Is "ire" a verb?

ah ired a guy to cut mah grass

Is "ire" a verb?

Yes. And a noun.

Well, I know it's a noun. "Ires" just sounds weird.

This was a missed opportunity to work "vexed" into a headline.

I'm deeply ired at this grammar.

(Oh, it's legit?)

It is especially odd because usually in headlines like this you see "irks" anyway, which is practically the same word but much less confusing.

Webster's doesn't acknowledge it as a verb. If it is one, it's probably a recent phenomenon where dumbasses have helped turn a noun into a verb, like that guy on the radio who irks (see, one letter off, but an actual verb) me when he says two teams will be "rematching" tonight.

Edit: And Crispix beat me to irks.

This was a missed opportunity to work "vexed" into a headline.

Ah, but "vexed" is a good 1 1/2 counts higher. "Jflit," y'know.

("Ired" as a verb indeed reads stupid. It's better than "slay" as an adjective [as in "Slay trial opens], though -- probably my pick for most artifical bit of headline-ese.)

The use of "impact" as a verb will bring down civilization as we know it. What's wrong with plain ol' "affect," dammit?

The use of "impact" as a verb will bring down civilization as we know it. What's wrong with plain ol' "affect," dammit?

everytime I hear the word "impactful", I reach for my gun

It ires me when people reach for their guns over unimpactful verbiage.

Why verbiage and not adjectiviage?

That's when I reach for my thesaurus/That's when it all goes out the threshold

I like these nouns you turn into verbs. I think I'm going to sandwich after I sofa for a bit.

irk are ire aren't quite the same. Ire is to anger, irk is to annoy.

Neither The Free Online Dictionary nor Merriam-Webster lists "ire" as a verb, for whatever that's worth.

I like these nouns you turn into verbs.

There's a radio guy in DC who can turn *anything* into a verb. Nadal straight-setted Federer, the Penguins overtimed the Red Wings, that sort of thing.

I like these nouns you turn into verbs. I think I'm going to sandwich after I sofa for a bit.
So you like verbing nouns, do you?

Neither The Free Online Dictionary nor Merriam-Webster lists "ire" as a verb, for whatever that's worth.

Sadly, not much it seems.

Back on point, why can't the ump just tell Randy to pitch why eyechart is out of the box. Baseball is slow enough don't understand batter timeouts short of an equipment issue.

Webster's doesn't acknowledge it as a verb. If it is one, it's probably a recent phenomenon where dumbasses have helped turn a noun into a verb, like that guy on the radio who irks (see, one letter off, but an actual verb) me when he says two teams will be "rematching" tonight.

ok, first of all, i can't believe we're having this conversation, but since we are....

english is permissive and allows all kinds of words to become verbs.

webster's and the free online dictionary are NOT reputable sources for determining anything about language. my students cite them all the time. their etymologies are suspect, and they're only designed for quick reference. the OED cites the following as an early usage of ire as a verb:

c1420 Pallad. on Husb. II. 361 Her brethron & her owne kynde hit ireth [L. irritat].

so, it's been recognized as a verb since at least the 15th century.

but second: "dumbasses" are not the problem. that statement smacks of elitism of the french academy kind, bespeaking not only a dream of purity in language that never existed, but also that we have some kind of agency in modifying the rules of a language, and moreover a vested interest in maintaining such rules. we do not have such an interest. people have tried (and failed) to make lowly and earthy anglo-saxon english approach the "sweetness and light" of latin and greek (e.g. stupid rules like "don't end a sentence with a preposition," "don't begin a sentence with a coordinating conjunction"). saussure dismissed this fantasy almost a century ago. time to give it a rest.

for me, even the OED is not reflective enough of the flexibility of english. "phaser" was just added after 4 decades of popular usage.

i don't know why, but of all the mangled new uses, 'impact' as a verb bothers me no end. i just hate it. it's pompous. phony. and it shows up more than ever. it's a real signifier for me. i immediately tune out anyone who uses it, something inside me is telling me this person has nothing useful to say. but that's just me.

