[

Dude, to rock is a verb and has always been a verb: the wind rocked the cradle, the waves rocked the ship, the ship rolled on the sea, the bluesman and his woman rocked and rolled all night... this is not a linguistic transformation at all. The transformation was turning the two verbs (rock and roll) into the adjective "rock and roll." You didn't think they were talking about a stone and a muffin, did you?

Sure, sure. I will be more specific. The verb "to rock" in the musical sense does not really imply "to physically oscillate back and forth". There are several transformations from "to rock" (the cradle), "rock and roll" (adjective for music originating from you-know-what), "Rock and roll" (noun for a style of music) and back to the verb "to rock" (me like a hurricane).

All nitpicking over an admittedly confusing example. My point was that some nouns usefully take on a verb form as a way to simplify or clarify expression, and that "to intern" is acceptable in this respect.

This is not okay for all noun-to-verb transformations. In the studio, we are happy to say that we miced* an amplifier. It is a bit more awkward to talk about EQ'ing the vocals and it sounds silly to claim that you just finished guitaring a sesh. What's the distinction? Probably some mix of cultural acceptance, expressive convenience and whether or not it sounds plainly stupid. Whatever the criteria, “to intern” has passed.

I think making nouns into verbs is pretty bad, unless you use proper nouns

I draw the line when the use of the proper noun says more about the person referenced than it provides insight into the action described. If I say "You really Thomased me over with that Lotto ticket deal" and you say, "What does Thomased mean?” I'm being needlessly stylistic by explaining to you that Thomas was my ex-roommate who stuck me with an outrageous phone bill. Naturally, though, a defense of the right wing's correct use of language would accurately be described as Safiring back at you.

You guys are all so post-ironic. It's killing me.

Do you mean post as in following the antecedent or post as in a noun describing entries to a message board?

Intern8033, if I saw a movie called "2 DICKS, 1 HOLE!!!” what would be the best way for me to describe that on this board? Moreover, what about by ssn# query?

= Justin, active intern

*How do people weigh in on the correct spelling and punctuation of “to mic”?

steve wrote:I don't like politicians and pundits using invented fancypants words to replace serviceable and often more suitable ones.

Here's an example: "normalcy", courtesy of Harry S Truman.

Here's another example, but in a different sense: Daniel Webster, first editor of Webster's Dictionary, taking his anti-British zealousness to extremes and attempting to eradicate so-called "unnecessary" British influence from "American" English: "color", "neighbor", "center", "enuf", etc. Most of these changes, which were imposed into English through his will alone, have fallen into popular usage. A wonderful account of Webster's exploits are detailed in an excellent book, "The Mother Tongue", by Bill Bryson.

The thing about English is, like Steve has said, much of it comes from--and has been augmented by--other languages. And i agree that it is a beautiful language, capable of expressing many ideas and of articulating nuances of meaning that many other languages lack. While it is true that many other languages contain words and phrases which can only be translated to approximations into any other form, English seems to tower of most of them in terms of "degrees of expression". The strange thing about it, as well, is that this Germanic language somehow got stuck with Romantic [Latin] grammar rules. Because of this, interesting linguistic anomalies appear which aren't always easy to reconcile.

i think that perhaps Steve's desire to blame "right-wingers" for corrupting modern speech lies in the fact that these people are (usually) the types who are always pushing for conformity and behavioural submission. After all, the addition of most obnoxious catch-phrases and faddish words come from corporate entities who are trying to come up with the most sly means of advertising. My personally most-despised phrases of this type are "Think outside the box", and "What's up?" (although i will admit that the latter habitually pops out of my mouth far too frequently).

As far as "micing" and "EQing" and are concerned, it's possible to compare these technologically-oriented terms to this one: "vacuum". Before the vacuum cleaner was invented, the word "vacuum" was only a noun. But the invention also brought in the need to bring along some descriptive verb to detail its operation, and because it creates a vacuum, the word got verbed and now no-one really thinks about it anymore.
There are many phrases and words which are now taken for granted due to inventions and technological advances that are by now pretty old--another example is "turn on the lights". And "micing" is one of these, but it looks pretty rediculous. But no standard has ever been set for terms like these, as far as i know. No microphone manufacturer has ever employed massive advert campaigns, that would employ the use of cheeky catch-phrases or definitive "words"--for the obvious reason that microphones are "specialty" items that the majority of people in the world don't have a practical use for.

