauty. Those people give dorks like me a bad rep.
Daniel
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
?
Although he was reluctant, he came into the room and joined the party.
Although he was reticent, he came into the room and joined the party.
If reticent (shy, reserved, silent) becomes to mean reluctant (unwilling), the meaning in the second sentence would be unclear.
I submit that “gay” was not outdated when we lost it’s meaning.
And we can’t even say “niggardly” anymore.
I wish I knew more about grammar than I do, which is one reason I try to engage in dialogues with persons like yourself who can add to my knowledge.
Fair point! I’m afraid, still, that I can’t get too worked up over it; English is full of words that have multiple meanings, and you sometimes have to provide the context in order to enable the audience to infer the correct meaning. One more word gaining an additional meaning is just part of how language changes, not something to bemoan.
As for “gay,” as far as I can tell, it still has its old meaning; the old meaning is tinged by the multiple new meanings, however. Sure, it sounds a little stilted to say, “We held a gay party down by the river, pip pip,” but folks can still know what I mean.
As for “niggardly,” I did a search awhile ago on Google, and could find virtually no uses anywhere of the word’s usage in a straightforward context. While it may be a minor loss to not be able to use the word without educating folks as to its etymology, I submit that it’s been a long time since folks were able to use the word without explaining its definition.
Grammar rocks, if you’re el dorko like me. Didja know that “the” can be used as an adverb?
Daniel
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
I think we may be getting to the crux of where you and I see things differently. I am all for the flow and mutation and evolution of language, but I believe for a word to take on a new meaning something should be gained to offset the loss of the old meaning, or the confusion caused by the double meaning. Why add another meaning to “reticent” when there is a perfectly good word that already has that meaning. Words have no meaning that we do not agree upon. If I were to call a chair a spoon, and then next week call it a haystack, I would be adding meanings to words absolutely without benefit. I truly believe that the speed and ease with whiche we are able to communicate today (email, TV, Cell phones) , along with the prevailing attitude (not yours, necessarily) that “you know what I mean” is a reasonable defense for sloppy thinking, is contributing to the corruption of our language. In days past new words gained currency because they worked, and they gained it slowly because communication was so slow. Nowadays bad language is driving out good at an alarming rate, and attempts to halt it are seen as elitist or bigoted. Where will we be in 50 years when 100 different special interest groups all lay claim to the English language, each speaking a dialect unfamiliar to the other? I truly worry about that.
Anyway…
“The” as an adverb? I had no idea. Let me try to fugure that one out.
Does the screen name mean you are a le Guin fan?
Well, “You know what I mean, and it didn’t trip you up any” is a perfect defense for a sentence. I’ve got no problem with it.
I can’t dispute the change of pace, but could you tell me the advantage the word “children” has over the words “childer” or “childrens”? I’m guessing you disapprove of “childrens” and don’t know what “childer” means.
In fact, in Old English, the proper plural of “child” was “childer.” However, the language changed, and “childer” no longer looked like a plural to people: it looked like a singular noun. So people pluralized it the way that looked natural to them: they pluralized “childer” into “children.” Nowadays, that doesn’t look like a plural to lots of people, so they’re re-re-pluralizing it into “childrens.” That’s language evolution for you, and there’s nothing wrong with it, even though “children” adds no new meaning to the language beyond what “childer” adds.
Similarly, I’m guessing thou don’t use the proper second-person singular; I’m guessing thou use the second-person plural, “you,” even though it creates confusion. We Southerners have moved the second-person plural “you” into the second-person singular slot and substituted “y’all” for second-person plural. This adds depth and meaning to the language, depth lost to most English speakers (who use “you” for both singular and plural, in defiance of the word’s original usage). But we don’t spend much time bemoaning the fuzzy state of non-Southern English.
I don’t. Plato complained in his day about the degeneracy of modern youth, and Rebel Without a Cause was a popular movie in its day about its hoodlums, though we look back on its era as idyllic. The Tower of Babel is an old story, yet we still muddle along.
Language is useful. Don’t lose track of that. Because humans never will. It’ll keep changing, but it’ll change as people find ways to use it to suit their purposes. Treat these changes as delightful discoveries, I say, and you’ll be a lot happier than if you treat all deviations from old-school language as disgraces.
I highly recommend picking up a book by linguist Daniel Pinker for more information on how words work. Words and Rules is my favorite: it’s incredibly fascinating.
Just remember that the harder the puzzle, the more satisfying the solution.
Better believe it! Someone, I forget who, pointed out that my username was a subtle brag, if you extrapolate:
I hate that sort of thing too, especially when they translate movie titles so badly.
Whyonearth was the German film title Vormittagsspuke ( = Late Morning Ghosts) translated to Ghosts Before Breakfast? There’s no mention of breakfast in the original title. And if they insisted on introducing the breakfast motif, it should have been Ghosts AFTER Breakfast. Going the other way, I don’t understand why The Hobbit was translated into German under the title Der Kleine Hobbit (The Little Hobbit). It seems to change the sense of the title.
Does anyone actually say “childrens”? When I took a course in Middle English grammar, the professor pointed to children as an interesting example of a triple-marked plural. First there’s the umlaut from long i to short i, second there’s the -er ending, much like German Kinder, and finally the -en. If anyone’s saying childrens without meaning the possessive, then that’s a quadruple marked plural!
Dear 65-year-old boss,
Stop staring at my crotch and/or my tits and/or my ass! When I come into your office to discuss something and my crotch is at eye-level, kindly move your head up so that you are looking me in the eye. Do not continue to stare at my crotch while talking to me. Same goes for my tits and my ass while you’re standing. I realize you think I don’t notice, but I do this silly thing while talking to someone…I look them in the eye, asshole! It’s hard not to notice where your eyes are!
Love,
Skeeved-out Employee