Page 1 of 1
Language evolution
Posted: August 2nd, 2023, 10:56 am
by swill453
Should we just accept that language changes over time? Must resist the urge to comment...
"Teenager fights for life after being electrocuted in horror rail incident"
https://liveedinburghnews.co.uk/teenage ... -incident/Scott.
Re: Language evolution
Posted: August 3rd, 2023, 12:58 am
by servodude
Re: Language evolution
Posted: August 3rd, 2023, 9:45 am
by UncleEbenezer
Is that really a change?
I'm sure that kind of atrocity has been around the sub-literate headlines for generations. Memory is hazy, but I think I encountered examples of it in the classroom, with no suggestion that it was anything new back then (1970s).
Re: Language evolution
Posted: August 3rd, 2023, 9:51 am
by XFool
swill453 wrote:Should we just accept that language changes over time? Must resist the urge to comment...
"Teenager fights for life after being electrocuted in horror rail incident"
One of my pet hates.
Yes, language does change. But surely there ought to be a basic requirement for it to make
sense?
Maybe it's an age thing, but I increasingly do feel the meaning of words is generally no longer considered of primary importance. It seems instead to be the general effect they have.
e.g. All journalists seem unable to recognise what a "tank" is - in the military sense. If it's green, military and has any kind of 'gun' (or even if it hasn't) today it is invariably called a "tank".
James Webb being a "super" telescope - whatever than is - rather than simply a space telescope or, accurately, an infra red space telescope.
Re: Language evolution
Posted: August 3rd, 2023, 10:06 am
by bungeejumper
"Plans to abolish fixed-term tenancies in England would "decimate" the student housing market, landlords have warned."(BBC news, May 2023). Always supposing that you could kill a student flat, killing one in ten of them might not be quite so terrible?
BJ
Re: Language evolution
Posted: August 3rd, 2023, 11:31 am
by servodude
XFool wrote:
All journalists seem unable to recognise what a "tank" is - in the military sense. If it's green, military and has any kind of 'gun' (or even if it hasn't) today it is invariably called a "tank".
Not sure complaining about that holds water
We forgave the appropriation of "tank" for its military purpose so surely that sets some sort of precedent?
Re: Language evolution
Posted: August 3rd, 2023, 11:35 am
by UncleEbenezer
bungeejumper wrote:"Plans to abolish fixed-term tenancies in England would "decimate" the student housing market, landlords have warned."(BBC news, May 2023). Always supposing that you could kill a student flat, killing one in ten of them might not be quite so terrible?
BJ
I have an idea decimation, or maybe better, happened rather recently in a nearby university city. The culprit was competition, as a large new complex (several tower blocks) of newly-built student accommodation opened. The pressure was off the students to accept anything too dire.
Talking of which, in my student days we had a grapevine: college and university accommodation offices. They had their own contract arrangements to protect both students and our landlords, in an era when there was no open market at all.
Re: Language evolution
Posted: August 3rd, 2023, 11:39 am
by XFool
servodude wrote:XFool wrote:All journalists seem unable to recognise what a "tank" is - in the military sense. If it's green, military and has any kind of 'gun' (or even if it hasn't) today it is invariably called a "tank".
Not sure complaining about that holds water
We forgave the appropriation of "tank" for its military purpose so surely that sets some sort of precedent?
But, if the word now refers to any military vehicle, then it really doesn't mean anything. And what is an actual "tank" now called? "
Big thing with a big gun"? ("
But not as big a big gun as a big SPG...")
And, if non death by electric shock is to be called "
electrocution", what word is now supposed to mean death by electric shock?
What is the point of all this linguistic repurposing? And why do I never seem to get the memo...?
Re: Language evolution
Posted: August 3rd, 2023, 12:20 pm
by bungeejumper
UncleEbenezer wrote:bungeejumper wrote:"Plans to abolish fixed-term tenancies in England would "decimate" the student housing market, landlords have warned."(BBC news, May 2023). Always supposing that you could kill a student flat, killing one in ten of them might not be quite so terrible?
Talking of which, in my student days we had a grapevine: college and university accommodation offices. They had their own contract arrangements to protect both students and our landlords, in an era when there was no open market at all.
Likewise in mine (late 1960s), a university housing office that would direct first-year students only toward housing that it had personally vetted, and which would then mediate in case of any problems. It also twisted British Waterways' arm into relaxing its mooring rules so that static canal boats could be used for student accommodation. (All right in summer, bloody freezing in winter. Don't ask me how I know. ) But hey, we're both getting well wide of the topic here.
