![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
So for the enthusiastic descriptivists out there, is it perfectly OK with you if penultimate gains a secondary meaning of "totally awesome!" Since the word is fairly uncommon it wouldn't surprise me to find it's used that way more than it's used correctly. Even if it's not let's pretend it is. So should the 2006 dictionary say:
penultimate: 1) next-to-last 2) even more ultimate than ultimate! rock on!
What I find so lame about this process is that it essentially steals the word from educated people who have taken the trouble to learn what it means and gives it to lunkheads who guess at the meaning based on superficial similarity to a word they already know. I don't understand why anyone would be keen on hastening this process. The message I hear is that no matter how ignorant people are we'll be happy to rewrite the rules for them.
I feel so sorry for the non-English-speaking world. English has become the de facto common tongue and in the U.S. we're going out of our way to complicated it with usage-based alterations because it's apparently so complicated that even native speakers can't speak it! Witness the "verbal auxiliary" definition of "of": used in place of the contraction 've often in representations of uneducated speech. Today in "representations of uneducated speech"; and tomorrow?
← Ctrl← Alt
Ctrl →Alt →
September 26 2005, 20:20:20 UTC 6 years ago
There isn't some privileged class acquiescing to the "lunkheads" by rewriting the rules; everybody writes the rules. To have a public billboard on which any passer-by with a marker can write and to then hope that someone, somewhere doesn't scribble "fuck you" or "kilroy was here" (or perhaps "gavagai"?) seems a bit naive.
All other things being equal, I'd tend to put more stock in a branch of science that describes how hydrogen atoms behave rather than one that tells hydrogen atoms how they ought to behave.
September 26 2005, 20:32:14 UTC 6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
September 26 2005, 20:24:51 UTC 6 years ago
September 26 2005, 21:38:18 UTC 6 years ago
Waiting for someone to go with that one.....
That said, it is still used (in the sense that you're using it) in books I read today (Sci-Fi/Fantasy) and I definitely still cringe somewhat when I see it......In this case, I think the word has crossed so far into the opposite spectrum that even using it the way that it was intended to be used would seem wrong to me.....Any thoughts?
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
September 26 2005, 20:28:29 UTC 6 years ago
September 26 2005, 20:29:35 UTC 6 years ago
OT: is Merriam-Webster Unabridged worth the price?
Is the Merriam-Webster Unabridged access worth $30/year?I have always been a fan of keeping a dicitonary handy while reading. Since I do much of my reading on the internet, I keep an m-w.com search box on my home page and use it often. But that only gets me the free content, which is generally okay except for banner ads and pop-up ads. Is the unabridged content really that good?
...
Getting even more off-topic, I have been saying for years that I would pay $500 to have a compact mobile device that contained the full contents of the Oxford English Dictionary (and would keep itself up to date with periodic updates via some sort of synchronization). If it also included a self-synchronizing copy of the full imdb.com database (okay, minus images), I'd pay $1000 without a second thought.
September 26 2005, 20:33:48 UTC 6 years ago
Re: OT: is Merriam-Webster Unabridged worth the price?
Is the unabridged content really that good?To me it is. I pay for almost nothing online but I pay for that. When I look up a word I like to see it in all its glory.
6 years ago
6 years ago
September 26 2005, 20:39:52 UTC 6 years ago
If they don't, they should.
I like this phrase in the Merriam-Webster Online definition of colloquial: "Unacceptably informal."
September 26 2005, 20:40:29 UTC 6 years ago
You feel sorry for the wrong reasons. American direction in the use of English is to simplify things, not overcomplicate them. I had no idea until today that "to beg a question" meant what it really means. Tell me how one would parse the phrase without prior knowledge of its meaning, if you can. "To beg" means "to ask for" generally, right? Which meaning is simpler for a non-native speaker to learn?
Besides, we (non-native speakers) don't use words like "penultimate" in regular speech. We use those to show off our vocabulary, and expect to have to explain its meaning, even if sometimes incorrectly. That can be quite embarassing.
What I personally feel sorry for is the rampant use of anglicisms in Russian language, even with words that have analogues in Russian. I would be surprised if it was much different in other languages, in this age of Internet. I can only describe this as a kind of linguistic pollution.
September 26 2005, 21:40:46 UTC 6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
September 26 2005, 20:43:18 UTC 6 years ago
Keep fighting the good fight.
September 26 2005, 21:31:01 UTC 6 years ago
Essentially, there are two things happening, the usage of the word by the spoken population and the grammar or orginal definition of the word. Since part of a language is its spoken part, it is defined by those who speak it. (At least, that's what I was told.) So, even though "to go" does not mean "to say" because of the usage, it is now defined that way. The makers of the dictionary say they are merely showing what is used, and make no comment on if they like it or not.
So, yes it will be put in the dictionary that way. I don't prefer it but that's what happens.
