Paul Phillips

What I find so lame about this process is that it essentially steals the word from educated people who have taken the trouble to learn what it means and gives it to lunkheads who guess at the meaning based on superficial similarity to a word they already know. I don't understand why anyone would be keen on hastening this process. The message I hear is that no matter how ignorant people are we'll be happy to rewrite the rules for them.

There isn't some privileged class acquiescing to the "lunkheads" by rewriting the rules; everybody writes the rules. To have a public billboard on which any passer-by with a marker can write and to then hope that someone, somewhere doesn't scribble "fuck you" or "kilroy was here" (or perhaps "gavagai"?) seems a bit naive.

All other things being equal, I'd tend to put more stock in a branch of science that describes how hydrogen atoms behave rather than one that tells hydrogen atoms how they ought to behave.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

I'm glad you're not niggardly with your thoughts on English!

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

I too take the stance that rules of grammar and word definitions should be frozen, in general. I also think, however, that language needs some ability to evolve. Hopefully it would happen in some intelligent way. I don't know whether it's more funny or sad that so many people have learned to write and think "could've" is really "could of". My question is, what type of evolution in language would you be okay with? We don't still use words like 'thee', 'thou', 'lest', 'shalt', etc. very often. Presumably "correct" English isn't any better now (structurally) than it was 300 years ago. You get my point.

(Reply) (Thread)

Is the Merriam-Webster Unabridged access worth $30/year?

I have always been a fan of keeping a dicitonary handy while reading. Since I do much of my reading on the internet, I keep an m-w.com search box on my home page and use it often. But that only gets me the free content, which is generally okay except for banner ads and pop-up ads. Is the unabridged content really that good?

...

Getting even more off-topic, I have been saying for years that I would pay $500 to have a compact mobile device that contained the full contents of the Oxford English Dictionary (and would keep itself up to date with periodic updates via some sort of synchronization). If it also included a self-synchronizing copy of the full imdb.com database (okay, minus images), I'd pay $1000 without a second thought.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

Do the unabridged dictionaries define the colloquial usage of words? If so, put it there.

If they don't, they should.

I like this phrase in the Merriam-Webster Online definition of colloquial: "Unacceptably informal."

(Reply) (Thread)

I feel so sorry for the non-English-speaking world.

You feel sorry for the wrong reasons. American direction in the use of English is to simplify things, not overcomplicate them. I had no idea until today that "to beg a question" meant what it really means. Tell me how one would parse the phrase without prior knowledge of its meaning, if you can. "To beg" means "to ask for" generally, right? Which meaning is simpler for a non-native speaker to learn?

Besides, we (non-native speakers) don't use words like "penultimate" in regular speech. We use those to show off our vocabulary, and expect to have to explain its meaning, even if sometimes incorrectly. That can be quite embarassing.

What I personally feel sorry for is the rampant use of anglicisms in Russian language, even with words that have analogues in Russian. I would be surprised if it was much different in other languages, in this age of Internet. I can only describe this as a kind of linguistic pollution.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

I'm always happy when someone makes a stink about completely wrong definitions of words superseding the real one.

Keep fighting the good fight.

(Reply) (Thread)

I don't comment often but this is interesting as my brother and I have argued this before.

Essentially, there are two things happening, the usage of the word by the spoken population and the grammar or orginal definition of the word. Since part of a language is its spoken part, it is defined by those who speak it. (At least, that's what I was told.) So, even though "to go" does not mean "to say" because of the usage, it is now defined that way. The makers of the dictionary say they are merely showing what is used, and make no comment on if they like it or not.

So, yes it will be put in the dictionary that way. I don't prefer it but that's what happens.

I don't agree with it but that's what happens. (I prefer decimate to its original (Roman) meaning but that's me.)

Ah, well.

Have a good one! Take care!

edg

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

Descriptivism shuttles my grubnik!

Prescriptivism 4 lyf yo.

(Reply) (Thread)

What kind of super-chat quotes would we get from Phil Hellmuth on PenultimateBet?

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

Speaking as an enthusiastic descriptivist, it wouldn't be "perfectly OK" with me if "penultimate" earned that secondary meaning, but if it did, then yes, of course the dictionary should be changed to reflect that. That's what dictionaries are for: to tell you what someone means when they use a word. If the wrong meaning becomes sufficiently common then it becomes one of the correct meanings.

Witness the "verbal auxiliary" definition of "of": used in place of the contraction 've often in representations of uneducated speech. Today in "representations of uneducated speech"; and tomorrow?

Perhaps the "singular 'they'" that the prescriptivists are so horrified by. Oh wait! That one already happened, didn't it?

Those who find language drift too upsetting may wish to take up Esperanto, or possibly French, which has thoughtfully devoted an entire government ministry to the task of protecting the language!

