Dale's fear of diluting the language has got me to thinking about how languages change over time and whether that is a good, bad, or neutral thing. His complaint seems to be along the lines of "if a new meaning is given to a word (in addition to its other meanings) this dilutes the language."

How about an example: the words (nouns and verbs) file. There are, at least, two different words here: the metal tool for smoothing materials and the organization of papers and data meaning. Both words have different origins: the former is from the PIE root *peik- which also yields Latin pingo 'to paint', but the latter is from the Latin filum (and the root *ghwi- 'thread'). So, in this case, we are looking at two different words, each of which entered English at different times and from different sources. It is the latter file which I am interested in. (NB: the OED1 has at least three other archaic entries for file.)

Starting with today (and googling seems to bear this out) file is mainly used as a computer term, which not surprisingly is its newest meaning. A file is a bunch of data (numeric or text) organized into a single unit and having a distinct name. This meaning obviously grew out of the earlier meanings of file: as a manilla folder that holds related papers and has a name and is stored (in filing cabinets) for ease of retrieval. But originally, file refered to the (red, silken) thread which held together important documents, and was often closed not with a knot, but with a person's seal.

It's interesting to note how the technology kept improving: from silk thread, to metal wire, to straight pin, to paper clip, to staples or binders and manilla folders. One could just see the newer meaning as the logical extension of the meaning of the word file to include computers.

One thing you notice, if you browse through dictionaries is that few words have entries with a single meaning. Does this mean that English is already rather diluted? Or is this simply how language works? (Looking at other monolingual dictionaries for languages other than English bears this out.) This is not something that has happened to English in the last 20 or 40 years, but the normal state of all languages.

So, how does Joe Speaker keep the different meanings of a word like file separated from one another? In a word, he doesn't. Words are often only ambiguous when cited in isolation. When actually used in texts and speech, this ambiguity disappears. That's because of the context of the word within actual spoken or writing examples of language. That is how when I'm sitting in a room of people talking about 19th century philosophy and somebody mentions: "The Gay Science is an important work." I know that gay is being used in one of its meanings, joyful, rather than another. When I tell my daughter to "hand me that file over there" in the workshop or in a garage, it doesn't mean the same as when I tell her that Symantec has quarantined a file on her laptop because it was infected with a macro virus. That's how people use language.

So, in the end, I say that fears of the dissolving English language are unfounded. Language changes to keep up with its primary purpose: communication. We're not living in the Middle Ages where pieces of sheep skin were being held together with silk threads and red wax. We're living in the 21st century when files are invisible magnetic traces on somebody's hard drive.

zm: Not fear, more like disappointment or resignation.. But thank you for a noteworthy and scholarly followup

The example you cite isn't among my plaints. I don't object to a computer file being called a file, because that's what it is. However, I object to a spinning magnetic disk being called a tape

Eg, instead, we could have coined a word for digital video recording means:

"Tonight shall we deever 'Law & Order'"

Incidentally, in its new incarnation "Gay" was a controversial choice as it's pejorative and stereotypical

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dalehileman,

However, I object to a spinning magnetic disk being called a tape

And, who call a hard disk a tape? I've heard people say that they taped something the other night, and I really have no idea if they recorded it on tape, to a hard disk, or to flash memory. Nor does it really matter. In the end the medium of tape will go the way of the wax cylinder, LP, and dodo bird. I use dial to mean to call somebody by punching in numbers on a numeric keypad. I don't know anybody with a rotary phone any more; I haven't used one since the '80s. If you don't want to say "Let's tape Law and Order tonight for time-shifting tomorrow" then say record.

Nice analysis, zmj.

I do find the different definitions of words to be interesting. Just tonight, for example, I used the word "cogent" when referring to a particular discussion. Then I decided to look it up to be sure I used the word correctly. There were 2 definitions for it in the online AHD, and the other online dictionaries were similar: 1) "Appealing to the intellect or powers of reasoning;" or 2) "convincing." I had a decision to make then. My intent was for the first definition. I thought the discussion was intelligent and appealed to the powers of reasoning. I didn't want to use the word "intelligent," probably because it is too mundane. So I used "cogent." Yet, I hadn't used it to mean "convincing" because, frankly, I hadn't considered the other side of the argument to be a "convincing" case. In the end, I think I shouldn't have used the word because, as zmj says, you should be able to tell by context what is meant; perhaps some could have interpreted my word to mean the other side had a convincing argument.

