| Author |
Message |
Tom Robertson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 4:19 pm
Post subject: Evolution of Language |
|
|
Don't "mistakes" account for the evolution of language? I often
correct friends who say "I did that good," telling them that they
should have said "I did that well." But when "good" becomes more
popular than "well," doesn't it become "correct?" How did "well"
become "correct" if not by popular usage? I dread the day when "it's"
becomes "correct" to use as possessive just because too many people
don't know that it was "supposed" to be a contraction for "it is," not
used as possessive.
It sheds light on what "dishonesty" means. When enough businesses
make their prices a penny below a multiple of $10, the original intent
of which was likely to try to fool potential customers into believing
that they were getting the product that was being sold for $9.99 less
than they were, it becomes "honest" to price products that way because
it's now the established language.
"Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Don Phillipson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 7:36 pm
Post subject: Re: Evolution of Language |
|
|
"Tom Robertson" <thomasrrobertson@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tcg1l1tukn514g87sl9o2t7r9s1121iinl@4ax.com...
| Quote: | Don't "mistakes" account for the evolution of language? I often
correct friends who say "I did that good," telling them that they
should have said "I did that well." But when "good" becomes more
popular than "well," doesn't it become "correct?" How did "well"
become "correct" if not by popular usage? I dread the day when "it's"
becomes "correct" to use as possessive just because too many people
don't know that it was "supposed" to be a contraction for "it is," not
used as possessive.
|
1. We can agree that language changes, but why should
anyone call this change evolution?
2. The two examples above are very different. Good/well
concerns the choice of words (adjective or adverb) between
two words that (everyone agrees) both exist currently in
the language; and any change in usage appears to have
begun in oral speech (and occasionally spilled over into
written English. The choice between it's and its is a
matter of spelling and punctuation, i.e. occurs only in
writing: it cannot occur in oral English because both
words sound the same.
3. You probably need more robust examples to convince
us that errors "account for" language change in any
significant way.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 7:56 pm
Post subject: Re: Evolution of Language |
|
|
Tom Robertson <thomasrrobertson@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: | I dread the day when "it's"
becomes "correct" to use as possessive
|
"Dread" is too strong of a feeling, it seems to me. I dread global
warming flooding the world's lowlands; I dread mutated bird flu
affecting us all. I do not dread how people twenty or fifty or a hundred
years punctuate things. That's up to them.
Can you imagine someone a 150 years ago saying 'I dread the day when
"would n't" is spelled as a single word'? Oh, horrors.
Now, I can understand that you would hope the words we write today will
be intelligible to future generations. The best way you can influence
that, I think, is by making a point to continue to communicate with
young people.
--
Onward and upward -- Donna Richoux
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom Robertson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:49 pm
Post subject: Re: Evolution of Language |
|
|
trio@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
| Quote: | Tom Robertson <thomasrrobertson@earthlink.net> wrote:
I dread the day when "it's"
becomes "correct" to use as possessive
"Dread" is too strong of a feeling, it seems to me. I dread global
warming flooding the world's lowlands; I dread mutated bird flu
affecting us all. I do not dread how people twenty or fifty or a hundred
years punctuate things. That's up to them.
Can you imagine someone a 150 years ago saying 'I dread the day when
"would n't" is spelled as a single word'? Oh, horrors.
|
I'm assuming you're being historically correct in saying that it used
to be 2 words. Was it considered a "mistake" when it was first used
as 1 word? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Iain
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 9:22 pm
Post subject: Re: Evolution of Language |
|
|
Tom Robertson wrote:
| Quote: | I dread the day when "it's"
becomes "correct" to use as possessive just because too many people
don't know that it was "supposed" to be a contraction for "it is," not
used as possessive.
|
It willn't ever happen ;)
"it's" is still considered colloquey -- You won't find it in a contract
or university essay.
You will find "its" in such places.
~Iain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Bonde ('by a commodi
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 11:26 pm
Post subject: Re: Evolution of Language |
|
|
Don Phillipson wrote:
| Quote: |
"Tom Robertson" <thomasrrobertson@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tcg1l1tukn514g87sl9o2t7r9s1121iinl@4ax.com...