I don't agree with it but that's what happens. (I prefer decimate to its original (Roman) meaning but that's me.)
Ah, well.
Have a good one! Take care!
edg
September 28 2005, 17:31:13 UTC 6 years ago
evildmguy said,
"Essentially, there are two things happening, the usage of the word by the spoken population and the grammar or orginal definition of the word. Since part of a language is its spoken part, it is defined by those who speak it."
If the spoken word were the only thing changing accepted meanings of words I think the rate of change of the "official" (i.e. dictionary mandated) meanings would be acceptable, if sometimes regrettable. But I fear that the presence of the internet has changed the game considerably. Paul's example of the contraction "'ve" is a perfect example. While people have been pronouncing could've as "could of" for lord knows how long, I expect that "could of" appeared in print only very rarely before the arrival of the internet. But on the net "could of" is ubiquitous.
My opinion is that dictionaries should be highly resistant to changes in meaning driven by the net, much more so then by changes in the spoken word. Adding new words to the language as a result of the net is one thing, but changing accepted meanings because of misuse on the net is something else entirely, and I believe dictionaries should be the last line of defense against this.
September 26 2005, 21:36:06 UTC 6 years ago
Prescriptivism yay. Descriptivism poo.
Descriptivism shuttles my grubnik!Prescriptivism 4 lyf yo.
September 26 2005, 21:37:57 UTC 6 years ago
This Begs the Question
What kind of super-chat quotes would we get from Phil Hellmuth on PenultimateBet?September 26 2005, 22:16:53 UTC 6 years ago
Re: This Begs the Question
I am disgusted by the corruption of "kopje" in both spelling and definition.September 26 2005, 21:45:54 UTC 6 years ago
Witness the "verbal auxiliary" definition of "of": used in place of the contraction 've often in representations of uneducated speech. Today in "representations of uneducated speech"; and tomorrow?
Perhaps the "singular 'they'" that the prescriptivists are so horrified by. Oh wait! That one already happened, didn't it?
Those who find language drift too upsetting may wish to take up Esperanto, or possibly French, which has thoughtfully devoted an entire government ministry to the task of protecting the language!
September 26 2005, 22:42:51 UTC 6 years ago
LOL LANGUAGE IS A DEMOCRACY LOL
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
September 26 2005, 22:29:55 UTC 6 years ago
Don't ya think?
Can't believe no one has brought up the single most misused word in the language. Ironic. So, do the descriptivists think i should stop correcting people when they use it to mean "coincidental?" Let me know, thx.September 27 2005, 04:17:44 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Don't ya think?
That's a fine example of a word I'm unwilling to surrender no matter how widely it's misused. Should the dictionary be updated to include all the ways irony is misapplied? That'd be wonderful. We might retroactively transform alanis morissette into a highly respected scholar. Historians would say "she was among the first to understand that the meaning of irony was expanding well past its traditional meaning."6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
September 26 2005, 23:21:22 UTC 6 years ago
September 26 2005, 23:24:32 UTC 6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
September 26 2005, 23:58:43 UTC 6 years ago
Yes, that wouldn't be something I'd think of as particularly detrimental to the ability of people to communicate. In fact, it actually might increase the amount of information being transmitted, ie that someone is a lunkhead. More importantly I think these sort of things are completely unavoidable and intuitively the cost of preventing them is way too high to justify the small benefit it brings. Not that I have much of a clue in this area.
'So should the 2006 dictionary say:
penultimate: 1) next-to-last 2) even more ultimate than ultimate! rock on!'
If it is a widespread usage of the word, then yes but the etymology of the word should also be noted.
'What I find so lame about this process is that it essentially steals the word from educated people who have taken the trouble to learn what it means and gives it to lunkheads who guess at the meaning based on superficial similarity to a word they already know.'
I don't really agree but more on that below.
'The message I hear is that no matter how ignorant people are we'll be happy to rewrite the rules for them.'
I don't see it like that. It's more like we let them branch off and give them a slightly different set of rules.
I see English (pretty much any language) as a multitude of different languages with a lot of overlap rather than one language common to all English speakers. These different languages vary across a lot of different groups and the 'same' words might carry completely different meanings in the different groups. A natural language is just too big and used in so diverse environments (with different needs) that standarization is impossible, the best we can hope for is a core of common words and usuages between the groups.
September 27 2005, 00:11:09 UTC 6 years ago
I think one of the absolute wonders of language, and particularly the English language, is how fluid it is. How it is constantly in flux, constantly changing. I truly dislike the elitest, static view of language that words have to have a fixed meaning, unchangeable till the end of time.
Is the change of the meaning of Penultimate due to ignorance? Yeah, probably. So what.
