Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Pete C

What do our linguistic "traditionalists" think of this?

76 posts in this topic

The word "takeaway" was first used in 1961, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. And then it was about Chinese restaurants. Now it is about everything, including elections.

"Three Takeaways From the Recall Vote" was the headline over the election analysis of Sean Trende, the senior election analyst of Real Clear Politics.

On Politico.com, the headline over Glenn Thrush’s analysis was, "Only One Takeaway From Wisconsin: Money Shouts."

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/country_for_sale_20120607/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the dish the crazy aunt always brought to the family get togethers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Ted and JETman.

Although I am not opposed to language evolution, I think that the claim that languages evolve is almost always a defense of error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More important stuff being ignored to our peril.

DSC_0756_crop.jpg

Q.E.D.!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Ted and JETman.

Although I am not opposed to language evolution, I think that the claim that languages evolve is almost always a defense of error.

Would you say that American English is a big error? No comments from our U.K. friends, please. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete, in the early 19th century, Daniel Webster unilaterally decided that America being its own new country should have its own new language. So he wrote grammar books with spellings he invented which eliminated letters he considered to be superfluous.

These textbooks were used by Canadians. There was a wave of Scottish immigration to Canada, and the Scots were horrified to see these textbooks, saying that the Canadians were teaching their children error. They insisted that proper British spelling and grammar be taught to Canadian children, and it has been ever since.

I don't consider American spelling to be error because it is the result of a deliberate decision to be different.

The error I am referring to is typically the practice of those who don't know any better, and often (I suspect) the practice of those who don't read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad Webster didn't go even further and try to straighten out our o vowel and words with "ough" pronounced so many different ways!

Though it be rough to go through a cough, I thought ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bean away eating beens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a coffee roaster called Has Beans.

Pete, in the early 19th century, Daniel Webster unilaterally decided that America being its own new country should have its own new language.

Noah Webster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pleeze excuse me while I webster the Oxford dicshionnary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete, in the early 19th century, Daniel Webster unilaterally decided that America being its own new country should have its own new language. So he wrote grammar books with spellings he invented which eliminated letters he considered to be superfluous.

These textbooks were used by Canadians. There was a wave of Scottish immigration to Canada, and the Scots were horrified to see these textbooks, saying that the Canadians were teaching their children error. They insisted that proper British spelling and grammar be taught to Canadian children, and it has been ever since.

I don't consider American spelling to be error because it is the result of a deliberate decision to be different.

The error I am referring to is typically the practice of those who don't know any better, and often (I suspect) the practice of those who don't read.

I get your point.

However, would we have words like aerospace, biodiesel, Americanize, gig, supersize, video, ringtone, etc if not for the changes we have seen/created/invented? Words are created to reflect that change and to identify these "new" things in our ever evolving world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete, in the early 19th century, Daniel Webster unilaterally decided that America being its own new country should have its own new language. So he wrote grammar books with spellings he invented which eliminated letters he considered to be superfluous.

These textbooks were used by Canadians. There was a wave of Scottish immigration to Canada, and the Scots were horrified to see these textbooks, saying that the Canadians were teaching their children error. They insisted that proper British spelling and grammar be taught to Canadian children, and it has been ever since.

I don't consider American spelling to be error because it is the result of a deliberate decision to be different.

The error I am referring to is typically the practice of those who don't know any better, and often (I suspect) the practice of those who don't read.

I get your point.

However, would we have words like aerospace, biodiesel, Americanize, gig, supersize, video, ringtone, etc if not for the changes we have seen/created/invented? Words are created to reflect that change and to identify these "new" things in our ever evolving world.

I think we should all chillax, even if we're facing Grexit :blink:

Edited by BillF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a coffee roaster called Has Beans.

Pete, in the early 19th century, Daniel Webster unilaterally decided that America being its own new country should have its own new language.

Noah Webster.

Correct, of course!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete, in the early 19th century, Daniel Webster unilaterally decided that America being its own new country should have its own new language. So he wrote grammar books with spellings he invented which eliminated letters he considered to be superfluous.

These textbooks were used by Canadians. There was a wave of Scottish immigration to Canada, and the Scots were horrified to see these textbooks, saying that the Canadians were teaching their children error. They insisted that proper British spelling and grammar be taught to Canadian children, and it has been ever since.

I don't consider American spelling to be error because it is the result of a deliberate decision to be different.

The error I am referring to is typically the practice of those who don't know any better, and often (I suspect) the practice of those who don't read.

I get your point.