Don't "mistakes" account for the evolution of language? I often
correct friends who say "I did that good," telling them that they
should have said "I did that well." But when "good" becomes more
popular than "well," doesn't it become "correct?" How did "well"
become "correct" if not by popular usage? I dread the day when "it's"
becomes "correct" to use as possessive just because too many people
don't know that it was "supposed" to be a contraction for "it is," not
used as possessive.
1. We can agree that language changes, but why should
anyone call this change evolution?
Because it is similar to the idea of biological evolution. Biological |
evolution is not an action specifically seeking greater complexity.
| Quote: | 2. The two examples above are very different. Good/well
concerns the choice of words (adjective or adverb) between
two words that (everyone agrees) both exist currently in
the language; and any change in usage appears to have
begun in oral speech (and occasionally spilled over into
written English. The choice between it's and its is a
matter of spelling and punctuation, i.e. occurs only in
writing: it cannot occur in oral English because both
words sound the same.
There might be a point when people get tired of all the words that are |
spelt differently but sound the same and just allow either spelling or
choose the most popular one as the standard.
| Quote: | 3. You probably need more robust examples to convince
us that errors "account for" language change in any
significant way.
In the trivial sense, all language change is "error". |
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Cunningham
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:28 am
Post subject: Re: Evolution of Language |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:26:08 -0700, "Bill Bonde ('by a
commodius vicus of recirculation')"
<John.Methuen@magersfontein.co.uk> said:
[...]
| Quote: | In the trivial sense, all language change is "error".
|
A lot of language change is due to error. In what sense are
you using the word "trivial"?
I don't think it's right to say "all", though. I think an
important element in language evolution is a tendency to
consciously choose easier ways to say things. I suspect
that the elaborate inflections of earlier versions of
languages were not lost due to error, but rather because
people saw no need for them and dropped them.
There may be people saying "bus" today who have never heard
or seen the word "autobus". Same with "taxi" and
"taximeter". The taximeter was a meter that measured the
tax, or fare. The vehicle itself was called a taximeter
cab, which was shortened to "taxicab", then to "taxi".
Does anyone use the word "taximeter" anymore? If anyone
does, I wouldn't be surprised to find that they're thinking
of it as two words, "taxi meter", meaning the meter that's
in the taxicab. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:46 am
Post subject: Re: Evolution of Language |
|
|
Tom Robertson <thomasrrobertson@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: | trio@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
Tom Robertson <thomasrrobertson@earthlink.net> wrote:
I dread the day when "it's"
becomes "correct" to use as possessive
|
Someone pointed out here once that Thomas Jefferson always wrote the
possessive "its" with an apostrophe. This can be seen in facsimiles
available at the Library of Congress site, "The Thomas Jefferson
Papers":
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query
Type <it's> in the field marked "Search this collection".
| Quote: | "Dread" is too strong of a feeling, it seems to me. I dread global
warming flooding the world's lowlands; I dread mutated bird flu
affecting us all. I do not dread how people twenty or fifty or a hundred
years punctuate things. That's up to them.
Can you imagine someone a 150 years ago saying 'I dread the day when
"would n't" is spelled as a single word'? Oh, horrors.
I'm assuming you're being historically correct in saying that it used
to be 2 words.
|
Yep. I couldn't tell you exactly who said it that way and when, but it
was out there... Bartleby.com's collection of literature has examples
that are all American from the early 1900s -- Theodore Roosevelt, Sarah
Orne Jewett, and the Yale Book of American Verse, 1912. You can't draw
too many conclusions from that, though.
| Quote: | Was it considered a "mistake" when it was first used
as 1 word?
|
I don't know of any controversy around it at all. I picked it as an
example because of that.
It's fairly routine in English for two-word phrases to be combined into
a single compound word, and no one climbs the walls and shouts loudly
when it happens. It's the sort of change that is accepted with a minimum
of fuss and soul-searching. Unlike other sorts of changes that are
deemed to the Problems and are discussed endlessly...