True, PhDW, but on the other hand we do have dumbassery to thank for such dubieties as "irregardless".

you're right, piehole -- or would you rather be addressed as david :-) -- and newspaper headline writers probably have as much to do with changing usage as anybody. 'even still', as they say on the sopranos, somebody's got to remind us that there are standards of grammar so that we can all communicate effectively.

too slow on the draw. what dr.m said.

So you like verbing nouns, do you?

Since the word "verb" is itself a noun, the word "verbing" is a perfect example of itself.

The gerunding of modern language is shortening my life.

the OED cites the following as an early usage of ire as a verb:

c1420 Pallad. on Husb. II. 361 Her brethron & her owne kynde hit ireth [L. irritat].

so, it's been recognized as a verb since at least the 15th century.

I'm woefully out of my depth here, but in the best traditions of the internet I will continue to speak...

I think there's a big distinction between "recognized" and "used." Something can't be recognized except by some sort of authority. The above may be the first (recorded) instance of "ire" being used as a verb, but... well, so what? At what point does a word's use cross over from being a mistake to being part of the language? Is everything ever said/written by a (putatively) English-speaking person count as English, or is there a point at which a word has been used often enough that it starts to count? At what point do cromulent and contrafribularities become recognized as English?

No problem with suggesting have I that the rules of the grammar of the English more fluid should be, but at what point such writings become gibberish do? Who the OED the authority grants these decisions to make? If lack it they do, possess it who? If no one, then does "anything go" (so long as maening remians relatively claer)?

I really am fine with the idea of a fluid language, but how does one determine whether something has fluidly entered the language and when it hasn't? My stakoikes and I are unsure.

A great, great read on usage is David Foster Wallace's "Tense Present" (published in Harper's and in his book Consider the Lobster). Here's a link to a copy (the original is ten times better graphics- and footnotes-wise): Tense Present

I somewhat agree with TPoDW, but when a word is used incorrectly, and people know it's used incorrectly (or in a non-standard way but not on purpose, if that makes sense), then the person does come off as a dumbass, which affects credibility.

Since the word "verb" is itself a noun, the word "verbing" is a perfect example of itself.

almost, it's a participle. more correct would be "I verb nouns."

True, PhDW, but on the other hand we do have dumbassery to thank for such dubieties as "irregardless".

it's funny, but i actually think that that word shows us something interesting about the speakers of a language. it's a word that a non-fluent speaker of english probably wouldn't ever come up with because it shows that he intuited the rules of english word formation, even though he didn't have a solid grasp of those rules, and probably couldn't articulate them if asked.

my objection to the use of the term "dumbasses" is my own politics. i'm against elitism in any form. kind of why i don't like it when marxists or lefty liberals complain about "stupidity" in people from lower economic classes casting votes for republicans.

don't like it when marxists or lefty liberals complain about "stupidity" in people from lower economic classes casting votes for republicans.

Understandable. "Self-hatred" is a much more accurate term in such instances.

I really am fine with the idea of a fluid language, but how does one determine whether something has fluidly entered the language and when it hasn't?

i think saussure has something to say about this. i don't think there's a problem except when fluidity starts to impinge upon meaning and intent in language. so, your paragraph above is fine, but the word order is mostly "unacceptable." a language with cases like russian or greek or latin can accommodate almost any word order, but there are usually unspoken rules about such word order. english is least flexible in word order, while it is very flexible about adding new words. partly english can accommodate new words because its history is assimilative: anglo + saxon + celtic + french ( + latin) = english. the history of the english language up until say 1500 is the history of conquests of england.

so, i'm not arguing for fluid language. i'm arguing that we should recognize the flexibility in the english language for accommodating new words and changing word forms. i'm not a linguist, by the way. just an english lit guy. i think a linguist would be able to sort this out better for us.

Since the word "verb" is itself a noun, the word "verbing" is a perfect example of itself.

almost, it's a participle. more correct would be "I verb nouns."

Per dictionary.com:

verb –noun any member of a class of words that are formally distinguished in many languages, as in English by taking the past ending in -ed, that function as the main elements of predicates, that typically express action, state, or a relation between two things, and that (when inflected) may be inflected for tense, aspect, voice, mood, and to show agreement with their subject or object.

