What determines meaning? (usage vs.definition)
Petibacsi
or not.
Of course it depends on the definition of the word religion. In a wide
meaning we can even say about a serious football fan that football is his
religion.
Or : Rock and Roll is my religion and Elvis is god.
But of course that's not what we mean by religion in the everyday's usage.
Nevertheless some people argue that contrary to the definition of religion in
dictionaries, people started to use it in a way that can include atheism too.
And now we encountered a problem what I can call, just what exactly
determines a word's meaning? Usage or definition.
Well, I think it should be definition, but people don't use dictionaries for
their everyday's communication. Thus meaning changes by usage. Now the question
is, in a case where the usage is clearly not logical/incoherent/doesn't fit,
should the dictionary makers follow the usage and in the next edition include
the new (although incorrect) meaning?
What do you think?
Peti
joy beeson
use of the word "atheist". That is, a great many fervently-religious
people are calling themselves "atheists", to the chagrin and
embarrassment of real atheists.
Joy Beeson
mail to : j beeson at global two thousand dot net
Petibacsi
>The problem doesn't lie in the use of the word "religion",
Yes it does. It was a simple example of the question Is X an Y? Where the
problem is the definition of Y. In this case it was Is atheism a religion, thus
Y was the word religion.
You might know grammar better but leave logic to me. :)
> but in the
>use of the word "atheist". That is, a great many fervently-religious
>people are calling themselves "atheists",
That is just plain silly. If they believe in the existence of god(s) they are
not atheist, although the level of their religiousness can be discussed.
The opposite word for atheist is not religious but theist. Here in the state
people who believe in god but don't practice organized religion like to call
themselves spiritualist
Peti
Robert Lieblich
<snip>
> And now we encountered a problem what I can call, just what exactly
> determines a word's meaning? Usage or definition.
>
> Well, I think it should be definition, but people don't use dictionaries for
> their everyday's communication. Thus meaning changes by usage. Now the question
> is, in a case where the usage is clearly not logical/incoherent/doesn't fit,
> should the dictionary makers follow the usage and in the next edition include
> the new (although incorrect) meaning?
>
> What do you think?
I think you know absolutely nothing of linguistics. I don't know much
about it myself, but I know enough not to pretend that a word can mean
anything other than what educated native speakers of a language think it
means. For one example, look up "presently" in a good dictionary or
usage book that reports shifting usages over time. Of course
dictionary makers should follow usage; if they don't, they're not making
a dictionary but attempting to change the language.
This doesn't mean that one cannot attempt to preserve usages that one
likes and inveigh against usages that one doesn't like. Critiques of
usage can affect the way the language develops. But if the language
ignores a given critique, as happened when the meaning of "presently"
drifted over the last few decades, complaining that a nice word has been
ruined is just pissing into the wind.
"Definition" cannot possibly "determine" the meaning of a word. Only
usage can do that. It follows that the meaning assigned by usage cannot
be "incorrect," and any argument based on a contrary assumption is
nonsense. "Definition" can report the meaning that usage has assigned,
and that's all it can do. Let's just hope that the report is accurate
(i.e., that the dictionary is useful.)
Bob Lieblich
Petibacsi
>I think you know absolutely nothing of linguistics.
And because of that do I have to die a painfull and long death?
> I don't know much
>about it myself,
Than you have to die a painfull and long death.
>but I know enough not to pretend that a word can mean
>anything other than what educated native speakers of a language think it
>means.
The keyword is educated. Why do you think that the general population is
educated? It isn't.
> For one example, look up "presently" in a good dictionary or
>usage book that reports shifting usages over time.
So what is your problem?
Of course
>dictionary makers should follow usage; if they don't, they're not making
>a dictionary but attempting to change the language.
Now finally we reach the core of the preoblem. So should dictionary makers
include a comletely illogical/not fitting new meaning just because it is used
by the people?
>This doesn't mean that one cannot attempt to preserve usages that one
>likes and inveigh against usages that one doesn't like.
And just how exactly do they do that? Mentioning it in the dictionary? As I
mentioned before, general population don't use dictionaries for usage.
>"Definition" cannot possibly "determine" the meaning of a word. Only
>usage can do that.
