|
Post by Verbivore on Sept 23, 2020 10:32:08 GMT
Thanks, LJH, that simplifies things greatly. One of my friends claims to pronounce "wrath" as "rarth". I think I'll give up now. And I think I shall end my slowth and take out my rath on a ze[e]bra of indeterminate colour. The “American-ness” of zee-bra is uncomfortable to me (the Aussie counter-cultural counter cringe?), even grating on the ear. Yet Attenborough is one of my few heroes and there’s an urge to emulate him. I realised yesterday that I’d said roth in conversation ( wrath and vengeance was my turn of phrase), so perhaps that remnant vestige of my American-evangelical background is on its last legs, extinctivating, in my speech. *Interesting how we change our speech over time. * WARNING: Anecdote (child safe)As a child (even well pre-teen years), I was often asked when met by new people, "What part of London / New Zealand are you from?" I'd never been farther than 100 miles from my rural hometown in eastern AU. While conscious of speaking very differently from my (adoptive) parents, the "rellos", and their circles, I had no idea who might have been my speech model. Pater and Mater were dairy-farmer battlers. They spoke of sawlt (salt), dawg (dog), 'eifer (heifer) ... they didn't quite drawl but their agrarian roots showed in speech. At age 42 I found my birth mother and the question was answered: Pitch aside, we spoke identically – even down to a broad and often specialist vocabulary. 42 as The Meaning of Life took on deeper significance when that riddle was solved. I must have listened closely while in the womb, and Mum must have chatted a lot. Nature? Nurture? Certainly 15+ years of constant "farmer-speak" in my immediate environment failed to nurture my "natural" (probably actually early nurture) speech out of me.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Sept 23, 2020 10:47:40 GMT
Nature/Nurture
I had a (gay) friend once who had been born an identical twin, but as four-year-olds they'd been separated.
At the age of 27, he entered a gay bar in a strange town, only to spot "himself" standing there. It was, he discovered, his birth twin. That they were both gay is not a surprise ... but, right down to haircut, they were dressed identically.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Sept 23, 2020 11:09:43 GMT
Nature/Nurture I had a (gay) friend once who had been born an identical twin, but as four-year-olds they'd been separated. At the age of 27, he entered a gay bar in a strange town, only to spot "himself" standing there. It was, he discovered, his birth twin. That they were both gay is not a surprise ... but, right down to haircut, they were dressed identically. Dave, I've read many studies (mostly northern Euro / Scandi) on adopted (separated) twins and their sexualities' development. The certainty of "mirroring" – whether they be L, G, B, T, … or H (hetero) – is uncanny. Is there a magic gene? (I hope not, lest They start culling "undesirable" traits!)
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Sept 24, 2020 13:06:39 GMT
A youngster of Sault Ste. Marie Said, “Spelling is all rot to me 'Til they learn to spell Sault without any U Or an A or an L or a T.”
Don’t know who wrote that.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Sept 24, 2020 13:30:25 GMT
A youngster of Sault Ste. Marie Said, “Spelling is all rot to me 'Til they learn to spell Sault without any U Or an A or an L or a T.” Don’t know who wrote that. Am I being thick here? How is Sault pronounced in that name?
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Sept 24, 2020 15:11:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Sept 24, 2020 17:07:45 GMT
Ah, thank you. NOW the limerick makes sense! (And rhymes properly.)
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Sept 26, 2020 21:59:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Sept 28, 2020 14:07:51 GMT
From time to time contributors to this forum have complained about what they regard as the misuse of words like epicentre and decimate and have criticised formulations like “very unique”. This raises the question: how often and over what period of time an error has to be perpetrated before it can be regarded as acceptable, though informal, or a new standard usage. There is an interesting article here: www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/list-of-words-you-love-to-hate/incentivize
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Sept 28, 2020 21:41:42 GMT
Thanks for that, LJH.
Hoi polloi and some descriptivist lexicographers allow the validity of modern usages of epicentre, decimate, and very unique, but never will I employ those debatable applications. Should any of my (few remaining) MS/book clients employ the terms in such manner I’ll continue my practice of marking them and offering the author options.
Others may do as they please.
Here are entries from the American Oxford, the OED (2nd edn), and the Macquarie (rev. 3rd edn; AU standard reference) to compare with those of Webster's. (I've omitted the M-W comments because they can be found from LJH's link.) Of (very) unique, decimate, and epicentre the OED has no comment showing validity or acceptability – or even acknowledgment of their existence. As the OED is my usual benchmark, I'll stick to my objections.
unique
AOD USAGE / COMMENTS Words like unique have a core sense but they often also have a secondary, less precise sense: in this case, the meaning ‘very remarkable or unusual’, as in a really unique opportunity. In its secondary sense, unique does not relate to an absolute concept, and so the use of submodifying adverbs is grammatically acceptable.
