Likewise, if people use decimate in the wrong/ loose way as well as the correct one, both should go in dictionary. It's preferable though that the erroneous one is marked as such.
As I noted above, the so-called “erroneous” definition dates back to the 1660s, and it entered English relatively soon after the so-called “correct” definition. I think that after 350 years, it’s time to give up on contending that the looser definition is “erroneous.”
... "irregardless" is noted as a real word in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Genuine question: what do they say it means? "Not regardless"?
Good discussion of it here from Merriam Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless), though I'd say that quoting Ring Lardner isn't taking it to the highest literary authority. They say it dates from 1795, so for some of us, being post-KJV makes it a neologism.
... "irregardless" is noted as a real word in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Genuine question: what do they say it means? "Not regardless"?
As you know, I assume, they say it means "regardless".
As for decimate, since the number of times your average person has to talk about the ancient Latin meaning of the term (maybe 5% of the times the word is used? even that seems high) one can spell it out: they killed every 10th adult male in the city. You can add that this is the literal meaning of decimatus (or whatever it is), the source of our word "decimated". And everybody reading it goes "oh look at that! I see now!" and nobody, hopefully, is acting like a total nimrod expecting an English word to carry exactly the same word as its Latin root, because language doesn't fucking work that way.
... "irregardless" is noted as a real word in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Genuine question: what do they say it means? "Not regardless"?
Good discussion of it here from Merriam Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless), though I'd say that quoting Ring Lardner isn't taking it to the highest literary authority. They say it dates from 1795, so for some of us, being post-KJV makes it a neologism.
Meseems thou doest talk bollocks there, save that thou talkest in a manner like unto this.
The trouble with using "decimate" to mean "annihilate" is that enough people are aware of the original meaning (you can work it out from the roots, for goshsakes) that it grates like nails on a blackboard when we hear it used in a way that is so close and yet so far. Rather like having someone redefine "pureed" to mean "very coarsely chopped." If they'd just redefined it to mean "blue" or something, I wouldn't raise an eyebrow.
The trouble with using "decimate" to mean "annihilate" is that enough people are aware of the original meaning (you can work it out from the roots, for goshsakes) that it grates like nails on a blackboard when we hear it used in a way that is so close and yet so far.
Yes, the hoi polloi commonly think or should think, "Wait, there are language mavens who know the etymological meaning of this term. We should therefore bow to their emotions, and not use it to mean what it's been used to mean since it entered the English Language in the 17th century."
The trouble with using "decimate" to mean "annihilate" is that enough people are aware of the original meaning (you can work it out from the roots, for goshsakes) that it grates like nails on a blackboard when we hear it used in a way that is so close and yet so far. Rather like having someone redefine "pureed" to mean "very coarsely chopped." If they'd just redefined it to mean "blue" or something, I wouldn't raise an eyebrow.
I know its original meaning but also use it in the sense it acquired within a few decades of being attested in the English language hundreds of years ago. Doesn't grate at all.
... "irregardless" is noted as a real word in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Genuine question: what do they say it means? "Not regardless"?
Good discussion of it here from Merriam Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless), though I'd say that quoting Ring Lardner isn't taking it to the highest literary authority. They say it dates from 1795, so for some of us, being post-KJV makes it a neologism.
You seem to not understand the purpose of illustrative quotes in a descriptive dictionary.
... "irregardless" is noted as a real word in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Genuine question: what do they say it means? "Not regardless"?
Good discussion of it here from Merriam Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless), though I'd say that quoting Ring Lardner isn't taking it to the highest literary authority. They say it dates from 1795, so for some of us, being post-KJV makes it a neologism.
You seem to not understand the purpose of illustrative quotes in a descriptive dictionary.
I yield. The discussion has become too serious for my frivolous mind.
The trouble with using "decimate" to mean "annihilate" is that enough people are aware of the original meaning (you can work it out from the roots, for goshsakes) that it grates like nails on a blackboard when we hear it used in a way that is so close and yet so far.
