|
Grex > Agora35 > #153: Computer references changing written language? |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 151 responses total. |
jerryr
|
|
response 108 of 151:
| 
Nov 23 21:46 UTC 2000 |
aren't lawyers among those that value sentence structure and word usage the
highest? aren't forests full of trees sacrificed to the minutia of legalese?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 109 of 151:
|
Nov 25 03:32 UTC 2000 |
Sorry, "subject" and "predicate" are parts of sentences. "nouns" and "verbs"
are parts of speech. "subjects" can contain nouns, adjectives, prepositions,
gerunds, and many other parts of speech. "predicates" can contain nouns,
adjectives, prepositions, verbs, adverbs, and many other parts of speech.
|
birdy
|
|
response 110 of 151:
|
Nov 25 07:01 UTC 2000 |
Which is why introducing that into diagramming sentences was so hard on a
fifth grader...
|
jerryr
|
|
response 111 of 151:
|
Nov 25 14:15 UTC 2000 |
nyt (long)
Is a Word's Definition in the Mind of the User?
By EDWARD ROTHSTEIN
n England in 1857, an ambitious proposal was made to create an encyclopedic
concordance of English words. Such a dictionary, it was argued, would be a
"historical monument"; it would represent "the history of a nation" recounted
from a distinctive "point of view." The result, completed 70 years later, was
the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. In that work's 441,825
words and 1,827,306 quotations, the grandeur of the English language was
displayed in all its expanse, every transformation chronicled by citations
from English poetry and prose.
Times have changed. In the fourth edition of the American Heritage Dictionary,
the monument is dismantled, multiple points of view are proffered and the
authority of the past is rejected along with the privileged position of
written poetry and prose. This edition is the climax of several decades of
lexicographical evolution. Though many authorities are consulted for this
dictionary, the ultimate authority is the ordinary person's ordinary speech.
Nothing is absolutely correct; nothing is ever incorrect. It is just a matter
of who uses a word and why.
This dictionary aims to be endearingly up to date and informative; it often
is. It is handsome, colorful, plainly written if not elegant. This edition
includes 10,000 new entries like "shopaholic," "mommy track," "acid reflux"
and "control freak." Four thousand color illustrations and photos accompany
entries that range from the helpful ("ophthalmoscope") to the superfluous
("Oprah Winfrey"). Notes accompanying entries helpfully explain "flotsam"
while defining "jetsam," or show how "mosquito" and certain forms of weaponry
share etymological pasts.
The main ambition is to create something distinctively American: a democratic
dictionary that describes, not prescribes. Of course the debate over whether
dictionaries should be asserting that a word has relatively determined
meanings and a proper usage; or descriptive, asserting that a word has
shifting meanings determined by its popular has been raging for several
decades. The best dictionaries maintain a precarious balance.
The problem here is that too often the balance tips. The dictionary recalls
at times Humpty Dumpty's famous declaration to Alice in "Through the Looking
Glass": "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to neither more
nor less."
"The question is," Alice replies, "whether you can make words mean so many
different things."
"The question is," Humpty Dumpty says, "which is to be that's all."
In this dictionary the master is not the word but the user of the word.
Competing claims are never firmly settled; there are no rules. In the
dictionary's "usage notes," for example, traditional distinctions between
"who" and "whom" are noted, but it is also suggested that such distinctions
tend to become irrelevant in informal speech. "Incentivize," a variety of
boorish bureaucratic misspeak, has an entry simply because the word has come
into use (meaning "to motivate").
In an introductory essay, Geoffrey Nunberg, the chairman of the dictionary's
usage panel, implies that social issues so deeply affect notions of linguistic
propriety that any linguistic decision is an implicitly political one; it is
best, he suggests, simply to take note of differing preferences without
issuing a verdict. In controversial cases the usage panel was consulted,
consisting of two hundred writers and scholars "who have distinguished
themselves by their command of the English language." The panel, which
includes the novelists Oscar Hijuelos and Mona Simpson, the humorists Garrison
Keillor and Calvin Trillin, the poets Robert Pinsky and Rita Dove and such
scholars as the economist Robert J. Samuelson and the computer scientist
Douglas R. Hofstadter, was regularly polled about various words. Results
appear in the "usage notes" accompanying major entries.
