Evolution of language

Joined
28 Jan 2011
Messages
55,906
Reaction score
4,128
Location
Buckinghamshire
Country
United Kingdom
Initially I was going to agree but then ...
I think one has to acknowledge that what EFLI says is strictly true (i.e. that evolution of language can only occur as a result of initial 'misuse') - in the same way that biological evolution can only happen if there is a gene mutation (i.e. a 'misuse' of the correct process of reproduction). However, that's how evolution works.

Hence, if every word in the English language has a strictly defined meaning today, the meaning of none of those words could ever change/evolve unless someone started using word(s) 'incorrectly' (in relation to today's strict definition) tomorrow (and then 'others follow'). If one regards that as unacceptable, then one is opposed to any evolution of language.

EFLI is far from alone, but I have never really discovered where he, or many others like him, 'draw the line. One gets the impression is that what he regards as 'correct' is the language he learned as a child, and that any changes ('evolutions') from that have been the unwelcome (or 'unacceptable') result of 'misuse'. However, that language he learned as a child was dramatically different from the language of Beowolf or Chaucer, and significantly different from the language being used only 50-100 years before he was born. So, I have to ask, why does he seem to accept the centuries of evolution prior to his birth, but not that which has occurred subsequently?

Kind Regards, John
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
I was reading a (free) Kindle Sherlock Holmes pastiche, and the American author had one of the characters use the word 'sabotage' definitely well before 1893. I believe the word was coined after 1900. Anyway, my point is that this is a useful word that came into existence, so was not created by 'the great unwashed' that EFLI hints at. It's too easy to generalise. Anyway, there will never be a satisfactory agreement on this argument so I have given up worrying.
 
Obviously one cannot alter what has already happened but that is not justification for continuing the process.

As I have said before, were we still to speak as did Chaucer then we would know no different and not think it odd.
 
I was reading a (free) Kindle Sherlock Holmes pastiche, and the American author had one of the characters use the word 'sabotage'

"Clogging" I thought was earlier? Equivalent to luddites.

Jaquard looms were introduced from about 1801.
 
Sponsored Links
Obviously one cannot alter what has already happened but that is not justification for continuing the process.
True, but it seems inconsistent with your position. All of your 'complaints' are about evolution which "has already happened" (and which, as you say, is probably irreversible), not about what evolution may 'continue' in the future, aren't they?
As I have said before, were we still to speak as did Chaucer then we would know no different and not think it odd.
You have, and you're right in what you say. Do I therefore take it that, because of your dislike of the 'misuse' over the centuries which has brought us to speak differently from Chaucer, you feel that, ideally, we would still be speaking like Chaucer? If not, I don't see the significance of an arbitrary cut-off date (such as 'when you were born').

Kind Regards, John
 
True, but it seems inconsistent with your position. All of your 'complaints' are about evolution which "has already happened" (and which, as you say, is probably irreversible), not about what evolution may 'continue' in the future, aren't they?
I don't think so.
I can only complain about what is happening now and maintain we should not accept it and correct people.- the ludicrous "would of, should of" etc. for example.
How long before people start writing "I of a red car" or "You of said that'?
How long before you start writing it in your professional documents? If never, then you agree with me.

You have, and you're right in what you say. Do I therefore take it that, because of your dislike of the 'misuse' over the centuries which has brought us to speak differently from Chaucer, you feel that, ideally, we would still be speaking like Chaucer? If not, I don't see the significance of an arbitrary cut-off date (such as 'when you were born').
I can do nothing about that, can I?
It's not a cut-off when I was born; it is to stop it now. I agree it is probably impossible but the OED could protect the language more vehemently and list things as a 'common misuse' rather than just change the definition.

I wonder what it is like in foreign languages or is it just the influence of the U.S. in Britain?.
There is an orthography body here in Portugal which adjudicates on such things as the correct spelling of a word when two or more variations are in use.
 