Yes, the hoi polloi commonly think or should think, "Wait, there are language mavens who know the etymological meaning of this term. We should therefore bow to their emotions, and not use it to mean what it's been used to mean since it entered the English Language in the 17th century."
Right.
Tad crabby there? I'm telling you why it bugs me. Which is part of a larger frustration I've had as a teacher any time these past thirty years, which is convincing my students that using half-understood "big words" is NOT going to make them look more intelligent or educated, and that they'd be much better off using words they fully comprehend. Sesquipedalian verbiage, fah.
It's used in two ways. I have in fact heard it used with the older meaning. And I suspect that the new meaning came about the same way "nauseous" is in the process of coming to mean "nauseated"--because a number of people were trying to use impressive words (rather than the mundane "sick to my stomach" they probably grew up with), and got them mixed up.
I was a freshman composition teacher, and if I had a nickel for every time my students wrote that, well...
Yes, language changes. But it's a shame to see a perfectly good word lose what makes it unique. It's not as if we didn't have a zillion synonyms for "destroyed" already. Or for "sick." There are far fewer for "causing feelings of sickness and disgust."
And words are always being used metaphorically. For example, I notice in football, soccer, that words such as smothered, strangled, skinned etc., are used in sports writing. Do purists object to these?
Purists ignore sports writing in the same way as left-wingers ignore the fringes of the Tory Party Conference and people who faint at the sight of blood ignore operating theatres.
Purists ignore sports writing in the same way as left-wingers ignore the fringes of the Tory Party Conference and people who faint at the sight of blood ignore operating theatres.
Well, you made me laugh. I suspect this type of metaphor extends beyond sport. Now I am overwhelmed by laziness, so won't look for examples.
The dispute over "decimated" actually erupted into a near-argument at our latest extended-family dinner, with my prescriptivist PhD-in-English cousin holding out for the original usage over most of the rest of us arguing the descriptivist position -- that the words means what people use it to mean. I guess it's better than arguing about politics at family dinners, but it is always impressive to me (both here and around our dinner table) how heated people can get about word usage.
This is both my personal experience as a Shipmate interested in this discussion, and a gentle hostly reminder to back up @jedijudy's reminder on the last page ... this discussion still seems to be generating a lot of emotion; please remember to be kind and respectful.
Oh well, if we're going down the path of fidelity to ancient languages 'the' is redundant in front of 'hoi'. Or you can just reconcile yourself to there now being an English word 'hoipolloi'.
The dispute over "decimated" actually erupted into a near-argument at our latest extended-family dinner, with my prescriptivist PhD-in-English cousin holding out for the original usage over most of the rest of us arguing the descriptivist position -- that the words means what people use it to mean. I guess it's better than arguing about politics at family dinners, but it is always impressive to me (both here and around our dinner table) how heated people can get about word usage.
This is both my personal experience as a Shipmate interested in this discussion, and a gentle hostly reminder to back up @jedijudy's reminder on the last page ... this discussion still seems to be generating a lot of emotion; please remember to be kind and respectful.
The dispute over "decimated" actually erupted into a near-argument at our latest extended-family dinner, with my prescriptivist PhD-in-English cousin holding out for the original usage over most of the rest of us arguing the descriptivist position -- that the words means what people use it to mean. I guess it's better than arguing about politics at family dinners, but it is always impressive to me (both here and around our dinner table) how heated people can get about word usage.
This is both my personal experience as a Shipmate interested in this discussion, and a gentle hostly reminder to back up @jedijudy's reminder on the last page ... this discussion still seems to be generating a lot of emotion; please remember to be kind and respectful.
Trudy, Heavenly Host
Yes, I used to teach linguistics, and it amazed me how upset people get over "errors". I suppose language is something very personal, a bit like underwear, and we don't like anyone being divergent. The arguments tend to be pointless, language carries on changing in its own sweet way.
The dispute over "decimated" actually erupted into a near-argument at our latest extended-family dinner, with my prescriptivist PhD-in-English cousin holding out for the original usage over most of the rest of us arguing the descriptivist position -- that the words means what people use it to mean. I guess it's better than arguing about politics at family dinners, but it is always impressive to me (both here and around our dinner table) how heated people can get about word usage.
