It's called evolution of language. English is so rich today BECAUSE it evolves. Or we would still be speaking like chaucer, or worse, like Americans (joke, but true in a language evolution context. According to researchers at the time of the pilgrim fathers UK English sounded like Yosemite Sam)
It's about the only area I am in agreement with Stephen Fry on.
P.S. Current fave T-shirt http://www.shotdeadinthehead.com/grammar-difference-t-shirt.html
This is not evolution but degradation. If "refute" now means "reject", what word do we use when we want to use the meaning of "refute"? Or are arguments no longer refuted - the tendency now when people hear something they disagree with is to say that the thing should not be said.
try reading 'the vocabularist' on the BBC website. Each generation bemoans the degradation of the language (same as the old 'youth of today you hear). The English you are desperate to keep would be seen as awful to the literate Englishman of 150 years ago.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=vocabularist
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=vocabularist
Last edited:
This is usually called "Ship Down" and is the main argument for observation of a globular earth. However the Planists (Flat Earth believers) counter this with numerous interesting arguments. They claim that Ship Down is simply the converging lines of perspective, such as railway tracks that appear to merge in the distance. Same thing happens with a ship and the horizon. The Planist claim is that a spy glass or telescope will bring the hull back into sight. And they are surprisingly correct! I've tried it, it works.
I've also done video through a small telescope of a ferry crossing over 5 miles and it's very difficult to tell if it's traveling over a flat or curved surface. The result is inconclusive.
It's just an opinion, and not an unexpected one of course. We know the earth to be curved, therefore we see the curve. Or do we? I've used a straight edge on the view of the horizon from has high as 42,000 ft above the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Does the horizon appear curved? It's not obvious at all. Maybe it is, maybe not. I've tied this half a dozen times - traveling with various friends and co-workers. No one has been able to definitively say "Yes, it's curved." They all assumed it would be, and thought it was, before comparing it to the straight edge.
We bend what we obverse to fit with what we believe and have been taught. It's human nature.
A good question. I don't know Eratosthenes motives, what drove him to the lengths he went to to test his idea. He went beyond casual, direct observation.
The language may evolve in the sense that new words/meanings are added, but I believe we also see a decrease in the size of the vocabulary the average person commands. That is definitely a negative development.
Jan
Last edited:
Compared to what time period. I don't have to go far back to discover ancestors who couldn't read or write.
Anyway is English really poor because no one uses floccinaucinihilipilification in general speech any more?
Or should nasty foreign words like pyjama and schadenfreude be banned? Get the loony right to setup an equivalent of the acadamie francaise for the Biritish language?
As long as callipygous can still be used I'll be happy.
Last edited:
And, one might ask, is a large vocabulary a necessary thing? Most people don't use or need one.
It becomes necessary if you want to express yourself clearly and concisely. We see a lot of examples here that people are unable to articulate what they mean.
But in the supermarket, yes sure, 80 words is all you need ;-)
Edit: Even CNN is losing it: "155 GOP delegates up for grabs in Texas". No! They are not 'up for grabs', not by a long shot! They are 'at stake'!
(Mod crew: this is not a political posts, it is an illustration of wrong use of language).
Jan
Last edited:
I just wonder what percentage of the population, over time, has an extended vocabulary? I often have to be careful about using "big words." Chicane is a word I used yesterday that I thought was well known. I was wrong. 🙂
As for the press, it does seem dumbed down these days. But is it really? Certainly there must be published studies of the vocabulary of the popular press.
As for the press, it does seem dumbed down these days. But is it really? Certainly there must be published studies of the vocabulary of the popular press.
Actually the press will most probably conform to the lowest common denominator - that's the way to reach the largest audience, and that's where the money is.
You see the same in political discourse - simple, mono-syllabic words, reducing problems and solutions to simplistic tweet-size statements. That's the way to reach most voters. Of course, the disillusionment comes afterwards when people wonder why these simple, easy to solve issues still aren't solved ;-)
Jan
You see the same in political discourse - simple, mono-syllabic words, reducing problems and solutions to simplistic tweet-size statements. That's the way to reach most voters. Of course, the disillusionment comes afterwards when people wonder why these simple, easy to solve issues still aren't solved ;-)
Jan
For you, Jan. I enjoyed the conclusion of this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/magazine/14FOB-onlanguage-t.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/magazine/14FOB-onlanguage-t.html
*tsk tsk*
I am reminded of a friend who attended a back yard get together. There was a barbecue, and as she was getting herself a hot dog some guy at the condiment table asked "Where's the mustard at?". Sue replied "It's in front of the preposition."
When someone uses "revert" to mean, or in place of, "reply" they are not implying anything. They are using a word incorrectly, but they are not implying the correct word, they are simply using the wrong word as a synonym, which is not at all the same thing.
Similarly, when you use "imply" to mean "mean", you do not imply the correct word, but you obscure your own meaning because it is difficult for others to infer it. 🙂
- Status
- Not open for further replies.