One last thing i will say is that someone's earlier mention of "Ebonics" was a destructive influence on English, but yet it was something that was employed by a large group of typically liberal people. i disagree with this, but i've said too much already.

In all events, i have a fondness for philology and hope i haven't deviated from the original tangent too greatly.

regards, jet.

I realize this discussion is from a couple of weeks ago, so please either forgive or indulge me.

Umm... the English language doesn't need any help from those who would "improve" it? Funny, that’s what people said about Latin, too, which is why it eventually became a dead language.

Fortunately, Latin gave birth to a bunch of other languages (including English) that are very alive today, namely because they have the flexibility and ability to cope with change, unlike their daddy.

Hmm… flexible and able to cope with change… that doesn’t really sound very right-wing, now, does it?

Anytime we reject new terminology and uses of words, we’re promoting the idea that our language should be “closed off” to certain things, be they words we simply don’t like, or words we think serve no purpose because we already have synonyms for them, we’re being linguistically conservative. In fact, that philosophy sounds a lot like that of fundamentalist Christians/right-wingers/conservatives, who shun all other religions/technologies/ways of life, because they already have their way of doing things that they believe serves the same purpose.

EXAMPLE:

Liberals allow all religions to coexist harmoniously, with people free to choose whichever religion happens to tickle their fancy. They could care less if one person is Jewish and another is Muslim. It doesn’t ruffle their feathers, because they respect an individual’s right to choose.

Liberal Linguists (actually, all professional linguists) allow all synonyms to coexist harmoniously, with people free to choose whichever word happens to tickle their fancy. They could care less if one person says “burgle” and another says “burglarize”. It doesn’t ruffle their feathers, because they respect an individual’s right to choose.

Speaking as both a Liberal and a Linguist, I would never want to be called a conservative on any level.

As for a few of the specific “linguistic terrorists” that have been perceived here as potential threats in our midst:

The words “burgle” and “burglarize” were born at around the same time, with “burgle” first being found in print in the year 1870, and “burglarize” being printed shortly thereafter in 1871. I think it’s safe to say that these two words were around well before any of us were alive to have a say in the matter, so complaining about this now is just as useful as taking it up with the souls of your grandparents. True, both words mean the same thing, but “burglarize” happens to be the current term of choice, just like we say “boyfriend” instead of “beau”. Such is language, such is life.

As for “proactive”, this word was born in 1933 (MADD was founded in 1980; PMRC, in 1985). Sure, we could say, “acting in anticipation of future problems, needs, or changes” instead of “proactive”, but the word was created to simplify our lives. One sign of a highly-developed language is that it has words that convey very specific meanings very efficiently. “Proactive” meets this criteria.

The same is true of “prioritize”. It is more efficient to say this word than to say, “to establish a hierarchy of priorities”.

As for “utilize”, it’s been around since 1803, and comes from the French word utiliser. So, if you don’t like it… blame the French. That’s what conservatives do these days, after all.

Regards,

Nataly – proud liberal, and not an intern (which, by the way, has been a verb since the 1500’s)

Ahoy:

Anytime we reject new terminology and uses of words, we’re promoting the idea that our language should be “closed off” to certain things, be they words we simply don’t like, or words we think serve no purpose because we already have synonyms for them, we’re being linguistically conservative.

I would agree with you. That's also not what I'm complaining about. I embrace English's flexibility and willingness to incoporate new, useful words. I like having a choice of synonyms to provide conversational variety and shades of meaning. To prove the point that I don't mind synonyms, I will make up a couple of English words to serve legitimate conversational needs.

I dislike it that a beautiful and flexible language is being made dumber and clumsier and more imprecise for the sake of making right-wingers sound more smarterer.

I have coined this adjective "smarterer" to mean "Having the characteristic of appearing unself-conciously intelligent to an ignorant rabble, as demonstrated by the casual use of an unfamiliar word -- a word whose meaning is obvious from context, so as to avoid making the rabble feel stupid."

I think the function of obfuscatory (I think I have coined that one too) words like "closure" (instead of "revenge") is to mis-direct the listener rather than enlighten him. It is a political function, and it is a function serving a right-wing agenda when used in public discourse.

