I don't think your dictionary is out of date Escargot - it's just another example of people using a posher word to sound clever and getting it wrong.
When someone says "I'll just reiterate..." I have to restrain myself from saying "that'll be three times you've said it then" as this usually elicits a look of puzzlement (or maybe pity).
This is pathetically picky of me of course. On the other hand I dare not comment when I hear "could of" instead of "could have" - where did this ignorant construction come from?
|
>ignorant construction
from could've, which to the ignorant sounds more like could of than could have.
|
Good to hear that I am ignorant then ... SWMBO always complains about this. However to me it only really matters if the meaning is lost.
As to iterate and re-iterate, I have absolutely no idea where the idea comes from that you have to be doing something for a third time to be re-iterating, a totally ignorant mis-construction surely?
:-)
|
As to iterate and re-iterate, I have absolutely no idea where the idea comes from that you have to be doing something for a third time to be re-iterating..
I think that I can see the reasoning behind this.
On the first occasion you say something.
On the second occasion you iterate (or repeat) what you said on the first occasion,
On the third occasion you reiterate (or repeat again and again) what you said on the first two occasions.
In other words on the third occasion you repeat at least twice what you have already said on two previous occasions.
--
L\'escargot by name, but not by nature.
|
|
|
|
|
To change the sound of, the use of, and the meaning of english is not ignorance. Its evolution. As long as its unambiguous and comprehensible by its intended audience what is the problem?
|
To change the sound of, the use of, and the meaning of english is not ignorance. Its evolution. As long as its unambiguous and comprehensible by its intended audience what is the problem?
Well it's still too hot outside to paint so here goes. Good question, answer very debatable. Many of us were brainwashed to think that spelling mattered, so the constant use of loose for lose is very iritating to us afflicted ones - how can people avoid learning how to spell it? That sort of thing merely distracts, as long as the context makes the meaning clear, though maybe that's reason enough to avoid it? But I am aware that Shakespeare never lost any sleep over spelling (or worried about starting a sentence with but).
The common misuse of certain words on the other hand will result in words and meanings being lost - for example, adverse for averse, flaunt for flout, flounder for founder, infer for imply, effect for affect, incredulous for incredible. These fairly straightforward errors and others are now starting to appear in published work, so are getting past editors. Eventually there will be one word, and one meaning.
I should just reiterate that I don't really have a problem with reiterate ;-)
|
I should just reiterate that I don't really have a problem with reiterate ;-)
The only trouble with using reiterate in circumstances where you really mean iterate is that you then no longer have a single word to convey the the act or repeating again and again or of repeating ad nauseum. One of the strengths of the English language is that there is generally a word to describe EXACTLY what you want to say. If words are misused the English language will become "dumbed down". Heaven forbid that we ever sink to the level of the German language where it is often necessary to join two words together purely because a suitable single word just does not exist.
Incidentally, I understand that if the use of 's at the end of plurals is allowed to proliferate unabated then eventually it will become accepted as correct to use the apostrophe in all circumstances and there will then be no way of distinguishing between the meanings of words that currently end in either s and 's as appropriate.
--
L\'escargot by name, but not by nature.
|
L'escargot,
Your general point is the key one and well put - meanings, not always subtle ones, are lost when certain words are used interchangeably or just misused.
I think many people use the word reiterate just to mean "emphasise" .
The random use of apostrophes suggests not only that people are unsure about where to put them, but that they don't care either, so perhaps we'll just have to give in.
|
>The random use of apostrophes suggests not only that people are unsure about where to put them, but that they don't care either, so perhaps we'll just have to give in.
NO! NO! NO! NO!
Was it on this site that somebody posted an O level question with a sense of humour?
'Our Christmas turkey did not arrive, so we ate our friends.'
Prison sentence, or Christmas lunch?
|
YES YES YES YES YES.
One perceived meaning of the turkey sentence is practical and makes sense. The other perceived meaning of the sentence is far fetched, impractical and unlikely. To assume the unlikely sentence is the authors intended meaning shows you are being deliberately obtuse or have a cannibalistic lifestyle.