I also am a proponent of discripitve grammar, as opposed to proscriptive grammar. I don't believe in any " proper" way to say anything. The penultimate ( to use the new usage) goal of language is to communicate ideas. If the meaning of what one speaker says is understood by another, then the language has been used successfully. What does it matter if you use "good" instead of 'well" if you are understood, other than the fact you sound "uneducated". One can use "proper" grammar, and "proper" usage of obscure words, and have what they are trying to communicate be totally misunderstood, while someone using good, a double negative, or penultimate is perfectly understood. Which is the better use of the language?
September 27 2005, 00:32:59 UTC 6 years ago
Elitist. Elitest would mean "most elite" if elite had a comparative form.
Also, strawman.
What does it matter if you use "good" instead of 'well"
Based on the number of errors in your brief post I quite believe you that you do not think any of this matters. If I thought life were something to trudge through on a whatever-happens-to-get-the-job-done basis I might agree. Happily, I don't.
One can use "proper" grammar, and "proper" usage of obscure words, and have what they are trying to communicate be totally misunderstood, while someone using good, a double negative, or penultimate is perfectly understood. Which is the better use of the language?
I don't know; I'll ask the towering man of straw who trailblazed for you.
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
September 27 2005, 00:44:04 UTC 6 years ago
To answer the question ...
... yes, unfortunately. But it will be a shame if/when it does, because "penultimate" is one of those rare words that is really useful when trying to make a written passage more concise and artful.Here's the problem with the entire debate, however: It's futile. Take a look at Italy, which is now attempting to "reform" its language education with a standardized version of Italian. Heretofore, each area of the country had its own dialect, which over time morphed into languages that barely resembled Italian as taught to non-native speakers. It was a natural progression of the language, based on exclusivity, cultural progression and ignorance. And, while the country's schools are experiencing moderate success correcting the deviations, it's going to be an arduous process, since the dialects are now many generations deep. In fact, many of the older generations resent the government's attempt to "kill" their language.
The point, you ask? English cannot be static, because language doesn't exist outside of usage. Whether grammarians appreciate the contributions of those less informed, those contributions still have an effect.
- Connor
September 27 2005, 01:55:02 UTC 6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
September 27 2005, 05:00:43 UTC 6 years ago
Language Changes
My basic thoughts on language changes are that we should be prepared to accept some mutations as time goes on, but we have a responsibility to rally against the bad ones. Some changes are fairly neutral, such as a word taking on a new meaning in slang that does not cause us to lose the meaning of the original word. "Cool" meaning "good" is not really a harmful change because it's almost always clear from context which is meant.In cases like "penultimate," I think it makes sense to oppose the changes and correct people who use it in the new fashion because, as Paul writes, it steals a useful word from us. My pet peeve is "literally" being used for the opposite of what it means ("He literally blew up at me!") since having a word to denote that something is not a figure of speech is pretty handy.
I think pure descriptivism makes sense if you're a linguist who's studying language use, since scientific study should be free of value judgments. But it hardly means those of us who are simply concerned about the language need to accept all changes as being good! People who use "penultimate" incorrectly should be chastised so that they will stop and we will retain a good word.
September 27 2005, 06:56:47 UTC 6 years ago
September 27 2005, 07:46:17 UTC 6 years ago
uses of language
It would be OK if penultimate meant more ultimate, but not at the expense of eliminating a word that means next-to-last. I really don't know what the issue here is. Language isn't in flux because retards use it incorrectly. Penultimate means next-to-last, and the sooner those nativist bastards let go of their petty little word the sooner us Intelligentsia can rule the Earth! Ahahahahah!Wait, who are we talking about?
September 27 2005, 12:39:53 UTC 6 years ago
Now, I don't mind the concept of 'ultimate' migrating to also mean 'best'. But what bothers me about 'penultimate' meaning 'even more ultimate than ultimate' is that penultimate actually means, 'one spot LESS ultimate than ultimate.'
I don't mind words collecting new meanings along the way; languages are fluid. We don't exactly speak the same language as Chaucer or Shakespeare or even Dickens. However, I really would rather those meanings keep some sense of consistency amongst themselves. If penultimate somehow both means 'more ultimate than ultimate' and 'less ultimate than ultimate' the word gets pretty useless in a hurry. All we really know if someone describes something as 'penultimate' is, well, it's not ultimate.
I can say, however, with some authority, that this is indeed the ultimate comment on the subject. :)
September 27 2005, 12:40:23 UTC 6 years ago
Or, well, it was...
September 27 2005, 13:41:27 UTC 6 years ago
If this is a reflection of how new words get into the dictionary: yes if it has become an accepted and commonly (mis)used idiom.
Much as I dislike the latter, it is how many words extend the language whether we like it or not.
Quite how we judge the criteria for its widespread use I don't know, but I think dictionary publishers have committees who decide rightly or wrongly. Here in the UK there are annual news stories which highlight a year's odder additions.
