Evolution of language

[DetlefSchmitz]

Yeah. LOL. My work colleague sent an email to a relative: Sorry to hear grandma died. LOL.
Easily done if you don't check what things mean first.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I think I at least have been concentrating on trivial silly mistakes rather than words that are actually in danger of 'evolving' (being misused) resulting in totally changing the meaning.

Let us take topical examples:

Paedophile:
This is now used for any offence with girls who are under age rather than the accurate prepubescent children. One radio presenter, at least, cannot seem to utter the name of Jeffrey Epstein without preceding it with "the paedophile - ". I am sure he was not accused, let alone charged with crimes which come under this category.

Homophobic:
This does not mean hatred or dislike of Homosexuals. From the Greek it literally means "an irrational fear of the same". Perhaps it can be stretched to be part Latin and part Greek to mean "an irrational fear of man" i.e mankind. in neither case does it refer to homosexuals.
Anyway 'mis-' is the prefix to denote hatred.

Then the ubiquitous Antisemitism:
It has been expertly usurped to discount any Semitic people who are not Jewish yet to include Jewish people who are not Semitic - not to mention any reference to Israeli, Zionism, the state of Israel or the Israeli Government and forces.
Indeed any criticism of that itself or any of those things attracts accusations of antisemitism which can halt any discussion.

 

[ericmark]

Anyway 'mis-' is the prefix to denote hatred.

Is that why we call her the Misses?

Then the ubiquitous Antisemitism:
It has been expertly usurped to discount any Semitic people who are not Jewish yet to include Jewish people who are not Semitic - not to mention any reference to Israeli, Zionism, the state of Israel or the Israeli Government and forces.
Indeed any criticism of that itself or any of those things attracts accusations of antisemitism which can halt any discussion.

If Semitic people are regarded as a race, then antisemitism as a word is not permitted as racist.

 

[JohnW2]

I think I at least have been concentrating on trivial silly mistakes rather than words that are actually in danger of 'evolving' (being misused) resulting in totally changing the meaning. ...
Let us take topical examples: ... Paedophile: .... Homophobic: .... Then the ubiquitous Antisemitism:

Very much so - those are the important issues (and there are plenty more like that) and, as you imply, I think we have far more reason to be concerned about them than the "trivial silly mistakes".

I suppose it can be argued that once a word has been assimilated into a language, then its etymological origins become irrelevant, and that it does not necessarily have to remain true to meanings of its component parts in the language from which it is derived. In other words, if people are simply taught what, say, the English word 'homophobic' is defined as meaning, those without any knowledge of Greek (or Greek-derived words) would not know any different. However, given that many people do have at least some knowledge/understanding of Greek-derived (and Latin-derived) English words, that is an approach which is bound to produce some confusion.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I suppose it can be argued that once a word has been assimilated into a language, then its etymological origins become irrelevant, and that it does not necessarily have to remain true to meanings of its component parts in the language from which it is derived. In other words, if people are simply taught what, say, the English word 'homophobic' is defined as meaning, those without any knowledge of Greek (or Greek-derived words) would not know any different. However, given that many people do have at least some knowledge/understanding of Greek-derived (and Latin-derived) English words, that is an approach which is bound to produce some confusion.

Yes, but why is the error not pointed out when the misuse begins? Does no one in authority know?

We may as well use homophobic to mean someone who likes cats.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, but why is the error not pointed out when the misuse begins? Does no one in authority know?

I'm not sure that is valid in these cases, is it? For example, to the best of my knowledge, the word 'homophobic' has never had any different meaning in English from the meaning that is currently ascribed to it, has it? If not, as I said, there would have never been any 'error' to point out - and, as I also said, someone with no knowledge of Greek would have had no reason to see anything wrong with using this 'new English word' (however derived) with the meaning that had been ascribed to it (in English).

As I said, I don't think these things should things should happen, given that some people do understand the meanings in Greek of the component parts, but I think this is a very different situation from what you are usually talking about - i.e. situations in which people start using 'incorrectly' word(s) that previously had a different ('correct') meaning (in English).

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Again, yes, but the words are used by politicians and the media, such as in news bulletins.

Do they just blandly 'say things' without ever thinking - oh, wait, it doesn't actually mean that?

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Does no one in authority know?

As a matter of interest, who are you assuming has any authority over use of the English language. We're not in France after all. The only time to my knowledge that the government forced a language definition is when the then chancellor of the exchequer redefined the meaning of the word 'billion', during a budget speech.

One of the most horrible word coinings must have been 'quadrophonic'.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I did not mean authority as in someone to force ordinary people to say such things but, for example -

when 'homophobic' was first used, did no one in authority at, say, the BBC think, hang on, it doesn't actually mean that so we had better not use it?


Either they didn't - what would that indicate? - or they did but decided it doesn't matter and they can spout any old nonsense that is in common misuse.

 

[JohnW2]

Again, yes, but the words are used by politicians and the media, such as in news bulletins.
Do they just blandly 'say things' without ever thinking - oh, wait, it doesn't actually mean that?

As I've said, in the cases we're now talking about, I don't really understand your point.

If a new word appears which has a defined meaning (and I presume you will find essentially only one definition of, say, 'homophobic'), then "what it actually means" is the definition that has been ascribed to it. Your complaint (with which I agree) is that the word has been invented in such a way as to look as if it is derived from Greek roots, which would imply a different meaning from our defined one, but I don't think that you can really blame those who use the word 'correctly' in terms of how the word is defined in English.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

No, but it must have been used for a first time at some time so did no one realise it didn't actually mean what they were thinking it did?
Or are you saying it has nothing to do with the Greek, and other similar words, but was just coincidentally made up? Bit far fetched.

Why didn't they just use 'homosexual haters'?

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

from homo- (2) "homosexual" + -phobia + -ic.
So just an attempt not to make a word too long by using internal abbreviation.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes, I realise that but the result is something different.

I shall just take it that no one else cares. Gobbledegook rules.



I won an award at the local feline show. It is a catastrophe.

 

[JohnW2]

No, but it must have been used for a first time at some time so did no one realise it didn't actually mean what they were thinking it did? Or are you saying it has nothing to do with the Greek, and other similar words, but was just coincidentally made up? Bit far fetched.

As I keep saying, I agree that the initially 'coining' of the word was confusing and ill-advised, since it was only 'tangentially' (i.e. incorrectly, in terms of that other language) derived from the Greek - but, as I've said, you can't really criticise those who subsequently use the word, since it has never had any other meaning in English, so they are not guity of any 'errors' or 'misuse'.

A consequence is, I think, that the "...phobia" component is now coming to be used more widely in the same way (e.g. "Islamophobia" etc., which generally implies dislike/hatred, rather than 'fear') ... so maybe we are, indeed, heading towards a situation in which "....phobia" words "have nothing to do with the Greek" but, rather, relate to a newly-coined purely English meaning of a "....phobia" component of a word?

Kind Regards, John

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Gobbledegook ...

Not sure you should be using that word on this forum... Do you know what it means?