English as she is wrotten

[marshlander]

I was going to post a response in the Acronyms thread to an off-topic discussion prompted by a misunderstanding. However, rather than divert the fun and games there still further I hope it's okay to bring the discussion here, where you can ignore it if you wish. The discussion arose over Albert's use of the word, "politic".

If the context is unclear you can check out the discussion here
http://www.gayspeak.com/forum/showthread...282&page=3

I've never heard of it being used as an adjective either... however I've completed a course at uni on the whole 'language being damaged by meaning changes, word changes, influx of foreign words etc.' and tbh I'm of the opinion that is that not what a language is? It doesn't make it any less beautiful? It just makes it a bit like the weather, ever changing. A language is but a tool of communication. And tools are adapted to need and to their user

You've raised a number of fascinating points to which (in the absence of a real life) I'd like to respond.

That someone has never heard of a word does not make it invalid. I love learning new words. Sometimes I even remember them (although these days, that is more of a challenge, since I seem to be forgetting very ordinary words in very ordinary conversations :frown: ).

If I see a word with which I am unfamiliar I look it up. I have dictionaries all over the house (although I'm WAY behind Albert when it comes to a dictionary collection ).

Words have a value that extends beyond their literal meaning. How we use words says a lot about us as well as something about that which we are trying to communicate. Anyone with an interest in language will sometimes spend several minutes or longer deciding which word best suits a given context or occasion given that English is such a rich language.

Congratulations on completing your university course. It sounds like you found it a thoroughly worthwhile experience. I agree with you that the English language has always absorbed words and phrases from other languages. It is a wonderful hybrid. Its continuing dynamism means it is always in flower. Whatever the merits of a dynamic language, though, your course tutor surely did not advocate nescience?

I think I may have been unclear earlier when I spoke of the beautiful English language being in retreat. A changing language is not necessarily any less beautiful. Although I may love the language of Chaucer, Shakespeare and Donne it doesn't mean that I can't enjoy just as much the directness and clarity of Orwell. Nor does it mean that I would choose to write or speak in Middle English, or the language of renaissance England, over present-day English. However, I think my case was made when Albert's amusing wordplay went completely unnoticed. It was telling that the response was to question the construction of the sentence rather than having the freedom to be able to enjoy the joke. That surely amounts to linguistic poverty and is a downside () of a contracting word palette?

As it happens, the word "politic" is still used and heard in discussions. I am pretty sure I have heard it used by the likes of Andrew Marr, John Humpheys and others in broadcast discussions on Radio 4 and my dad has certainly used it. When I left school I worked for a firm of builders and the occasional philosophical builder would use it in one of the sometimes heated debates that took place on site! Unfashionable perhaps, rare maybe, but obsolete ... I don't think so, not yet anyway.

[Shadow]

To my mind the central issue isn't any single word, or any combination of words, it's the level of wordplay that is taking place ...

As I believe (the person who's post you cited) was trying to intimate at the time, quite often the complexity of the words used, and the manner in which they are used, doesn't just miss its target audience, it sails straight past it and into obscurity all on its own steam ...

Taking Albert's politic example ... when I read it, given the context in which it was raised, I clearly misunderstood - I hold my hands up and admit to that ... I thought that either :-

1) Since he's a non-native English speaker he had intended to say political, and mis-typed it, which would have made sense since the tone was questioning in what way the answer I'd offered during that round tied-back to the topic that had been chosen (politics); or

2) He was being clever, and I just wasn't (upon my third reading of it, and having checked www.dictionary.com to double-check that politic was, in fact, an English word) getting the gist of it ... which happens sometimes ...

... so I mulled over it, and went with option 1. As I say, I was mistaken - not a problem - happens all the time :biggrin:.

That someone has never heard of a word does not make it invalid.

I totally agree ... but the purpose behind raising that particular word was to engage in clever wordplay, which was sadly lost because the target audience (in this case moi) had nooooooooooooooooooo idea what was going on ! .

If I see a word with which I am unfamiliar I look it up. I have dictionaries all over the house (although I'm WAY behind Albert when it comes to a dictionary collection ).

As I say, I did look it up, and I still couldn't work out what he meant ... no disrespect to him like :redface:.

I think my case was made when Albert's amusing wordplay went completely unnoticed. It was telling that the response was to question the construction of the sentence rather than having the freedom to be able to enjoy the joke. That surely amounts to linguistic poverty and is a downside () of a contracting word palette?

Oh I certainly noticed it - I just didn't "get" it ... and a joke can best be enjoyed when (again) the target audience understands what is meant - otherwise it is aimed at a higher (or lower) level than they appreciate ... in this case, I didn't get it, and so the humour was lost on me :frown:.

