Premier Rock Forum

SpankMarvin wrote:

placeholder wrote:
... the stupid idea that adding unnecessary and incorrect extra syllables to a word

"Burglarize". I've never understood the point of that word. Is that a real word in America, or is it deemed stupid? Surely the word "burgle" is good enough?

This thread is diving me mad. Language evolves, and as long as the listener understand the message behing the "mangled" words, hasn't the objective of communication been achieved?

I've said it here before and I'll say it again. I'm all for correct grammar and convention, but linguistic elitism is a useless, pointless and eventually destructive activity. Look at where it got Latin.

Why stop with language? Apply your thinking to music too! "I'm sorry, but that chord sequence just isn't correct. Please modify it accordingly so that there are no deviations from established rules." Give me a break.

As for "oriented" / "orientated" - a big topic I deal with every day in my job is "object-oriented software". When I first learned about this in college in Dublin (where we spell it "orientated") I was aghast to see it spelled that odd way, and thought that all those other people were wrong. But who gives a flying wank? I understand what American programmers mean when they say it the shorter way, and they understand me if I use the extra syllable.

Placeholder, I preume Mrs. Fields didn't have the Cambridge Dictionary dropped on her lap, right?
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results ... orientated

Oh - and as for "burglarize" -- for a word that causes so many people to doubt its authenticity, it sure is listed in a lot of dictionaries:
http://onelook.com/?w=burglarize

"This is nonsense" is fine.

I like to say "disorientated" but of course, I know it's wrong. "Orientated" is equally wrong, but since I don't find it amusing, I don't say it.

I hate "by in large".

People misuse "aggravate" all the time.

I used to pick nits about "nauseous/nauseated", but I guess I was wrong. I had been told that something that is nauseous is something that causes nausea in another, and that someone who is experiencing nausea is nauseated. But apparently it's OK to use nauseous for either meaning. Dictionary.com prefers nauseous for neither meaning, recommending instead nauseating and nauseated. M-w.com has no problem with nauseous at all.

I don't even notice when people say "burglarize", although I guess, now that I think about it, it's pretty stupid.

I agree with stewie.

Keep in mind that much of what we call "standard" English today was born from our ancestors' misspellings, mispronunciations and malapropisms. Likewise, the "standard" English of the future will be dictated by the masses, not by the educated minority.

And as for the idea given about applying this to music, I have an example. When I was a music composition major in college, I wrote a sonata and played it for my professor. She stopped me halfway through, pointed at the score and asked, "What is this symbol here? What is your left hand playing?" I replied, "Oh, that's a symbol to indicate that the left hand can play any combination of notes from this chord, because I play it differently every time". She said, "You can't do that!" I said, "Why not? We do it in jazz and blues." She informed me that those were the rules and I had to follow them.

So I dropped the music composition major and studied linguistics instead. Ironically and sadly, there was a greater understanding of human creativity in the linguistics department.

stewie wrote:

SpankMarvin wrote:

placeholder wrote:
... the stupid idea that adding unnecessary and incorrect extra syllables to a word

"Burglarize". I've never understood the point of that word. Is that a real word in America, or is it deemed stupid? Surely the word "burgle" is good enough?

Language evolves, and as long as the listener understand the message behing the "mangled" words, hasn't the objective of communication been achieved?

I've said it here before and I'll say it again. I'm all for correct grammar and convention, but linguistic elitism is a useless, pointless and eventually destructive activity. Look at where it got Latin.

People understanding each other is the ultimate goal of any communication. I understand this and agree with it. I don't actively "apply" my "elitism" to language, save for not using certain words, non-words, or phrases that I personally find irritating. I don't think that's elitist; I think that's personal preference.

stewie wrote:Why stop with language? Apply your thinking to music too! "I'm sorry, but that chord sequence just isn't correct. Please modify it accordingly so that there are no deviations from established rules." Give me a break.

We're having a discussion about language, not music. I have no desire to apply "(my) thinking" to music as well. But, hell, if you step on an insect, why not step on a kitten? Right?

stewie wrote:As for "oriented" / "orientated" - a big topic I deal with every day in my job is "object-oriented software". When I first learned about this in college in Dublin (where we spell it "orientated") I was aghast to see it spelled that odd way, and thought that all those other people were wrong. But who gives a flying wank? I understand what American programmers mean when they say it the shorter way, and they understand me if I use the extra syllable.