Oh, and stay classy, Randy.

Understandable. "Self-hatred" is a much more accurate term in such instances.

oh come on now. i think it's possible for people have cognitive dissonance in which they realize that republicans don't entirely represent their interests economically but they do morally, or vice versa.

i don't know why, but of all the mangled new uses, 'impact' as a verb bothers me no end. i just hate it. it's pompous. phony. and it shows up more than ever.

I agree with this, but I think "evidences" is even worse. It's absolutely the worst kind of lawyerspeak, which is saying something.

During a conversation I had recently with a girl in high school, she made several references to misogyny and misogynists. After a while I realized what she was doing and pointed out to her that when she was saying "misogynist" what she really meant was "sexist." She replied, no, this was the new use for the word misogynist.

Ugh. Wasn't there ever a time when, in order to undertake poetic license, you had to demonstrate that you were a poet and were knowingly exercising your license, or were my grandparents misogynizing* their youth?


*please note that misogynizing can also be used to mean misrepresenting, misinterpreting, misremembering, mischaracterizing, and Miss America.

For baseball terms, I personally hate the verb "plate." As in, The team plated a run in the sixth.

i'm against elitism in any form.

Sometimes one has to take a stand. It's all too possible to overstep the line with respect to language usage (talk about your teapot tempests), but I don't think it's a problem to say something isn't right and I'm going to say you're wrong. It's not always elitist; sometimes it's just a difference of opinion. I submit that the difference is being able to back up the stand rather than mere whining about something you don't understand.

Efforting is my current least favorite (if that's OK with piehole).

Per dictionary.com:

verb –noun

i don't think i was being clear. "verbing" is a gerund (not participle as i said earlier because it's a direct object), not a verb. turning the noun "verb" into a verb would have to be something like like "i verb nouns," or "he verbs nouns."

It's not always elitist; sometimes it's just a difference of opinion.

i agree with this point about disagreement. :)

i was merely objecting to saying that "dumbasses" were responsible for impurity in the language.

so, i'm not arguing for fluid language. i'm arguing that we should recognize the flexibility in the english language for accommodating new words and changing word forms. i'm not a linguist, by the way. just an english lit guy. i think a linguist would be able to sort this out better for us.

I, for one, say we need more elitism in language. While fluidity is necessary for any living language we have reached a point where our attitude towards language has become a means by which populist ideologues wage their war against elitism. In this regard the entire field of linguistics is a chief culprit. Under the disguise of academia they have espoused, and managed to get the public to adopt, the idea that what matters with words is how they are used not what they mean. The result is that you will get otherwise educated people around here arguing in favour of such words as "irregardless" because it has become popular usage. In my view this is a crime against civilization. Worse, the linguists have managed to take over Education departments so that this idea is becoming dogma amongst an entire generation of teachers. The fight over language and the preservation of the meaning of words is one of the most important issues of our generation.

I, for one, say we need more elitism in language.

Any language is renewed by those who use it, not by those who study it. The uneducated and semi-literate will change it to suit their own needs, whatever is proscribed from the ivory towers.

Maybe the elitists should band together and start to use classical latin or greek instead, so they don't have to share a language with the hoi polloi.

I, for one, feel that Gaelan is being a smartass......or is this serious? "Real or Snark"--I can't tell any more....

Assuming it's real, the perspective expressed by #42 reminds me of all those who reverently invoke Orwell's essay on the politics of English, a simplistic piece which gives grounds for righteous rage, as if the real problem with the Bush administration is their sloppy use of "irregardless". The link between usage and morality has often been asserted, but never been proved--cause there ain't no such link.....

I agree with 42 wholeheartedly. When one breaks the rules of language to make a point, it's art. Otherwise, it's merely confusing. The rules exist for reasons, mostl importantly because they facilitate communication by establishing regular patterns that can be recognized quickly and learned more easily.

Just want to say: don't blame Nick Piecoro for the verbalization of the word "ire".
Just like most places, at the AZ Republic, the editors come up with the titles...

You guys need to get your noses out of a thesaurus and get back to mom's basement. Have any of you even competed in a spelling bee?

