Securing Electricity Meter Cupboard

[JohnW2]

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?

That illustrates the very point I made to EFLI. Nearly all evolution of language (other the the addition of new words because of advances in knowledge, technology etc.) involve a 'very first use' which some would categorise as 'wrong', 'incorrect', 'a mistake' or whatever.

If one suppresses any such "very first uses" then one prevents any evolution of language ever happening. If that is what you (and some others) would like, then it is obviously your prerogative to have such a view.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

It's American. Another oxymoron is "American English".

It may literally be an oxymoron, but it's a convenient phrase for describing what (we all know that) it 'means'.

However, the nonsensical and recursive definition of "narcotic" that dictionary produced seems ludicrous to me. It's like defining a "dog" as being "an animal with four legs, even if it is not a dog"

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I asked, but have not yet been told, what we should regard as being the 'correct' use of words. On one hand we have people complaining (I think reasonably in at least some cases) that words are being used in a manner that is 'incorrect' in terms of most dictionary definitions, yet they are also complaining (again sometimes seemingly reasonably) in other cases that the dictionaries are 'incorrect'.

Who is the arbiter of these statements about 'correctness' - themselves?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnD]

definition of "narcotic"

I say that a dictionary is not responsible for defining words, it is responsible for describing how they are used.

Even if it calls that a "definition"

So the "narcotic" thing is describing how somebody (perhaps a lawmaker) has used the word. Sometimes people use words to evoke a particular response. For example if a lawmaker wanted to outlaw a relaxing drug, in the face of expert evidence to the contrary, he might decide to classify it as if it was equivalent to Heroin.

For which we should blame our (former) Home Secretary, not the lexicographer.

As Professor Nutt said, "politics is politics and science is science."

 

[EFLImpudence]

The oft quoted "literally" is a good example.

We know what it means; it is obvious.

Because of misuse by the reality tv brigade, it has now been included in the dictionary as 'informal' (whatever that is) use which does not mean literally.
Unless, of course I am maligning them unnecessarily and 'informal' means 'that which the ignorant say'.

I asked, but have not yet been told, what we should regard as being the 'correct' use of words. On one hand we have people complaining (I think reasonably in at least some cases) that words are being used in a manner that is 'incorrect' in terms of most dictionary definitions, yet they are also complaining (again sometimes seemingly reasonably) in other cases that the dictionaries are 'incorrect'.

I have only called them incorrect when they give in or succumb to popular misuse.

Who is the arbiter of these statements about 'correctness' - themselves?

Can we not be the arbiter (obviously to no effect other than try to persuade on here) when it is so clear.

It is not always the case that those in authority are truly qualified for the post.



Tell me, does your barrister daughter speak like Eastenders or similar (wherever she comes from) and if not, why not?

 

[stillp]

However, the nonsensical and recursive definition of "narcotic" that dictionary produced seems ludicrous to me.

It is ludicrous. It's American.

 

[JohnD]

Keep telling that river what to do....

 

[JohnW2]

I say that a dictionary is not responsible for defining words, it is responsible for describing how they are used. Even if it calls that a "definition"

I agree - after all I am one of the main people who keeps repeating my belief that the purpose of (English language) is to document how the language is used, not to attempt to dictate how it should be used.

However, I do think it wrong that any dictionary should, without comment, publish an apparently contradictory 'definition'. It only makes sense if one assumes that when it says (for definition 'b') "... whether narcotic or not" it means "... whether narcotic (per defination 'a) or nor" - in which case they should, IMO, make it much clearer that such is what they are trying to say.

So the "narcotic" thing is describing how somebody (perhaps a lawmaker) has used the word. Sometimes people use words to evoke a particular response. For example if a lawmaker wanted to outlaw a relaxing drug, in the face of expert evidence to the contrary, he might decide to classify it as if it was equivalent to Heroin.

No, at least in the case of the UK and EU, the legislation uses correct descriptors of the substances involved and does not misuse (incorrectly use) the word "narcotic". It is the various enforcement agencies, and probably politicians, who are misusing the word.

If the legislation had 'got it wrong' and had only outlawed "narcotics", that would have provided a loophole for a vast number of misusers of the various substances, most of which are not using/abusing narcotics.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

... Because of misuse by the reality tv brigade, it has now been included in the dictionary as 'informal' (whatever that is) use which does not mean literally. Unless, of course I am maligning them unnecessarily and 'informal' means 'that which the ignorant say'.

I don't suppose that they would use quite those words but, sort-of-yes, "informal" presumably indicates that it would not be regarded as being correct in terms 'formal English'. Their job is, after all, to document how English is used (by all parts and sub-parts of the English-speaking world)

Can we not be the arbiter (obviously to no effect other than try to persuade on here) when it is so clear.

That's one approach, but if everyone makes their own personal judgements as to what is 'correct' and what is 'incorrect', I imagine that we would end up with a very confusing idea of the 'overall picture'

Tell me, does your barrister daughter speak like Eastenders or similar (wherever she comes from) and if not, why not?

The answer to that could be rather misleading, in as much as her primary qualification was a 'First' in English However, despite that, if one listens to her speaking to her friends, or looks what she writes in ('social') texts or e-mails, she appears to be speaking a language very different from the language I spoke at her age, and undoubtedly with some tendencies in the Eastenders direction! I imagine she speaks differently in Court!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Unless, of course I am maligning them unnecessarily and 'informal' means 'that which the ignorant say'.

The world would be a better place if they were told that they were ignorant rather than informal, or evolutionary.

 

[JohnD]

No it wouldn't.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That illustrates the very point I made to EFLI. Nearly all evolution of language (other the the addition of new words because of advances in knowledge, technology etc.) involve a 'very first use' which some would categorise as 'wrong', 'incorrect', 'a mistake' or whatever.

"Some"? "Some"?

If, say, 50,000,000 people think that a word means one thing, and 1 person decides, for no good reason whatsoever, to decide it suddenly means something different, are you really going to dismiss a 50,000,000:1 majority as "some"?

If one suppresses any such "very first uses" then one prevents any evolution of language ever happening.

No - one prevents destructive, damaging, useless, pointless mutations from succeeding.

If that is what you (and some others) would like, then it is obviously your prerogative to have such a view.

The only example I have used in this topic is that of the destructive and pointless mutation of "electrocute" coming to mean "non-fatal electric shock", a change which actually reduced our ability to communicate with each other, not enhanced it, so to think that I am therefore opposed to all changes is, to say the least, a fantastic idea.

And anyway - you did not answer my question.

Was the first person to say "electrocute" when he did not mean a fatal electric shock making a true mistake, a change which unnecessarily introduced confusions and ambiguities, or was he initiating a valid evolutionary change in what the word meant?

In my opinion, it is those frank 'mistakes' that we should be seeking to correct and eliminate, rather than fusing about the (unavoidable) evolution of language.

Can you put forward a credible explanation or theory of why the first person to say "electrocute" when he did not mean a fatal electric shock could not avoid doing so? Why was that change unavoidable?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Just to check, do you think that anything will be gained by your ranting?

Using the authoritative definition(s) of "ranting", will you please show how what I've written here qualifies as that, and how it differs so materially from what others have written that it merits being singled out for unbiased criticism?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No it wouldn't.

No - I suppose if you like ignorance and belief in false, invented, unhelpful, counter-productive and entirely avoidable changes in the meanings of words to proliferate, then it wouldn't.

That kind of attitude, BTW, and the culture to which it gives succour, is one of the things that brought us Brexit and President Trump.

 

[JohnD]

Nonsense.