From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: quite unique
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:42:46 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Nov17.163733.4389@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <28246@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov16.182859.25273@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>>I say that a word means what LOTS OF PEOPLE say it means -- namely those
>>>who use it.  I say that there is no other standard for determining meaning
>>>of words.  

>>A person is free to form their own judgement, to approve or disapprove
>>of some new trend in usage, or even to suggest a new coinage (such as
>>"hir"). If their arguments & publicity work, then in time they may
>>influence enough language users for their view to become first an
>>accepted usage, and ultimately perhaps even the proper usage.

>Of course, the vast majority of coinages and usage changes occur without
>any publicity at all.

I meant publicity in the most general sense, i.e., including public
usage, such as by the media, some of which are regarded as holding to
an approved standard of good usage.

>>It is also the duty of every language user to consider which side to
>>take on any developing usage -- to condone or condemn.

>Why?  Surely use/don't use is the only choice the vast majority will
>ever make; and this choice has driven every language change in human
>history.  Most people can't be bothered to look at the thousands of 
>new coinages and meanings that pop up each week, not that the 
>newspapers print lists of them or anything.

I meant simply that a language user, when reading or hearing some
novel usage, will choose whether or not to adopt it. I was
recommending that this choice be made on linguistic grounds, rather
than, for example, that it was observed in the speech or writing of a
high status person.

[if enough]
>>language users care enough about the language this should result in
>>improvements. 

>How?  What kind of improvements?

The specialisation of originally synonymous terms to express finer
distinctions, or to remove ambiguity, for example. An instance of this
is the British adoption of the US spelling "program" to designate a
computer program, and the specialisation of "programme" for such cases
as "programme of research". Another improvement is the adoption in
Britain of the US meaning of "billion", rather than fostering
ambiguity by continuing to fight a losing battle in favour of the
British "billion".

>>If too many language users are simply sheep who
>>thoughtlessly propagate every fresh mistake and confusion, then the

>Can you show me that there exists one such person on the planet?

There are plenty of posters to this net who have supported novel
usages which add no extra capability to the language (being synonymous
with and no more economical than existing expressions), and which
detract from the expressive capacity of the language by introducing
ambiguity, and whose support consists of no more than "other people do
it so why shouldn't I?" The confusion of "infer" and "imply" into
synonyms has recently been defended on just these grounds. That's what
I mean by "sheep" in this context.

>(Note that the above sentence implies that most people are actually
>sheep when it comes to language, because most of them don't think
>about issues of neologism and redefinition.  Why am *I* the only
>one who gets accused of being rude, when things like this are 
>basically insults that cover about 99% of the world's population?)

It wouldn't surprise me if 99% of your friends are "sheep" in this
sense, and it may even be true of 99% of the English-speaking
population of the US, but it is certainly not true of non-US English
speakers. Indeed, one of the things which often surprises British
English speakers is how commonplace this "anything goes" attitude is
in the US. I am sure that if you walked into any Irish pub, for
example, you would find many English speakers who would argue all
night about issues of this kind, and few who would disagree with such
concern.

>>language will degenerate.

>Ah, here we go.  Funny, but this argument has been made in every century
>that there's *been* an English language, and especially the last four.
>Swift was absolutely sure that English was going to the dogs ...
>yet we can read his prose without trouble or dictionaries.

Not true. Swift is often used, and has often been used, in Englih
language comprehension tests, and the proportion of today's British
schoolchildren who can understand it is definitely less than a few
decades ago.

>Johnson 
>felt the same way, and planned to write a Dictionary to "fix" the
>language to the usage of that time.  (Writing it cured him of this
>folly, btw.)

I challenge you to cite a history of the English language which does
not think that the efforts of Johnson have had a considerable
influence. Most, for example, blame Johnson and his ilk for the silly
"don't split infinitives" rule which still bedevils English -- and
discussions on this group.

>And on and on; most people feel that English has been declining since
>their schooldays.

In the UK they seem to be right. Most educational researchers agree
that both the used and comprehended vocabularies of teenage UK
schoolchildren is less, and their ability to understand and use
complex sentences poorer, than it was in the time of their parents.

>Yet it doesn't seem to do so.  English is a wonderfully vital language
>that has never yet been damaged by all kinds of neologism, redefinition,
>etc.  In fact, for a Golden Age of making up words, try Shakespeare's time.

I have nothing at all against neologisms. I welcome them if they
improve the language.

>Fortunately, purism wasn't popular at the time;'
>people didn't complain as much about these new words, and didn't spend
>their days taking moral stands on which word to use.

I am not a purist nor a conservative. I am simply against new usages
which add nothing to the language, and often subtract. And you are
quite wrong about people not taking stands on linguistic grounds in
those days. Shakespeare was no isolated linguistic giant. Not only
were there many well-educated word-coiners at work in the literary
arena of his time, the common people of the time were capable of
understanding much more complex language than they are today, and the
arts of story-telling, repartee, witticism, and general word-play were
much more widespread, and of a much higher standard, among ordinary
people, than they are today. The modern Irish "gift of the gab" is a
archaic survival from times of much greater linguistic skills in the
common people.

>> ... sheep who suppose that any usage employed by some people somewhere
>>is by that fact alone justified as a usage which cannot be criticised.

>Excuse me, but do you know anyone who fits the latter category?

Not personally, but I do see them posting to this newsgroup. That's
why I started this argument.




-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english