Vocabulary Today

[carebear]

You missed (or ignored) the word "context".

In a legal matter, the precise definition matters based on which jurisdiction and time (the context) the crime occurs in. You can't defend yourself against a charge of murder using Common Law nor the law of a neighboring state.

In a political conversation again time and place matter, the Social Democrat party platforms in France and Germany are not identical.

It is not drift if different particularities maintain different precise definitions, because the definition can always be referrenced to maintain precision.

Drift occurs when, within a particular context, people choose to pick a convenient word rather than finding the correct word for that context. If instead people maintain proper usage within their relative contexts then definitions can be modified, precisely, over time, as needed.

Drift results in a net loss of words with important shades of meaning, a "dumbing down" of vocabulary and grammar.

The modification of language over time within context results in an enriched vocabulary and grammar. Improvement of English, not its degradation to a "least common denominator".

 

[carter]

Originally posted by KL15
I have to question the idea of using contracted words, acronyms for cell phone and e-mail usage, and general misuse of words as a good thing or simply evolution of the world. I may not have understood you so if I'm misunderstanding, please let me know

This is not necessaarily a misunderstanding. It's most likely due to the divergent nature of language when we juxtapose the language of the internet against the spoken word.

I do not believe we are experiencing a convergence whereby new words, phraseology, acronyms (i.e. EVOO [extra virgin olive oil] is now a word in Webster's Dictionary) are added to the language and fit within a grammatic structure. (Marc Chevalier gave much better examples earlier in this thread.)

We are witnessing a divergence of two intersecting spheres. One is spoken and written following accepted rules of grammar. I tend to agree with the concept that the dumbing-down of this structure is, in one sense, lowering the bar. However, this is not a recent phenomena. The same thing happened to Latin as barbarians were incorporated under Roman rule. A simplified version of Latin evolved to enable non-native speakers to communicate in a common language.

I believe we are witnessing a simplification, not necessarily for the better, in this example. While I'm not convinced that the bar can be raised, I am in favor of maintaining the level of the bar. However, this may be improbable if not impossible given the societal dynamics at work.

The other is is internet-adapted. It's challenging to define what this is exactly. It's not machine language. It's not English as we know it. It is probably more akin to Esperanto, an artificial language composed of elements of many different Indo-European languages in order to simplify communication across the population(s) utilizing those disparate tongues.

I see a divergent (non-linear) evolution of language in this second example. This entails the development of an adapted grammar, not just the addition of new words and phrases.


I believe I have a candidate, a kernel of an idea, for a noun describing a non-racist.

ACORN, "accepting of [all] races and nationalities".

Yes, another acronym.

 

[happyfilmluvguy]

Anyone know much about, "jive talk" in the 40's? Popular culture then can attest to that younger crowd. Or all of those phrases in the 20's? Every generation has two ways of speaking, daddy-o.

 

[MrNewportCustom]

C-c-courage!

The fact that journalists and other ignorant people choose to use a word incorrectly has nothing to do with its actual definition. Simply put, they are WRONG, should be corrected, and need to learn to go look up the proper term to use in a particular context rather than picking one that happens to be convenient for them.

This one struck me. In particular, because of the way my brother uses the word, "Ignorant." I've told him a number of times that ignorant means unknowing, yet he continues using it as meaning, "being a jerk." "The guy cut me off, so I honked, and he got ignorant and flipped me the bird." He also insists on pronouncing every silent-K he can, as in "k-neading bread." He reminds me of the Cowardly Lion: "C-c-courage." He'll never learn.

Be it "drift", "evolution", or "dumbing down", language will continue to degrade as long as corporations cater to ignorance and bad grammar. ("Dumbing down" is another term-in-transition I dislike, because you can't conjugate "dumb" the way you can, say, "brush." "I have a brush." "I'll brush the cat." "I'm brushing the cat." "I've brushed the cat." It can be a noun and a verb. You can't "dumb" anything; either it is or it isn't.) And as long as Madison Avenue continues producing commercials with lines like, "Where you at?" (redundancy at its worst, as "at" refers to "where" - "Where are you?" "I'm at the house."), people will continue to learn and use improper English. I hate those commercials! They're dumb!

I don't think the problem is lack of vocabulary - two people in different parts of society could both know the same number of words, but they could know different words - it's how it's used.

Prepositions: “Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.” – Winston Churchill Thank you, carebear. I know Churchill said that with tongue firmly in cheek, but I read this and instantly considered this rewrite; "I will not put up with ending a sentence with a prepostion." The exception, of course, is in using the actual word.

On a slight tangent: Words like, "alot" (for "a lot") and "noone" (for "no one"). Whenever I read the first one, I want to challenge the writer to look it up in the dictionary. For the second one, I'm quickly brought to thinking about Herman's Hermits. Thank you, I've been wanting to vent about these two attrocities or years.


