Phrases and terminology that needs to STOP! (1 Viewer)

[Marvin]

It would be a lot groovier, I mean, I could really dig it, if you spell the word correctly: groovy. Can you get behind what I'm saying?

 

[Charles J P]

One thing that kills me in general, but its also occuring in this thread is people who claim to be sticklers for language (self apointed linquists) but ignore the fact that the English language is a living language and words do properly come in and out of usage all the time. Take all or nothing. Dont say you are a big stickler regarding language and then ignore a crucial component of it just because you think you are better than everyone else.

 

[Charles J P]

I guess I should add, I'm not trying to pick a fight, but we KNOW that the English language is SUPPOSED to change so I'm curious what makes someone at HTF think they are more qualified to determine what words SHOULD be in the dictionary. YES, you MAY have a great command of the English language and dont need a spell checker and routinely correct people on online forums but Merriam Webster has a whole staff of people with PhDs in linguistics, but I guess we are graced by the presense of people that still know better than them.

 

[BrianW]

Oh, good grief! What is that to which the world is coming?

If I may respond:

1. This is a thread about language. If Mr. Language Nazi were to correct other people's usage in a TiVo thread, that would be very annoying. But here, it is the very topic of discussion. Find an instance of Mr. LN threadcrapping elsewhere, and take it up with him there. But leave him be here, unless he starts talking about TiVos.

2. Nobody here is saying that language doesn't or shouldn't change. Indeed, the whole premise of this thread is to marvel at the interesting -- and often annoying -- ways in which it does change.

3. Nobody here is claiming to know best what should or shouldn't be in the dictionary. Again, we're just marveling at what we see. Language is the topic of discussion, after all.

4. Despite what you may think, the dictionary is not the authority for correct or proper usage. The dictionary is intended merely to document common usage. So it really is true that for a word to make it into the dictionary, all that is required is that enough people use it, even if improperly. As such, there are plenty of words and derivations in the dictionary that constitute improper and even incorrect usage. So just because something can be found in the dictionary doesn't mean that it's proper or correct.

5. Yes, language changes, and that's what we're celebrating here. But without maintaining some notion of proper and improper usage, anything goes, and anything can literally (literally! Hyuck) mean anything. The goal of "sticklers" is not to prevent language from changing, but to establish a structure in which communication can be more precise and reliable in the midst of that change. When language rules are violated, we will make new rules to accommodate the new usage. But that doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that we shouldn't have any rules at all. And it also doesn't mean that sticklers aren't accommodating to change.

6. No matter what, the word irregardless should NEVER be allowed in the dictionary.

BTW - I typed this post on my phone, without proofreading, and with an intermittent "eye" (I) key, so please be gentle with me.

[Edit: Missing "I"s have been filled in now that I'm at a real computer with a real keyboard. Really!]

 

[MarkHastings]

I don't mind people correcting my spelling mistakes, but I guess the thing that bugs me about it is, I usually post responses at work and don't often have a ton of time to compose a reply. I'm sure others are in the same boat. I'm just trying to quickly get my point across.

And I also don't mind being corrected as long as it's done in a nice way.Oh. I've never said that word and I surely have never spelled it before.

 

[Hunter P]

 

[Paul Padilla]

How about "Man made".

Unless the laws of physics have changed, there is no such thing. Every piece of matter or energy on the planet has been derived from something else. Maybe it's some unknown process at the center of the universe...maybe it's an omnipotent being, but man/woman has never created anything. (children included...their genetic material still begins and develops using existing matter.

 

[Charles J P]

bwahaha, now we're stretching. Seriously, if I pick up an item that would traditionally (in these days) be "produced" by a machine, man-made means hand-made. I'm not sure, other than a total misunderstanding of the definition of the word made, how you could have a problem with the phrase man made.

 

[BrianW]

I know "Organic" appears to be (hopefully) redundant when applied to things like milk and bananas, but the term actually means something, and its use is regulated and restricted to those manufacturers who qualify to use the term (which is not the case for "All Natural" ).

And while it is true that we are incapable of creating matter with which to fashion our iPods and lava lamps, I think the term "man-made" is nevertheless usefull to distinguish between naturally-occurring artifacts, such as rocks and trees, from those artifacts which would not exist but for man's efforts, such as porn and airline ticket stubs.

If we did it your way, there would be nothing to distinguish the Mars rovers from the rest of the desolate Martian landscape since they all are made from naturally-occurring elements. Being fashioned and delivered by human hands is the very thing that sets the Mars rovers apart from their surroundings. They owe their very existence to man's indulgence and could never have arisen naturally. Hence, they are man-made.

 

[Charles J P]

Hehe, I totally blew the man-made thing as I also forgot about its use to denote things like a man-made lake which means it was designed, dug, filled, and landscaped on land that never would have had a body of water otherwise.

 

[Paul Padilla]

Wow. Cheap shot.

I'm not sure how someone could have a problem with organic or dude or groovy, but they seem to be getting slammed just the same.

 

[BrianW]

Ah, I see your point now. Sorry for misunderstanding. Lakes (and a lot of other things) are indeed a different matter since a man-made lake can be indistinguishable from a natural one.

Perhaps we should call them "synthetic" lakes?

 

[Hunter P]

And this meaning would be....


Maybe it's like free range chicken. The milk is not squeezed from the teat. Rather it is allowed to drip naturally into the milk carton?

 

[MarkHastings]

I was just watching a comedian (Demetri Martin) who did a routine on the word dude:

 

[BrianW]

It's a fair question, since the term "Organic" doesn't, on its face, suggest its regulated meaning. For milk, it primarily means that the dairy cows have not been routinely injected with steroids and antibiotics, and they graze only on grass grown on land that has been free from pesticide and synthetic fertilizer use for at least three years. There are other requirements which apply to crops.

But the real kicker is that you can actually buy Organic cigarettes!

 

[BrettB]

20% more effective than the leading brand!

If so, why is the 'leading brand' kicking your second-place arse?

 

[ThomasC]

I've been hearing this in some commercials..."With us, you'll talk with real people, get real results and real savings!"

They might as well be saying "Pick up your real phone, dial our real number, talk to our real operator, use some real words, talk for a real amount of time, get your real results, let some real time pass by, and you'll get your real savings!"

 

[Yee-Ming]

"Organic" still conjures nightmares of high-school organic chemistry to me...

 

[Michael_K_Sr]

Does anyone know where this phrase originated? I agree it's one of the most asinine things I've heard.

 

[Citizen87645]

I think it's from the movie "Clueless" when Cher is sideswiping multiple parked vehicles on her driving test. At least I think that's the first time I heard it. It might have been in use in California prior to the film.