I, for one, feel that Gaelan is being a smartass......or is this serious?

I'm pretty sure he's being serious, which in some ways is sort of equally funny & sad.

Languages are both flexible and rule governed. They must be both if language users are to have the resources to use an existing language in innovative (flexible) ways and if these innovations and past practices are to be meaningful to more than one person. The rule bound nature of language enables individuals to communicate successfully with each other. In this way the rules of the language are authoritative for a group of two or more persons. But they are not so complete, hardened and resistant to alteration that change becomes irrational or impossible per se. Yet they are not so flexible that everyone finds themselves speaking a (private) language meaningful only to them.

I like the flexibility of language when it twists to cover a gap where there isn't a good way to say something or when words create an unexpected phrase. I dislike it when the creation is to add unneeded emphasis or style where there are many perfectly good alternatives. To be clearer, I don't like it when d-bags want to make whatever it is they're discussing sound more important by commandeering perfectly good words. It's like Bruce Willis commandeering a car: some folks will be impressed by the assertiveness and direct action, but most folks will just wonder why the doofus didn't take a cab.

And as far as elitism goes, I'm not sure rigor in language needs to be cast in such a light. I see it more like personal grooming and being on time insofar as it is a personal choice and its importance can vary by situation. I can wish that more folks chose to use care in their speech just like I wish more chose to take better care in what they wear to work, for example. I think flip flops in the office are ridiculous, but these days they're shoes just like irregardless is a word. When I choose to lament the loss of clarity and decorum rather than celebrate the freedom expressed it's because I'm a cranky middle-aged guy, not because I'm losing control of my language.

I am not stopping unitl haigenizationificationalism is in the dictionary.

haigenizationificationalism (n): the practice of turning nouns into verbs into nouns into verbs into adjectives; derived from Alexander Haig who was the leading practitioner of his time.

the hoi polloi

Redundant! 8-)

haigenizationificationalism (n): the practice of turning nouns into verbs into nouns into verbs into adjectives; derived from Alexander Haig who was the leading practitioner of his time.

He's been haigenizationificationalismed!

gaelan,

purity is a lost dream that never was. get over it.

i'm not arguing for fluidity (i have no idea what that even means, and i didn't propose the term). i didn't argue "for" a word like irregardless. all i said was that the word showed us an interesting phenomenon: that someone without the ability to articulate the rules of word formation in english created a perfectly "correct" (in terms of word formation) word and added it to the language. now, as to usage: like it or not, people use it and it's now in the lexicon. the way you can tell is that if you say it to someone in a sentence, they will not be confused by what you mean.

the preservation of words is not one of the most pressing issues of our generation (with oil at a ridiculous price, two wars, and an environment that is showing signs of stress), so i assume your post is not serious.

Maybe it's because I'm British rather than American, but "ires" seems quite normal usage to me.

Heh, I love these discussions. In baseball, my least favorite bit of grammar is the overuse of metonymy. You know what I mean: "The Mets traded for a new arm today in Johan Santana," or, "The Phillies have a lot of big bats." I get that maybe it was somewhat clever for a time, but it's just gone overboard to the point where I hear players referred to by their tools about 50 times a day now.

Also, one of my favorite bits of grammar comedy is from George Carlin:

"Anyway, as part of this 'boarding process,' they say, 'We would like to pre-board.' Well, what exactly is that, anyway? What does it mean to 'pre-board', you get on before you get on? That’s another complaint of mine: too much use of this prefix 'pre-,' it’s all over the language now. 'Pre-' this, 'pre-' that. 'Place the turkey in a pre-heated oven.' That’s ridiculous; there are only two states an oven can possibly exist in: heated or un-heated! 'Pre-heated' is a meaningless ####### term. It’s like 'pre-recorded,' 'this program was pre-recorded,' well of course it was pre-recorded, when else are you going to record it, afterwards? That’s the whole purpose of recording, to do it beforehand. Otherwise, it doesn’t really work, does it? "

This thread is a monument of disrespect to Johnson and Mientkiewicz.