Lee
______________________________

"I am more the inspirational type of speller. I work on hunches rather than mere facts, and the result is sometimes open to criticism by purists" - Robert Benchley

 

[towndrunk]

You missed (or ignored) the word "context".

ignored? wow that just jumps out at you doesn't it. you win.

i wrote at least two somewhat lenthy posts in direct response to your own, if you really feel i missed something that's one thing, but to suggest i purposefully ignored you is ridiculous.
i would suggest in the future that you not lead a point by suggesting the person you are making the point to is ignoring you.
you'll have to find someone more willing than i to play that game.

 

[Ecuador Jim]

Eschew obfuscation!

Text message brevity seems to be the wave of the future. I don't like it, but I agree with others that we seem to be a society that abbreviates everything.

I used to love to listen to the speeches of Winston Churchill; His love of the English language was evident.

Technology seems to have pushed us all in the direction of getting straight to the point; as a result we don't spend the time developing relationships. I recall a time where you developed a business relationship before you actually did business. Now it's "E-mail me your best price."

Ah yes, don't forget the profound influence of "Hooked On Phonics!" lol

 

[carter]

Originally posted by Ecuador Jim
Text message brevity seems to be the wave of the future.

For MASSIVE amounts of text message verbage, please see the 'Which Religiuos Group' thread.

 

[Undertow]

Technology seems to have pushed us all in the direction of getting straight to the point; as a result we don't spend the time developing relationships. I recall a time where you developed a business relationship before you actually did business. Now it's "E-mail me your best price."

fftopic:

I think this is one of my fears for our society. We spend less and less time devloping stories, relationships, and leisure activities involving the brain.

I once asked a friend why she felt the need to text message somone while we enjoyed dinner together. My friend advised she just wanted to get in a few quick words regarding planning attendance to an upcoming event rather than have a discussion.

I don't own a cell phone and I likely never will (although so many smugly insist I must) so it's quite commonplace for me to spend fifteen minutes on the phone, or in person, in conversation prior to ever bringing up the business at hand. Isn't that why one enters into a relationship? To get to know one another, to become involved with one another, to spend time together?

When a quick text effectively removes the need for conversation, relationships more-or-less rely on a few shared experiences with a person, usually intoxicated, and when real challenge faces these two people, calamity ensues.

But I suppose I'm just "old-fashioned". [huh]

 

[carter]

Originally posted by Undertow
When a quick text effectively removes the need for conversation

Undertow, I agree with you in principle. I would make the following observation.

The utility of a quick text message is, in my mind, it's best attribute. The idea that a short burst of information can be shared quickly and can also be distributed to multiple recipients, lends this some utilitarian value.

Beyond this, excessively lenghthy text messages have little utility insofar as email or cellular texting is concerned. If one must send lengthy correspondence, it should be as an attachment.

On-line chat is different but the very notion of filling pages with a single post smacks of filibuster. Why have a cogent discussion when you can wear down the reader with sheer verbage?

Use of cellular phones and/or other electronic communications devices while dining or in other public settings, while increasingly commonplace, is still considered rude in many circles.

 

[Undertow]

Undertow, I agree with you in principle. I would make the following observation.

The utility of a quick text message is, in my mind, it's best attribute. The idea that a short burst of information can be shared quickly and can also be distributed to multiple recipients, lends this some utilitarian value.

Beyond this, excessively lenghthy text messages have little utility insofar as email or cellular texting is concerned. If one must send lengthy correspondence, it should be as an attachment.

On-line chat is different but the very notion of filling pages with a single post smacks of filibuster. Why have a cogent discussion when you can wear down the reader with sheer verbage?

Use of cellular phones and/or other electronic communications devices while dining or in other public settings, while increasingly commonplace, is still considered rude in many circles.

I agree with you on every point, sir. Thank you!

 

[Riposte3]

...I have to question the idea of using contracted words, acronyms for cell phone and e-mail usage, and general misuse of words as a good thing or simply evolution of the world.

I would have to defend "textese" use, but only a limited defense. It evolved for a specific purpose, as a faster way to send a message over a device that has a limited capacity and a slow entry speed. Simply entering "hello" on a cell phone takes 13 or 14 keystrokes, and capitalization and punctuation make it even slower. In a way, textese is similar to the shorthand and code groups that used to be used in telegraphs; it's a form of shorthand tailored for a specific medium. The problem is when it moves outside that type of medium. Textese is not really appropriate for a medium, such as e-mail or a letter, that doesn't have those limitations. Unfortunately, many people today fail to make that distinction, or don't realize how unprofessional (and uneducated) they look when they don't use any capitalization or punctuation in an e-mail, when it's very easy to do so.

-Jake

 

[Undertow]

By the way, not to stir the pot or anything...

but the, er, word (or whatever you call it) "w00t" was entered into Webster's Dictionary recently.

w00t? My god...

 

[cowboy76]

Just read this and thought it was interesting. Thought you folks might like to see it.

Does the average American student have less vocabulary today than in days gone by?

YES!

I know this firsthand as I was a substitute teacher for three years!