Thus we learn that the panel was split 50-50 on how to pronounce "harass."
We find out that 61 percent thought "schism," should be pronounced "skism,"
31 percent voted for "sism" and 8 percent chose "shism," (the "traditional"
pronunciation, the dictionary points out, is "sism"). The word "man" was
accepted as meaning "human" in certain contexts ("modern man") by 81 percent
of the panel, but only 58 percent of the women on the panel thought that
meaning appropriate: to each his or her own.
Yet it is difficult to reconcile this demotic vision with the authoritative
role courted by this very dictionary. Mr. Nunberg affirms, for example, that
"the fundamental linguistic simplicity, clarity, are unassailable." He
argues that in "specialized" cases, there might even be definitions having
more authority: for example, that the word "ironic" requires special
consultation with literary specialists because "the meaning of ironic is not
at the disposition of the general public."
But doesn't that mean that some standards of accuracy exist? Shouldn't this
be the function of a dictionary in dealing with every word: to allow access
to subtle and accurate meanings that may not be at the disposition of the
general public? Why give "ironic" more attentiveness, for example, than
"disingenuous?" In the latter case, one "usage note" points out that "the
meaning of disingenuous has been shifting about lately, as if people are
unsure of its proper meaning." One "proper meaning" is offered: "not
straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating," a meaning that is
supported by 94 percent of the Usage Panel. But another meaning cited is
"unaware or uninformed, naove"; 75 percent of the panel rejected this use but
the dictionary cannot bring itself to call the other 25 percent incorrect.
I prefer Samuel Johnson's more pungent and accurate definitions of
disingenuous in his imposing 1755 dictionary, "meanly artful, viciously
subtle."
I don't think this dictionary is disingenuous in Dr. Johnson's sense; I think
it is disingenuous in the incorrect popular sense. With all its usefulness
and sophistication, it is naove. It cannot take responsibility for the words
it describes. Yes, all usages are of interest, and yes, language is mercurial,
and yes, a dictionary needs multiple perspectives. But this dictionary, like
many other contemporary counterparts, sits comfortably amid the swirl of
conflicting assertions, nodding this way and that, deferring to the mastery
of each and all, while urging the reader to hop up and join it on its
precarious Humpty Dumptyish perch.
THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, FOURTH EDITION
2,074 pages. Houghton Mifflin. $60; with CD-ROM, $74.95
|
polygon
|
|
response 112 of 151:
|
Nov 25 15:47 UTC 2000 |
"naove"?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 113 of 151:
|
Nov 25 20:30 UTC 2000 |
Look it up.. :-p
|
other
|
|
response 114 of 151:
|
Nov 25 21:07 UTC 2000 |
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=naove
No entry found for "naove" in the dictionary.
Suggestions:
nave
naive
Nave
Naeve
Naive
nave
naive
naive
naive
NAOE
nave
I suggest that the 'o' is a computer misrepresentation of the i-umlaut
likely included in the original text.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 115 of 151:
|
Nov 26 05:07 UTC 2000 |
Re: #97: So sorry, you're wrong: Neither it nor its can ever be used
to refer to a person. Try again.
|
gull
|
|
response 116 of 151:
|
Nov 26 05:12 UTC 2000 |
I don't know. While 'his' is historically a neuter pronoun, I don't think
you can make rules about language without considering the way people
*perceive* words. A large number of people see the use of 'his' as sexist,
and I think that's a fair reason for alternatives to come into use.