As it happens, the word "politic" is still used and heard in discussions. (...) Unfashionable perhaps, rare maybe, but obsolete ... I don't think so, not yet anyway.

The thing with language is that it is, as you have said, all about adapting. I, as a linguist, LOVE language - I love working with it, taking it on board, improving my repetoire, meticulously applying it and so forth ... but there are levels at which these games are played.

Nescience, for example, is another word that I have had to look up - NEVER heard of it before ...

... and let's not forget that the level issue works on, obviously, multiple levels ... Albert (who bless him isn't here to venture his opinion - I am not having a go at him) brought up a separate issue, which is why do people have to say nite instead of night - to my mind there is precious little difference between the two examples ...

In your nescience example, and Albert's politic example, both words have been lost on me personally, because I am unfamiliar with them, and therefore I have to effectively backtrack to get up to speed, to then appreciate either the joke, or just what's meant in the first place ...

... conversely on the other side you have another "level" of dialogue, which is textspeak/netspeak. Nite, luv, brb, lol - all of that ... so I think it's just a case of adopting a balanced view (and approach), and seeing that whilst one is (in some people's eyes) lower than the bar, the other is higher than the bar ... and that is where confusion arises.

*nods respectfully, and leaves*.

!?!?! Shadow !?!?!

[Smurlos]

You could have quoted my username as the post lol - I'm not really fussed.

Now I just want to say first before I respond, I am not very good at structuring arguments or essays or anything like that whatsoever. So that's why often a lot of my arguments etc are all over the place. I've never been able to structure an argument.

Originally posted by marshlander
That someone has never heard of a word does not make it invalid.

I just want to say that all I was saying was that I had never heard that term used an adjective. I did not claim that because I had never heard of its use like that, it must be wrong like some almighty god? I just said that I had never heard of that term as an adjective before. At the end of the day if you wanted to tell me that a laptop was a "wallet" and you convinced yourself that the word for laptop was wallet, as long as (as Baby Shadow says in his post) the target audience understands exactly what you are conveying with that word, there is no problem. Obviously using the word wallet they may get a bit muddled up with that word having an alternative meaning, but I was merely quoting an example.

Originally posted by marshlander
Words have a value that extends beyond their literal meaning. How we use words says a lot about us as well as something about that which we are trying to communicate. Anyone with an interest in language will sometimes spend several minutes or longer deciding which word best suits a given context or occasion given that English is such a rich language.

I very much agree with this statement. And in psycholinguistics we learned a lot about how the brain works that would suggest that a word is more than just a lexical item. It's a whole range of things and we make our own links with other words and images and it's a very complex concept. When I use my language, as I mention below, I am from an area where vocabulary isn't too rich... and if I were to use a rich vocabulary around here I know I'd get a lot of odd looks and people asking me to clarify what I mean, so I don't particularly mull over alternative synonyms to use, however in German, where I am still learning the language, I find it particularly useful to stick in synonyms here and there. I want to say it impresses the lecturers but that sounds like I'm trying to be big headed, which if you knew me in person, you'd know I'm anything but that *hides in the shadows*

Originally posted by marshlander
Congratulations on completing your university course. It sounds like you found it a thoroughly worthwhile experience. I agree with you that the English language has always absorbed words and phrases from other languages. It is a wonderful hybrid. Its continuing dynamism means it is always in flower. Whatever the merits of a dynamic language, though, your course tutor surely did not advocate nescience?

Again, I am not sure if this is down to an interpretation factor, but I am not quite sure whether to take those first two sentences as you being patronising or whether you are genuinely congratulating me. The course I studied was based on linguists pledging that the German language was dying because of an influx in foreign words and a change in meanings. However I've no idea what you're trying to say with the last part, because, as before, I simply don't understand. I understand each word (after looking up in a dictionary) but not when strung together. This may not be your fault, I just simply haven't heard of many words in your vocabulary before and so their use confuses me. This could be down to the gap between generations, who knows.

Originally posted by marshlander
As it happens, the word "politic" is still used and heard in discussions. I am pretty sure I have heard it used by the likes of Andrew Marr, John Humpheys and others in broadcast discussions on Radio 4 and my dad has certainly used it.

And I think that quote shows that. I have never listened to Radio 4 in my life... and I certainly don't know your father. You can't possibly know what you have not encountered before... Either way because I don't understand the words (i'm sure that is a simpler way it could've been phrased?) as Shadow says, the whole meaning is lost on me. This was the same with Albert's politic post. Because we had not seen the word before used in this way, we automatically assumed it had not been spelled correctly or that it was a noun?