I wouldn't dare try to "call someone out" on saying "orientated" (or anything, for that matter), and I understand and accept that different regions of the English-speaking world have different words (or permutations of words) that mean the same thing. If all parties understand what is being said, then it doesn't matter. However, that doesn't stop me from being irritated by it. I'm not losing sleep or anything, it just instinctively bugs me to hear "orientated" or "irregardless" or, and this is the big one, "at that point in time". It just personally bugs me. That's it.

stewie wrote:Placeholder, I preume Mrs. Fields didn't have the Cambridge Dictionary dropped on her lap, right?
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results ... orientated

I guess she didn't. You've won. Thank you, sir, may I have another?

stewie wrote:Oh - and as for "burglarize" -- for a word that causes so many people to doubt its authenticity, it sure is listed in a lot of dictionaries:
http://onelook.com/?w=burglarize

So are "ain't" and "irregardless", if I'm not mistaken. "Burgle" has always sounded strange to me, probably because it isn't used often in the 'States. I'll cop to using "burglarize" if it ever comes up. I'll also cop to using too many quotation marks in my reply.

stewie wrote:

SpankMarvin wrote:

placeholder wrote:
... the stupid idea that adding unnecessary and incorrect extra syllables to a word

"Burglarize". I've never understood the point of that word. Is that a real word in America, or is it deemed stupid? Surely the word "burgle" is good enough?

This thread is diving me mad. Language evolves, and as long as the listener understand the message behing the "mangled" words, hasn't the objective of communication been achieved?

I've said it here before and I'll say it again. I'm all for correct grammar and convention, but linguistic elitism is a useless, pointless and eventually destructive activity. Look at where it got Latin.

Why stop with language? Apply your thinking to music too! "I'm sorry, but that chord sequence just isn't correct. Please modify it accordingly so that there are no deviations from established rules." Give me a break.

As for "oriented" / "orientated" - a big topic I deal with every day in my job is "object-oriented software". When I first learned about this in college in Dublin (where we spell it "orientated") I was aghast to see it spelled that odd way, and thought that all those other people were wrong. But who gives a flying wank? I understand what American programmers mean when they say it the shorter way, and they understand me if I use the extra syllable.

Placeholder, I preume Mrs. Fields didn't have the Cambridge Dictionary dropped on her lap, right?
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results ... orientated

Oh - and as for "burglarize" -- for a word that causes so many people to doubt its authenticity, it sure is listed in a lot of dictionaries:
http://onelook.com/?w=burglarize

A bit harsh. I actually ASKED whether it was a ganeuine word. I also didn't apply any form of elitism to the word either. I personally don't see the use in its extension, that's all.

Placeholder - it also bugs me when some words are mis-used, but mostly when it's business consultants with MBAs trying to sound intelligent. However, I'm typically annoyed by everything else they say regardless

Also, my comment about applying the same philosophy to music wasn't done to direct the conversation to music, but instead to highlight what I think is such a contrast I've seen on this board. I've seen people offer the "just experiment!" advice when it comes to recording techniques and musical composition, but then turn to linguistic ogres when a thread like this appears.

SpankMarvin - apologies if I came off harsh, as that wasn't my intent. My comments about "burglarize" arose because of many debates I've had with work colleagues who argue about this one particular word to death. Your comment just reminded me of many age-old discussions I've had about it.

BTW, I think this thread has now been "Linguisted". It's similar to a thread being "Hitlered", but with regard to language instead of politics. I'd guess it's happened at least 5 times since the board started. About time to wrap it up, I'd say!

In starting this thread, I was looking for cases where the wrong word was used in funny ways:

"absorbent salaries"
"for all intense purposes"

etc.

I couldn't care less (there is a thread about this phrase too) about the wars over "irregardless" and all that.

I remembered another classic: A woman I used to work with at a high school once came to me very concerned because "there are a bunch of students conjugating out there on the sidewalk."

Another good one, Angus Jung!

Thanks for getting this thread back on track. I wish I could think of a good one (and believe me, I hear plenty) but I tend to forget them as soon as I can. However, I will try to retain one for the thread.

tmidgett wrote: It is bureaucratized.

matt, one tip i have for cleaner speech/writing is to avoid '-ized' in general, as it is rarely necessary. you can just say 'it was becoming more bureaucratic.' or say 'even more' if you want to intensificatize the becoming.

i offer this suggestion only b/c you mentioned it. i wouldn't think twice about that usage otherwise. or once, for that matter.

I like this one. Upon starting my new job I witnessed those around me and in the industry using the term "connectorized" in order to define a cable, cables, and boxes/plates that require connectors to be installed, or have had connectors installed. This simplifies our correspondence, and I find myself using it frequently; but it still sounds silly, and I have had to add it to my MS Office dictionary so it would not be redlined each time I used it.

"All devices mounted under table shall be fully connectorized within the table leg."

Connectorized!

Angus Jung wrote:I remembered another classic: A woman I used to work with at a high school once came to me very concerned because "there are a bunch of students conjugating out there on the sidewalk."

That reminds me. Our bass player, the most original person whom I have ever met, was interviewed (in 1999?) by a local independent newspaper regarding our then-new record. At that time, the band members lived in three different cities, although it looked like life was going to take us all to Chicago. This was our bass player's comment to the journalist regarding this situation:

"We're kind of spread out now, but we're all starting to coagulate in the same place."

I love and bleed with this bass player man.