Anyone who wants to fight language changes needs to at least read Singular "their" in Jane Austin" and The Word Detective.

From the first:

Singular "their" etc., was an accepted part of the English language before the 18th-century grammarians started making arbitrary judgements as to what is "good English" and "bad English", based on a kind of pseudo-"logic" deduced from the Latin language, that has nothing whatever to do with English.

The rules that everyone wants to follow as "proper" were, in this case, made up in the 18th century.

From the second:

So "awesome" and "awful" originally both meant "inspiring awe, majestic." Only in the late 18th century did "awful" acquire its modern meaning of "very bad," probably through repeated use to mean "so bad as to inspire awe."

Words change their meaning through common usage. You can't fight it. If you said that your mother-in-law's chicken casserole was awful, she would rightly be upset. If you said it in the early 18th century then she would be pleased. However, there was a middle ground where people would argue that the new usage was incorrect English (or would have argued had there been an Internet). But now nobody would make that argument.

Hmmm... what do we say around here when people correct other people and their justification is "that's the way I learned it, so that's the right way"?

In all seriousness, I've spent hours at The Word Detective. It's an awesome site.

Can't a man savor an at-bat?

I'm reminded of a Calvin and Hobbes strip.

Calvin: "I like to verb words."
Hobbes: "What?"
Calvin: "I take nouns and adjectives and use them as verbs. Remember when `access' was a thing? Now it's something you do . It got verbed."
Calvin: "Verbing weirds language."
Hobbes: "Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding."

Have any of you even competed in a spelling bee?

I won my school's spelling bee four consecutive years. Everyone was scared of me. Never made it all the way to DC to be on ESPN2, though...

Monty,

Doesn't the Humpty Dumpty quote continue on to say something like whenever I want a word to do more work I pay it extra?

I was thinking through the entire thread that we should just pay verbed words more.

I won my school's speling bee, and that was that. I never had the oportunity to go any furthur. (Unless I was offured a chance to move on to some reghional bee or something, and turned it down, which is the kind of thing I wuold do. But I have no recolection of that.)

I took my son to the park today. While eavesdropping I heard, "I don't know nothing ..." and "where's he at?" Defend these if you like but there is a reason trash speaks the way trash speaks.

Other favourites I have is the guy from Acrostville. You know the guy who is heading acrost the street to buy some smokes. I also love it when people tell me about the movies they've seen. How does that work in a sentence? "I seen Die Hard. It was awesome."

If native speakers want to speak gibberish or imitate ESL students that's fine with me. I don't see why we have to celebrate it.

Moreover none of the points above address my main point. Which is not that language is perfect and should never change. Rather it was that language does change but it should do so with reference to both the past and the future. Which means that when it changes to adapt to new circumstances (the future) it does so with reference and within the terms of the way the language has been used in the tradition (the past).

Thus to take two examples from my field both Plato and Heidegger were extreme innovators in the use of language that were necessary to give voice to their emerging philosophies amid a crisis in culture. The result is that the depth and range of communication possible through their language (and the languages that borrowed their ideas) was increased considerably. This is good change and completely different than language changing because uneducated and illiterate rabble (used in place of dumbasses) don't know any better.

the way you can tell is that if you say it to someone in a sentence, they will not be confused by what you mean.

When someone says "irregardless" in a sentence what is communicated to me is that this person probably doesn't have anything worthwhile to say.

the preservation of words is not one of the most pressing issues of our generation (with oil at a ridiculous price, two wars, and an environment that is showing signs of stress), so i assume your post is not serious.

I was completely serious. What's the point in worrying about the state of the world if you don't have the faculty to understand it.

In all seriousness, I've spent hours at The Word Detective. It's an awesome site.

I think that's great. Everytime I get sanctimonious about a specific language quibble I go look it up. Most of the time I learn something about language and words and this makes me a better person. The day I learned that enormity wasn't a synonym for immensity was a very good day. Once again I'm being serious. While facility and comprehension with language doesn't make you a good person it does make you a better person. Language is ennobling. Letting people speak any which way they please, or worse, sanctioning it as correct simple because it is common is demeaning to the person speaking. We should remember that common has more to do with the base than the dignified.

