When pondering the manner in which the term, "plastic" has changed, it occurred to me that words themselves are plastic. The term originally meant malleable, or capable of being shaped or formed, yet many materials we lump under that term are rigid. How did "plastic" become so - plastic?

That's an interesting concept, Geoff. Perhaps the descriptivists consider words plastic with the traditional definition, while the prescriptivists like that "rigid" definition.

I haven't used Word Spy in awhile, but in looking up "plastic words" in Google, this came up. Apparently "amoeba words" is another word for it.

I think the "proper" word for these plastics is thermoplastic: a substance that becomes malleable when you heat it. That's also true of metals, but I suppose when they coined the word they were thinking that the temperature required to make Parkesine or Bakelite malleable was way cooler than that to make iron or gold more malleable.

While Parkesine is a thermoplastic (The first, in fact - generally called celluloid) Bakelite is a thermoset, and the first of its kind. One doesn't see either very often these days. Now to apply the two differences to words... Might there be a non-malleable core to grammar, whereas our use of terms shape-changes in the crucible of metaphor?

Kalleh, thanks for the link! Nice to see I'm not the first or only one to think of "plastic words!"

PS: Given its etymology,I wonder why plastic surgeons aren't called taxidermists?

That is worthy of the WashPost contest, Geoff

'Plastic' as used in boomer heyday was a pejorative meaning 'synthetic'. I believe that's the sense used in Kalleh's link-- words which seem to have substance, but cease to convey much content due to overuse/ misuse.

Might there be a non-malleable core to grammar, whereas our use of terms shape-changes in the crucible of metaphor?

I don't think so. Language changes. That's pretty much the alpha and omega of it. Peevers think that it disintegrates, linguists figure that's just the way things are. The meanings of words change according to context. The meanings of words change historically. Besides words, grammar changes, too. Some linguists (i.e., Chomsky and his followers) think that there is a universal grammar, so at some abstract level, there is a grammar that does not change.. But, I think that that core is rather deep down and really not that accessible to ordinary speakers.

As an aside in this thread...

quote:

Peevers think that it disintegrates, linguists figure that's just the way things are.

I do like your use of "peevers," z. I looked it up just to check it out. There is a "peever" in Scottish that means "hopscotch." Then when looking it up in Google, "Peever, South Dakota" appears. If I add "linguist" to it, Language Log columns come up. Were they the first to use "peever," do you know, z?

If I add "linguist" to it, Language Log columns come up. Were they the first to use "peever," do you know, z?

That's where I first ran across the term. It has the advantage of being shorter than prescriptivist.

OK, so I'm a peevert.

I don't let my Chemistry students use the word plastic, because it has a precise meaning in Materials science that they wouldn't understand. Also, they don't see anything wrong with plastic items. I do, and think of anything plastic as fake and second-rate. This is because, as a child, my plastic christmas presents would break very quickly. My students don't share my prejudices because there plastic Xmas presents were of a much higher quality. There is a good Chemistry reason for this: they benefitted from the catalysts of Ziegler and Natta which allowed us to make plastics which can hold a form and shape. Mine didn't and were just rubbish.

Outside of science, the word has lots of uses.
As one of many life-long supporters of the finest football club in the whole world, I often refer to fans as plastic if they have only just started to support Reading, ie if they have only seen the team play in our new sterile stadium with plastic seats. A non-plastic fan would have been following the team in the days when we had a dirty, smelly ground with terraces made of concrete cancer.

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
Some linguists (i.e., Chomsky and his followers) think that there is a universal grammar, so at some abstract level, there is a grammar that does not change.. But, I think that that core is rather deep down and really not that accessible to ordinary speakers.

And there's no reason why the structure of universal grammar couldn't change over time.

quote:

Originally posted by goofy:


And there's no reason why the structure of universal grammar couldn't change over time.

This makes sense to me. While we don't have any paleolithic people to ask, nor bronze age people, and such, it seems reasonable to me that the world that a population inhabits, and the technology that a people develops therefrom, would likely inform the universal grammar of that population. The mental plasticity permitting a change might be displayed in comparing a modern "information age" person to an ancient bard. I'd bet that if we could do an f-MRI on them both we'd see significant differences.

quote:

As one of many life-long supporters of the finest football club in the whole world, I often refer to fans as plastic if they have only just started to support Reading, ie if they have only seen the team play in our new sterile stadium with plastic seats. A non-plastic fan would have been following the team in the days when we had a dirty, smelly ground with terraces made of concrete cancer.

Concrete cancer?
That's an interesting way to use "plastic," Graham. By the way, welcome back!