Well I tend to agree, but I have problem when the 2 gets really far from each
other.
Peti
Robert Lieblich
<snip>
> Now finally we reach the core of the preoblem. So should dictionary makers
> include a comletely illogical/not fitting new meaning just because it is used
> by the people?
If somehow the word "glory," as used by a large number of educated
native speakers, came to mean "a real knock-down argument," logic would
have nothing to do with it, nor would "not fitting." Words mean what
they mean, and the lexicographers would not be doing their job if they
didn't report the new usage.
>
> >This doesn't mean that one cannot attempt to preserve usages that one
> >likes and inveigh against usages that one doesn't like.
>
> And just how exactly do they do that? Mentioning it in the dictionary? As I
> mentioned before, general population don't use dictionaries for usage.
I attempt to preserve usages that I like by using a word with the usage
I want to preserve. At some point I may find myself performing solo, or
being misunderstood, and I quit. It's like being the only person who
watches a given TV show -- no matter how much you like it, there will
soon be something else in its time slot. And of course the general
population rarely (I wouldn't concede "never") uses dictionaries, which
is why usage shifts. If everyone used dictionaries, usage would become
a self-fulfilling prophecy, and we'd all sound like Dr. Johnson.
>
> >"Definition" cannot possibly "determine" the meaning of a word. Only
> >usage can do that.
>
> Well I tend to agree
I would never have guessed. Please reflect on this point when next you
undertake to discuss what usage is or should be.
> but I have problem when the 2 gets really far from each
> other.
We all do. But we live and we learn.
Bob Lieblich
P&DSchultz
>
> The keyword is educated. Why do you think that the general population is
> educated? It isn't.
ALmost all the rules of English were formulated back when virtually
none of the speakers was educated. There are languages spoken today
which have no educated speakers. They are very complex languages full
of rules, and the words in them mean particular things, even without
an Enlightened One to keep the speakers from error. How can that be?
//P. Schultz
JUST AN H
>religion
>or not.
I am a Catholic (yes, a practicing Catholic) and one of my best friends is an
atheist. He respects my religion, and I respect his lack of it.
I think my atheist friend (Lance) would be offended by such a question. He
would say that atheism is most definitely NOT a religion. After all, atheists
don't believe in God in any form. They don't worship a higher being, or even a
lower being. (Sorry to disappoint those Christian rightists who would say,
"Aha! If he doesn't worship God, then he must worship the devil!")
My question is: If one doesn't recognize and worship a higher form, then how
can that person be construed to be "religious?"
Not that I care what anybody thinks of me, but I do care for Lance. He's Mensa
and has suffered a lot of personal losses these past two years, including the
death of his lover to AIDS.
Lance has since disappeared. Pehaps I should have beat him over the head with
my Bible while I had the chance. Then again, he would have resented
that........
J.
Petibacsi
>My question is: If one doesn't recognize and worship a higher form, then how
>can that person be construed to be "religious?"
Well you forgot to look up the definition.
Webster, religion :
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
So as I said, even R&R can be my religion and Elvis is my god in a wider
meaning. But of course we don't think about devout admiration of anything (but
particulary deities) when we talk about religion.
Peti
Petibacsi
>ALmost all the rules of English were formulated back when virtually
>none of the speakers was educated.
Well, that explains the illogicality of it. :)
> There are languages spoken today
>which have no educated speakers. They are very complex languages full
>of rules, and the words in them mean particular things, even without
>an Enlightened One to keep the speakers from error. How can that be?
Maybe god? :)
Peti
Charles Riggs
> And now we encountered a problem what I can call, just what exactly
>determines a word's meaning? Usage or definition.
>
> Well, I think it should be definition, but people don't use dictionaries for
>their everyday's communication. Thus meaning changes by usage. Now the question
>is, in a case where the usage is clearly not logical/incoherent/doesn't fit,
>should the dictionary makers follow the usage and in the next edition include
>the new (although incorrect) meaning?
>
> What do you think?
>
> Peti
This is in fact what dictionary editors do. Words frequently change
meaning (awful formerly meant "full of awe") or take on additional
meanings through usage. Editors sooner or later pick this up in their
"official" definitions. Then the new meaning becomes just as correct
as the old one.