--
Best -- Donna Richoux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Aitken
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 3:36 am
Post subject: Re: Evolution of Language |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 20:46:54 +0200, trio@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
wrote:
| Quote: | It's fairly routine in English for two-word phrases to be combined into
a single compound word, and no one climbs the walls and shouts loudly
when it happens. It's the sort of change that is accepted with a minimum
of fuss and soul-searching. Unlike other sorts of changes that are
deemed to the Problems and are discussed endlessly...
|
I don't think that is always true. The 19th century saw a prolonged
rearguard action by those who thought that combining "any thing" or
"some thing" was a Problem; they managed to keep such combinations out
of edited prose for a long time after they were usual in speech.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 3:46 am
Post subject: Re: Evolution of Language |
|
|
On 15 Oct 2005, Bob Cunningham wrote
| Quote: | On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:26:08 -0700, "Bill Bonde ('by a
commodius vicus of recirculation')"
John.Methuen@magersfontein.co.uk> said:
[...]
In the trivial sense, all language change is "error".
A lot of language change is due to error. In what sense are
you using the word "trivial"?
I don't think it's right to say "all", though. I think an
important element in language evolution is a tendency to
consciously choose easier ways to say things. I suspect
that the elaborate inflections of earlier versions of
languages were not lost due to error, but rather because
people saw no need for them and dropped them.
There may be people saying "bus" today who have never heard
or seen the word "autobus".
|
Or even "omnibus". (Or did it only get shortened after "autobuses"
came on the scene?)
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Phillipson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 3:50 am
Post subject: Re: Evolution of Language |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
<John.Methuen@magersfontein.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1129397034.691cb01e9edb887026682904168cacbe@teranews...
| Quote: |
Don Phillipson wrote:
1. We can agree that language changes, but why should
anyone call this change evolution?
Because it is similar to the idea of biological evolution. Biological
evolution is not an action specifically seeking greater complexity.
|
Evolution means the emergence of new species. So words
evolve (new words appear) but it stretches the word (and time)
too much to suggest new languages are still appearing.
1. The world's total of languages is declining.
2. The OP's time frame was years, perhaps decades.
So far as we know how languages emerged (e.g. French
and Italian from Latin) the process took centuries: and
printing appears simply to have halted the possible
emergence of new languages (for everyday purposes.)
(We know pidgin and creoles emerged as discrete
languages for all purposes -- but in oral language only.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 4:01 am
Post subject: Re: Evolution of Language |
|
|
Don Aitken <don-aitken@freeuk.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 20:46:54 +0200, trio@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
wrote:
It's fairly routine in English for two-word phrases to be combined into
a single compound word, and no one climbs the walls and shouts loudly
when it happens. It's the sort of change that is accepted with a minimum
of fuss and soul-searching. Unlike other sorts of changes that are
deemed to the Problems and are discussed endlessly...
I don't think that is always true. The 19th century saw a prolonged
rearguard action by those who thought that combining "any thing" or
"some thing" was a Problem; they managed to keep such combinations out
of edited prose for a long time after they were usual in speech.
|
Interesting. It's hard to know these things because the
behind-the-scenes discussions don't get attached to the actual uses. Do
you happen to have any idea where you saw this criticism? Roughly?
My only really old guide to usage is Alford's "The Queen's English,"
1866, and I don't see anything in the contents concerning compounds.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 4:33 am
Post subject: Re: Evolution of Language |
|
|
Donna Richoux wrote:
| Quote: | Tom Robertson <thomasrrobertson@earthlink.net> wrote:
trio@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
Tom Robertson <thomasrrobertson@earthlink.net> wrote:
I dread the day when "it's"
becomes "correct" to use as possessive
Someone pointed out here once that Thomas Jefferson always wrote the
possessive "its" with an apostrophe. This can be seen in facsimiles
available at the Library of Congress site, "The Thomas Jefferson
Papers":
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query
Type <it's> in the field marked "Search this collection".
"Dread" is too strong of a feeling, it seems to me. I dread global
warming flooding the world's lowlands; I dread mutated bird flu
affecting us all. I do not dread how people twenty or fifty or a
hundred years punctuate things. That's up to them.
Can you imagine someone a 150 years ago saying 'I dread the day when
"would n't" is spelled as a single word'? Oh, horrors.
I'm assuming you're being historically correct in saying that it used
to be 2 words.
Yep. I couldn't tell you exactly who said it that way and when, but it
was out there... Bartleby.com's collection of literature has examples
that are all American from the early 1900s -- Theodore Roosevelt,
Sarah Orne Jewett, and the Yale Book of American Verse, 1912. You
can't draw too many conclusions from that, though.
|
There are three separate cites in three separate words in OED where it
os laid out as "would n'y", the most recent from 1929. They all appear
to be from the US, including one from Henry James's brother William.