Language is for communicating, so you can't seperate what people think of
words from how they use them. After all, 'idiot' was once a medical term,
but no doctor would use it to refer to someone now.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 117 of 151:
|
Nov 26 05:38 UTC 2000 |
And a large number of people are PC brain damaged. Instead of trying
to make a real difference, they try to meddle with language, which does
nothing more than piss off people. Person hole cover, yeah, right.
|
raven
|
|
response 118 of 151:
|
Nov 26 07:08 UTC 2000 |
To whom are you refering when you say it "pisses people off?"
|
russ
|
|
response 119 of 151:
|
Nov 26 13:14 UTC 2000 |
Anyone who writes, speaks or otherwise inflicts the monstrosity
"incentivize" upon any person, except as a bad example, should
be subject to criminal and civil penalties. Ditto with most of
the other "-izes", and "impact" used as a verb.
|
remmers
|
|
response 120 of 151:
|
Nov 26 14:29 UTC 2000 |
I'd criticize that sentiment. :)
Language evolves, reactionary attitudes toward change
notwithstanding. Granted, people make lousy proposals for new
language at times, and an ugly word is an ugly word, e.g. Russ's
"sensitivize" example, which I hadn't run across before. But change
is inevitable, and much of it is good. It keeps the language
from stagnating.
As to "PC" issues, I'm sympathetic to attempts to find a
gender-neutral third person singular pronoun. Granted, there have
been a lot of silly proposals, which stand no chance of widespread
acceptance. "It" just doesn't seem right. I lean towards using
"they", "them", and "their" in a singular sense. After all,
we already do that with the second person, where "you are" can
refer to one person or several. We even do it in a limited way
with the first person - the "editorial we", the "royal we".
|
bdh3
|
|
response 121 of 151:
|
Nov 27 03:37 UTC 2000 |
Today I noticed a sign on Southwest Airlines that advizicated that
'Federal law states persons under 15 years of age may not sit in rows
containing an emergency exit.' I asked Mary Wilson (who is almost 7) if
she wanted to sit in one and she opted not to as she wanted a window
seat behind the wing.
|
mdw
|
|
response 122 of 151:
|
Nov 27 05:21 UTC 2000 |
I take it Mary Wilson is under the impression she's an "it" and not a
"person"?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 123 of 151:
|
Nov 27 05:40 UTC 2000 |
I recommend that Eric and Kevin spend some time listening to people talk.
Themselves, even. I believe that they will rapidly discover that everyone,
themselves included, uses the formerly plural third-person pronouns as
singular third-person gender-unknown pronouns. (Note that I said
"gender-unknown" not "gender-neutral"; there is a difference, and it's
important here.) Languages do evolve, and this particular shift has been
underway for at least a quarter-century.
It's over, folks. Get over it.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 124 of 151:
|
Nov 27 08:57 UTC 2000 |
re#122: No, she and I understand the difference between 'may' and
'shall'. Obviously the federal FAA regulation cited in the SWA notice
referenced FAA language that actually used the word 'shall' instead of
'may' otherwise it would be meaningless. (At least that is what I told
her and I hope it fact)
|
mdw
|
|
response 125 of 151:
|
Nov 27 13:03 UTC 2000 |
"May" asserts an option is available. "May not" asserts the option is
not available - ie, there is no option to exercise. "Shall" asserts an
affirmative lack of option. Hence, "shall" and "may" have very
different meanings, but "may not" and "shall not" map to almost the same
meaning. "May not" is the conventional, preferred and correct polite
usage. "Shall not" implies a certain predictive connotation that would
strike most american ears as a bit "rude", so is generally overly harsh
and not the best choice in most general situations.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 126 of 151:
|
Nov 27 17:56 UTC 2000 |
The only correct way to use they and their and them is to make the subject
and sentence structure plural. If you feel you must eliminate the dreaded
he and his and him, the make it plural, and you can be correct and PC at the
same time.
|
jerryr
|
|
response 127 of 151:
|
Nov 27 18:16 UTC 2000 |
my first reaction to "pc" was not 'politically correct' but 'personal
computer' - made me chuckle.
|
flem
|
|
response 128 of 151:
|
Nov 27 18:38 UTC 2000 |
So much to say.
re resp:80 -- Yes, language immersion is the most common and (arguably) the
most successful technique for teaching languages, in the sense that it is how
we all (loosely) learned our first language(s). But people can and do learn
languages non-immersively, by means of grammar, memorization of vocabulary,
etc. Some people even do better that way. I'm one of them. However, it has
become fashionable in language classes to teach purely immersively. I vividly
recall sitting in Japanese class at UM one day, while the professor spent half
an hour trying to get us to do some exercise. Unfortunately, she used
Japanese, and used terms and constructions none of us were familiar with, so
we had no idea what she wanted us to do. This in vivid contrast to the German
class I had taken the previous semester, in which the professor was
independent-minded enough to use English where appropriate to make the
learning process more efficient.