Charles
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>The problem doesn't lie in the use of the word "religion", but in the
>use of the word "atheist". That is, a great many fervently-religious
>people are calling themselves "atheists", to the chagrin and
>embarrassment of real atheists.
>
>Joy Beeson
>mail to : j beeson at global two thousand dot net
>
"Real" strikes me as being an odd adjective to atheist though. It
seems to me that an atheist is only telling us that he doesn't believe
in something: he isn't telling us what he does believe in. So the lack
of an idea can't be very real. I find it difficult to believe there
are people who don't accept any concept of god, be it the harmony of
nature or the beauty of physics or whatever definition; there must be
millions of ways of looking at it. Nor do I find agnosticism
satisfying for how can a person be so wishy-washy on such an important
subject? Take a stance a be proven wrong later. That happens to me
daily in Internet news groups!
Charles
Petibacsi
>I find it difficult to believe there
>are people who don't accept any concept of god,
Why? I just don't get it.I grew up in an atheist country as an atheist and I
never felt the need for a supreme being.
>Nor do I find agnosticism
>satisfying for how can a person be so wishy-washy on such an important
>subject?
Anyway getting back to topic, some people use the word infidel, so there is
no distinction between atheist and agnostic.
Peti
Boris Hartwig
: The problem doesn't lie in the use of the word "religion", but in the
I think that is the point.
I don't know how it is exactly in English , but in German and Spanish "Atheist"
describes a person who firmly believes that there is no higher being ( god )
at all. So most of them wouldn't consider themselves as religious, but for
most persons they are - due to their strong and irrational believe in some-
thing.
An agnostic is for sure not religious - he just doesn't know wether there is
a god or something like this nor does he believe in something he has no proofs
of its existence...
greetings
Boris
PS: Please excuse my poor English - I read it a lot, but almost never speak it.
JUST AN H
>meaning (awful formerly meant "full of awe") or take on additional
>meanings through usage. Editors sooner or later pick this up in their
>"official" definitions. Then the new meaning becomes just as correct
>as the old one.
I agree. For example, look what's happening with two rather common words:
"harvest" and "marketing". These days, everything from corn to fish and deer
is "harvested." (I almost barfed when I read a newspaper article earlier this
year about "harvesting" *fossils* up in Wyoming.) And look how the word
"marketing" has muscled its way into the language to replace "advertising" and
"selling."
Were meaning to be restricted to pure definition, I don't language would be
free to evolve as quickly as it does.
J.
P&DSchultz
>
> > And now we encountered a problem what I can call, just what exactly
> >determines a word's meaning? Usage or definition.
> >
> > Well, I think it should be definition, but people don't use dictionaries for
> >their everyday's communication. Thus meaning changes by usage. Now the question
> >is, in a case where the usage is clearly not logical/incoherent/doesn't fit,
> >should the dictionary makers follow the usage and in the next edition include
> >the new (although incorrect) meaning?
If the REAL meaning is to stay always the same in the dictionary while
mere USAGE wavers all over the place, then what do you suppose is the
REAL meaning of the word "broadcast," since that word was in use for
over a century before radio was invented? Is the new radio/TV meaning
"incorrect"?
//P. Schultz
P&DSchultz
> ...
> An agnostic is for sure not religious - he just doesn't know wether there is
> a god or something like this nor does he believe in something he has no proofs
> of its existence...
It is common for people who don't know what they believe to call
themselves agnostics. But I have agnostic acquaintances who say that
an agnostic is actually one who believes it is impossible to prove or
disprove the existence of God. So an agnostic has a definite belief,
and is not just someone who doesn't believe anything.
//P. Schultz
Charles Riggs
wrote:
He would be a logical agnostic. What about many of us though? I
believe it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God,
but I firmly believe in the existence of God. Is that illogical? I
could take either side of the argument and might be right or might be
wrong. At the end of the day, I think it depends upon one's
definition of God. I define Him in such a way that He can exist for
me. I cheat perhaps.
Charles
janelaw
>
> Boris Hartwig wrote:
> > ...