BJ
Re: Language evolution
Posted: August 3rd, 2023, 3:43 pm
by UncleEbenezer
XFool wrote:And, if non death by electric shock is to be called "electrocution", what word is now supposed to mean death by electric shock?
nietsneknarF
Re: Language evolution
Posted: August 19th, 2023, 7:16 pm
by quelquod
bungeejumper wrote:"Plans to abolish fixed-term tenancies in England would "decimate" the student housing market, landlords have warned."(BBC news, May 2023).
I used to complain about the misapplication of decimate to the killing of a large proportion of a group but became convinced of its evolution. My current pet hate is the use of the word hero to describe someone belonging to a winning football team.
Re: Language evolution
Posted: August 23rd, 2023, 7:40 am
by moorfield
swill453 wrote:Should we just accept that language changes over time? Must resist the urge to comment...
Every single word, Sir.... ?
Re: Language evolution
Posted: August 23rd, 2023, 4:00 pm
by genou
moorfield wrote:swill453 wrote:Should we just accept that language changes over time? Must resist the urge to comment...
Every single word, Sir.... ?
The whole of this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p5oNM86Hgw&t=527s is quite entertaining. If you want it shorter, there is a discussion of "literally" starting at 4:20, in which Sokolowski is convincingly sane.
Re: Language evolution
Posted: August 23rd, 2023, 5:40 pm
by GoSeigen
quelquod wrote:bungeejumper wrote:"Plans to abolish fixed-term tenancies in England would "decimate" the student housing market, landlords have warned."(BBC news, May 2023).
I used to complain about the misapplication of decimate to the killing of a large proportion of a group but became convinced of its evolution. My current pet hate is the use of the word hero to describe someone belonging to a winning football team.
I'm still not convinced. Why not just use "devastate" -- which means pretty much what people are trying to say with a confusingly similar sounding word?
GS
Re: Language evolution
Posted: August 23rd, 2023, 6:11 pm
by bungeejumper
I suppose I'm arguing against myself here, but when I was a lad, a billion was a million million. None of this loose thinking from across the pond, thank you very much.
Some of us are still trying to uphold the good old values. But we don't get invited to many parties.
BJ
Re: Language evolution
Posted: August 23rd, 2023, 6:13 pm
by Lootman
bungeejumper wrote:I suppose I'm arguing against myself here, but when I was a lad, a billion was a million million. None of this loose thinking from across the pond, thank you very much.
So how much was a trillion back then?
Re: Language evolution
Posted: August 23rd, 2023, 6:32 pm
by ReformedCharacter
Lootman wrote:bungeejumper wrote:I suppose I'm arguing against myself here, but when I was a lad, a billion was a million million. None of this loose thinking from across the pond, thank you very much.
So how much was a trillion back then?
To Americans and the French, a billion means a thousand millions (1,000,000,000, or 10 to the ninth, what some British call a milliard, a term that seems never to have been widely accepted).
To the British, including the Empire and the Commonwealth, billion has long meant a million millions (1,000,000,000,000, or 10 to the twelfth), what Americans call a trillion.
It was to avoid this ambiguity that scientists, technical writers, and others to whom a few zeros more or less might make a difference, came to avoid the words altogether and refer to a thousand millions or a million millions when the use of numerals was not appropriate. Gradually, however, the American version began to predominate.
Fowler merely noted the difference in Modern English Usage in 1926, but the second edition (1965) lamented: It is a pity we [the British] do not conform. The third (1996) observes that since 1951 the American usage has been increasing in Britain in technical writing and journalism but that the older sense is still common. In the past decade, the British government has been using the terms in the American sense in official publications.
The same ambiguity exists as to trillion (to Americans, a thousand thousand millions, or 10 to the 12th; to the British, a million million millions, or 10 to the 18th) and quadrillion (to Americans, a thousand thousand thousand millions, or 10 to the 15th; to British, a million million million millions, or 10 to the 24th).
https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-61424,00.htmlRC
Re: Language evolution
Posted: August 23rd, 2023, 6:37 pm
by Itsallaguess
An Oxford linguistics professor was lecturing his class one day...
"In English," he said, "a double negative forms a positive. However, in some languages, such as Russian, a double negative remains a negative. But there isn't a single language, not one, in which a double positive can express a negative."
A Scottish accented voice from the back of the room piped up, "Aye, right."
Re: Language evolution
Posted: August 23rd, 2023, 7:28 pm
by UncleEbenezer
Lootman wrote:bungeejumper wrote:I suppose I'm arguing against myself here, but when I was a lad, a billion was a million million. None of this loose thinking from across the pond, thank you very much.
So how much was a trillion back then?
The girl whose relationships ranged from Arthur to Zaphod?