September 27 2005, 17:02:36 UTC 6 years ago
Just out of curiosity...
to:When trying to come up with an adequate response to this, you sort of have to put yourself in a situation where the problem of grammar butchering confronts you directly. I had to think of, "how do I react when those around me say penultimate, because they recognize the 'ultimate' part?" Well it bugs me, but not to the extent that I personally do anything about it...if I am not confronting it on the small scale, how is it fair to allow it on the large-scale?
I'm honestly not trying to be a smart ass, but:
How do you personally react when your friends/acquaintances misuse a word in such a fashion? You can't quite fight the good fight against only people you don't like. Do you correct them, or do you let it slide?
September 27 2005, 17:06:13 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Just out of curiosity...
Sorry, I'm having problem editing...I meant to say:
if I am not confronting it on the small scale, how is it fair to disallow it on the large scale?
September 27 2005, 17:08:34 UTC 6 years ago
Its It's Were Was Your You're Their There They're
There are so many mistakes that many people make every day and never bother to learn:Many have no idea how to use
"There, They're, Their" or
"Its and It's" or
"Your and You're"
In addtion, It's quite rare to find anyone using "were" and "was" correctly.
For example, most people might say "I wish I was a baller" or "Don't you wish your girlfriend was hot like me," seemingly oblivious to the incorrect usage of the word "was." Speaking correctly, one would say "I wish I were a baller" and "don't you wish your girlfriend were hot like me."
Most people I play poker with online use "your" to mean "you're" and they don't think they've made an error -- even when I make fun of them.
"Its" and "It's" seems entirely outside the reach of most averagly intelligent humans.
-Lyric
September 27 2005, 17:10:27 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Its It's Were Was Your You're Their There They're
*averagely* Meh.6 years ago
September 27 2005, 18:59:12 UTC 6 years ago
Even football players are fighting the fight
From NFL.com's Tuesday Morning Quarterback column written by Gregg Easterbrook:Last week's item on King Solomon -- who wrote, "all rivers run to the sea, yet the sea is never filled" -- promoted the following from Kathryn Martin of Roberts Wesleyan College. "My husband, Dr. John Martin, in preaching Ecclesiastes, has always called Duane Thomas, the Cowboys' running back of the 1970s, a Solomonic scholar. Near the verses you quoted, Solomon declares 'What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again.' After the Super Bowl, Thomas was asked, 'How does it feel to win the ultimate game?' Duane replied, 'How can it be the ultimate game when they play it again next year?'"
September 27 2005, 19:01:23 UTC 6 years ago
Me, Myself, and I
I am saddened whenever ignorance wins. Not terribly surprised when it is a word definition, because there are many words, and people often learn word meanings through context and experience rather than by looking them up. One person misuses a word, and it might spread (especially with the more unusual words).What upsets me more is incorrect grammar. Right now I'm on a bit of a pronoun phase. I'm not terribly upset by the misuse of who/whom, but misuse of me/myself/I is really starting to get to me. Specifically, overuse of "I" and "myself" when "me" is appropriate. These are rules taught in school! Millions of U.S. children are taught these rules, and they are being ignored.
Of course language changes. Eventually, we can rewrite the rules, and I'll accept it. But until that happens, I'm going to go on correcting people.
September 28 2005, 00:23:25 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Me, Myself, and I
Hopefully seems to have become accepted by most English speakers. It seems to the be the usage panel that is freaking out about it:"Usage Note: Writers who use hopefully as a sentence adverb, as in Hopefully the measures will be adopted, should be aware that the usage is unacceptable to many critics, including a large majority of the Usage Panel. It is not easy to explain why critics dislike this use of hopefully. The use is justified by analogy to similar uses of many other adverbs, as in Mercifully, the play was brief or Frankly, I have no use for your friend. And though this use of hopefully may have been a vogue word when it first gained currency back in the early 1960s, it has long since lost any hint of jargon or pretentiousness for the general reader. The wide acceptance of the usage reflects popular recognition of its usefulness; there is no precise substitute. Someone who says Hopefully, the treaty will be ratified makes a hopeful prediction about the fate of the treaty, whereas someone who says I hope (or We hope or It is hoped) the treaty will be ratified expresses a bald statement about what is desired. Only the latter could be continued with a clause such as but it isn't likely. ·It might have been expected, then, that the initial flurry of objections to hopefully would have subsided once the usage became well established. Instead, critics appear to have become more adamant in their opposition. In the 1969 Usage Panel survey, 44 percent of the Panel approved the usage, but this dropped to 27 percent in our 1986 survey. (By contrast, 60 percent in the latter survey accepted the comparable use of mercifully in the sentence Mercifully, the game ended before the opponents could add another touchdown to the lopsided score.) It is not the use of sentence adverbs per se that bothers the Panel; rather, the specific use of hopefully in this way has become a shibboleth."
← Ctrl← Alt
Ctrl →Alt →