> > An agnostic is for sure not religious - he just doesn't know wether there is
> > a god or something like this nor does he believe in something he has no proofs
> > of its existence...
>
> It is common for people who don't know what they believe to call
> themselves agnostics. But I have agnostic acquaintances who say that
> an agnostic is actually one who believes it is impossible to prove or
> disprove the existence of God. So an agnostic has a definite belief,
> and is not just someone who doesn't believe anything.
> //P. Schultz
Isn't that all of us? Do people actually believe that they CAN
prove this question either way?
I think most people are like my grandmother, who told me, "No
one really knows if there is or isn't a God, but just in case
there is, we better pray."
janelaw
>
>
It follows that the meaning assigned by usage cannot
> be "incorrect," and any argument based on a contrary assumption is
> nonsense.
Okay, but what do you do about the infer/imply issue then? Some
people use the word "infer" as a synonym for "imply," as in,
"Are you inferring I'm fat?" Should the dictionary just list
the two meanings? How will the user know that people like me
automatically think, "You mean imply?" Because this usage is
contrary to logic and the word's etymology, I automatically
reject it. Also, a user of the dictionary could easily infer
that "inference" was then synonymous with "implication."
Then, of course, there is the whole "between you and I" thing.
I have to confess that I have a violent knee-jerk reaction
whenever I hear this phrase and instantly think the speaker is
an idiot. It's not pretty. I have no defense. It just drives
me crazy. It is, however, a very common usage. So what should
the dictionary include in the definition of "I?" That the word
can be used instead of "me" after prepositions? That if you do,
Jane Lawrence will cringe?
I don't mean to reduce this argument to the absurd, but what
would you do about "could of?" I see this written all the
time. If your dictionary is determined entirely by usage, then
you really have to include "have" in your definition of "of."
I guess I am asking you what you think the dictionary's
responsibility regarding relative acceptability of the various
meanings should be. Would you leave all prescription of
meanings for newsgroups and usage guides? Larger dictionaries,
of course, can simply add a little usage note, but what should
abridged and pocket versions do? I know that dictionary editors
frequently describe an entry as informal or colloquial. Even my
all accepting Webster's still describes "irregardless" as
"Nonstandard." Would you include these little warning tags?
I'm just wondering what you think. I think that you should be
able to find just about any meaning of the word in a
dictionary. I also want to know if I will sound like an idiot
if I choose a particular meaning. I can't decide how common
usage should be before it is included.
janelaw
>
> >
>
> My question is: If one doesn't recognize and worship a higher form, then how
> can that person be construed to be "religious?"
>
>
against my better judgment. I really don't want anyone to post
back trying to convert me.
I don't believe in any "higher form." However, I do feel I am
religious. I have a concrete system of beliefs and a moral code
by which I live my life. During my life, I have decided for
myself what is "right" and "wrong." I try every day not to
"sin." If I fail in this, I try to atone, accept, and learn
from the experience.
I attempt to impart this religion to my child through daily
example and through discussion of events in our lives. These
are her parables. Just the other day, we had a long discussion
about casting the first stone.
In lieu of worship, I perform a variety of acts for others. I
believe this to be my duty, although I do not believe that I owe
this duty to any god. I owe this to myself, the people around
me, the world, the universe.
I'm sorry that this is not clear. Basically, I am saying that
there can be right and wrong, and responsibilities and rights
even without a god.
Bill McCray
>Nor do I find agnosticism
>satisfying for how can a person be so wishy-washy on such an important
>subject?
something. Belief or nonbelief is, for me, just a fact, not something I
can decide. I may not immediately recognize my belief or nonbelief, but
that doesn't change the existance of it.
I can choose to act as though I believe a particular idea, but I can't
choose to believe it. If you can, then when you say you believe, you
mean something very different than I do whan I say I believe.
If I neither believe there is a god nor believe that there is no god, I
am, as I understand the word, agnostic, and I cannot choose to change
that. There's nothing wishy-washy about being in that state because of
that lack of choice in the matter.
