Is "got" really a word?
Jason Lambert
Is "got" really a word? If so, what is its meaning in today's society
(close your dictionaries--I'm speaking of real life)? Let me give you an
example of my day...
I got up this morning.
I got some shampoo from the cupboard.
I got into the shower.
I got wet.
I got clean.
I got out of the shower.
I got dried off.
I got some clothes on.
I got some breakfast.
I got my briefcase.
I got into my car.
I got to work around 9:00.
I got myself some coffee.
I got some work done.
Need I go on?
Gwen Lenker
Jason Lambert <ja...@nextwork.com> wrote in article
<01bc4904$ee76ef40$310635c6@jason>...
> Is "got" really a word?
Yes.
> If so, what is its meaning in today's society
> (close your dictionaries--I'm speaking of real life)?
Words don't mean, people mean. People use words to express their
(people's) meanings. As your examples show, people today use "got" (and
idioms incorporating the word "got") to express quite a number of different
meanings.
> I got up this morning.
> I got some shampoo from the cupboard.
> I got into the shower.
> I got wet.
> I got clean.
> I got out of the shower.
> I got dried off.
> I got some clothes on.
> I got some breakfast.
> I got my briefcase.
> I got into my car.
> I got to work around 9:00.
> I got myself some coffee.
> I got some work done.
>
>
> Need I go on?
No. Now open your dictionary and go fettle yourself.
Albert Marshall
In article <01bc4904$ee76ef40$310635c6@jason>, Jason Lambert
<ja...@nextwork.com> writes
>Is "got" really a word? If so, what is its meaning in today's society
>(close your dictionaries--I'm speaking of real life)? Let me give you an
>example of my day...
>
>
>I got some shampoo from the cupboard.
>I got into the shower.
>I got wet.
>I got clean.
>I got out of the shower.
>I got dried off.
>I got some clothes on.
>I got some breakfast.
>I got my briefcase.
>I got into my car.
>I got to work around 9:00.
>I got myself some coffee.
>I got some work done.
>
>
>Need I go on?
>
"Get" is possibly the most versatile word in the English language.
On it's own it usually means "to obtain", "to become", or (by extension of
"to become displaced") "to move". Most of the examples you give above
can be interpreted using one or other of these meanings, although a direct
conversion would sound rather odd in most cases.
By the way, it may also mean (inter alia) "to understand" and "to father".
It's also a great way to keep EFL teachers in business.
--
Albert Marshall
Executive French
Language Training for Businesses in Kent
01634 400902
Bob Cunningham
"Gwen Lenker" <gale...@worldnet.att.net> said:
>Jason Lambert <ja...@nextwork.com> wrote in article
><01bc4904$ee76ef40$310635c6@jason>...
>
>> Is "got" really a word?
>
>Yes.
>
>> If so, what is its meaning in today's society
>> (close your dictionaries--I'm speaking of real life)?
Dictionaries represent real life. Lexicographers are real people and
they report what real people say.
>Words don't mean, people mean. People use words to express their
>(people's) meanings. As your examples show, people today use "got" (and
>idioms incorporating the word "got") to express quite a number of different
>meanings.
>> I got up this morning.
>> I got some shampoo from the cupboard.
>> I got into the shower.
>> I got wet.
>> I got clean.
>> I got out of the shower.
>> I got dried off.
>> I got some clothes on.
>> I got some breakfast.
>> I got my briefcase.
>> I got into my car.
>> I got to work around 9:00.
>> I got myself some coffee.
>> I got some work done.
"I got lucky."
"I got along okay."
Liza Doolittle got it.
"I got rhythm."
"I got [something] in green pastures." (daisies?)
"I got my gal; who could ask for anything more?"
Sally: "What does 'got' mean?"
Jane: "Ya got me."
I've got to remember to count my books to see how many I've got,
especially since I've got a bunch of new ones recently. ("I've got to"
equals "I must"; "I've got" equals "I have"; "I've got" equals "I've
procured.")
This brings to mind the underlying fallacy of Basic English. We were
told that by learning one word, "got", one could express a wide variety
of meanings. We were not told that to learn each of those idiomatic
meanings was at least as much trouble as learning the same number of
separate words.