zm: Sorry I wasn't clear. Laverne confirms that your average joe seldom calles a tivo machine a tape player, though in the verb usage, as you say, in the vernacular "tape" can mean to record by any means whatever

Oops, didn't mean to call you an average joe by any means

And as I said, your usage that way doesn't upset me at all, only saddens. My input is not meant to be personal, only a dirge for the Mother Tongue

Incidentally Laverne, who is much more in touch with the real world than I, defines "dial" as "something that gets you to where you want to go", while 50-year-old dictionaries tell us it doesn't have to be round. So "dial a keyboard" is perfectly ok

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dalehileman,

And as I said, your usage that way doesn't upset me at all, only saddens. My input is not meant to be personal, only a dirge for the Mother Tongue

But the Mother Tongue is doing just fine without your sadness, Dale. In fact, be happy and rejoyce, the only languages that do not change are dead ones. English is alive and vibrant. It will survive.

So "dial a keyboard" is perfectly ok

You know, Dale, I think you and Laverne are full of hooey. No disrespect, just a little friendly banter. You have Laverne send me the names and publishing dates of those dictionaries along with the quoted entries that illustrate what you assert.

When you say things like what I've quoted above, I wonder if you're even a native speaker of English. I have never heard "dial a keyboard" or "dial a numeric pad", but I have heard "dial a number". Dials are round and have numbers and holes around their circumferences, but you knew this. You are after all older than I. The change in meaning from "phsyically dialing a number on a telephone by sticking your finger in the little hole and making it go round", and "making a connection on a phone with another phone" is exactly the same as with the "tape" / "digitally record" example mentioned earlier in this thread.

quote:

Dials are round and have numbers and holes around their circumferences, but you knew this.

The area of London known as "seven dials" is star shaped. http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/home_feat_local_sevendials_history.asp

"seven dials"

It was not named Seven Dials for the star-shaped street layout, but for the sundials (which are round) at the top of the pillar.

quote:

No disrespect, just a little friendly banter.

zmj, did you mean "persiflage?"

Dale, I agree with zmj, there. I haven't ever heard the phrase to "dial a numeric pad" or to "dial a keyboard" either. I've only heard to "dial a number."

quote:

It was not named Seven Dials for the star-shaped street layout, but for the sundials (which are round) at the top of the pillar.

True. Albeit there are only six!

True. Albeit there are only six!

A simple off-by-one error.

I never said "dial a keyboard" was idiomatic, only that it woulld be correct, becase dials don't have to be round

becase dials don't have to be round

Maybe in Bizarro World.

"keyboard dial" yields 666 Ghits

"keyboard dial" yields 666 Ghits

Yes, but let's look at just the first page and see what those two words in context mean, shall we.

On the first page, I cannot find the two words "keyboard dial" either on the current page or the cached one.

On the second page, we see that the two words occur in two separate sentences: "Interactive TV with infrared keyboard. Dial-up Internet access (surcharge)."

Third page: "PC windows 98, monitor, keyboard, dial-up modem".

Fourth page: "K: integrated keyboard (dial pad)
X: integrated keyboard (dial pad) + external TiproBUS".

Fifth page: "The Dynaphone was a portable, monophonic non-keyboard, dial operated vacuum tube oscillator instrument."

Sixth page: "If you want to dial a number that's not in your address book, you have to open the screen first so that you can access the keyboard/dial pad,"

You get the idea. Dale, folks have pointed out to you but you refuse to take into consideration. It's not enough to find a phrase and rabbit on about ghits. You have to look at those ghits, one by one, and try to figure out if they count toward the meaning you're researching. You have to pay attention to the country of origin, the date of the page, but most of all the context. That's what doing lexicography is all about.

All the examples above, except the final one seem to support my supposition: that the term "dial a keyboard / numeric pad" is not a phrase that exists, except in your imagination.

That sixth page does have an interesting use: "the keyboard/dial pad". I assume the phrase "dial pad" is here referring to the pad on a cell phone on which one dials numbers (i.e., punches numbers).