Bill McCray
Lexington, KY
Robert Lieblich
<snip>
> I guess I am asking you what you think the dictionary's
> responsibility regarding relative acceptability of the various
> meanings should be. Would you leave all prescription of
> meanings for newsgroups and usage guides? Larger dictionaries,
> of course, can simply add a little usage note, but what should
> abridged and pocket versions do? I know that dictionary editors
> frequently describe an entry as informal or colloquial. Even my
> all accepting Webster's still describes "irregardless" as
> "Nonstandard." Would you include these little warning tags?
You can't expect a small dictionary to cover the entire ground. There
isn't room, quite apart from everything else. The larger abridged
dictionaries try to maintain a scholarly apparatus while jettisoning a
lot of technical and obscure words. It's a lexicographical balancing
act. Assigned to do something about "infer" used where "imply" has long
been standard, I'd give "imply" as the last definition of "infer" and
say something like: "Infer" has a long history of being used as a
synonym for "imply," but it is useful to differentiate them, and many
careful speakers and writers maintain this differentiation. We
therefore recommend "imply" in preference to "infer" when "imply" can
correctly be used.
There is, ultimately, nothing to be done about shifting usages. If they
shift, they shift, and the most we can do if we don't like the result is
to stop using the word. Consider, in this connection, "nauseous."
Bob Lieblich
P&DSchultz
> I think most people are like my grandmother, who told me, "No
> one really knows if there is or isn't a God, but just in case
> there is, we better pray."
I've heard that way of thinking called "fire insurance."
//P. Schultz
Charles Riggs
>I'm just wondering what you think. I think that you should be
>able to find just about any meaning of the word in a
>dictionary. I also want to know if I will sound like an idiot
>if I choose a particular meaning. I can't decide how common
>usage should be before it is included.
Perhaps the dictionary could have, not could of, a category of
definition: "Spoken by idiots" and include such words as irregardless
and phrases such as between you and I. I too find this phrase
particularly irritating. Most often I hear it from a person who is
speaking a little over his (sorry) head and trying too hard to "get it
right". Later, hopefully never for these two examples, when the
majority starts using them, the dictionary could remove them from the
idiot category.
Charles
Robert Lieblich
The problem is precisely, Charles, that people committing idiotic usages
don't know they're being idiots. And others, who don't know that what's
going on is idiocy, join in. And pretty soon, everyone's an idiot.
If you don't agree, check out "hopefully" in a dozen or so usage books.
Bob Lieblich
janelaw
>
>
> Perhaps the dictionary could have, not could of, a category of
> definition: "Spoken by idiots" and include such words as irregardless
> and phrases such as between you and I.
Charles, you made me laugh. Just between you and I, you should
of tried sooner.
janelaw
>
> Charles Riggs wrote:
> >
> > On 11 Sep 1998 07:38:16 GMT, janelaw <jan...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I'm just wondering what you think. I think that you should be
> > >able to find just about any meaning of the word in a
> > >dictionary. I also want to know if I will sound like an idiot
> > >if I choose a particular meaning. I can't decide how common
> > >usage should be before it is included.
> >
> > definition: "Spoken by idiots" and include such words as irregardless
> > particularly irritating. Most often I hear it from a person who is
> > speaking a little over his (sorry) head and trying too hard to "get it
> > right". Later, hopefully never for these two examples, when the
> > majority starts using them, the dictionary could remove them from the
> > idiot category.
>
> The problem is precisely, Charles, that people committing idiotic usages
> don't know they're being idiots. And others, who don't know that what's
> going on is idiocy, join in. And pretty soon, everyone's an idiot.
>
> If you don't agree, check out "hopefully" in a dozen or so usage books.
>
> Bob Lieblich
Hopefully, this nauseous idiocy will stop soon.
P&DSchultz
> Charles, you made me laugh. Just between you and I, you should
> of tried sooner.
"Sooner" is an adverb, so that should be "You should of tried more
soonly."
//P. Schultz
JR Pelland
Don't say that, you are going to make her feel "badly".
Charles Riggs
<lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>> Perhaps the dictionary could have, not could of, a category of
>> definition: "Spoken by idiots" and include such words as irregardless
>> and phrases such as between you and I. I too find this phrase
>> particularly irritating. Most often I hear it from a person who is
>> speaking a little over his (sorry) head and trying too hard to "get it
>> right". Later, hopefully never for these two examples, when the
>> majority starts using them, the dictionary could remove them from the
>> idiot category.
