I know we've discussed Wikipedia here from time to time. Just as I was getting more comfortable with it, I found this article on wikiality about Stephen Colbert's coinage of wikiality - The notion that any random falsehood can become reality if you can merely persuade enough people to believe it. Wordspy cites the earliest citation as July 31, 2006, so it is quite new. I thought some of the related words cited by Wordspy were interesting: celebreality, crowdsourcing, dramality, mixed reality, socially produced, Web 2.0, and wiki.

From answers.com

quote:

Wiki-wiki is the Hawaiian word for quick.
Wiki Wiki Web sites are sites designed for users to be able to make additions or edit any page of the site. They often have a common vocabulary, and consider themselves a "Wiki" community.

wiki: A collaborative website whose content can be edited by anyone who has access to it.

This term has been around for quite a while. I first heard it about 5 years ago, although the term has been around since the late 80s/early 90s. It is correctly pronounced "Wee-kee", and hardcore computer users(formerly called "hackers") tend to use this pronunciation, although I've always said "Wick-ee", which is the most common pronunciation. For more information, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki

Web 2.0 is a much more complicated term, which I'll let you all read about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalleh:
I know we've discussed Wikipedia here from time to time. Just as I was getting more comfortable with it, I found this article on wikiality about Stephen Colbert's coinage of wikiality -

As the writer says: Any user can change any entry and if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true. ...
However, just to be provocative, and at the risk of repeating myself (other postings), for a neologism to be creditable it should add something useful.
A new word may creep into common usage even though it is slovenly or facile in its conception. It becomes acceptable to the mindless majority rather than desirable to the discerning members of Wordcrafter.

Yes, I see your point, Pearce.

Sean, those words I posted along with wikiality were just examples of similar words; they weren't meant to be new words.

quote:

Originally posted by pearce:
A new word may creep into common usage even though it is slovenly or facile in its conception. It becomes acceptable to the mindless majority rather than desirable to the discerning members of Wordcrafter.

If it's acceptable to the majority, then that makes it acceptable to at least this discerning member.

About wikipedia - I once vandalized an entry, and it was corrected within five minutes.

quote:

Originally posted by gooofy:

quote:

Originally posted by pearce:
A new word may creep into common usage even though it is slovenly or facile in its conception. It becomes acceptable to the mindless majority rather than desirable to the discerning members of Wordcrafter.

If it's acceptable to the majority, then that makes it acceptable to at least this discerning member.

Good for you. I admire your public spirited approach, but, wishing to make up my own mind independently, I am too mean to want to emulate it.

quote:

Originally posted by pearce:
Good for you. I admire your public spirited approach, but, wishing to make up my own mind independently, I am too mean to want to emulate it.

And you're free to do that. I guess I object to the characterization of the majority as unthinking. Of course people don't think about how to use language. Language is largely unconscious. It's normal not to think about it.

I also object to your characterization of certain usages as slovenly. If a word has a certain meaning for the majority of a speech community, then that is the meaning of the word. How else do we determine what words mean? If a certain usage is slovenly, then how many other slovenly usages have brought us the words we use today? "nice" originally meant "silly" and "petulant" originally mean "immodest, wanton, saucy," for instance.

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

quote:

Sean, those words I posted along with wikiality were just examples of similar words; they weren't meant to be new words.

I know, but they are good terms I thought others might want to know.

quote:

Originally posted by gooofy:

quote:

Originally posted by pearce:
Good for you. I admire your public spirited approach, but, wishing to make up my own mind independently, I am too mean to want to emulate it.

And you're free to do that. I guess I object to the characterization of the majority as unthinking. Of course people don't think about how to use language. Language is largely unconscious. It's normal not to think about it.

Did not you know that "the majority is usually wrong."

I also object to your characterization of certain usages as slovenly.

Fine. Don't you think that if words and language weren't often slovenly or marked by solecisms many books, tracts and Wordcrafter type blogs would not exist?
We shall have to agree to differ.

slovenly

I have to disagree with you, Pearce. Words are neither slovenly nor clean. Words are words in much the same way that pigs are pigs. You might argue that some use language (and the words that a language contains) uncarefully, but then you've lost your primary argument which is that some words are not a priori part of the language because you or a favored authority disapprove of them.

Back to words: wiki (pronounced in Hawai`ian as veekee) is thought by some lexicographers to be the English word quick borrowed into the former. In its original, non-slovenly, meaning in Old English it meant alive, living.

Wikipedia says that wiki is pronounced "wee-kee", and that in Hawaiian in is typically doubled, as in "wee-kee wee-kee".

in Hawaiian in is typically doubled, as in "wee-kee wee-kee"

"There is free variation of [w] and [v]. Pukui & Elbert (1986:xvii) have conjectured that there is conditioned variation of [w] and [v], but their use of "usually" makes their theory an admission of free variation. " Wikipedia article on Hawaiian phonology.