OED USAGE / COMMENTS no mention of very unique
Macquarie USAGE / COMMENTS Some writers insist that unique cannot mean 'remarkable' and that phrases like very unique are therefore nonsensee.There is nevertheless ample evidence of its use in this way.
decimate
AOD USAGE / COMMENTS Historically, the meaning of the word decimate is ‘kill one in every ten of (a group of people)’. This sense has been more or less totally superseded by the later, more general sense ‘kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of’, as in the virus has decimated the population. Some traditionalists argue that this is incorrect, but it is clear that it is now part of standard English.
OED USAGE / COMMENTS no comment on modified usages
Macquarie USAGE / COMMENTS […] now frequently used to refer to almost total destruction, but despite the weight of corpus evidence in favour of this shift in meaning, some writers still do not accept it.
epicentre
AOD USAGE / COMMENTS the central point of something, typically a difficult or unpleasant situation
OED USAGE / COMMENTS no comment
Macquarie USAGE / COMMENTS no comment
While going through the linked Webster’s site I stumbled across irregardless. Because it’s another notorious (mis)usage (probably courtesy of Geo Bush, who used the term as well as his "don't misunderestimate me,) I include it here.
irregardless
AOD USAGE / COMMENTS Irregardless means the same as regardless, but the negative prefix ir- merely duplicates the suffix -less, and is unnecessary. The word dates back to the 19th century, but is regarded as incorrect in standard English.
OED USAGE / COMMENTS Chiefly N. Amer. Non-standard or humorous use: regardless.
Macquarie USAGE / COMMENTS This word has some currency but is not generally accepted in standard English.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Sept 28, 2020 22:14:21 GMT
I’m with you, there, Vv. Not because I think the descriptivists are wrong about how a word is often now used, but because a word being used in a particular new way doesn’t make that way better than the original.
For any reasonably formal writer, the main duty is that ALL the target readers understand with minimum effort. For that, the writing should be clear and not cause a reader to stumble because of distraction, ambiguity, or overly complex structure. Saying “decimated” when you mean “devastated” fails the first two of those stumbles. Some readers won’t notice. All readers will “know what you mean”, but many will be forced into a mental check of what you meant and, at another level, of whether you knew what you meant, or what you had said. If you write “devastated”, on the other hand, very few will enter the mental gymnastics of wondering whether perhaps you meant that ten percent were obliterated. The original, unambiguous, “proper” word hits the target neatly and the reader moves on.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Sept 29, 2020 2:04:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Sept 29, 2020 5:05:54 GMT
Surely the founders (compilers, adherents, etc) of dictionaries are the last people to advise on what is best. They are by definition fully to the descriptivist end of the spectrum.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Sept 29, 2020 6:53:57 GMT
Surely the founders (compilers, adherents, etc) of dictionaries are the last people to advise on what is best. They are by definition fully to the descriptivist end of the spectrum. Indeed so, Dave. I've had numerous debates with Ms Butler over the years, some of them agreeable, others less so. We both studied Linguistics at the same university. Occupational titles of people involved with words. These few are off the top of my head (they replaced the hair). I'm sure others can add to the list. Many of those listed will have subcategories, e.g. editor: subeditor / copyeditor … but I've not included them. lexicographer: one who compiles dictionaries philologist: one who deals with the structure, historical development, and relationships of a language or languages grammarian: one who studies and writes about grammar editor: one who is in charge of and determines the final content of a newspaper, magazine, or multi-author book; a person who commissions or prepares written or recorded material for publication or broadcast writer: one who has written something or who writes in a particular way: the writer of the letter; a person who writes books, stories, or articles as a job or occupation author: a writer of a book, article, or document; one who writes books as a profession translator: one who translates (usually written works) from one language into another, especially as a profession interpreter: one who interprets, especially one who translates speech orally or into sign language linguist: a person skilled in foreign languages; a person who studies linguistics phoneticist: a person who studies a system of writing having a direct correspondence between symbols and sounds proofreader: one who reads (printer's proofs or other written or printed material) and mark any errors NB: The above are very basic definitions sourced from the AOD.
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Sept 29, 2020 9:47:08 GMT
Not all my own work but:
biographer correspondent critic dramatist subeditor essayist journalist novelist poet reporter screenwriter ghostwriter scribbler scribe stenographer wordsmith newspaper person man/woman of letters typist
|
|