What do our linguistic "traditionalists" think of this?

[Big Wheel]

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.

Oh, you mean like my then 65-year old boss in 2005, who would often stride to my cubicle and proclaim "I want you to do a Google on colonoscopies for me"? (Yes, we were working on a project for a client who made colonoscopes.)

At this point the only businesspeople that freak out about using company names as verbs or otherwise mangling them are the lawyers for those companies, as they're panicked about the resulting trademark dilution.

(And why should we care what businesspeople think about the language anyway? We already let them police our pasts, decide what we can buy, decide what we can eat affordably, and exercise a de facto check on the government, now we're going to cede control over what comes out of our mouths to them too simply because OH GOD WE NEED THE MONIES?)

[JETman]

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.

Oh, you mean like my then 65-year old boss in 2005, who would often stride to my cubicle and proclaim "I want you to do a Google on colonoscopies for me"? (Yes, we were working on a project for a client who made colonoscopes.)

At this point the only businesspeople that freak out about using company names as verbs or otherwise mangling them are the lawyers for those companies, as they're panicked about the resulting trademark dilution.

(And why should we care what businesspeople think about the language anyway? We already let them police our pasts, decide what we can buy, decide what we can eat affordably, and exercise a de facto check on the government, now we're going to cede control over what comes out of our mouths to them too simply because OH GOD WE NEED THE MONIES?)

You can couch it any way you want. Still, poor language usage = poor language usage, no matter how you slice it. We're not talking about what's said in the confines of an office. We're talking about impressing people with language skills. I grew up in the BIG city; I understand all the lingo. None of it is cool, or hip, or en vogue or impressive. The mere use of these words does not signify their inclusion in the English language. If it did, Kanye West or L'il Wayne would be the new Webster.

[alankin]

1 A merchant whilom dwelled at seint-denys,

2 That riche was, for which men helde hym wys.

3 A wyf he hadde of excellent beautee;

4 And compaignable and revelous was she,

5 Which is a thyng that causeth more dispence

6 Than worth is al the chiere and reverence

7 That men hem doon at festes and at daunces.

8 Swiche salutaciouns and contenances

9 Passen as dooth a shadwe upon the wal;

10 But wo is hym that payen moot for al!

11 The sely housbonde, algate he moot paye,

12 He moot us clothe, and he moot us arraye,

13 Al for his owene worshipe richely,

14 In which array we daunce jolily.

15 And if that he noght may, par aventure,

16 Or ellis list no swich dispence endure,

17 But thynketh it is wasted and ylost,

18 Thanne moot another payen for oure cost,

19 Or lene us gold, and that is perilous.

20 this noble marchaunt heeld a worthy hous,

21 For which ne hadde alday so greet repair

22 For his largesse, and for his wyf was fair,

23 That wonder is; but herkneth to my tale.

24 Amonges alle his gestes, grete and smale,

25 Ther was a monk, a fair man and a boold --

26 I trowe a thritty wynter he was oold --

27 That evere in oon was drawynge to that place.

28 This yonge monk, that was so fair of face,

29 Aqueynted was so with the goode man,

30 Sith that hir firste knoweliche bigan.

Edited June 9, 2012 by alankin

[Big Wheel]

If it did, Kanye West or L'il Wayne would be the new Webster.

Perish the thought!

Forgive me if I don't see a reason to bow extra deeply to the linguistic whims of people who invented a turn of phrase like "bio break".

Edited June 9, 2012 by Big Wheel

[JSngry]

Forgive me if I don't see a reason to bow extra deeply to the linguistic whims of people who invented a turn of phrase like "bio break".

Word on that!

I've worked in a mega-corporate world for more than a decade now, and the only thing that equals the hilarity of thinking that using "proper" English will get you into a world where language isn't skull-fucked on a level equal to what the Communists did to it is the inner-circle(jerk) whine about needless government regulations and inefficient bureaucracies, when they themselves, when left to their own devices, they'll come up with more levels of waste, fraud, inefficiencies, redundancies, and just flat-out bizarre clusterfucks than even the most odious government agency.

This thread is funny!

[JETman]

I think you guys are focusing on the part of my argument which doesn't come close to being the "meat and potatoes" of what I'm trying to say. If that's the way you're used to manipulating in your real lives, then all y'all be in bigger trouble than I originally thought. Have at it! You can try to mask ignorance with all the "clusterfucking" and "skull-fucking" you want. It may sound cool, but I ain't buyin' it.

[Pete C]

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.

...

Please, everybody stop the bullshit.

Wow, not only a "fundamentalist," but an angry one...

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

Language does not evolve by central planning. It's a chaotic process in which many variations come and go in casual usage, and some stick and become codified. I think you have a problem with chaos. Or maybe you have French blood.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Pete C

[king ubu]

Forgive me if I don't see a reason to bow extra deeply to the linguistic whims of people who invented a turn of phrase like "bio break".

Word on that!

I've worked in a mega-corporate world for more than a decade now, and the only thing that equals the hilarity of thinking that using "proper" English will get you into a world where language isn't skull-fucked on a level equal to what the Communists did to it is the inner-circle(jerk) whine about needless government regulations and inefficient bureaucracies, when they themselves, when left to their own devices, they'll come up with more levels of waste, fraud, inefficiencies, redundancies, and just flat-out bizarre clusterfucks than even the most odious government agency.

This thread is funny!

Cheers on that, mate! I can absolutely relate to and vouch for the veracity of that statement!

[alankin]

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.

...

Please, everybody stop the bullshit.

Wow, not only a "fundamentalist," but an angry one...

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

Language does not evolve by central planning. It's a chaotic process in which many variations come and go in casual usage, and some stick and become codified. I think you have a problem with chaos. Or maybe you have French blood.