Brent Hetherwick
Gwen Lenker (gale...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Words don't mean, people mean. People use words to express their
: (people's) meanings.
This isn't exactly a trivial "fact" that you may blandly assert without
dispute. In fact, many with interests in the philosophy of language
would find your assertion trivially "absurd". There are good theories of
"word-meaning" that require the existence of few, if any, mental
entities.
$$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666
heth...@math.wisc.edu
$$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666
Gwen Lenker
Brent Hetherwick <heth...@math.wisc.edu> wrote in article
<5j0ep2$o...@news.doit.wisc.edu>...
> Gwen Lenker (gale...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> : Words don't mean, people mean. People use words to express their
> : (people's) meanings.
>
> This isn't exactly a trivial "fact" that you may blandly assert without
> dispute. In fact, many with interests in the philosophy of language
> would find your assertion trivially "absurd". There are good theories of
> "word-meaning" that require the existence of few, if any, mental
> entities.
Since this is alt.usage.english, not alt.usage.unknown-tongues, I meant
"words" of the kind people use, not of the kind non-mental entities may use
in an alternate dimension. Philosophy is not my strong suit. I try not to
confuse deontology with ontology, but that's about as far as I care to
venture into that quagmire.
I am struck, however, by what looks to be an unusual usage here of
"trivial" and "trivially." I've tried substituting "unimportant" and
"unimportantly," but that doesn't seem -- I don't know -- it just seems
something's wrong with my interpretation. When I substitute
"unquestionable," "undoubtable," "incontrovertible," or similar words for
"trivial," though, there doesn't seem to be any jarring inconsistency.
Is it possible that someone who was born in the '70s, and thus has heard
the word "trivial" most often followed by the word "pursuit," may have
inferred that "trivial" means "undeniably true"? Might that be what Brent
means?
Has anyone encountered other indications that a shift in the meaning of
"trivial" might be taking place?
colf...@minn.net
On 16 Apr 1997 00:47:07 GMT, "Gwen Lenker" <gale...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
>Brent Hetherwick <heth...@math.wisc.edu> wrote
>> Gwen Lenker (gale...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>> : Words don't mean, people mean. People use words to express their
>> : (people's) meanings.
>>
>> This isn't exactly a trivial "fact" that you may blandly assert without
>> dispute. In fact, many with interests in the philosophy of language
>> would find your assertion trivially "absurd".
>
>I am struck, however, by what looks to be an unusual usage here of
>"trivial" and "trivially." I've tried substituting "unimportant" and
>"unimportantly," but that doesn't seem -- I don't know -- it just seems
>something's wrong with my interpretation. When I substitute
>"unquestionable," "undoubtable," "incontrovertible," or similar words for
>"trivial," though, there doesn't seem to be any jarring inconsistency.
>
>Is it possible that someone who was born in the '70s, and thus has heard
>the word "trivial" most often followed by the word "pursuit," may have
>inferred that "trivial" means "undeniably true"? Might that be what Brent
>means?
Are you being disingenuous? It seemed clear to me that Brent was
saying that you tossed off your remark as if it were a trivial little
factoid so obvious that no one would challenge it.
Carol from Mpls.
John M. Lawler
Gwen Lenker <gale...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Brent Hetherwick <heth...@math.wisc.edu> writes:
>>Gwen Lenker wrote:
>> : Words don't mean, people mean.
This is the biological version of semantics, in which language is a
species trait of H. Sap, and thus has a discernible relationship with its
speakers. Most linguists would agree with this formulation, I think. It
is, indeed, a fact (or, if one prefers, a "fact") that people are involved
in language and meaning and cannot be wished away theoretically without
compromising theory.
>> : People use words to express their (people's) meanings.
Now, *this* is a little dicier. It certainly reports the common opinion
of humanity that the speaker is in charge of the speech, and that the
speaker's perceived purpose involves a reference to "meaning(s)", whatever
it(they) is(are). But the unsatisfactory nature of the paraphrase above
indicates that this view is less than perfectly explanatory, and thus that
there's some theoretical handwaving going on.