Originally posted by Shadow
As I believe (the person who's post you cited) was trying to intimate at the time, quite often the complexity of the words used, and the manner in which they are used, doesn't just miss its target audience, it sails straight past it and into obscurity all on its own steam ...

That is correct. I am educated to degree level (not quite complete yet) but I do not claim to 'know it all' - I will hold my hands up to VERY often being utterly bewildered by what both you and Albert say. Where I am from, the level of vocabulary and complexity of grammar is not of a very high standard I'm afraid. I often have to ask what words mean when I see them and look them up, as you say. In fact, while doing German texts I often have to look the german word up, and then the english definition it gives me I must also look up because I've never heard that word before. And I am not asking you to change how you speak, that's how you are, I am just saying that I do often have trouble understanding the precise message being conveyed because of the high level of language and because I never know if there is a double meaning hidden amongst what you say, as there always is.

[princealbertofb]

You could have quoted my username as the post lol - I'm not really fussed.

Now I just want to say first before I respond, I am not very good at structuring arguments or essays or anything like that whatsoever. So that's why often a lot of my arguments etc are all over the place. I've never been able to structure an argument.



I just want to say that all I was saying was that I had never heard that term used an adjective. I did not claim that because I had never heard of its use like that, it must be wrong like some almighty god? I just said that I had never heard of that term as an adjective before. At the end of the day if you wanted to tell me that a laptop was a "wallet" and you convinced yourself that the word for laptop was wallet, as long as (as Baby Shadow says in his post) the target audience understands exactly what you are conveying with that word, there is no problem. Obviously using the word wallet they may get a bit muddled up with that word having an alternative meaning, but I was merely quoting an example.



I very much agree with this statement. And in psycholinguistics we learned a lot about how the brain works that would suggest that a word is more than just a lexical item. It's a whole range of things and we make our own links with other words and images and it's a very complex concept. When I use my language, as I mention below, I am from an area where vocabulary isn't too rich... and if I were to use a rich vocabulary around here I know I'd get a lot of odd looks and people asking me to clarify what I mean, so I don't particularly mull over alternative synonyms to use, however in German, where I am still learning the language, I find it particularly useful to stick in synonyms here and there. I want to say it impresses the lecturers but that sounds like I'm trying to be big headed, which if you knew me in person, you'd know I'm anything but that *hides in the shadows*



Again, I am not sure if this is down to an interpretation factor, but I am not quite sure whether to take those first two sentences as you being patronising or whether you are genuinely congratulating me. The course I studied was based on linguists pledging that the German language was dying because of an influx in foreign words and a change in meanings. However I've no idea what you're trying to say with the last part, because, as before, I simply don't understand. I understand each word (after looking up in a dictionary) but not when strung together. This may not be your fault, I just simply haven't heard of many words in your vocabulary before and so their use confuses me. This could be down to the gap between generations, who knows.



And I think that quote shows that. I have never listened to Radio 4 in my life... and I certainly don't know your father. You can't possibly know what you have not encountered before... Either way because I don't understand the words (i'm sure that is a simpler way it could've been phrased?) as Shadow says, the whole meaning is lost on me. This was the same with Albert's politic post. Because we had not seen the word before used in this way, we automatically assumed it had not been spelled correctly or that it was a noun?



That is correct. I am educated to degree level (not quite complete yet) but I do not claim to 'know it all' - I will hold my hands up to VERY often being utterly bewildered by what both you and Albert say. Where I am from, the level of vocabulary and complexity of grammar is not of a very high standard I'm afraid. I often have to ask what words mean when I see them and look them up, as you say. In fact, while doing German texts I often have to look the german word up, and then the english definition it gives me I must also look up because I've never heard that word before. And I am not asking you to change how you speak, that's how you are, I am just saying that I do often have trouble understanding the precise message being conveyed because of the high level of language and because I never know if there is a double meaning hidden amongst what you say, as there always is.

Dear Carl,
I am sorry if I've used terms that you don't understand and have to look up but on the other hand, isn't it great that we can learn from each other in that way?

I'm sure there are many words and expressions that I still don't know in English and probably French too, but I am told (by many foreigners and native French speakers) that my vocabulary is quite extended (I don't know where I get that from, maybe my father), and that they trust my definitions and understanding of words... I am lucky in that I have studied Latin and also speak French fluently, which gives lots of roots to many a complicated word in the English language. I am also fortunate to have studied the English language with a mother who is, herself, very good and accurate with words (she's got a masters degree in English and also wrote a thesis, and having taught too, she knows a lot about language(s)).