--
John Dean
Oxford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Cunningham
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:22 am
Post subject: "Bus", "autobus", "omnibus" [was: Re: Evolution of Language |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 21:46:56 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
<harvey.news@ntlworld.com> said:
| Quote: | On 15 Oct 2005, Bob Cunningham wrote
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:26:08 -0700, "Bill Bonde ('by a
|
[...]
| Quote: | There may be people saying "bus" today who have never heard
or seen the word "autobus".
Or even "omnibus".
|
I should have said "omnibus". I don't know why "autobus"
popped into my head.
I'm glad it did, though, because it gave me occasion to look
at "autobus" in the _Oxford English Dictionary_ (_OED_).
(The search hit "autobus" takes you to "auto-".) I found it
fascinating to see how many different wheeled vehicles had
had "auto-" tacked onto them:
1895 Daily News 30 Nov. 5/1 To apply the new
principle of the 'auto-motor' to road-waggons, heavy
drags, hunting-traps, and stage-coaches.
1895 Westm. Gaz. 17 Dec. 3/1 We congratulate the
police authorities..on having convicted the owner
of an autocar for proceeding along a road at a pace
exceeding three miles an hour.
1896 (title) The Automotor Journal.
1897 N.Y. Herald 19 Sept. 2/1 The introduction of an
efficient autocab service in the streets of Paris.
1899 N.Y. Jrnl. 17 June 5/2 The New York Auto-Truck
Company.
1899 Westm. Gaz. 4 July 6/3 The auto~conveyances of
members of Parliament.
1899 Boston Herald 12 July 6/5 We should have the
new words..auto~bus, [etc.].
1900 Engineering Mag. Aug. 733 The auto~waggon,
which provides just that rapid and cheap form of
independent direct transport [etc.].
1904 Westm. Gaz. 23 Sept. 7/3 Mr. W. K. Vanderbilt,
junior's auto-boat 'Mercédès the Sixth'.
[Yes, the _OED_ has "junior" with small "j".]
1908 A. BENNETT Buried Alive iv. 88 Two
commissionaires were helping him into an auto-cab.
1918 W. STEVENS Let. 30 Apr. (1967) 208, I must
wait..for an auto-bus back to Johnson City.
1927 Chambers's Jrnl. 375/2 You can..explore the
French side..from end to end by safe, strong,
comfortable autocar.
1927 South America May 137/2 The auto-coach is much
needed to replace the horse-coach.
1941 KOESTLER Scum of Earth 206 The regular autobus
line Bergerac-Bordeaux still functioned.
| Quote: | (Or did it only get shortened after "autobuses"
came on the scene?)
|
It appears that "omnibus" was first and was shortened to
"bus", from which "autobus" was formed.
The first use of "omnibus" attested by _OED_ is dated 1829.
1829 Saunders's News-let. 10 July 1/4 Saturday the
new vehicle, called the Omnibus, commenced running
from Paddington to the city.
"Bus", spelled "buss", is first attested in 1832:
bus
1. a. A familiar shortening of OMNIBUS.
1832 H. MARTINEAU Weal & Woe i. 14 If the station
offers me a place in a buss.
Incidentally, an interesting plural appears in a later
citation for "omnibus":
1840 W. HOWITT Visits to Remarkable Places 1st Ser.
200 Trains of omnibuses, or omnibi, are flying down
to the Broomielaw every hour.
I suspect W. Howitt wrote "omnibi" with tongue in cheek. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Bannister
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:30 am
Post subject: Re: Evolution of Language |
|
|
Donna Richoux wrote:
| Quote: | It's fairly routine in English for two-word phrases to be combined into
a single compound word, and no one climbs the walls and shouts loudly
when it happens. It's the sort of change that is accepted with a minimum
of fuss and soul-searching. Unlike other sorts of changes that are
deemed to the Problems and are discussed endlessly...
|
And yet I have seen people in this very newsgroup complain that "email"
should be "e-mail" or even "E-mail". Some people just like climbing walls.
--
Rob Bannister |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in