As for “utilize”, it’s been around since 1803, and comes from the French word utiliser. So, if you don’t like it… blame the French. That’s what conservatives do these days, after all.

If my memory of the distinction serves me, "to utilize" means "to press into service in a manner not usual or intended." Using this meaning, it is a wonderful word:

"Novotny, having no audience, utilized the band relaxing in the lounge." "With no shortstop present, Ryan utilized Novotny." "Electrical audio utilizes Novotny for office management." "Having drained the batteries in her vibrator, and with no broom in the closet, the waitressed utilized Novotny's cock, to no great satisfaction."

It is not a synonym for "to use," and that usage bothers me as it cheapens the word and dulls its distinction.

I'm utterly down with the French. The French had the balls to say our Presidentine (a word I just coined to mean an unelected official in the position of a figurehead who presents himself as being vested with a mandate from his nation) was both wrong and lying regarding his reasons for wanting a war, and they invented almost every good cooking technique for poultry.

I don't dislike novelty in usage. I don't dislike the incorporation of new and useful words. I dislike the incorporation of trivial or clumsy words that make precise conversation more difficult, especially when they are inserted into public discourse by right-wingers. I dislike the mis-use of words whose distinction is important.

besticles,
-steve

I bet Steve would be a fine fellow with whom to do Madlibs.

ben adrian
opening on friday morning

Thanks for the clarification of the nature of your complaint. You make several interesting points.

I dislike it that a beautiful and flexible language is being made dumber and clumsier and more imprecise for the sake of making right-wingers sound more smarterer.

What you interpret as “dumber and clumsier” use of language, in a linguist’s mind, is really just an alternate use of language. Linguistic purists ranted and raved about how the lesser-educated (read: poor) members of society used the word “ain’t”. However, it did eventually get accepted into the dictionary, because even the purists have to throw their hands up in the air when a word becomes such a common part of speech. So, no matter how much we dislike any usage that’s out there, and no matter how “clumsy” or “dumb” we think it is, it’s really just a fact of life.

The most interesting thing is that only the people have the power to decide whether or not a word actually gains enough popularity to become a part of their common vernacular. Likewise, the people also decide, through their everyday choices in conversation, which words fall by the wayside and disappear. In this way, the use of language is actually quite naturally democratic, allowing for everyone to choose whatever words they want, and to use them in whichever ways they wish.

Still, there are a lot of fascist language organizations out there that try to promote language usage that reflects only one level of society (upper class) while subverting lesser-known, and oftentimes, more linguistically complex facets of language that reflect other, more marginal social classes.

As for using language to misdirect the listener rather than enlighten him, I would agree with you. However, it isn’t just the right-wing that does that, but pretty much all major news channels, and quite a lot of the major newspapers. Wait a minute, I nearly forgot for a second—most of those are owned by the right wing. OK, there we agree.

If my memory of the distinction serves me, "to utilize" means "to press into service in a manner not usual or intended." Using this meaning, it is a wonderful word:

Your memory serves you as far as the distinction goes, in that “utilize” can convey an additional meaning that “use” alone cannot. However, “utilize” is also an accepted synonym of “use”. Here are four definitions of the word:

- to make use of : turn to practical use or account (Webster)
- to use something in an effective way: (Cambridge)
- to turn to account; to use (Oxford)
- to put to use, especially to find a profitable or practical use for (American Heritage)

(Side note: does it strike anyone else as ironic that the American Heritage definition sounds so capitalist?)

I'm utterly down with the French.

So I figured, hence the joke.
Agreed: Bush is a Presidentine; Blair is a Prime Ministerine.

I dislike the mis-use of words whose distinction is important.

This is like saying that to play a harpsichord in a rock song is a mis-use of the instrument, because it needs to retain its distinction in other types of music. This instrument can be played in a new way, without sacrificing its traditional role. Someday, if using a harpsichord in rock songs becomes more popular than playing it in its traditional genre, would we say that that is a mis-use?