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

Can't believe no one has brought up the single most misused word in the language. Ironic. So, do the descriptivists think i should stop correcting people when they use it to mean "coincidental?" Let me know, thx.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

This reminds me of Hellmuth and Negreanu redefining "megalomaniac" as "even more of a maniac than a maniac!"

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

'So for the enthusiastic descriptivists out there, is it perfectly OK with you if penultimate gains a secondary meaning of "totally awesome!"'
Yes, that wouldn't be something I'd think of as particularly detrimental to the ability of people to communicate. In fact, it actually might increase the amount of information being transmitted, ie that someone is a lunkhead. More importantly I think these sort of things are completely unavoidable and intuitively the cost of preventing them is way too high to justify the small benefit it brings. Not that I have much of a clue in this area.

'So should the 2006 dictionary say:

penultimate: 1) next-to-last 2) even more ultimate than ultimate! rock on!'
If it is a widespread usage of the word, then yes but the etymology of the word should also be noted.

'What I find so lame about this process is that it essentially steals the word from educated people who have taken the trouble to learn what it means and gives it to lunkheads who guess at the meaning based on superficial similarity to a word they already know.'
I don't really agree but more on that below.

'The message I hear is that no matter how ignorant people are we'll be happy to rewrite the rules for them.'
I don't see it like that. It's more like we let them branch off and give them a slightly different set of rules.

I see English (pretty much any language) as a multitude of different languages with a lot of overlap rather than one language common to all English speakers. These different languages vary across a lot of different groups and the 'same' words might carry completely different meanings in the different groups. A natural language is just too big and used in so diverse environments (with different needs) that standarization is impossible, the best we can hope for is a core of common words and usuages between the groups.

(Reply) (Thread)

I've got to disagree with you on this one, Paul.

I think one of the absolute wonders of language, and particularly the English language, is how fluid it is. How it is constantly in flux, constantly changing. I truly dislike the elitest, static view of language that words have to have a fixed meaning, unchangeable till the end of time.
Is the change of the meaning of Penultimate due to ignorance? Yeah, probably. So what.

I also am a proponent of discripitve grammar, as opposed to proscriptive grammar. I don't believe in any " proper" way to say anything. The penultimate ( to use the new usage) goal of language is to communicate ideas. If the meaning of what one speaker says is understood by another, then the language has been used successfully. What does it matter if you use "good" instead of 'well" if you are understood, other than the fact you sound "uneducated". One can use "proper" grammar, and "proper" usage of obscure words, and have what they are trying to communicate be totally misunderstood, while someone using good, a double negative, or penultimate is perfectly understood. Which is the better use of the language?

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

... yes, unfortunately. But it will be a shame if/when it does, because "penultimate" is one of those rare words that is really useful when trying to make a written passage more concise and artful.

Here's the problem with the entire debate, however: It's futile. Take a look at Italy, which is now attempting to "reform" its language education with a standardized version of Italian. Heretofore, each area of the country had its own dialect, which over time morphed into languages that barely resembled Italian as taught to non-native speakers. It was a natural progression of the language, based on exclusivity, cultural progression and ignorance. And, while the country's schools are experiencing moderate success correcting the deviations, it's going to be an arduous process, since the dialects are now many generations deep. In fact, many of the older generations resent the government's attempt to "kill" their language.

The point, you ask? English cannot be static, because language doesn't exist outside of usage. Whether grammarians appreciate the contributions of those less informed, those contributions still have an effect.

- Connor

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

My basic thoughts on language changes are that we should be prepared to accept some mutations as time goes on, but we have a responsibility to rally against the bad ones. Some changes are fairly neutral, such as a word taking on a new meaning in slang that does not cause us to lose the meaning of the original word. "Cool" meaning "good" is not really a harmful change because it's almost always clear from context which is meant.

In cases like "penultimate," I think it makes sense to oppose the changes and correct people who use it in the new fashion because, as Paul writes, it steals a useful word from us. My pet peeve is "literally" being used for the opposite of what it means ("He literally blew up at me!") since having a word to denote that something is not a figure of speech is pretty handy.

I think pure descriptivism makes sense if you're a linguist who's studying language use, since scientific study should be free of value judgments. But it hardly means those of us who are simply concerned about the language need to accept all changes as being good! People who use "penultimate" incorrectly should be chastised so that they will stop and we will retain a good word.

(Reply) (Thread)

They still haven't stolen 'antepenultimate' from me!

(Reply) (Thread)

It would be OK if penultimate meant more ultimate, but not at the expense of eliminating a word that means next-to-last. I really don't know what the issue here is. Language isn't in flux because retards use it incorrectly. Penultimate means next-to-last, and the sooner those nativist bastards let go of their petty little word the sooner us Intelligentsia can rule the Earth! Ahahahahah!

Wait, who are we talking about?

(Reply) (Thread)