To add to my good fortune, French has bequeathed (given, left...) to English many words with a Latin root, but the fact that the pronunciation of French is very different from English, makes it easier for me to remember the correct spelling of words. For example lots of native English speakers will misspell "separate" as "seperate"... which stems from the fact that the second vowel in the word is unstressed in English. In French the word SEPARER has a very distinctive A sound in the second syllable, therefore making it easier for me not to confuse the two spellings. Another example is the often wrongful use of EFFECT instead of AFFECT. (this doesn't affect me.. It has no effect on me)

Other than that, I have a computer dictionary which I find most useful when I am neither sure of a spelling nor of a definition. I had a look at my word 'politic' and knowing that it was a word (adjective) thought it interesting to play on the idea of it being neither really political nor really very discerning, prudent, wise or shrewd, or even cunning or crafty. I meant that someone, in not letting gays have certain rights in Djibouti, was not very discerning, wise or even politically correct... and had not thought beyond the usual beliefs that gays are unnatural and freaks. For me 'politic' means clever on a social level, an action that is bound to get people's general approval rather than stir their anger and generate conflict. It's a word one would easily use to define and describe a good diplomat.

[marshlander]

Thanks, everyone, for your interesting contributions so far. I thought this thread was probably not going to grow legs on account of the subject matter sending everyone to sleep However, that has far from proven to be the case.

I've rarely felt the need to simplify ideas I'm trying to express here. I suppose I make three assumptions:

• many contributors here have experienced some form of further or higher education;
  
• nobody is forced to respond;
  
• in the grand scheme of things most of what I have to say means naff-all.

I may want to pick up some of the specific points raised a bit later. In the meantime may I thank Smurlos for bringing me a new phrase in his contention that a word is more than just a lexical item. A very elegant pentameter and I shall make an opportunity to use it soon.

[Smurlos]

Dear Carl,
I am sorry if I've used terms that you don't understand and have to look up but on the other hand, isn't it great that we can learn from each other in that way?

I'm sure there are many words and expressions that I still don't know in English and probably French too, but I am told (by many foreigners and native French speakers) that my vocabulary is quite extended (I don't know where I get that from, maybe my father), and that they trust my definitions and understanding of words... I am lucky in that I have studied Latin and also speak French fluently, which gives lots of roots to many a complicated word in the English language. I am also fortunate to have studied the English language with a mother who is, herself, very good and accurate with words (she's got a masters degree in English and also wrote a thesis, and having taught too, she knows a lot about language(s)).

To add to my good fortune, French has bequeathed (given, left...) to English many words with a Latin root, but the fact that the pronunciation of French is very different from English, makes it easier for me to remember the correct spelling of words. For example lots of native English speakers will misspell "separate" as "seperate"... which stems from the fact that the second vowel in the word is unstressed in English. In French the word SEPARER has a very distinctive A sound in the second syllable, therefore making it easier for me not to confuse the two spellings. Another example is the often wrongful use of EFFECT instead of AFFECT. (this doesn't affect me.. It has no effect on me)

Other than that, I have a computer dictionary which I find most useful when I am neither sure of a spelling nor of a definition. I had a look at my word 'politic' and knowing that it was a word (adjective) thought it interesting to play on the idea of it being neither really political nor really very discerning, prudent, wise or shrewd, or even cunning or crafty. I meant that someone, in not letting gays have certain rights in Djibouti, was not very discerning, wise or even politically correct... and had not thought beyond the usual beliefs that gays are unnatural and freaks. For me 'politic' means clever on a social level, an action that is bound to get people's general approval rather than stir their anger and generate conflict. It's a word one would easily use to define and describe a good diplomat.

You shouldn't apologise for how you use language Albert, it's your perogative - and quite often not even something one thinks about - you are right, it's a learning process - we're just old fogies now who can't be bothered to trudge through a dictionary (Even if it now only takes 10 seconds online) to find out what things mean hehe. A few years ago it wouldn't have been a problem. I think it's more a case of me not having as much time on my hands anymore as I once did.

Back to the spelling thing, you are right, we have so many unstressed syllables and endings that we turn into a "schwa" (like how we might say badger as bah-j-eh" - sorry I'm not all that good at explaining phonetics through prose, but you don't pronounce it "er" i don't know many people that would say "I saw a BAJ-ER" hehe) - so we often confuse spellings. And separate is a classic. I know for one that I'm confused with how to spell "perogative" which I've used above... I'm pretty darn sure it's a single R. But that probably means I'm wrong. I remember AFFECT is a verb and EFFECT is a noun. I only remember it coz it's a "SOUND EFFECT" not a "SOUND AFFECT" mile:

Now that it has been explained, I understand what you were saying and think that it was rather politic in the clever sense. It's just, as Shadow said, before where we were not aware of the word in that sense, went straight over our heads.

