In connection with Kalleh's followups under Q@A, "Food of Shame"

k: Thank you for that. You are describing the difference between prescriptivist and descriptivist. I'm a member of the former inasmuch as I deplore the usage of old words in new ways largely disconnected from the original meaning

For example, "tape" is coming to mean to record either analog or digital, by any means whatever, eg, mag-oxide ribbon, hard drive, or chip, eg, "flash" mem. Incidentally, the latter term is undergoing a similar "smearing" of meaning

In a process by which the hoi polloi drop a word anywhere it conceivably might be thought to fit, eventually dictionaries will be unnecesary because any word can be used to mean anything

Incidentally, the latter term is undergoing a similar "smearing" of meaning

How do you feel about the smearing of the word smear? (Please don't bother to answer, mine was only a rhetorical question.)

In a process by which the hoi polloi drop a word anywhere it conceivably might be thought to fit, eventually dictionaries will be unnecesary because any word can be used to mean anything

Most prescriptivists, I know, and I must admit to knowing quite a few, would eschew the hoi polloi, because hoi is Greek for the. No, mind, you keep smearing things till they fit into your lexicon of laxity. (Like greasing square pegs to fit into triangular holes.) Most of the languages in the world do not have dictionaries or written grammars, yet people survive quite well without them, communicating with one another better than some of the members of this smorgasboard. They don't have prescriptivists either, and I say "more power to 'em!" Now, I can't remember why, through my smearen headcage, or what were we flapping lips a boot? By the way, don't take this entry as critical of you and yours, DH, old chap, because all of the words I've used have different, neological meanings, known only to me and mine. La!

zm: By the sheerest coincidence, I have long been alert for a better word than "smearing," prescriptivist that I am

a better word than "smearing"

It has been suggested before, but here goes. The term you're looking for is a technical one. The process you're trying to grasp is called semantic change. It is a universal characteristic of all languages when viewed diachronically. Not that you will remember or use it correctly, but there you are. La!

I have been reading Frank McCourt's Teacher Man, and he writes about his experiences teaching English in New York inner city schools. He wanted to give his students a clear definition of grammar. He said that while psychology is the study of human behavior, grammar is the study of the way language behaves. I rather like that definition because it allows for the fluidity of grammar (which we are talking about here.)

zm: Thank you for that start. Indeed, if you believe Wikipedia, "semantic change" is very close to the phenom I describe. But even closer is

Semantic shift--occurs as a word moves from one set of circumstances to another, resulting in an extension of the range of meanings

...which I suppose is a subcategory of the former

Thus "shift" seems to fit even better, for instance, in the case of "tape," which not only remains a ribbon containing a magnetic medium but is extended outward in all directions to cover many other means for recording

I had thought perhaps there might be still another expr or even a neologism to cover extreme cases such as this, which as a prescriptivist I maintain dilute the language

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

I have a question, Dale. I haven't really kept up that well with what you are doing, but aren't you recording neologisms? Yet, don't you think, "as a prescriptivist," that neologisms dilute the language? I don't understand why you spend your time on them then. I may be misunderstanding something, though.

How would you describe the words, "phenom" and "expr"? Neoligisms or abbreviations?

K asks: ... but aren't you recording neologisms?

***Yes, neos as well as slang of the late 20th and early 21st century

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" coming to mean the recording of a tv or other video by any means whatever. Although Laverne, who is far brighter than I, maintains that "tivo" rarely is rarely used to mean ribbon, it is apparent that in a trice "tape" and "tivo" will be used interchangeably and in only a few years will so be entered in Merriam

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

********Eg, "blog". A blog started out as a sort of Web journal where folks chat. However, as it undergoes semantic shift (ie, "smears"), it eventually will come to mean any means of communication, including Internet, phone text message, exchange of email, and perhaps someday just a meeting or conversation between two or more people. That's what I mean by "dilution"

I don't understand why you spend your time on them then. I may be misunderstanding something, though

*******Perhaps so. One who compiles a dictionary doesn't omit words he dislikes

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

Rich asks,How would you describe the words, "phenom" and "expr"? Neoligisms or abbreviations?