>
>The problem is precisely, Charles, that people committing idiotic usages
>don't know they're being idiots. And others, who don't know that what's
>going on is idiocy, join in. And pretty soon, everyone's an idiot.
>
>If you don't agree, check out "hopefully" in a dozen or so usage books.
>
>Bob Lieblich
That's a subtle point, Bob but I don't believe "everyone" can be an
idiot or idiot loses it's meaning. As I said in an earlier post, I
think if the majority of English speakers are saying such and such,
that word or phrase automatically becomes "right". A pretty good
example is "It's me" rather than the grammatically correct "It is I".
I know no one who still says that.
Charles
Charles Riggs
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>>
>>
>> Perhaps the dictionary could have, not could of, a category of
>> definition: "Spoken by idiots" and include such words as irregardless
>> and phrases such as between you and I.
>
>Charles, you made me laugh. Just between you and I, you should
>of tried sooner.
What? Tried what sooner? I'm glad I made you laugh anyway; I consider
that to be one of my primary functions in life.
Charles
joy beeson
>When we were barefoot children growing up poor in Alabama, we used
>to get corrected if we said "et" for "ate". I remembered this and
>pondered it, years later, when I learned that in Received Pronunciation,
>the past participle of "eat" is pronounced "et"[1]. Makes you think,
>dunnit?
I was outraged, when reading a dictionary during a slumber party, to
find "punkin" listed as a pronunciation of "pumpkin" -- but I'm *very*
glad that my grammar-school teachers gave me the option of not saying
punkin.
"'Specially now that I've moved to a place where people think that
Hoosiers have a southern accent.
George F. Hardy
>
>janelaw (jan...@excite.com) wrote:
>> Robert Lieblich wrote:
>> "Are you inferring I'm fat?"
No, your clothes do that.
>I agree with you about "infer/imply" but the rage I feel when I
>hear "between you and I" is more complicated.
I'll bet the speaker would have used "he" in place of "you".
> "Me and my brother borrowed money from my mother...."
Equally appalling.
GFH
Opinicus
<6th19k$q...@tictac.demon.co.uk>...
>How do you pronounce "salmon" ?
_sammin'_
The "a" in "sam" rhymes with "Sam"; the "i" in "min'" rhymes
with the "men" in "women".
Bob
in Istanbul but born in Tx and grew up in NYC.
joy beeson
>How do you pronounce "salmon" ?
"Salmon" is not part of my speaking vocabulary.
I don't think I would pronounce the "l" if I had occasion to use it.
janelaw
>
> > Robert Lieblich wrote:
> > >
> > It follows that the meaning assigned by usage cannot
> > > be "incorrect," and any argument based on a contrary assumption is
> > > nonsense.
> >
> > Okay, but what do you do about the infer/imply issue then? Some
> > people use the word "infer" as a synonym for "imply," as in,
> > "Are you inferring I'm fat?" Should the dictionary just list
> > the two meanings? How will the user know that people like me
> > automatically think, "You mean imply?" Because this usage is
> > contrary to logic and the word's etymology, I automatically
> > reject it. Also, a user of the dictionary could easily infer
> > that "inference" was then synonymous with "implication."
> >
> > Then, of course, there is the whole "between you and I" thing.
> > I have to confess that I have a violent knee-jerk reaction
> > whenever I hear this phrase and instantly think the speaker is
> > an idiot. It's not pretty. I have no defense. It just drives
> > me crazy. It is, however, a very common usage. So what should
> > the dictionary include in the definition of "I?" That the word
> > can be used instead of "me" after prepositions? That if you do,
> > Jane Lawrence will cringe?
> >
>
> people of little education who've been made to feel anxious lest they
> get it wrong. They'd really be better off following their instinct.
> There's a strong natural inclination -- at least in speech -- to use
> "me", even in the subject position:
>
> "Me and my brother borrowed money from my mother...."
>
> grate on me in the same way that "between you and I" grates on me.
> The reason, I think, is because we're all aware of the natural
> tendency to use "me" -- we were there once ourselves, however briefly.