You do not own or control English, Scholars do not own or control English. The English no longer control or own English. It is a global language, that has its own momentum and growth.
|
You do not own or control English, Scholars do not own or control English. The English no longer control or own English. It is a global language, that has its own momentum and growth.
Thank goodness it is a global language - the Norwegians, Spaniards and Greeks I deal with are more likely to use correct grammar than my British colleagues. Or perhaps the British are just more advanced, and when reiterate comes to mean emphasise, if there's a need for it a new word for "repeat again" will emerge?
Isn't it just simpler to standardise the core language? Your point about the cannibal interpretation is not really valid - the sentence was designed to be ridiculous to highlight the importance of punctuation.
|
So, in the brave new world of RF, how do you make it clear that in fact you did eat your friends? Far fetched, yes. But wasn't there a film?
Following a plane crash, we were stuck in the Andes without any food, so we ate our friends.
Both are plausible, practical & make sense. So did we eat our friends, or our friends' food?
|
So, in the brave new world of RF, how do you make it clear that in fact you did eat your friends?
Context. Communication and linguistic performance are about far more than just words. Conventional punctuation and grammar are most useful in written language where context is more difficult to establish, but even in the original example the words "Christmas," and "turkey," are enough. We found the mistake funny, right? That's because we understood the intended meaning and could see where that diverged from the "correct" expression. In your plane crash example, the context of "plane crash," and "ate our friends" is sufficient for enough people enough of the time, which is all human language needs to achieve in most situations (Google the name "Paul Grice" for more on this). At this level we have grammatical conventions, not rules; those conventions only need to be strictly enforced in safety-critical situations such as air traffic control and in communication with machines, where a simplified version of English is normally applied anyway.
I see the worry about punctuation as connected with the general fear that "the yobs are taking over" and that the baby boomer grammar school boys are losing their grip on power. But 'twas ever thus: read Chaucer, or Shakespeare, or Graham Greene for that matter, to find the exact same worry reiterated throughout history.
Deep breath: I agree with RF.
|
>Context.
And when context doesn't help, as in my example, you need to be able to rely on the structure of what has been written. The ability to write correctly matters when the context does not help.
Do you suggest use of 'txt spk' for the composing of legislation? Lawyers have enough fun trying to work out what the law actually says (rather than what, sometimes, it was supposed to say but clearly doesn't) without introducing the possibility for further confusion through bad drafting.
|
|
"Was it on this site that somebody posted an O level question with a sense of humour?"
'Our Christmas turkey did not arrive, so we ate our friends.'
Yes it was - I can't remember why I posted it now but I hope there was a good reason! Nice to see that it generated some discussion.
English as a living language has to be flexible and move on, but examples like that remind us that there are some rules worth having, especially with punctuation.
"And they found Mary Joseph and the babe lying in a manger"
Zealous sub-editor tried harder....
"And they found Mary, Joseph, and the babe, lying in a manger"
No - still sounds like a big manger. Stick to the Authorised Version and you don't have a problem:
"And they found Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger".
|
|
|
|
|
RF: As long as its unambiguous and comprehensible by its intended audience what is the problem?
None. But it has to be unambiguous - hence the effect/affect.
'I'm going to effect the A1.' Really? all by yourself?
And it has to be readily comprehensible. Much as I appreciate Dalglish's postings (about my boat anchor - still refusing to accept my camera), I would appreciate them that much more if they used capital letters in their usual places. similarly when ppl r writin in txt speek, its really dificult 2 read wot they rote. The art of good communication is to stick to convention. It avoids misunderstandings, and it makes the communicating easier.
I do not see the point in *deliberately* making comprehension more difficult by using unconventional spellings.
|
Two more examples of word confusion from this forum from the last week - flaunt for flout, and slither for sliver - what word do we use for slither (as in snake) or flaunt (show off) when their meanings have been changed by repeated substitution for other other perfectly good words?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