Nope. The truth is, it isn't a mis-use. It's a new use. If we don’t like it, it boils down to a matter of individual taste. We can call it whatever we want (dumb or clumsy, for example), but the truth is, those are simply our opinions. Just because a critic calls it something negative, it doesn’t mean the artist will change the way he plays, so why not encourage creativity of all kinds?


incesticles,
-nataly

Steve,

Allow me to clarify one salient point, which, if it does not totally undermine the formal basis of Steve's argument, should throw the bulk of it into significant question. "Disrespect" (additionally, when speaking of words as objects unto themselves, use quotation marks to set the out-of-context word apart from the functional members of a sentence) is a transitive verb, and very much a part of the English language. One might even go so far as to say a well-respected part of our common tongue; O! the bitter irony that Steve would inadvertently disrespect the word he intended to disparrage, while still failing to prove his point.

Additionally, Exclamation marks are only properly used, except in rare circumstances, when they properly express the remark after which they are named: an exclamation. Interjections are acceptable, and indeed, for something that cannot be taken as a complete sentence, it may be the only accurate method of punctuation. Thus, "Damn! Whateverthefuckyousaid," sans-exclamations, is sufficient.

However, it is admirable that, unlike all of you lazy bastards who'd like to commodify our language into nothing more than a string of ill-defined shortcuts created by repellent "active nouns" and senseless jargon, Steve seems capable of seeing language as an end unto itself. If any of you knowledge-starved philistines have read my book (perhaps you've heard of it? The "Critique of Pure Reason"?), you'd realize that Steve, various grammatical errors excepted, has a true, ethical respect for language. If anyone wants to raise the question of whether language can be viewed, ethically, as an end unto itself, he or she would be better off shutting the fuck up, because when I get through with the afforementioned person, he or she will be unable to find his or her own ass with both of his or her own hands.

If any of this text duplicates a portion of this thread that belongs to anyone other than Intern8083 (or something), or Steve himself, it's because I didn't bother to read anything written by any of the other Six-Piece Chicken McNobodies frequenting this board.

Sincerely,
Immanuel Kant, but you can call me "Dead, since 1804"

Can we at least agree that "party" should not be used as a verb? Please Herr Kant, I respect you so; will you throw me this little linguistic bone?

I apologise for getting that other stuff wrong. I still hate "disrespect" as a verb.

I am a bad speller.

My usage is consistent, which makes me think it is right. I then project this onto the world, thinking it too will observe my personal grammar and usage. Someday I will publish a style guide.

I am a self-centered pig, Herr Kant, and a linguistic bully. I know this about myself, yet I persevere. I joust with people who know as little as I do and therefore will acquiesce and grudgingly accept my authority.

I believe this is what will send me to Hell, if there is one.

Aha! He ejaculated.

-steve

Mr. Kant -
The good news is that your time in hell (where you have no doubt spent the last 199 years) has made your prose more readable. The bad news is that it is still horribly overwrought. But the other good news is that overwrought prose is quite in fashion on this thread.

NAI -
Am I to understand that language, then, has no absolute rules? Just concessions to aesthetics and popular convention? I was with you for a while there, but then you mentioned the harpsichord in rock songs. If having an open mind about language means that I have to accept some legitimacy of early Genesis, I'll be sending in my membership dues to these guys: http://www.mindspring.com/~spellorg/

Intern -
It's good that you saw my post, but I am still waiting for an answer.

Also, if I were to follow your number convention and your name convention, should I also spell out the numbers at the end of my intern name? Why haven't you? Or have you, and it is that script kid way of using numerals for letters? Are you intern # BOEE

= Justin

Steve- actually, your spelling is quite good.

Disparrage

afforementioned

If anyone, it’s Kant we should be a bit worried about.

At any rate, my only point here was that we can’t really say that new and creative uses of language are “wrong” just because we don’t happen to like them. However, what we can say is that we think they sound terrible and that we’d rather not hear people speak that way. We all have the right to voice our linguistic pet peeves. Looking back, I think that’s all that Steve was trying to do… voice that he hates when right-wingers use terms like “closure” and “utilize” when they really mean something else. We have a right to hate these things. Indeed, we'd be fools if we just agreed with everything.

Justin- there is really no easy answer to that, but there are a ton of theories out there for you to choose from. If you’re interested in the philosophical side of your question, e-mail me and I’ll give you some names of philosophers that explore the field of semiotics. As for linguistics, any general linguistics books will give you an idea of what the main theories are.

- Nataly