View Single Post
Old April 22 2013, 09:52 PM   #62
thestrangledcorpse's Avatar
Location: Brooklyn
Re: Grammar Nazi Thread: Smooshing Words Together

Gary7 wrote: View Post
thestrangequark wrote: View Post
Language evolves and changes; 'tis the nature of the thing, and there's a sort of tiresome "Get off my lawn!" attitude that comes with people who get hugely upset by that change. Chaucer's English is barely recognizable as the same language as modern English -- words change meaning, are removed, added, morphed, mushed together, and torn apart all the time.
Definitely true, language is a living thing that shifts and evolves over time. However, it's one thing when a sensible change is introduced (e.g. new technology or social construct) that inspires a new word, but another when people are coming up with something just for the sake of sounding cool or being lazy. The latter is what gets me. While "chillax" is entertaining in a comedic venue, using it in real life just telegraphs "poser"...
Then not only did the word chillax appropriately communicate to you the speaker's intended meaning, it also had associated meaning cluing you in to the fact that the speaker was a poser. How is that bad?
MacLeod wrote: View Post
thestrangequark wrote: View Post
lvsxy808 wrote: View Post

My point is that it's an unnecessary word. A word already exists to describe that concept - "disembark," as Macleod says. I'm all for new words to describe new concepts. Of course Chaucer didn't have a word for "internet," because he didn't need one. Likewise there's no need to create a new word to describe "disembark" when there's already a perfectly good word that serves the purpose. After seven years of living in the States, I have to say my impression wasn't that it was a dialectal difference, but rather ignorance of the fact that the word "disembark" exists at all.

Likewise, usage of such non-words as "winningest" on Nascar commentary makes me want to stab a bitch.
THis makes me think you've missed my point, though. Language doesn't evolve based just on necessity. Do you take such umbrage at every word that is redundant? Because if you do, I don't know how you can even stand to speak English -- with its dual Latin and Germanic roots, we have redundant words for nearly everything! And I don't think the specific example of 'deplane' is the result of ignorance of the word 'disembark,' it is more specified -- you can't deplane a boat. Adding to our language makes it richer, not poorer.

Winningest is also a word. It's even in the dictionary. It makes for a great adjetive: "Just flash them your winningest smile and be honest!" Why not just enjoy the evolution of language, and the inventiveness and playfulness it so often illustrates rather than getting annoyed by it?

Oh, I also love it when people use 'literally' incorrectly, because the imagery is fucking hilarious.
If having more words makes a language richer, then words pronunced the same but spelt differently should apply as well.
As someone who loves puns, I'd never argue that!
After all in English the words metre and meter mean two different things as do the words tyre and tire. So if adding to the language makes it richer then doesn't the opposite apply?
Are you saying removing words makes language less rich? Yeah, possibly. English lost some useful and meaningful words. We lost thee, thou, thy, etc, which had more meaning than the simple you that replaced them, for example.[quote]

The Enterprise is my TARDIS.
thestrangledcorpse is offline   Reply With Quote