***"Phenom" has been around since I was a lad, and that's a long time; hence it isn't a neo. Nor, apparently, is it an abbr, else it would be so labeled in my Merriam

**"Expr" is clearly an abbr

quote:

**"Expr" is clearly an abbr

So it needs a full stop, then (as does abbr.)

Is TV an abbr. that requires a full stop? Or two? T. V. ?

DVD? CD?

I never put a period on Dr or Mr even though they are the abbreviated forms of the courtesy titles Doctor and Mister. Perhaps an apostrophe is called for: D'r and M'r. (Note that final period is not part of the abbreviated form it follows.)

quote:

Eg, "tivo" coming to mean the recording of a tv or other video by any means whatever.

I've heard of the system, of course, but I think it's too early to say. TIVo is a brand of digital video recorder in the US. There are several other brands of DVR available, and it is rarely sold over here, for instance. Another brand, ReplayTV, for example, could well produce a "killer" machine that causes almost everybody in the US to switch to them, making the TIVo redundant.

it is apparent that in a trice "tape" and "tivo" will be used interchangeably and in only a few years will so be entered in Merriam

It's not apparent to me. I've heard tivo used as a verb only in conjunction with DVRs, and never with tape. In fact, VCRs and DVRs are entirely different machines. The former are linear and the latter random access.

In the UK, the verb hoover, which also started out life as brand name, was never used to mean sweep, but only applied to the newer technology of vacuuming.

This is not related to anything ...

Just a random parody on an old theme ...

Mary had a little lamb ...

...

...

And some salad, and some Spam.

Dessert was apricot souffle;

The serving style? Voila! Buffet !!

quote:

I never put a period on Dr or Mr even though they are the abbreviated forms of the courtesy titles Doctor and Mister. Perhaps an apostrophe is called for: D'r and M'r. (Note that final period is not part of the abbreviated form it follows.)

The rule in UK English (different in the USA) is that the full stop is not used in abbreviations where the final letter of the abbreviation is the same as that of the abbreviated word - thus it's Mr and Dr, not Mr. and Dr.

It is always used for abbreviated words but there is dispute about whether it belongs in acronyms or initialisms.

quote:

Perhaps so. One who compiles a dictionary doesn't omit words he dislikes

But, Dale, my understanding is that you are only defining neologisms, and not all words. If that's the case, you seemed to have selected the group of words to define that you think dilute the language. See my point? Why not define other words that you like?

quote:

Perhaps so. One who compiles a dictionary doesn't omit words he dislikes

But lexicographers do this all the time. Maybe it's not simple like and dislike but its certainly choice. Even the mighty OED only has around 20% of the total number of words in the English language.

It is CJ's stated objective that the OEDILF will have every English word defined - but I doubt that even he will manage to achieve that unlikely objective.

OEDILF

My thoughts about the OEDILF as a dictionary and less as community performance art project is that they only seem to have one limerick per word, whereas to my mind they ought to have one limerick per meaning. (Although I rarely go to that site anymore and they may have changed their lexicographic editorial policy.

k: No, I didn't mean to imply that all neologisms dilute the language, but mainly those whereby a new meaning is attached to an existing word. A neologism coined to fulfil a new application is generally ok

quote:

Originally posted by zmjezhd:
OEDILF

My thoughts about the OEDILF as a dictionary and less as community performance art project is that they only seem to have one limerick per word, whereas to my mind they ought to have one limerick per meaning. (Although I rarely go to that site anymore and they may have changed their lexicographic editorial policy.

You're wrong there. The aim is to have one word per meaning. I, myself, posted a whole cycle of ten separate limericks on the word "bob" - each defining a different meaning. It doesn't always work out that way because it's hard to locate words with multiple meanings where some of the meanings are missing. But that's the intention.

quote:

My thoughts about the OEDILF as a dictionary and less as community performance art project is that they only seem to have one limerick per word, whereas to my mind they ought to have one limerick per meaning.