I well remember in Algeria ordering a head lamp, and that is what I got, a head lamp, minus the bulb. It had all started when another electrician had taken the mick saying bulbs grow in the ground.

It does not take much thought to realise we had lamps well before electric lighting the wick, mantel, was just part of the lamp, however Luminaire, Chandelier, Lamp all refer to the whole unit, and if the light emitting part is not bulbous then really should not be called a bulb, but we want a word and although we have tubes, a folded fluorescent tube replaces a bulb so we call even a MR16 a bulb even if it is not really bulbous.

And many of the electrical names are because some time in the past it did describe the thing that did that job, transformer is still called a transformer when it is an isolation transformer not an isolation reactance but when I wanted to generate a centre tap with 110 volt it was called a reactance not an auto transformer, and I must admit I have never worked out why some words have been selected.

I will admit I don't like some of the changes, I was taught a cable radiating out from a overload device was a radial, but if it radiated out from a junction rather than an overload device and the load carrying capacity was reduced it was a spur, so a supply from a FCU was a radial, so if you said you should not spur from a spur, that did not include a supply from a FCU as that was a radial not a spur, however BS7671 called it a fused spur, not sure if it changed, or if I had been miss informed.

We today have a problem with the driver, to my mind a driver was a current regulated power supply, but seems any DC power supply is now called a driver.

In some cases the original meaning has not been lost, decimate is clearly to do with 10, hence the deci so we know it did mean to get rid of one in ten, and histrionic it was kill 1 in 10 to make Roman solders fight harder if they lost a battle, but today it has come to mean get rid of nearly everything, in the same way we know a MR16 refers to multifaceted reflector 16/8th inch across, harping back to cathode ray tubes used in old TV type stuff, with the 16/8th inch, however the manufacturers seem to reserve it for 12 volt, and however much we know it's wrong, should we not also bend and accept it is used to mean 12 volt?

The one I hate is low voltage, I know in USA 12 volt is called low voltage, but everywhere else in the world it is extra low voltage. But put a reduced low voltage bulb or an extra low voltage bulb in a low voltage supply the result is the same, it fails. We all know we should check the voltage, but I have fitted a 110 volt ES bulb in a 230 volt lamp, I had simply forgot I had got any 110 volt bulbs. Look at this advert for a bulb and no where does it say 230 volt or low voltage, is that wrong?

And yes a ring circuit is where we can isolate parts of the ring to work on them, and the cable in a ring circuit can take the full operating current, but a ring final is very different, why we call it a ring final I don't know, as we have FCU connected to a ring final so it is not the final circuit we can have further circuits after the ring final, however Part P does not seem to regard them as circuits even if the BS7671 does.

But in the same way as the Screwfix advert assumes we all are UK home owners and we will not have any lights at other than 230 volt, and there is no need to say 230 volt or 110 volt, or even 120 volt, do we really on a DIY forum need to say ring final? Very few DIY people will every meet a ring circuit, so does it really matter if we miss out the word final? After all that is not anywhere near as bad as selling bulbs without stating the voltage.
 
I don't think so. I can only complain about what is happening now and maintain we should not accept it and correct people.- the ludicrous "would of, should of" etc. for example.
Although you say "happening now", you are only able to quote those examples because the 'initial misuse' has already occurred, in the past. It therefore seems that what you would like to do is to limit the proliferation of those 'evolutions', since it's clearly too late for your to prevent the start of that evolutionary process.
How long before people start writing "I of a red car" or "You of said that'?
Those things, and the one's you mention above, irritate me as much as they do you, but I think they're probably rather different from the 'evolution of language', at least in the sense I was thinking/talking about. What we have here is a mixture of sloppiness and phonetic spelling/writing, and I am not sure that the dictionaries and grammar books are ever (at least, any time soon) going to accept them as 'correct' ...

It all started with abbreviating, something that was not tolerated by my teachers (and not only the English teachers) back in the 60s. "Would have" came to be written ('sloppily' in the eyes of my teachers!) as "Would've" and, when spoken, that sounds extremely close to "Would of" - which moved some people to start writing it as such - and exactly the same for all the others you mention above.