Sorry, I'd always assumed that Hawaiian {w} had one allophone [v], but it seems that [v] and [w] are in free variation.

quote:

About wikipedia - I once vandalized an entry, and it was corrected within five minutes.

I wonder if that is typical. If so, I am impressed.

Pearce, I also found your description of "slovenly" for a word interesting. What would you consider a "slovenly" word? "Epicaricacy?" "Irregardless?" What?

quote:

Originally posted by zmjezhd:
slovenly

I have to disagree with you, Pearce. Words are neither slovenly nor clean. Words are words in much the same way that pigs are pigs. You might argue that some use language (and the words that a language contains) uncarefully, but then you've lost your primary argument which is that some words are not a priori part of the language because you or a favored authority disapprove of them.

You are right in that we do disagree. I did not say 'some words are not a priori part of the language.' I said that some words or their usage was slovenly. That remains a matter of personal choice or preference: disapproval for one's personal use, but not a prescriptive ban— that usually is futile.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:

Pearce, I also found your description of "slovenly" for a word interesting. What would you consider a "slovenly" word? "Epicaricacy?" "Irregardless?" What?

Just a matter of personal choice, though you would accept, I think, that some words or phrases are ugly, unecessarily trendy, redundant, or add nothing new to other words in common use.

Just a matter of personal choice, though you would accept, I think, that some words or phrases are ugly, unecessarily trendy, redundant, or add nothing new to other words in common use.

I'd agree that it's a matter of personal choice. I suppose that words can be judged ugly or beautiful, though I think it's usually the concept that one judges ugly: e.g., "Phillis has syphilis" is a pretty enough turn of phrase, but a horrible thing, if you're Phillis or've known her. The flip side of trendiness, I'd say, is stodginess. Rudundency is not a flaw in language but a design principle. To ensure the transmission of meaning over noisy channels. I think the discussion of untranslatability, elsewhere on this board, has demonstrated that there are few, if any, true synonyms in any one language. People coin words. Some last and make the transition from ephemeral to permanent, but many don't. I don't mourn their loss or bemoan their arrival in either case. So, yes, you're right, we do disagree.

quote:

Just a matter of personal choice, though you would accept, I think, that some words or phrases are ugly, unecessarily trendy, redundant, or add nothing new to other words in common use.

Pearce, I was merely curious as to what that sort of word would be to you. I suppose there are words that I prefer over other words, though I'd not describe the "other words" as "slovenly." One of my un-favorite words is "irregardless."

I am not going to be drawn into writing lists of words or phrases I dislike. But like you, Kalleh, one of my least favoured words is irregardless . Hopefully is mercifully on the decline, but basically is irritatingly persistent.
For the rest, they are instant reactions to what is written or heard, rapidly cured (for a time) by a grouse, grunt or grinding of teeth.

I just don't understand the idea of finding certain words objectionable. Especially finding them objectionable because they are redundant.

These are all redundant:

ask a question
rise up
boiling hot
free gift
close scrutiny
yesterday I went to school
I am going to school
she speaks

Redundancy is an absolutely essential part of language.

quote:

Originally posted by gooofy:
I just don't understand the idea of finding certain words objectionable. Especially finding them objectionable because they are redundant.

Redundancy is an absolutely essential part of language.

Sorry to differ. Spoken language often contains such minor slips, and in the setting of conversation some may not be objectionable. But in written language, which seldom allows correction, they are slovenly, objectionable, and not essential. As always, it's the choice of the individual how considerate he/she wishes to be to the reader.

What about reflexives? Many languages use reflexive terms as a part of proper grammar, yet they are redundant. I would not agree that "I am going to school" is redundant; rather it is the present progressive tense.

quote:

Hopefully is mercifully on the decline, but basically is irritatingly persistent.

Hopefully is certainly not on the decline. I hear it as much now as I ever have, and it is as common in text as in speech. Stephen Pinker has a good explanation on why "hopefully" is a very useful word.

I have no problems with "basically" either. You could say computer science is basically a mathematical field. This is equivalent to saying, "at its most basic level, computer science is mathematics", and "to learn computer science requires mathematics". There is more there though, it adds "you must be good at math to be good at computer science", and has a number of other connotations.

quote:

Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:
What about reflexives? Many languages use reflexive terms as a part of proper grammar, yet they are redundant. I would not agree that "I am going to school" is redundant; rather it is the present progressive tense.

What I meant is that the "am" and the "ing" both signal the present progessive tense. In theory, we don't need both of these morphemes. Since they both signal the same thing, why do we need both? Redundancy. The same for my other bolded examples.