When someone says "irregardless" in a sentence what is communicated to me is that this person probably doesn't have anything worthwhile to say.

i'm sure you're a nice person, but that's not a nice thing to say.

If native speakers want to speak gibberish or imitate ESL students that's fine with me. I don't see why we have to celebrate it.

oy! no one is celebrating it! re-read the posts!

i'm sure you're a nice person, but that's not a nice thing to say.

Killing me with kindness. I must concede to your graciousness.

The truth isn't always nice.

I took my son to the park today. While eavesdropping I heard, "I don't know nothing ..." and "where's he at?" Defend these if you like but there is a reason trash speaks the way trash speaks.

Exactly. Uneducated people are trash.

Let's go through your comment for possible signs that you are an uneducated and illiterate specimen of rabble who does not have the faculties to understand the world and don't have anything worthwhile to say. After all, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Which is not that language is perfect and should never change.

SENTENCE FRAGMENT

Letting people speak any which way they please, or worse, sanctioning it as correct simple because it is common is demeaning to the person speaking.

"Simple" should be "simply".

Thus to take two examples from my field both Plato and Heidegger were extreme innovators in the use of language that were necessary to give voice to their emerging philosophies amid a crisis in culture.

I think the clause "to take two examples from my field" should be bracketed by commas. Also, the sentence makes no sense. Are you saing that Plato and Heidegger were extreme innovators that were necessary? Or that their use of language were necessary? Or that their language were necessary? Either way, there is a problem, probably that "were" needs to be changed to "was" in order to agree with its antecedent.

What's the point in worrying about the state of the world if you don't have the faculty to understand it.

This appears to be a question. WHERE IS THE QUESTION MARK, YOU MONORCHID MONGOLOID MONSTROSITY? God, I get so sick of these cretins whose sentences are completely incomprehensible because of minor errors that I choose to blow out of proportion.

I don't think Crispix and I are friends.

oh come on now. i think it's possible for people have cognitive dissonance in which they realize that republicans don't entirely represent their interests economically but they do morally, or vice versa.

Indeed. There are plenty of people who will vote for the party that promises to rape their pocketbook in return for plunging the country they love into an utterly pointless war.

Btw, fwiw, if they realized it, as you wrote, wouldn't it be a conscious trade-off rather than cognitive dissonance?

Crispix's post made me laugh out loud.

But isn't there a common ground here? Language evolves, yes, but "evolve" doesn't mean the same thing is "changes at random." If it better serves the language to make a change, it will eventually evolve in that direction.

I like the link posted about awesome and awful. Apparently they both used to mean the same thing, but at some point we realized that was redundant and it's more useful to our language to have "awful" mean something else instead.

"Irregardless" is just happening because ignorant people want to sound smart by using big words and don't know what the hell they are doing. It has nothing to do with evolving the language in a good or useful way. It's just random change.

Reason no. 1 languages change:
"it's so fun to annoy people who's anal about language"

Are you people reading the same Merriam-Webster I'm reading? From #16's link:

Main Entry: ire
Pronunciation: \??(-?)r\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin ira; perhaps akin to Greek oistros gadfly, frenzy
Date: 14th century
: intense and usually openly displayed anger
synonyms see anger
— ire transitive verb
— ire·ful \-f?l\ adjective

I'll just make my usual point: for the Language Police, "language change before I was born" = natural, acceptable "evolution" of language. "language change after I got some schoolin'" = rape of the language and harbinger of the end of civilization. Or "ignorance" at best.

As far as singular "their", I can make a good case for it appearing it in "The Wanderer", an Old English poem written over a 1000 years ago.

The use of verbs as nouns and nouns as verbs also goes back to the earliest forms of the language. "Breath" and "breathe" being but one example. ("Use" and "use" being another.) A glance through any Old English or Middle English dictionary will provide numerous others. We use verbs and nouns and nouns as verbs because we can, because it provides us with options for expression. It has a long, storied (ooh, there's another one!) history in our language, and it's here to stay. ("Stay" and "stay"! Another one!)

