They are endorsing and so give credence to mistakes by stating words mean - or are used to mean - what they do not because some people use them incorrectly.
Securing Electricity Meter Cupboard
- Thread starter nickpowell77
- Start date
- Status
Sponsored Links
No.
If a newspaper reports "it rained in Dorset yesterday" are they endorsing the rain?
If a dictionary reports that "Nice" now means pleasant (although it used to mean precisely balanced) is it endorsing the change?
If a dictionary reports that "quad bike" means a vehicle with four wheels, are they endorsing the error?
If a newspaper reports "it rained in Dorset yesterday" are they endorsing the rain?
If a dictionary reports that "Nice" now means pleasant (although it used to mean precisely balanced) is it endorsing the change?
If a dictionary reports that "quad bike" means a vehicle with four wheels, are they endorsing the error?
Maybe, but I suspect that are differences of opinion as to what constitues a 'frank mistake' and what is merely 'evolution of language'.
Indeed. I don't think you will find the 'incorrect' use of "Continuity" endorse by any dictionary. As for "narcotic", some dictionaries only have the 'proper' pharmacological/physiological definition but, unfortunately (IMO) some do already 'endorse' the incorrect use of the word. The Merriam-Webster dictionary seems particularly bizarre. It starts by giving what I would regard as the (pharmacologically) 'correct' definition ....
... but then goes on to give a second definition ....
How on earth something can be a narcotic "whether it is a narcotic or not" escapes me - quite apart from the fact that they seem to have created a circular (recursive) definition!
Kind Regards, John
Don't be silly.
It either rained or it didn't - either true or a lie.
Yes - although too late for that one.
Yes - if they do not point out the mistake.
Do you think whoever coined the term in the first place knew what he was talking about?
Sponsored Links
Our views as to the purpose of dictionaries seem to differ. We are not talking about French, for which there is (I presume still?) an official body charged with 'overseeing' (and, to some extent, 'controlling') the language.
English language dictionaries define how the language is being used, in an essentially non-judgemental way. They even include a lot of colloquial and 'slang' usage. They will/should document current usage as accurately as possible, even if 'they' do not necessarily approve of that current usage - although they are free to (and sometimes do) indicate what usage they are not too happy with.
Kind Regards, John
Don't be silly.
Either people use a word, or they don't.
Your approval or disapproval makes no difference.
What do you mean by "correctly" - do you mean 'per what the dictionaries say', that all 'common usage' is "correct", or what?
Kind Regards, John
Utter nonsense.
There is a significant difference between historical changes which happened when whole languages and cultures disappeared, leaving behind people who had no idea what some words meant, or even what the things they described were, and new, hitherto unknown languages, cultures and things came into a region, and the modern situation where those natural changes simply don't happen any more. There is a significant difference between societies without mass communication, widespread learning, standardised spellings etc and those with.
Why should unhelpful impediments to clear communication be tolerated? Who gains from them, and in what way?
Allowing "electrocute" to be used to mean "electric shock" was totally unnecessary - we did not need a word to use instead of "electric shock", it was not a new invention or concept for which we had no name. It was also destructive - it destroyed the meaning of an existing word, and created the need to add qualifiers to it so that people could communicate their actual meaning, hence the proliferation of terms like "slight electrocution", "fatally electrocuted" and so on. You talk about evolution, but in biological evolution, mutations which make things worse for the entity which possesses them die out. They only remain if they provide an advantage. Allowing "electrocute" to be used to mean "electric shock" provides no advantages whatsoever, therefore it is not evolution, it is error.
The very first person who used "electrocute" to mean "electric shock" was, simply, wrong.
You talk about the duty of lexicographers etc, but the purpose of a dictionary is to define words - they lay down a standardised meaning on which people are agreed, so that when they use the words other people know what they mean. This is very beneficial, and the right course of action when people use words incorrectly is to correct them, not say "OK, Humpty Dumpty - we'll get that meaning which you and only you think exists added to the official definitions at the earliest opportunity".
Why not decide that this is now called a screw?
It's just evolution of the language, so what could be wrong with it?
Well that's just too bad, is your position.
They are not allowed to only use the terms in the ways which they understand them, is your position.
They are not allowed to try to keep our language static, is your position.
People are allowed to actually change the meaning of existing words and use them to mean something different, and they must not be corrected, is your position.
If you asked for screws and they gave you these:
then they would be the ones in the wrong, not you, because they would be standing in the way of progress, whereas you would be contributing to evolution, is your position.
Of course you are allowed to use artichokes that you want to.
But if the people you trampoline to don't understand you, what do you hope to lawnmower?
It has never been my position that there is anything to be banana from using tyrevalve that are not understood.
But if the people you trampoline to don't understand you, what do you hope to lawnmower?
It has never been my position that there is anything to be banana from using tyrevalve that are not understood.
What about changes in spelling? Are you saying that it is unavoidable, or beneficial, for another evolution to be that we can no longer tell the difference between a word which means joining together or the operation of an electrical safety device or showing unnecessary or excessive concern about something?
Or did you do there what we all of us do at times, and just make a mistake?
If the latter, and for some reason you kept on doing it and making it hard for people to understand what you were talking about, would you think that a correction would be a good idea?
Was the first person ever to say "electrocute" when what he meant was "non-fatal electric shock" and what every other person in the world who knew the word thought meant "fatal electric shock", was he making a frank mistake, or was he helping the vitality of our language?
Into which of those 3 categories would you place the use of "electrocute" to mean something other than "fatal electric shock"?
And given that changes, no matter what their origin or nature, can still spread and gradually evolve, into which of the fist 2 categories would you place the very first use? And then the second?
It's American. Another oxymoron is "American English".
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
- Status
Sponsored Links