In fact they often have several limericks per meaning - take a look at "beer"

You're wrong there.

Well, I stand corrected. Since it's based on the OED, there should be 60 or so limericks for the word set or is it up to the whim of the individual writer or the editor?

Oh, pop back in 20 or so years and I'll be able to tell you. At the moment we are covering a bit less than a letter a year and we are on C.

It's up to the contributers. Words are not allocated except inasmuch as the alphabet is opened up in small sections. Everyone is free, within the open section, to write on anything but the editors don't open up a new section until most of the old one is completed.

Personally I like to write on the secondary meanings of words but there is a difficulty because of the way the word list works. Once a word has a limerick it disappears from the list and the only way to find out if all meanings are covered is to plough through the dictionary a limerick at a time and look. With around 30000 so far this is incredibly difficult. I do my best though.

It's no longer based on the OED though. It's now based on every word cited in any legitimate dictionary anywhere including specialist dictionaries (so if, for example, there is a dictionary of skateboarding terms they would be considered legitimate). The only things generally frowned upon if unsupported by other references are things like Mrs Byrnes Dictionary, the Urban Dictionary and so on. In general words with single references in obscure and suspect online sources are not done.

This is clearly an impossible (not to say insane project). That doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt it though. Personally I think its a rather grand and glorious madness.

quote:

It is CJ's stated objective that the OEDILF will have every English word defined - but I doubt that even he will manage to achieve that unlikely objective.

He won't...mainly because it is completely disorganized as far as what words are chosen. The same goes for multiple definitions of words. Yes, Bob has written 10 on "bob." However, that isn't necessarily a push on the site. If it happens, fine; if not, fine.

And many of the limericks now entail phrases or people (there's one on Barack Obama) or movies...whatever you want, really. I have rarely seen people there dissuade anyone about writing a limerick on anything.

On the other hand, I am a bit jaded by the site right now, due to the discussions about "curtaining" (a synonym for censoring, in my opinion) significant numbers of limericks.

quote:

On the other hand, I am a bit jaded by the site right now, due to the discussions about "curtaining" (a synonym for censoring, in my opinion) significant numbers of limericks.

Although I agree that the discussion there has run on somewhat, I can't agree that the OEDILF's curaining is censorship. The idea of curtaining is simply to provide an area, clearly flagged, where people might find words or phrases they find objectionable. Nobody will be prevented from reading them if they wish but they have to choose to do so. It's a bit like an "adult" bookshop, where there is a warning on the door that some items on display might be offensive.

Censorship is different in that censored items are removed from public access and are only available to those whom the censors consider a suitable audience.

For example, in the USA no minor (under 21) is allowed to look at a beer website, since exposure to images of bottles and mash tuns will convert him or her immediately into an alcoholic. Fortunately, once he or she is 21 years and one second old, all such danger is eliminated.

quote:

I can't agree that the OEDILF's curaining is censorship.

To me, and others I've talked to, it is a form of censorship. I also think rating movies is a form of censorship.

quote:

I also think rating movies is a form of censorship.

If cuts are made to allow a movie to get a certain rating that is self-censorship.

It must constitute a real hassle these days for the dictionary-compiler to decide when a usage is widespread enogh to justify entry. Many recent abbreviations, portmanteau, infixes, back-formations, and SNIGLETS that yield anywhere from ten thousand to the better part of a million Ghits I wouldn't judge to possess the kind of longevity meriting their inclusion

Where are these 5-year-olds who browse the internet on their own? Furthermore, bad words are in normal dictionaries. There is a Simpsons joke, where Bart calls the dog a "bitch", and Marge yells at him. He says, "It's in the dictionary, I looked it up", and she says, "I'll have to write a letter to those dictionary people, they must have made a mistake."

Of course this is censorship, of the worst kind. The dumbing down of perfectly acceptable material to be accessible by a group of people who are never going to be reading it anyways is really unacceptable to me.

Sean, amen

I am dreading the day when the Neocons begin censoring late-night reruns of NYPD Blue