As for double negatives, throughout the history or our language, double, triple, hell, even quadruple negatives (when you could get away with them) have been used to provide emphasis, and they will continue to do so in the future, irregardless of snobs with bizarre language aesthetics. I can't even call those against the double negative "purists", because any real English purist would be the double negative's best friend; that's how prevalent it's been in English ever since it's been called English, and probably before then as well.

Look, I enjoy Twain's dictum: "Use the right word and not it's second cousin." There's certainly a place for correction when someone uses a word in a confusing or misapplied manner. There's language shift, and then there's Oswald Bates. However, things like verbs as nouns and double negatives don't apply. If I say, "Let's see how this trade impacts the team", there's not a native English speaker on Earth who will have difficulty understanding what I have to say. Likewise (which really should be "a-lichways", but that ship sailed centuries before I was born, so #### it), if I say, "I don't know nothing about that!", no English speaker is really going to think, "It seems like he's saying he doesn't know anything, but his use of double negatives defy the rules of mathematical logic! What could he possibly mean!" (Incidently, in the time of King Alfred, "correct grammar" would have been the double negative "I know not nany thing", using the negative of "any".)

If you love the English language, revel in the diversity of English expression.

I don't mean to be elitist, it's just that I'm so much smarter than everybody else...

"Have any of you even competed in a spelling bee?"

I got robbed.

The kid in front of me got "alligator". The kid behind me got "casserole".

My word? "Pilosity": The state or condition of being covered with hair.

I do believe that my use of English, both written and spoken, is as proper as anyone's (especially if that anyone is fond of dashes and ellipses, I'll grant). Every now and then, however, purely for emphasis or effect, when speaking I will consciously lapse into utter rusticity -- double negatives, use of "ain't," and the like -- in part as a deliberate evocation of the commonly heard speech of my youth in the rural South, and to a lesser extent of my adulthood in the region's more metropolitan areas.

Were Gaelan to overhear me on such an occasion, I gather he would automatically consign me to the Home for the Hopelessly Stupid. I feel so, so ashamed.

My word? "Pilosity": The state or condition of being covered with hair.

How did you spell it? "J-o-h-n-n-y-D-a-m-o-n?"

"Use the right word and not it's second cousin."

He might've said that, but he wouldn't have spelled that. 8-)

If you love the English language, revel in the diversity of English expression.

1. I could see where there might be a few people who have put a lot of effort into their language -- spelling and sentence structure and such -- and are a bit offended by people who would rather invent new meanings for words because they are too "lazy" to look them up. For my part, I forgive uneducated far more than I forgive careless, though I forgive both from time to time as I demonstrate both from time to time. I think, overall, for many people, making an effort with language reflects respect for others, since language is something you only need to use for other people.

2. I could also see where some feel that a drop in standards in our use of language is representative of a broader standards issue. One could argue that there is an effort to make the world as accessible as possible to the lowest common denominator, and accepting a more relaxed approach to language would reflect that. For my part, I get less caught up in the level of standards of society than I do in the level of standards set by individuals. I get irritated when individuals set their standards below their capabilities because they can get away with it, myself included.

Re: #66

Thus to take two examples from my field both Plato and Heidegger were extreme innovators in the use of language that were necessary to give voice to their emerging philosophies amid a crisis in culture.

Where is my collection of Heidegger's Nazi speeches?

What's the point in worrying about the state of the world if you don't have the faculty to understand it.

Let's ignore, say, global warming until we're sure that every person on the planet is literate in a language, can parse sentences in their native language, has a massive vocabulary, etc.

Let's ignore, say, global warming until we're sure that every person on the planet is literate in a language, can parse sentences in their native language, has a massive vocabulary, etc.

That people arrive at this kind of false dichotomy might be exactly why he feels the way he does.

Re: #84

Whose false dichotomy? It’s not my position that human beings should ignore either the state of the world or the state of its languages.

Let's ignore, say, global warming until __________

Fill that in with whatever you want. Sign me up.

Whose false dichotomy? It’s not my position that human beings should ignore either the state of the world or the state of its languages.

Nor is it his. He didn't suggest ignoring anything. You created a false dichotomy by misreading what he was saying.

