From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Concertise
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:40:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.055629.22312@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.042636.4241@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan10.173503.26973@rose.com> peter.churchill@rose.com (peter churchill) writes:

>>>As I remember, much of the anguished gnashing of teeth concerned not so 
>>>much its existence as its usefulness. Even though the word, in the lexical 
>>>sense, may be legitimate,  the very fact it caused gnashing says something 
>>>about its usefulness. 

>>How do you reckon that?  Special Relativity caused a lot of gnashing,
>>too.  In matters of language, gnashing about a perfectly common word
>>can be induced by the gnashing of one pundit's teeth.  Look back to
>>the 19th C's gnashing about "donate," "greed," or any number of other
>>words we find quite useful today.

>Special Relativity caused a lot of gnashing, indeed.  So did a lot of
>other theories - but how many of them have proven to be valid (or, to
>use a scientific criteria for validity, useful)?

That's "criterion."  8-)

As for usefulness, people seem to be able to figure that out for themselves,
and gnashing generally doesn't take a very scientific view toward the 
issue when it comes to words.  

>>>I will never use it, and do not wish it used upon me. 

>>Dean Swift felt the same way about "mob."  Would you have respected
>>his wishes?

>Again, a lot more innovations in language have fallen by the wayside
>than have been adopted.  And thank the Gods of Language for that,
>for otherwise English would have collapsed under its own weight!

>Certainly, a language is a living, growing, organism.  But uncontrolled
>growth is cancer, which is fatal if left untreated . . .

But the treatment happens by itself, and the self-appointed treaters
have no effect except to make the unschooled feel insecure.  What 
treatment other than the marketplace are you referring to?

>>Seriously, though, what are you saying?  That we shouldn't consider
>>how music is made when we speak of it?  That we should expect musicians to
>>live on air and play for the glory of art?  (I'm not a musician
>>precisely because that one was tried out on me once too often.)

>What does this have to do with the validity of "concertize"?  (Besides,
>where did Peter criticize musicians?)

In the part you deleted.  They're the ones concerned with the economics
of music.

>>Note also that Fowler can't tell you *why* the words are inelegant, 
>>or what "Elegance" has to do with appropriate speech, nor can he
>>state what Sir Alan had said in his own words, preferring merely
>>to drop the quotation in there without comment.  (This passage
>>gets posted to the group about once a month, and is still one of
>>Fowler's lesser efforts.)

>You mentioned Special Relativity earlier.  Surely, one reason this
>theory so caught the popular imagination was the simplicity, the
>elegance, of E=mc2 (pretend the "2" is a superscript, please!).

Special Relativity is a scientific theory -- there, elegance counts
for a lot, and is defined along pretty clear lines.  What is elegance
in a word?  Swift complained of inelegance wrt hunderds of words we
find perfectly OK.

>I also dislike "concertize".  I still don't see how this is better than
>"perform", except that it's a longer, fancier, word.  (In my experience,
>people who choose the longer, fancier, word are more likely to be trying
>to dazzle or to impress than to inform.  And I believe the primary
>purpose of language is to inform . . .)

Concertize does *not* just mean "perform."  We went through this a while
ago.  It carries implications of professional performance, of repeated
performance, of touring, i.e., of something other than a steady gig.

Roger

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english