Try as they might, even the French can't quite keep French in stasis.

[thedwork]

interesting thread and thoughts from folks here. but it seems to me like there's not enough focus. people who seem to be on the "conservative/traditional" side who argue against language "evolving" are widening the argument/topic wayyyyyy beyond what it seems to me the article's topic was in the OP: adding the occasional new word into the lexicon. that topic, imo, has basically nothing to do with using slang in a business situation, nor does it have anything to do w/ changing the "rules" of a language. words are added yet still adhere to the same rules as all the previous words in a language. if a rookie pitcher enters the game in the 8th inning he still has to throw over the plate. and as far as adjusting your language depending on your situation (business, family, late night hang, etc etc etc...), that's something everyone does all the time and it's somewhat simplistic to generalize about that. time and place. time and place man. different styles of speech are appropriate for different situations. and there's nothing wrong w/ that.

but the article in the OP doesn't really have anything to do w/ situational language use or rules of grammar. it's about the occasional added word to a particular language's lexicon. personally, i'm w/ the guy who said earlier in the thread (don't remember who it was...) that the only languages that don't [gain new words occasionally], are DEAD languages. i know that may not be technically correct ('dead languages' are ones that are no longer spoken, right?), but i agree w/ what i think was meant. now if we want to get into meaning, oh boy, look out

it's hard for me to believe that anyone here actually thinks that no new words should ever be added to English's general use for the rest of time. that would be rather prudish or, and i hate to use the word but i think it fits, stupid.

Edited June 10, 2012 by thedwork

[Tim McG]

The English Language is ever evolving.

To expect otherwise is a fool's paradise, IMHO.

[JETman]

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.

...

Please, everybody stop the bullshit.

Wow, not only a "fundamentalist," but an angry one...

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

Language does not evolve by central planning. It's a chaotic process in which many variations come and go in casual usage, and some stick and become codified. I think you have a problem with chaos. Or maybe you have French blood.

You're an analyst, too?

Go back into your hole.

'dead languages' are ones that are no longer spoken, right?

that would be a YES.

[JSngry]

Every culture has its own variation on the "general" language". Those who wold aspire to enter into a culture would be well-advised to learn that culture's distinct variances and then fluentize them to one degree past what they think will be necessary to penetrate said culture to the desired degree.

Just remember though - it's all a game. All of it.

[robertoart]

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.

Agree. In music terms this would equate to what 'Fusion' eventually became.

[robertoart]

Every culture has its own variation on the "general" language". Those who wold aspire to enter into a culture would be well-advised to learn that culture's distinct variances and then fluentize them to one degree past what they think will be necessary to penetrate said culture to the desired degree.

Just remember though - it's all a game. All of it.

Perhaps if you are interacting with another culture, what you learn language wise (in terms of sub-culture meanings) is at the mercy of your 'hosts'. Whether 'it's all a game' probably depends on the balance between your 'motives' and how they are perceived by others. I guess this has a lot to do with what you are doing there, be it professional, social etc. I don't think anybody really likes 'phils', where the element of social/cultural voyeurism might put people off sharing as much.

[JSngry]

If you're really at the mercy of your hosts, you haven't learned enough about them yet. The first lesson is that you will always be at the mercy of you hosts, and that your hosts are very seldom benevolent creatures who want to give you you whatever you want just because they like you. There will be games.

The games are not to conquer them nearly as much as it is to get what you want/need from them in order to preserve your own world. And believe me, they will be gaming to get as much from you for as little in return as possible.

[king ubu]

Okay, so let's play hump the hostess now!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InUSSfZBgJk

[Pete C]

fool's paradise

Hit it, Charles!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HZFaasCamY

[Tim McG]

Nice tune, Pete

[robertoart]

Every culture has its own variation on the "general" language". Those who wold aspire to enter into a culture would be well-advised to learn that culture's distinct variances and then fluentize them to one degree past what they think will be necessary to penetrate said culture to the desired degree.

Just remember though - it's all a game. All of it.

Perhaps if you are interacting with another culture, what you learn language wise (in terms of sub-culture meanings) is at the mercy of your 'hosts'. Whether 'it's all a game' probably depends on the balance between your 'motives' and how they are perceived by others. I guess this has a lot to do with what you are doing there, be it professional, social etc. I don't think anybody really likes 'phils', where the element of social/cultural voyeurism might put people off sharing as much.

If you're really at the mercy of your hosts, you haven't learned enough about them yet. The first lesson is that you will always be at the mercy of you hosts, and that your hosts are very seldom benevolent creatures who want to give you you whatever you want just because they like you. There will be games.

The games are not to conquer them nearly as much as it is to get what you want/need from them in order to preserve your own world. And believe me, they will be gaming to get as much from you for as little in return as possible.

These comments seem particularly relevant to the Nica de Koenigswarter discussions.

[Swinging Swede]

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

But can you do it using another search engine than Google? Could one say that one has googled something on Bing or Yahoo?

[A Lark Ascending]

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

But can you do it using another search engine than Google? Could one say that one has googled something on Bing or Yahoo?

You've been able to hoover the carpet with something like an Electrolux or Dyson for many years,

[PHILLYQ]

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

But can you do it using another search engine than Google? Could one say that one has googled something on Bing or Yahoo?

I think Googling has become the generic term for using a search engine. I've never heard anyone say that they 'Binged' something.

[Neal Pomea]

She can't math.

http://www.lolwithme.org/?p=1912

That's ok. I can't science.

(I has a sad.)

Edited December 26, 2012 by Neal Pomea

[Neal Pomea]

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

Go ogle, of course!