In the end, you need to do your homework, and then you can come to use, present your findings and your thesis, and (only) then can we help you.

zm: I readily admit to a form of laziness. Remember, though, I didn't ask you to help me

As Hydra says, "And anyway, if you're not interested, don't read his threads"

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dalehileman,

I readily admit to a form of laziness. Remember, though, I didn't ask you to help me

You're constantly asking for help, ignoring it when it's offered, or whining if nobody answered you. You see, I am interested in words, lexicography, linguistics, etc. And just like you, I'm stubborn. I'll read whatever thread I want to and respond as I wish. If you don't like it, then you can leave. And that goes for "Hydra", too.

quote:

As Hydra says, "And anyway, if you're not interested, don't read his threads"

I don't know who Hydra is, but that's not fair, Dale. zmj was merely trying to set the record straight. We are a small, tight community, and we need to be able to read every post. We also try to be accurate in threads so that one isn't left with the idea that, indeed, "keyboard dial" is a new, legitimate phrase.

Thanks for helping us out on that. Were we a bigger board, it probably wouldn't make any difference, but we are not.

ok guys, sorry, I'll research more thoroughly next time, but still say dials don't have to be round

...a lettered or numbered plate for establishing connections as by radio or telephone--1956 Merriam Collegiate

any mechanism on the face of a telephone by which the caller places a call, as push buttons--http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/dial


However, Laverne, who is far brighter than I, says that in 1956 almost all dials were round

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dalehileman,

MW dial: Middle English dyal, from Medieval Latin dialis clock wheel revolving daily, from Latin dies day

COED dial: 1. a disc marked to show the time on a clock or to indicate a reading or measurement by means of a pointer. 2 a disc with numbered holes on a telephone, turned to make a call. 3 a disc turned to select a setting on a radio, cooker, etc.

Other sources don't mention circularity. OED's definitions generally don't mention circularity, but the specific definition of a telephone dial does: "6.d. On a telephone, a circular plate marked with letters, numbers, etc., above which is a disc which can be rotated by means of finger-holes to establish connection with another telephone."

...a lettered or numbered plate for establishing connections as by radio or telephone--1956 Merriam Collegiate[

This says nothing about the shape, round or square.

any mechanism on the face of a telephone by which the caller places a call, as push buttons

This says nothing about the shape.

However, Laverne, who is far brighter than I, says that in 1956 almost all dials were round

Have Laverne send me a picture or description of a non-round dial from the '50s.

zm, you misunderstand. Laverne is agreeing with you

zm, you misunderstand. Laverne is agreeing with you

"in 1956 almost all dials were round" implies that some dials are not round. She is not agreeing with me.

The instrument dials in MG motor cars wwere always octagonal, reflecting the shape of the factory's badge.

Lots of sundials, too, have square dials. My watch has an octagonal dial, and many others have square or rectangular dials.

Thanks. I'm still trying to find a non-round telephone dial. (But I stand corrected.)

Anyhow, to get back to the thread, I would endorse "file" as semantic-shifted to the PC meaning, because it follows. From an earlier thread:



Asks k: Yet, don't you think, "as a prescriptivist," that neologisms dilute the language?

***Some do, some don't. That which consitutes merely a new meaning for an old word often does

*******Eg, "tivo" ....

*********...while a brand-new word to describe a late development, eg, breakthrough technology, usu doesn't

********Eg, "blog". A blog....



Note that I said "oft" and "usu" for often and usually. That means that sometimes (eg, when it closely follows),a semantic shift is perfectly ok and sometimes a brand-new word isn't necessary, as in the case of "file" cited by zm

One has to consider the individual case. In general, however,the coining of a new word for a brand-new and unfamiliar application--as opposed to the overstretching of an old one--woud be preferable

For example, suppose a device fitting over the skull and controlled by computer audio-visual algorithm were developed to cure schizophrenia. Some of us propose calling it a "file" because the program controlling it could be stored in that form within the PC. In such a case, I would prefer it be named, for instance, "schizout," which more directly addresses its function

You can be sure, however, that in the former case and before the year 2076, the word "file" will have come to mean anything anywhere that performs any sort of communicative or curative function whatever....

....a book, a pencil, a bottle of ink, a roll of Tums, a conversation, a group of physicians in conference, an ambulance, a telephone wire, a psychiatrist's couch, a PC, a printer, the babblings of a toddler, a street sign or wall poster, all will be called by the term "file"

Eventually any word will come to mean anything the user wishes it to, and the prologue to the typical commercial email, intended to prevent its ID as spam, will come to make perfect sense

quote:

....a book, a pencil, a bottle of ink, a roll of Tums, a conversation, a group of physicians in conference, an ambulance, a telephone wire, a psychiatrist's couch, a PC, a printer, the babblings of a toddler, a street sign or wall poster, all will be called by the term "file"

I take leave to doubt that any such thing will happen.