Thanks, everyone, for your interesting contributions so far. I thought this thread was probably not going to grow legs on account of the subject matter sending everyone to sleep However, that has far from proven to be the case.

I've rarely felt the need to simplify ideas I'm trying to express here. I suppose I make three assumptions:

• many contributors here have experienced some form of further or higher education;
  
• nobody is forced to respond;
  
• in the grand scheme of things most of what I have to say means naff-all.

I may want to pick up some of the specific points raised a bit later. In the meantime may I thank Smurlos for bringing me a new phrase in his contention that a word is more than just a lexical item. A very elegant pentameter and I shall make an opportunity to use it soon.

I'll have to dig out all my work on this, but it's split into a visual image, spelling and phonetic representation in our lexicon called the 'lemma' and then there's a second part which I'm really not remembering... and then we learned of the many theories about how a lexicon is structured along with evidence as to why it's so complex - such as it varying from person to person how words are linked - word association threads for example? It's a really interesting topic. I did my essay on it - but apparently it wasn't "psycholinguistic" enough - I did a comparison of how lexical items are structured in a dictionary and how they 'could' be structured in the mental lexicon mile:

[marshlander]

... I'll have to dig out all my work on this, but it's split into a visual image, spelling and phonetic representation in our lexicon called the 'lemma' and then there's a second part which I'm really not remembering... and then we learned of the many theories about how a lexicon is structured along with evidence as to why it's so complex - such as it varying from person to person how words are linked - word association threads for example? It's a really interesting topic. I did my essay on it - but apparently it wasn't "psycholinguistic" enough - I did a comparison of how lexical items are structured in a dictionary and how they 'could' be structured in the mental lexicon mile:

Now that sounds fascinating! Could you suggest some background reading, please?

[marshlander]

... Oh I certainly noticed it - I just didn't "get" it ... and a joke can best be enjoyed when (again) the target audience understands what is meant - otherwise it is aimed at a higher (or lower) level than they appreciate ... in this case, I didn't get it, and so the humour was lost on me :frown:. ...

In your nescience example, and Albert's politic example, both words have been lost on me personally, because I am unfamiliar with them, and therefore I have to effectively backtrack to get up to speed, to then appreciate either the joke, or just what's meant in the first place ...

In truth I think it's an ongoing process; at least I hope it's an ongoing process. I'd hate to get to a stage in life where there is nothing more to learn.

For example, I enjoy reading fiction. I like to make sure there is at least one unfinished book on my bedside table at all times. For months I have been struggling with Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" and have been giving priority to other, less complex, books. I am now about halfway through and the going seems to be a little easier (at the moment!). I have decided not to start another book until I finish this one. Part of the reason I have been making such slow progress through the novel is that there a many references to a culture about which I know very little. I am aware that there is context that would probably be understood by an Asian and/or a muslim and I know I am missing layers of meaning in the book. However, even in my simple way I can marvel at what appears to me to be the range and complexity of the plots. I have yet to see whether and how it all comes together ... so no spoilers please if you've read it!

Hopefully, if you live to be as old as me, you'll add one or two words to your vocabulary along the way. For my part I am looking forward to encountering many new lexical items

[Smurlos]

Now that sounds fascinating! Could you suggest some background reading, please?

Umm I'll have a look for you later, all my uni work is in my closet which is blocked in by my bed at present (it's a bit of a pain to get to) and I am off to work in an hour, but I'll have a look for you later and get some book titles mile: x

[princealbertofb]

Umm I'll have a look for you later, all my uni work is in my closet which is blocked in by my bed at present (it's a bit of a pain to get to) and I am off to work in an hour, but I'll have a look for you later and get some book titles mile: x

Dear Carl, the word does take two Rs but not in succession... It's PREROGATIVE (Latin prefix: PRAE or PRE = before, (see pre-fix- pre-cedent etc...))
prerogative noun
1 an exclusive right or privilege arising from one's rank or position.
2 any right or privilege. See also royal prerogative.
adj holding or exercising a prerogative.
[14c: from Latin praerogativa privilege, from prae before others + rogare, rogatum to ask.]

nescience noun,
formal lack of knowledge; ignorance.
nescient adj.
[17c: from Latin nescire to be ignorant of something, from ne not + scire to know.]