In other words, redundancy is built into language.

In other words, redundancy is built into language.

Yep, pretty much.

QUOTE]Hopefully is certainly not on the decline. I hear it as much now as I ever have, and it is as common in text as in speech. Stephen Pinker has a good explanation on why "hopefully" is a very useful word.

I have no problems with "basically" either. You could say computer science is basically a mathematical field. QUOTE]

Well, usage can be geographical, and in the UK my impression is that hopefully has declined, which pleases me.
"Basically" has meaning and relevance in your example. But much more often I hear :
Q. What are you doing tonight?
A. Basically, I am going out.
That sort of meaningless spacefiller is extremely common, even amongst BBC interviewers, who should know better.
The similarly useless insertion of "like" is equally vexatious, as in:
Q. What are you doing tonight?
A. Basically, I am , like, going out.
It really is garbage and however fine is tolerance, it can be stretched too far!!!

quote:

Originally posted by gooofy:
... redundancy is built into language.

On the TV news last night a reflexive jumped out at me. "The man exposed himself..." "Himself" suggests something silly, IMHO. Is the man's selfhood contained in whatever bits and pieces he exposed?

quote:

Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:
On the TV news last night a reflexive jumped out at me. "The man exposed himself..." "Himself" suggests something silly, IMHO. Is the man's selfhood contained in whatever bits and pieces he exposed?

Yeah, I guess you could say that "himself" is redundant, since in theory "him" would do.

"He exposed" or "He exposed him" wouldn't do. Maybe it's not a common Euphemism across the Atlantic but we all know what it means here!

It's idiomatic, of course, but then so are many other common phrases, euphemistic or not.

What I mean, Richard, is that in theory you could have an English that has "he exposed him" or "she speak". But we don't, in reality we have "he exposed himself" and "she speaks". The "self" and the "s" ending on "speak" are redundant. But they are also necessary for grammatical English.

My point is that complaining about certain terms because they are redundant or add nothing new, as Pierce does, doesn't make sense. Redundancy is an essential part of language.

Am I making myself clear? Or am I just belaboring this?

We all use unnecessary modifiers and descriptors; it's the overuse that's the problem and I believe there are worse linguistic problems than that.

quote:

Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:

quote:

Originally posted by gooofy:
... redundancy is built into language.

On the TV news last night a reflexive jumped out at me. "The man exposed himself..." "Himself" suggests something silly, IMHO. Is the man's selfhood contained in whatever bits and pieces he exposed?

Personally [sic], I have no issue with reflexives, provided they are grammatical. My objection is to the insertion of loose words and phrases that add nothing to the intended meaning. Some may become idiomatic and we then decide to use them or reject them in our own communications. We are all more lax in spoken than in written English, and that too, is part of normal useage.

quote:

Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:
On the TV news last night a reflexive jumped out at me. "The man exposed himself..." "Himself" suggests something silly, IMHO. Is the man's selfhood contained in whatever bits and pieces he exposed?

Another thought: Nothing personal Asa.
This website contains far too many damned acronyms , many of which I don't understand. I had to look up IMHO to find it meant 'In my humble/honest/huffy opinion'. I am probably a pedantic fool who has failed (deliberately) to keep up with the modern recourse to shorthand forms, but I guess I am not the only one?

I'd say we use remarkably few initialisms. I've seen far more on other sites. Over at the OEDILF there are initialisms coming out of their ears. Here we tend to avoid all but a few of the most common ones. I rarely use them myself but I have no special objection to the common ones such as IMHO or LOL. These are used throught the internet.

Sorry, Pearce. I questioned my use of IMHO, but thought it well enough established that I wouldn't confuse anyone. I see that I erred. I do agree that we've become acronym-crazed. I can NOT read the adverts from an electronics store and understand any of it!

I've recently begun building electric motor-powered model airplanes. Until I became a bit familiar with that new jargon, I had thought "LiPo" to be a Chinese fellow instead of a Lithium-Polymer electric cell. Oh, well...

quote:

Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:
I do agree that we've become acronym-crazed. I can NOT read the adverts from an electronics store and understand any of it!

I've recently begun building electric motor-powered model airplanes. Until I became a bit familiar with that new jargon, I had thought "LiPo" to be a Chinese fellow instead of a Lithium-Polymer electric cell. Oh, well...

Asa, you were right first time. LiPo is a Chinese fellow , but prone to abuse, as in "LiPo sucks", which is of course an abortive acronym for Liposuction — a procedure to which many now subject themselves because of their narcissistic, distorted self-images

So, LiPo is a Chinese fellow who's not ashamed of his ventral adiposity? Hmmmmmm.... Is "adiposity" a word? Ah, well, I do suspect the meaning's clear!