What irritates me just as much (in my offspring as well as anyone else), but which is not an example of that, is "Can I get XYZ" when asking for something - and I'm not sure how that arose.
How long before you start writing it in your professional documents? If never, then you agree with me.
That's an interesting one, since there is definitely quite a lot of what I write in 'professional documents' today which I would not have dreamed of writing 30 or 40 (maybe even 20) years ago. I obviously would not use any of the 'sloppy' things mentioned above - but, as I've said, I'm not convinced that they will ever, at lest in our lifetimes, become acceptable for written English.
It's not a cut-off when I was born; it is to stop it now.
As above, it's an attempt on your part to reduce (or 'stop'!) further proliferation, given that it has already happened, and is already with us.
I wonder what it is like in foreign languages or is it just the influence of the U.S. in Britain?.
The US has obviously has had a major impact on "UK English" over the past 50+ years. I do have a friend who is a linguistics academic, and it's her view that evolution of English has been 'more reasonable' than that in a number of other languages, although I have no way of knowing how true that is.
There is an orthography body here in Portugal which adjudicates on such things as the correct spelling of a word when two or more variations are in use.
I wasn't aware of that. The only country I'm aware of which has had an organisation/body highly 'protective' of its language is France. In the UK, we seem to have traditionally relied primarily on the OED to be the arbiter (and 'definer') of what is 'right and wrong' about English, and use of English.

Kind Regards, John
 
The one I hate is low voltage ....
That's probably the one which worries me most, particularly when I see people (here and elsewhere being told that "230V is low voltage".

For those in the electrical industry to have their own 'correct' terminology, which they use amongst themselves, is fair enough.

However, as far as the general public are concerned, it fortunately has (to my knowledge) not happened (yet), but if there ever comes a day when any consumer items which operate at ~230V are labelled "Low Voltage", I think it will probably only be a matter of time before tragedies arise as a result.

Kind Regards, John
 
So when did 230V become low voltage?

I'm convinced it's in my working lifetime.

It was fairly recently that I watched a safety contractor fitting 'Danger High Voltage' signs to trunking containing 3ph and when I pointed out the the client that it was factually incorrect they checked and asked for the safety guy to return with documentation relating to every single sign he'd put up and eventually insisted he made significant changes.
 
in the same way we know a MR16 refers to multifaceted reflector 16/8th inch across, harping back to cathode ray tubes used in old TV type stuff, with the 16/8th inch, however the manufacturers seem to reserve it for 12 volt, and however much we know it's wrong, should we not also bend and accept it is used to mean 12 volt?

They don't even do that. They reserve it for GU5.3 bases which can be other voltages. 24V is common.
But how did this incorrect usage come about?
 
I don't think so.
I can only complain about what is happening now and maintain we should not accept it and correct people.- the ludicrous "would of, should of" etc. for example.
How long before people start writing "I of a red car" or "You of said that'?
How long before you start writing it in your professional documents? If never, then you agree with me.


I can do nothing about that, can I?
It's not a cut-off when I was born; it is to stop it now. I agree it is probably impossible but the OED could protect the language more vehemently and list things as a 'common misuse' rather than just change the definition.

I wonder what it is like in foreign languages or is it just the influence of the U.S. in Britain?.
There is an orthography body here in Portugal which adjudicates on such things as the correct spelling of a word when two or more variations are in use.
I seem to remember the French did not like "la software" but it stuck, so yes it does happen else where.
Welsh has imported words of English and English has imported Welsh words, the only difference is the English still spell the word as in the language it has imported from so although looking at spelling Granada and Canada should be pronounced very similar they are not, but in Welsh lorry is said the same but spelt lori so any word spelt the same is a Welsh word imported into English.

But USA seems to use a lot of old English words, we still refer to a fanny hoop, but in the main we say back side or some other word.
 

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

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top