This is both my personal experience as a Shipmate interested in this discussion, and a gentle hostly reminder to back up @jedijudy's reminder on the last page ... this discussion still seems to be generating a lot of emotion; please remember to be kind and respectful.
Trudy, Heavenly Host
Yes, I used to teach linguistics, and it amazed me how upset people get over "errors". I suppose language is something very personal, a bit like underwear, and we don't like anyone being divergent. The arguments tend to be pointless, language carries on changing in its own sweet way.
My suspicion is that having put considerable effort into getting it "right" and avoiding common "errors", it's very hard to accept that the "correctness" may be less absolute than one previously assumed.
The dispute over "decimated" actually erupted into a near-argument at our latest extended-family dinner, with my prescriptivist PhD-in-English cousin holding out for the original usage over most of the rest of us arguing the descriptivist position -- that the words means what people use it to mean. I guess it's better than arguing about politics at family dinners, but it is always impressive to me (both here and around our dinner table) how heated people can get about word usage.
This is both my personal experience as a Shipmate interested in this discussion, and a gentle hostly reminder to back up @jedijudy's reminder on the last page ... this discussion still seems to be generating a lot of emotion; please remember to be kind and respectful.
Trudy, Heavenly Host
Yes, I used to teach linguistics, and it amazed me how upset people get over "errors". I suppose language is something very personal, a bit like underwear, and we don't like anyone being divergent. The arguments tend to be pointless, language carries on changing in its own sweet way.
My suspicion is that having put considerable effort into getiand n ting it "right" and avoiding common "errors", it's very hard to accept that the "correctness" may be less absolute than one previously assumed.
Yes, there is a kind of relativism operating. What's said in dialect A may not be in B. Hence, "you're wrong". Standard English queers the pitch, as it's a class dialect (UK).
The dispute over "decimated" actually erupted into a near-argument at our latest extended-family dinner, with my prescriptivist PhD-in-English cousin holding out for the original usage over most of the rest of us arguing the descriptivist position -- that the words means what people use it to mean.
Ah, but what people? Prescriptivist pedants are also people. A meaning used within the prescriptivist pedant community is just as valid as one used by the general public. Which meaning is intended will usually be apparent from context.
The dispute over "decimated" actually erupted into a near-argument at our latest extended-family dinner, with my prescriptivist PhD-in-English cousin holding out for the original usage over most of the rest of us arguing the descriptivist position -- that the words means what people use it to mean.
Ah, but what people? Prescriptivist pedants are also people. A meaning used within the prescriptivist pedant community is just as valid as one used by the general public. Which meaning is intended will usually be apparent from context.
They're not questioning the pedants' use, but rejecting the idea that that use is "correct" or "better".
Or, to put it another way, they're disputing the pedants' pedanticism!
Well, in pedant circles, the common use is wrong. Just like in formal use, "I ain't" is wrong, whereas it's completely normal in various spoken forms of English.
There are lots of "speech communities" and each community has its own rules. Some such communities have a wider range of acceptable choices, others are narrowly prescriptive.
They're not questioning the pedants' use, but rejecting the idea that that use is "correct" or "better".
Or, to put it another way, they're disputing the pedants' pedanticism!
Well, in pedant circles, the common use is wrong. Just like in formal use, "I ain't" is wrong, whereas it's completely normal in various spoken forms of English.
There are lots of "speech communities" and each community has its own rules. Some such communities have a wider range of acceptable choices, others are narrowly prescriptive.
The problem comes when the pedants insist that the other speech communities' usages are somehow inherently wrong even on, as it were, their own turf.
Oh well, if we're going down the path of fidelity to ancient languages 'the' is redundant in front of 'hoi'. Or you can just reconcile yourself to there now being an English word 'hoipolloi'.
I don't go down that route. Have you read anything I've written here?
I've come to regard dictionaries as encyclopaedias of language rather than instruction manuals. It reduces stress levels and makes me less liable to blow out the fuse in the humour circuit. I have possibly tiresome ideas about what is right and wrong, but nobody is obliged to pay any attention to them.