Ultimately, all learning is immersive, in the sense that understanding is
deeper than rote memory, but completely immersive language teaching ignores
the fact that there exist intermediate steps between complete incomprehension
and total understanding, steps that can help make the process of learning a
language more efficient. So, I think it's a fad.
re strict vs. evolving grammar: I used to be a pretty strict grammarian.
I still have a lot of admiration for writers who take the trouble to
construct their sentences in such a way as to avoid split infinitives and
dangling prepositions, though they grow rarer. Similarly, I admire
writers who take the trouble to write with style in a context in which
content is more important, such as computer reference books. It
happens, probably not by chance, that writers who do so tend to have
more reliable content; they make fewer mistakes.
I've observed in myself a trend towards more permissiveness in
grammar (mis)uses, so long as meaning (and, hopefully, some kind of
grace and style) is preserved. Until recently, I felt vaguely
guilty about this; my practice was straying from my theoretical ideal.
My theoretical ideal has done a pretty violent 180, though, supported by
a couple of things. First, I started reading a mailing list (World Wide
Words) run by an etymologist, which started to give me some perspective
on how word usage changes, how spellings and meanings evolve from god
only knows where, and how "correctness" comes to be established.
Second, for whatever reason, I've been reading an abnormally large
number of English-language originals from before the "modern period" of
grammar, which is really playing with my notions of correctness. How
can you complain about Jane Austen's usage, or Chaucer's spelling?
They're not wrong, just different. I think it's unbelievably cool to
spell cooperation with an umlaut on the second 'o', but I'm sure not
going to lower my opinion of modern authors who don't do so. Likewise
for British vs. American spellings of words.
As for 3rd person neuter pronouns... My inclination, again, is to go
traditional and use "he", but the subject is touchy and complex. Unless
I'm in a situation where it's possible to get into a long and detailed
discussion of the various linguistic, logical, social and gender issues
surrounding the problem, I use "they" in conversation, or go for a "he
or she" kind of construction. Fact is, there are people (misguided as
their priorities may be) who can be offended and hurt by the traditional
usage, and I don't really want to be seen (even wrongly) as a boor.
As for "may not" vs. "shall not"... Guess what: the English language,
unless used with extreme care, is by nature ambiguous. Ambiguities in
content tend to be resolved by usage and context. "A may not X," by
usage, is understood to mean "negation of (A may X)", rather than "A
may (negation of X)". When the latter is meant, a construction such as
"A may choose not to X" is used.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 129 of 151:
|
Nov 28 02:26 UTC 2000 |
Kevin, you are wrong. Gender agreement is more important than number
agreement, in English. I think it always has been, but "he" didn't used
to be marked for gender; now it is.
|
other
|
|
response 130 of 151:
|
Nov 28 04:04 UTC 2000 |
What is the plural form of 'each'?
Re: shall vs. may.
The content and apparent purpose of the sign provides sufficient context
from which to ascertain the intent of the statement beyond question, but
setting that aside, there is nothing inherent about the words 'may not'
to suggestion the lack of option rather than the option of lacking.
Marcus is ascribing a definitive meaning which those words usually convey
only by the addition of inflection -- an aspect unavailable to the
written form.
|
drew
|
|
response 131 of 151:
|
Nov 28 06:35 UTC 2000 |
Why would the Feds make a rule like that in #121?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 132 of 151:
|
Nov 28 06:42 UTC 2000 |
As I remember, the requirement is that the people near that exit be physically
able to open it.
|