However, would we have words like aerospace, biodiesel, Americanize, gig, supersize, video, ringtone, etc if not for the changes we have seen/created/invented? Words are created to reflect that change and to identify these "new" things in our ever evolving world.

I think we should all chillax, even if we're facing Grexit :blink:

:g

Word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twenty years ago was 'google' a verb? Now if I say I 'googled' something everyone knows exactly what I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twenty years ago was 'google' a verb? Now if I say I 'googled' something everyone knows exactly what I mean.

Yes, but that does not make it proper.

Everyone knows what "LOL" means. Is it now part of the lexicon?

I can guarantee you that one will get further in life by effectively communicating in a cogent manner. Opening up a cover letter, for instance, with "Hey Yo, I googled your company and...." will get you nowhere 100 out of 100 times.

Please, everybody stop the bullshit.

Edited by JETman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twenty years ago was 'google' a verb? Now if I say I 'googled' something everyone knows exactly what I mean.

Yes, but that does not make it proper.

Everyone knows what "LOL" means. Is it now part of the lexicon?

I can guarantee you that one will get further in life by effectively communicating in a cogent manner. Opening up a cover letter, for instance, with "Hey Yo, I googled your company and...." will get you nowhere 100 out of 100 times.

Please, everybody stop the bullshit.

I would imagine that 'Dear Sir, I learned about your company from an internet search utilizing Google" would merit the same response. You are arguing the spoken vernacular should not be substituted for 'proper' written English. OK, fine. But that hardly negates the development of new words as essential for effective communication in a quickly changing and complex society. I can't imagine anyone at this point opposing the verb google.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we should be opposed to adding words to our lexicon? Bastardizing the current words, I agree, is regressive, but expanding the language is not.

Side note: I noticed that one of our resident professional writers misused "than" for "then" in another thread. This is becoming all too common these days.

Side note: Eye noticed that won of hour resident professional writers misused "than" four "then" in another thread. This is becoming all to common this days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we should be opposed to adding words to our lexicon? Bastardizing the current words, I agree, is regressive, but expanding the language is not.

Side note: I noticed that one of our resident professional writers misused "than" for "then" in another thread. This is becoming all too common these days.

Side note: Eye noticed that won of hour resident professional writers misused "than" four "then" in another thread. This is becoming all to common this days.

Find a reasonable and intelligent way to expand the language, then. Expansion for its own sake is not growth.

English has NOT, by the way, been changing as quickly as everyone here seems to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twenty years ago was 'google' a verb? Now if I say I 'googled' something everyone knows exactly what I mean.

Yes, but that does not make it proper.

Everyone knows what "LOL" means. Is it now part of the lexicon?

I can guarantee you that one will get further in life by effectively communicating in a cogent manner. Opening up a cover letter, for instance, with "Hey Yo, I googled your company and...." will get you nowhere 100 out of 100 times.

Please, everybody stop the bullshit.

I would imagine that 'Dear Sir, I learned about your company from an internet search utilizing Google" would merit the same response. You are arguing the spoken vernacular should not be substituted for 'proper' written English. OK, fine. But that hardly negates the development of new words as essential for effective communication in a quickly changing and complex society. I can't imagine anyone at this point opposing the verb google.

Tried and true language rules still work in a quickly changing and complex society. Spoken vernacular is not necessarily recognized in all sectors of society. There is no "negation". These are NOT new words. If you can't imagine that people in the business world, for instance, would oppose using a company name as a verb, then I'd implore you to try a little harder. These "new words", as you call them, are often just a lazy way to sound cool and hip --- just like the lyrics heard in rap and hip-hop are used, for instance. And if you think those words make our lives easier, think again. All it got me, as my kids were growing up, was the reality of having to answer my then 5 year old daughter's profound question: "Daddy, what is humping?".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twenty years ago was 'google' a verb? Now if I say I 'googled' something everyone knows exactly what I mean.

Yes, but that does not make it proper.

Everyone knows what "LOL" means. Is it now part of the lexicon?

I can guarantee you that one will get further in life by effectively communicating in a cogent manner. Opening up a cover letter, for instance, with "Hey Yo, I googled your company and...." will get you nowhere 100 out of 100 times.

Please, everybody stop the bullshit.

Agreed.

However, I think there is a danger here of concluding new words added to the lexicon is the same as proper salutations in a business letter.

With all due respect, inappropriate writing [especially in a syntactical sense or proper writing style] is not the same as coining new words or phrases.

So we should be opposed to adding words to our lexicon? Bastardizing the current words, I agree, is regressive, but expanding the language is not.

I couldn't have said it any better.

Edited by GoodSpeak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.