Semantic shifts notwithstanding, the English language is gaining words, not losing them. The 14 items you cite will not, I feel quite sure, lose their individual titles and take on the portfolio name "file" even given 70 years for this to happen. Most of the English words we used back in 1936 have retained their meanings - although some have acquired additional meanings, I agree.

Rich: Have to admit It might have been just ever-so-slightly facetious

Perhaps my message to the prescriptivists is not to take the world too seriously

On another board a member got so frustrated with my persiflage that in reply he contributed a followup advising "fu," except he spelled it out. Yet it is I and not he who is more likely to get deleted or even banned

As a few who understand have remarked to the few who do'nt, "Loosen up"

You can be sure, however, that in the former case and before the year 2076, the word "file" will have come to mean anything anywhere that performs any sort of communicative or curative function whatever....

....a book, a pencil, a bottle of ink, a roll of Tums, a conversation, a group of physicians in conference, an ambulance, a telephone wire, a psychiatrist's couch, a PC, a printer, the babblings of a toddler, a street sign or wall poster, all will be called by the term "file"

Not likely, given the way language observably works. Otherwise, Present-Day Enlgish would have been reduced to single word (say um) by now from the vocabulary recorded for Old English.

Didn't I hear somewhere that once a word gets into the OED it never gets removed? Or am I crazy (don't answer that! )?

I have hear that about files on the Internet also

Though it's hard to believe about OED

Why do we cap. Internet

Why do we cap. Internet

YCLIU. The short answer is that it is considered by many to be a proper noun. See this Internet capitalization conventions entry in Wikipedia.

zm: Thank you for that interesting link. It would appear that the convention is somewhat arbitrary, and thus I decry it, as over the lifetime of a typical wordblogger it will require him to unnecessariluy depress the Shift key one million, four hundred thousand, two hundred and twelve times

Which will explain to the curious WC'er why I often omit punctuation

Thank you again for your incredible diligence

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dalehileman,

It would appear that the convention is somewhat arbitrary,

That is the point. All linguistic conventions are arbitrary. I figured you weren't a touch typist Dale, whichis why you tend to leave punctuation marks off the ends of sentences, make ad hoc abbreviations, and used the tilde to excess.

zm: Aye, terrible things for a pre- like me to be doing, isn't it

quote:

as over the lifetime of a typical wordblogger it will require him to unnecessariluy depress the Shift key one million, four hundred thousand, two hundred and twelve times

I do not agree that capital letters are always, or even usually, unecessary. Like all other such conventions they exist to make the reader's job easier. If by so doing they make the writer's job harder, so be it.

Writers choose to write to convey their thoughts to readers; readers can choose whether or not to take the trouble to read a writer's words and thus understand his or her thoughts.

Writers who choose to take the lazy option, and leave it to their readers to work harder and put in such things as omitted capitals and punctuation marks, have only themselves to blame if their words are read less than they might wish.

Rich: Oh I absolutely agree. However, I can't convince myself that it would lose much to leave "Internet" in lc

Same with omission of final punct. The media do it wholesale. Pick up any issue of TIME

I'm with Richard here. The laziness shown by ignoring capital letters, lack of proper punctation, and by use of strange abbreviations serves only to make the piece harder to read and to annoy the reader.

quote:

The media do it wholesale. Pick up any issue of TIME

I read Time every week and find it a generally well-written magazine.

What it does do, in common with many other journals, is to omit the full stop from the ends of titles and sub-titles. This is not laziness or error. Titles do not nornally take final punctuation unless it is a question mark or other punctuation mark that is essential for clarity.

But the full stop is left off titles because the title is the "sign on the door" that says, "Come in - there's something interesting inside". and the last thing you want a reader to do, having been excited by the title, is to stop.

quote:

... the full stop is left off titles because ... the last thing you want a reader to do, having been excited by the title, is to stop.

Laughing. But I'd say that the full stop is omitted because the title is typically not a full sentence. It typically has no verb.

[And yes, I'm aware that some titles are indeed a complete sentence. For example, at this time of year we all get a healthy dosage of It's a Wonderful Life.]

quote:

I'm with Richard here. The laziness shown by ignoring capital letters, lack of proper punctation, and by use of strange abbreviations serves only to make the piece harder to read and to annoy the reader.

I, too, agree. I especially hate having to figure out abbreviations, and sometimes I even come up with the wrong word when forced to do it.