I have to admit your argument is swaying me in his favor.

On edit: I don't mean to speak for him, either. I'm just going by what's been written here, which certainly does not suggest to me dropping other world issues in favor of language.

Re: #87

I interpret his 'what's the point in worrying about...' as equivalent in meaning to 'it's OK to ignore.' I do not believe this to be an unfair interpretation of his statement.

I won my school's speling bee, and that was that. I never had the oportunity to go any furthur. (Unless I was offured a chance to move on to some reghional bee or something, and turned it down, which is the kind of thing I wuold do. But I have no recolection of that.)

That should have ended the thread. Well done.

My word? "Pilosity"
Now that she's Speaker of the House, many more people can spell that word correctly.

s.zielinski:

I saw that as suggesting that addressing world issues and being able to communicate effectively go hand in hand, not that either should be addressed at the exclusion of the other.

I blame this disagreement on his inability to express himself sufficiently. Beers are on me.

Cooperstown:

NP. Have a good day!

Excellent post in #76, CFiJ. This:

"language change before I was born" = natural, acceptable "evolution" of language. "language change after I got some schoolin'" = rape of the language and harbinger of the end of civilization.

is where I was going with my links. Anyone who wants to say that they way they were taught is the right way to use the language should look 50 years before they were born to see what language was like then.

I like the link posted about awesome and awful. Apparently they both used to mean the same thing, but at some point we realized that was redundant and it's more useful to our language to have "awful" mean something else instead.

True, but not always true. Browse through a few of the others on that site and you'll see that words often change randomly. For example, the word "apron" used to be "napron" (it's related to "napkin"). People would say "a napron", but after a while it changed to "an apron". Why? Who knows? But there were probably people correcting others when they said "the apron", telling them that it's "the napron".

So anyone who says that random changes shouldn't be made should still be correcting people on apron/napron. Ah, but it was an accepted change by the time they learned to speak, so now it's "right".

True, but not always true. Browse through a few of the others on that site and you'll see that words often change randomly. For example, the word "apron" used to be "napron" (it's related to "napkin"). People would say "a napron", but after a while it changed to "an apron". Why? Who knows? But there were probably people correcting others when they said "the apron", telling them that it's "the napron".

It was. They were right. The fact that the popular usage overtook the correct usage doesn't change the fact that the folks saying "the apron" were incorrect at the time.

At least there's a natural explanation for napron/apron. But you can't expect a word like irregardless to drift across the usage centerline and not encounter a collision or two. I reiterate that making words up is fine compared with utterly getting an established meaning wrong, doubly so if it was misused intentionally in pursuit of style.

It was. They were right. The fact that the popular usage overtook the correct usage doesn't change the fact that the folks saying "the apron" were incorrect at the time.

They were incorrect at first, then they were mostly incorrect, then it was a wash, then they were mostly correct, then it was the proper word. At any given time there are hundreds* of words at various stages of this process in the English language. And there are cranky people telling everybody to stop doing that and to freeze the language where it was when they were in junior high. This has been going on since language was invented and it makes no sense to criticize someone because they're at a different point on the language line than you are.

*I am not a language expert so I actually have no idea of the volume of these changes. I'm just a reformed pedant.

Merriam W on "enormity":

1: an outrageous, improper, vicious, or immoral act <the enormities of state power — Susan Sontag> <other enormities too juvenile to mention — Richard Freedman>
2: the quality or state of being immoderate, monstrous, or outrageous; especially : great wickedness <the enormity of the crimes committed during the Third Reich — G. A. Craig>
3: the quality or state of being huge : immensity <the inconceivable enormity of the universe>

Merrian-Webster has a stake in the language wars. The third edition was edited in order to lend authority to the language is usage movement. It is an examplar of descriptivist linguistics and in this regard is neither impartial nor disinterested. The whole point of the dictionary is to enshrine mistakes and hence is by definitiion not authoritative. It is because the third edition of Merriam-Webster (which is the current edition) is so bad that the American Heritage Dictionary was created.

Grammer nerds ire me.

I blame Mientkiewicz.

Stretchers for everyone.

-
Country Grammar