Euphemisms for death. I dislike passed away, passed, passed over, gone fishing, gone away, crossed over, left home, promoted to glory, etc etc. There are many more which would fill a book.
Then there are the comic notices such as "whenever I gaze into a paddock and see an Angus cow your memory will not fade"
When I die, just say so plainly and don't sing Amazing Grace at my funeral or I will haunt everyone forever.
Back in the day "promoted to glory" used be seen in Salvo ( Salvationist) death notices in these parts. I think that that this is neither a euphemism or a solecism if the gentle reader is either part of that club, or as a non-Salvo scanning the rag to check the hatches, matches and dispatches.
I was somewhat startled to read earlier this year that the death of Lothlorien (RIPARIG; Anglican but not a Sydney Anglican) had been so mentioned.
When my mother (2012) and father (2019) died, people looked rather startled when I said the s/he "died". My sister (not a believer) uses the same locution as do I. And I similarly dislike the misuse of Amazing Grace - it's a joyous hymn, not a dirge.
Funeral hymns should not be dirges, but joyful expressions of trust in God. The hymns, and readings, I've picked for mine are some of the most positive I know.
Apparently, in early centuries, Christians wore white for funerals, as they were celebrations.
Funeral hymns should not be dirges, but joyful expressions of trust in God. The hymns, and readings, I've picked for mine are some of the most positive I know.
Apparently, in early centuries, Christians wore white for funerals, as they were celebrations.
Sod that. I'll haunt any bugger who's joyful at my funeral.
You've made me think though. A reading from Ecclesiastes on the futility of life would be better than what someone else might pick.
White is the liturgical color for funerals in my tribe because it is the color for Easter and the resurrection, and a funeral (formally termed in our books Service of Witness to the Resurrection ) are framed with a focus on resurrection.
I think, though, it would be a mistake to say funerals should be joyful or celebrations. And I detest the calling them “celebrations of life.” Grief and sadness have to be acknowledged and respected, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be set in a larger context.
I have been at funerals where the desire to "proclaim hope" has been so strong ("Thine be the glory", etc) that you'd hardly have thought someone had died. I don't think that helps the grieving process.
I have been at funerals where the desire to "proclaim hope" has been so strong ("Thine be the glory", etc) that you'd hardly have thought someone had died. I don't think that helps the grieving process.
Well, it depends, I think, on context—family context, religious community context, larger community context, circumstances of death (young, old, accident, illness, release from long and debilitating illness, etc.)—and what expectations those contexts create about funerals and about grieving. One size doesn’t fit all.
(And fwiw, in my experience here, the hymns for a church funeral are typically chosen either by a decedent who planned ahead or by the family.)
All that said, and acknowledged, duly, I have found that the honouring of the grief and sadness is part of the healing process. I find "celebration of the life" far too euphemistic and analgesic in an Aldous Huxley way.
Comments
As I noted above, the so-called “erroneous” definition dates back to the 1660s, and it entered English relatively soon after the so-called “correct” definition. I think that after 350 years, it’s time to give up on contending that the looser definition is “erroneous.”
No, they acknowledge that it just means "regardless". Their take is that the "ir-" is an intensifier rather than a negater.
Good discussion of it here from Merriam Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless), though I'd say that quoting Ring Lardner isn't taking it to the highest literary authority. They say it dates from 1795, so for some of us, being post-KJV makes it a neologism.
As you know, I assume, they say it means "regardless".
As for decimate, since the number of times your average person has to talk about the ancient Latin meaning of the term (maybe 5% of the times the word is used? even that seems high) one can spell it out: they killed every 10th adult male in the city. You can add that this is the literal meaning of decimatus (or whatever it is), the source of our word "decimated". And everybody reading it goes "oh look at that! I see now!" and nobody, hopefully, is acting like a total nimrod expecting an English word to carry exactly the same word as its Latin root, because language doesn't fucking work that way.
Meseems thou doest talk bollocks there, save that thou talkest in a manner like unto this.
Cf. Flammable/inflammable. Meh.
