From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Subject: Re: Apostrophes in Plural forms?
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 01:04:43 GMT

I give up trying to edit this mess.  Sorry.

In article <1992Nov22.184043.18950@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <1992Nov22.173051.21756@news2.cis.umn.edu> charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov21.211317.14509@news2.cis.umn.edu> I wrote
>>(replying to Roger):
>
>>  Well I guess we have a fundamental disagreement.  Most people *do* do things
>>  out of sheer trendiness.  Most bizspeak, entertainment speak, news, etc. is
>>  little else but trendiness.
>
>>In article <1992Nov21.233317.9814@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu
>>(Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>>> TRANSLATION: "I don't like it."  
>
>>> Seriously, can you back this up with an iota of evidence?  Can you
>>> demonstrate that fashion in word use is not universal, that it does not
>>> reflect actual needs or desires to express new things or ideas or
>>> relationships?  Have you ever studied the development of a new idiom?  
>
>>Can you demonstrate that it is, and more precisely that trendiness is no
>>more important now than in any other time in human history?  Can you
>>demonstrate that using initialisms for everything does reflect actual needs?
>>I can't even imagine what would count as evidence in such a demonstration.
>
>Doesn't matter.  I don't *have* to demonstrate those things.

Oh fine.  You can ask for demonstrations, but don't need any evidence
for your assertions.  Great argument.

>*YOU* made the assertion that acronyms and initialisms were the result of
>"sheer [i.e., unadulterated] trendiness".  The burden of proof-- or even
>of evidence is on you.

I don't see why.  This is a commonplace, as you might have gathered from
your rather isolated position in this newsgroup.

>Now, regarding actual needs, it's more or less a given that people talk
>the way they do in order to communicate.  Yes, there *have* been a few
>observations that would back up this shocking hypothesis, and I see no
>need to demonstrate it, either.  It seems like a good null hypothesis to me;
>so how about doing your part?

Why is it more or less a given?  I know it is a "shocking hypothesis".
Sigmund Freud in what I concede was a somewhat egotistical statement
said this was the greatest shock of all to man's smug self-image
(greater than those of Copernicus and Darwin).  Even a century later
some people still find the notion that people aren't logical "shocking".
But they aren't.

>>Studying the development is very different from demonstrating a need -- unless
>>you have a hidden panglossian assumption that mere existence demonstrates
>>a need.  
>
>Again with the stupid insults.  This is not "panglossian," but simply 
>a null assumption of linguistics.  Over the past thousand years of 
>English, few words have arisen *except* when needed.  Why assume that 
>these things we're talking about suddenly arise from a different 
>motivation?

What a wonderfully circular assertion.  First it is simply a "null assumption".
Then, presumably taking this "null assumption" for granted it is used as its
own proof.  Why assume that words arise for reasons other than need?
Why *assume* anything at all?  Especially why assume something for which
only a completely circular argument can be given?

>ANSWER: "I don't like it."

Great argument.

>>You complained about being labeled "panglossian", but if you have
>>any other argument, you haven't stated it.
>
>I have the history of our language -- and of all other languages --
>on my side.  Words and usages and constructions and practices become
>accepted if they serve some purpose, and not otherwise.  I look forward
>to your demonstrating that this (or anything else) is an exception.

I can think of lots of evidence.  I think much of what we have been
talking about constitutes evidence.  But it disagrees with your assumptions,
so I don't imagine there's any hope of convincing you.

So I retire.

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english