Winstons rubbish

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Language only 'evolves' through misuse.
You always say that, but it's not necessarily always the case - unless, for example, you regard (as some of us would!) the change from 'light bulbs' to 'lamps' as having been an unnecessary 'misuse' which should never have happened.

Kind Regards, John
 
Sponsored Links
Language only 'evolves' through misuse.
Initially I was going to agree but then second thoughts kick in and I realised it's a lot more complicated, progress requires new words and misunderstanding/clarifacation can creep in. Foreign influence is massive on language.
The problem then is confusion creeps in, as an example preceding a word with 'in' negates the original word, however 'flammable' means easible combustable and due to the long winded origin of 'inflammable' it means the same thing.

"Deflate' is the opposite of 'inflate' which means to fill something to the point it grows in size but 'flate' means the feeling of nausea.

As I said it's complicated.
 
Were there not lamps before light bulbs?
Of course there were, but, to the best of my knowledge, the only things found in domestic premises which were described as 'lamps' were things like table lamps, standard lamps, inspection lamps etc. etc. and that word was never used to refer to the component which tuned electricity into light (and heat!).

By your view, the people who started using the word 'lamp' to refer to something which, for decades, had been known as a 'light bulb' were presumably guilty of 'misuse', weren't they?

Kind Regards, John
 
Were there not lamps before light bulbs?
Yes there were but the lamp had always been the whole thing, think about the genie. Whereas the bulb was the item that was fitted inside a lamp, lantern or luminaire etc. Light was always the emission [lamplight]. Somewhere along the line the fitting became the light and the bulb became the lamp. I've given up on that one and try to go along with whatever the other person uses.
 
Initially I was going to agree but then second thoughts kick in and I realised it's a lot more complicated, progress requires new words and misunderstanding/clarifacation can creep in. Foreign influence is massive on language.
New words are not evolution.

The problem then is confusion creeps in, as an example preceding a word with 'in' negates the original word, however 'flammable' means easible combustable and due to the long winded origin of 'inflammable' it means the same thing.
Precisely - because people didn't know and use it wrongly.
What happens now if you have an inflammation of a body part? Is that now just a flammation or flamed?
What about all the other words that begin with 'in'?

"Deflate' is the opposite of 'inflate' which means to fill something to the point it grows in size but 'flate' means the feeling of nausea.
Words often mean more than one thing.
I do not know if this happened because of misuse or was ever thus.

MOD: Thread title is in breach of forum rules and is therefore going to be locked.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

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
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top