Yes, the hoi polloi commonly think or should think, "Wait, there are language mavens who know the etymological meaning of this term. We should therefore bow to their emotions, and not use it to mean what it's been used to mean since it entered the English Language in the 17th century."
Right.
I know its original meaning but also use it in the sense it acquired within a few decades of being attested in the English language hundreds of years ago. Doesn't grate at all.
You seem to not understand the purpose of illustrative quotes in a descriptive dictionary.
Obviously not, because no-one uses it to mean that.
I yield. The discussion has become too serious for my frivolous mind.
Tad crabby there? I'm telling you why it bugs me. Which is part of a larger frustration I've had as a teacher any time these past thirty years, which is convincing my students that using half-understood "big words" is NOT going to make them look more intelligent or educated, and that they'd be much better off using words they fully comprehend. Sesquipedalian verbiage, fah.
I was a freshman composition teacher, and if I had a nickel for every time my students wrote that, well...
Yes, language changes. But it's a shame to see a perfectly good word lose what makes it unique. It's not as if we didn't have a zillion synonyms for "destroyed" already. Or for "sick." There are far fewer for "causing feelings of sickness and disgust."
But as my children could confirm, I’m with you on “nauseous.”
Well, you made me laugh. I suspect this type of metaphor extends beyond sport. Now I am overwhelmed by laziness, so won't look for examples.
This is both my personal experience as a Shipmate interested in this discussion, and a gentle hostly reminder to back up @jedijudy's reminder on the last page ... this discussion still seems to be generating a lot of emotion; please remember to be kind and respectful.
Trudy, Heavenly Host
Oh well, if we're going down the path of fidelity to ancient languages 'the' is redundant in front of 'hoi'. Or you can just reconcile yourself to there now being an English word 'hoipolloi'.
Ah, PhD in English does not a linguist make.
Yes, I used to teach linguistics, and it amazed me how upset people get over "errors". I suppose language is something very personal, a bit like underwear, and we don't like anyone being divergent. The arguments tend to be pointless, language carries on changing in its own sweet way.
Nor is a linguist necessarily a doctor of philosophy.
My suspicion is that having put considerable effort into getting it "right" and avoiding common "errors", it's very hard to accept that the "correctness" may be less absolute than one previously assumed.
On this subject, I was reading one or other paper and came across a sentence that mentioned "hoi polloi" without a "the".
I smiled.
Yes, there is a kind of relativism operating. What's said in dialect A may not be in B. Hence, "you're wrong". Standard English queers the pitch, as it's a class dialect (UK).
Ah, but what people? Prescriptivist pedants are also people. A meaning used within the prescriptivist pedant community is just as valid as one used by the general public. Which meaning is intended will usually be apparent from context.
No-one is questioning the pedants' use.
Or, to put it another way, they're disputing the pedants' pedanticism!
Well, the usual answer is the speech community as a whole.
Well, in pedant circles, the common use is wrong. Just like in formal use, "I ain't" is wrong, whereas it's completely normal in various spoken forms of English.
There are lots of "speech communities" and each community has its own rules. Some such communities have a wider range of acceptable choices, others are narrowly prescriptive.
The problem comes when the pedants insist that the other speech communities' usages are somehow inherently wrong even on, as it were, their own turf.
I don't go down that route. Have you read anything I've written here?
That's good, because that's what they are.
Funny how that works.
I was somewhat startled to read earlier this year that the death of Lothlorien (RIPARIG; Anglican but not a Sydney Anglican) had been so mentioned.
Apparently, in early centuries, Christians wore white for funerals, as they were celebrations.
Sod that. I'll haunt any bugger who's joyful at my funeral.
You've made me think though. A reading from Ecclesiastes on the futility of life would be better than what someone else might pick.
I think, though, it would be a mistake to say funerals should be joyful or celebrations. And I detest the calling them “celebrations of life.” Grief and sadness have to be acknowledged and respected, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be set in a larger context.
(And fwiw, in my experience here, the hymns for a church funeral are typically chosen either by a decedent who planned ahead or by the family.)
/tangent