I was only able to get through to most, AFTER they saw my tattoos, heard my demeanor in my voice, and realized that I WOULD treat them as adults IF,....IF, they acted like adults!! If not, I simply matched their immaturity with immaturity,...they got what they gave. Some straightened up, some didnt and we had them thrown out of school eventually. Most of those same kids were drug-bags.

Sadly it is certainly the thruth, but what many do not understand is that all of these problems start at HOME!,...not at school, nor is it the sole responsibility of teachers to bring those students back onto the right path. Try as you may, what is ebing taught from Mom & Dad is oftentimes much more powerful of an influence on a young person than anything he or she will find at school, no matter what is done, said, etc.

I also find it hilarious, that if you put together a well-thought out paragraph or an educated complilation of prose when talking to someone, they get that great cocked-dog-head look to them,.....like the Victrola dog. Its aweome in an argument,....afterwards and at this holiday time, you can always add, "Dictionaries and Thesauruses make great stocking stuffers!"

 

[Dixon Cannon]

I concur.

I do think there is a negative effect to language drift, the loss of precision in meaning.

Particular words have particular meanings, often with important nuances not captured by supposed "synonyms".

Without precision in language and definition, maintained by retaining a deep and varied vocabulary, it becomes more, not less, difficult to succinctly explain ideas. Witness the constant public discussions on American "democracy". There isn't an "American Democracy", there is an American (Constitutional) Republic.

Sure, both words generically mean "the people vote" but they are worlds apart in the actual functioning of the government and the political philosophys behind it, which leads to people misunderstanding their own world. When incorrect words are used as definitions, you are forced to explain what you mean by the words you choose, rather than letting the correct word do the explaining for you.

That's just one example. Precision is important in philosophy, religion, politics and law, the cornerstones of culture.

Utilitarianism is not Objectivism.

Conviction is not Condemnation.

Classical liberalism is neither leftist nor statist.

Homicide is not necessarily "murder".

We laud the Inuit for having dozens of words for snow because it "shows a deeper connection to their world" yet we are willing to discard, willy-nilly, the non-interchangeable and precise meanings of words on the grounds that, in essence, everybody does it and it is "efficient".

My peeve is people 'wanting' to do something! They no longer 'care' to do something, or 'wish' to do something, or 'desire' to do something, or 'hope' to do something - it's now just 'wanting' to do something! I cringe and bristle at each occurrence.

-dixon cannon

 

[dr greg]

one word

NEWSPEAK

 

[carebear]

My peeve is people 'wanting' to do something! They no longer 'care' to do something, or 'wish' to do something, or 'desire' to do something, or 'hope' to do something - it's now just 'wanting' to do something! I cringe and bristle at each occurrence.

-dixon cannon

The secret is to no longer care what people want, wish, desire, or hope to do...

 

[Twitch]

Without sounding like a wise guy, hasn't everyone already realized that the quality of education is no longer what it once was? That's a universal given. I'm surprised that anyone is still surprised that the schools' product is lesser educated youth.

Once thing I am sure of is from several of my family having been in various jobs in the educational system is that every school district main office is is the crux of the problem. They've quit putting the students 1st and only strive to squeeze money out of the feds and by hoodwinking citizens to vote for increases in property taxes so they have more money to play with.

Educators instead of business-minded people control things and none have sufficient business skills or even inter-personal skills in most cases. They build dynasties of power that perpetuate the status quo as long as salaries continue to reward simply the degrees gained and not the results in education.

They're so hopelessly disconected from the real world of education floating on bloated salaries that they can't never be in touch with what it would take to actually improve kids' education instead of using smoke and mirrors to create an allusion of improvement.

 

[jamespowers]

Without sounding like a wise guy, hasn't everyone already realized that the quality of education is no longer what it once was? That's a universal given. I'm surprised that anyone is still surprised that the schools' product is lesser educated youth.

Once thing I am sure of is from several of my family having been in various jobs in the educational system is that every school district main office is is the crux of the problem. They've quit putting the students 1st and only strive to squeeze money out of the feds and by hoodwinking citizens to vote for increases in property taxes so they have more money to play with.

Educators instead of business-minded people control things and none have sufficient business skills or even inter-personal skills in most cases. They build dynasties of power that perpetuate the status quo as long as salaries continue to reward simply the degrees gained and not the results in education.

They're so hopelessly disconected from the real world of education floating on bloated salaries that they can't never be in touch with what it would take to actually improve kids' education instead of using smoke and mirrors to create an allusion of improvement.

Oh, I realize this. The problems are structural as you have stated.
The solution would be so radical that you would be better off just starting over entirely. :eusa_doh: [huh]

 

[Twitch]

To illustrate in to day's paper there was an article describing how school districts all over the country were helping the kids cheat to pass proficiency tests so they could keep the money flowing to the ivory towers.:eusa_doh: No kid left behind is a crutch and another excuse to steal money.

 

[kpreed]

To illustrate in to day's paper there was an article describing how school districts all over the country were helping the kids cheat to pass proficiency tests so they could keep the money flowing to the ivory towers.:eusa_doh: No kid left behind is a crutch and another excuse to steal money.

I can not agree more, we are on a slippery slope.