> Whereas, *no one* has a natural tendency to say "between you and I".
I hear a staggering number of college-educated people use "I"
after prepositions. I heard my professors use it in graduate
school. I think my horror is caused by the realization that
many children grow up hearing their parents do it. Pretty soon
people are going to start correcting me. I'll have to kill
them.
I agree that "Me and...." is no where near as grating. I rarely
hear it used by adults, though.
>
> So when I hear the dastardly phrase, it does annoy me, but it also
> makes me wonder whether we wouldn't do better to let people follow
> their instincts in spoken language, and enjoy the variety, rather
> than trying to impose a standard spoken English on everyone.
>
> snip
> --
> Ellen Mizzell
In the child rearing context, I look at language as a subset of
etiquette. I don't make the rules. But I have to teach them to
my children. I may think that they are the most perfect and
special human beings in the whole world, but they can't expect
the rest of the world to think so. If they go to someone's
house for dinner and pick their teeth at the table or say the
soup is "fucking awesome," I want them to be aware of the
impression they are making. I don't expect them to be little
martinets, but I want them to be aware of the rules they
disregard.
Jane
Bill McCray
>That's a subtle point, Bob but I don't believe "everyone" can be an
>idiot or idiot loses it's meaning. As I said in an earlier post, I
>think if the majority of English speakers are saying such and such,
>that word or phrase automatically becomes "right". A pretty good
>example is "It's me" rather than the grammatically correct "It is I".
>I know no one who still says that.
>
I haven't figured out why, but I would say "It's me" or "It is I", but
not "It's I" or "It is me".
Bill McCray
Lexington, KY
George F. Hardy
>
>I haven't figured out why, but I would say "It's me" or "It is I", but
>not "It's I" or "It is me".
Probably just sloppiness.
GFH
Robert Lieblich
<BIG snip>
> I hear a staggering number of college-educated people use "I"
> after prepositions. I heard my professors use it in graduate
> school. I think my horror is caused by the realization that
> many children grow up hearing their parents do it. Pretty soon
> people are going to start correcting me. I'll have to kill
> them.
>
> I agree that "Me and...." is no where near as grating. I rarely
> hear it used by adults, though.
I haven't seen the word "hypercorrection" yet, but that's the term
that's been bandied about on alt.usage.english (note name carefully) in
discussing this phenomenon. I think it was Lorelei Lee (in the
thirties) who used the phrase "a girl like I," and it was clear, in that
context, that she was reaching for precision and overshooting.
There's nowhere to go, gang. "Between you and I" is here and it isn't
leaving. As with many others of this ilk (and you could make a case
that my use of "ilk" is one such -- look it up), you have the choice of
going along, using the "correct" phrase, or trying to work around. For
the moment, at least, no one is "correcting" "between you and me," but
Jane is right in observing that it is coming, and it may arrive sooner
than we think. The pronunciation of the adjective "covert" did a
complete flip-flop in about three years in the mid-eighties.
Anyway, there comes a point where usage is so confounded that it's
probably better to work around than be accused by one side or the other
of being wrong, no matter what you do. "Between you and I," to repeat,
hasn't reached that point. Yet. Let's enjoy "between you and me" while
we can.
Bob Lieblich
George F. Hardy
>"Between you and I" is here and it isn't leaving.
It left my home the very first time it was heard.
GFH
Charles Riggs
>On Sun, 13 Sep 1998 11:04:36 GMT, ri...@anu.ie (Charles Riggs) wrote:
>
> >That's a subtle point, Bob but I don't believe "everyone" can be an
> >idiot or idiot loses it's meaning. As I said in an earlier post, I
> >think if the majority of English speakers are saying such and such,
> >that word or phrase automatically becomes "right". A pretty good
> >example is "It's me" rather than the grammatically correct "It is I".
> >I know no one who still says that.
> >
>I haven't figured out why, but I would say "It's me" or "It is I", but
>not "It's I" or "It is me".
>
>Bill McCray
>Lexington, KY
Same here. I started to type "It is me" in the above and then realised
I would never say it that way. I suppose it's the formal vs the
informal.
Charles