The best way out of this one is to stick with your guns, Gwen, exactly as
you pointed them in the first sentence above, and don't use "meaning" as a
noun at all. Rather, restrict it to use as the past participle of the
active verb "mean", which (in these circumstances) must have a human
volitional agent/experiencer subject. Since this verb "mean" isn't used
in the progressive very often, you'll find that "meaning" is pretty rare
in actual usage.
>> This isn't exactly a trivial "fact" that you may blandly assert without
>> dispute. In fact, many with interests in the philosophy of language
>> would find your assertion trivially "absurd". There are good theories of
>> "word-meaning" that require the existence of few, if any, mental
>> entities.
Less than canonically objective, here. You are correct to identify those
who "have interests in" these subjects as the ones who would object; it's
always a case of whose ox is being gored, isn't it? And "absurd" strikes
me as a term more appropriate for a critical stance than an analytic one.
Note that you offer "dispute", rather than "disproof" or "counterexamples"
or "counterargument".
As to "good theories of 'word-meaning'", for whom are they good? Perhaps
some philosophers. But, leaving aside the irrelevancy of goodness in its
meaning, the concept of "word" itself depends on linguistic facts; and the
origins of the study of "word-meaning" in itself is an artifact of the
Ancients' parochial lack of knowledge of (or interest in) other language
phenomena. If the Athenians had been diglossic with a polysynthetic
language, we'd have a very different (or perhaps no) concept of
"word-meaning" today.
The great attraction of using "meaning" as a noun is that it's so protean
that it can always look like it encompasses whatever one might want to
heap on it theoretically; but it pretty clearly doesn't exist (in the
physical universe, that is, not in the mathematical sense) without some
human being in the circuit, and any theory of meaning that ignores that
fact qualifies as mathematics, not science.
>I am struck, however, by what looks to be an unusual usage here of
>"trivial" and "trivially." I've tried substituting "unimportant" and
>"unimportantly," but that doesn't seem -- I don't know -- it just seems
>something's wrong with my interpretation. When I substitute
>"unquestionable," "undoubtable," "incontrovertible," or similar words for
>"trivial," though, there doesn't seem to be any jarring inconsistency.
>Is it possible that someone who was born in the '70s, and thus has heard
>the word "trivial" most often followed by the word "pursuit," may have
>inferred that "trivial" means "undeniably true"? Might that be what Brent
>means?
>Has anyone encountered other indications that a shift in the meaning of
>"trivial" might be taking place?
No, this is the old use, at least in academic disputation. Pinning it
on a quotation is equivalent to sniffing in disdain. Keeps one from
having to answer it constructively.
It comes from the medieval "Trivium", which was the first curriculum of
the University in the 12th Century ff. There were "three things" (whence
the Tri- in Trivium) one must study first. Only after those were mastered
could one proceed to the higher study of the "four" things (the
"Quadrivium", a word that has not yet been commemorated in a parlor game,
to my knowledge), consisting of the advanced subjects of Arithmetic,
Geometry, Music, and Astronomy.
The imputation of the academic use of "trivial" is that anything "trivial"
is something that all educated people know; "trivially 'absurd'" would
mean an elementary mistake was made, obvious to those who have progressed
through at least the quadrivium.
Interestingly, and perhaps ironically, and I think not trivially, the
three subjects in the Trivium are three of the four major pillars of
modern linguistics: Grammar, Rhetoric, and Logic. (The fourth would be
Phonetics, but Europeans didn't discover Indian phonetic science until the
nineteenth century, so it was unavailable for inclusion in the Medieval
curriculum.)
-John Lawler http://www.lsa.umich.edu/ling/jlawler/ U Michigan Linguistics
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Language is the most massive and inclusive art we know, a - Edward Sapir
mountainous and anonymous work of unconscious generations." Language (1921)
Gwen Lenker
John M. Lawler <jla...@gorf.rs.itd.umich.edu> wrote in article
<5j2lnj$i...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>...
> Gwen Lenker <gale...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >Has anyone encountered other indications that a shift in the meaning of
> >"trivial" might be taking place?
>
> No, this is the old use, at least in academic disputation. Pinning it
> on a quotation is equivalent to sniffing in disdain. Keeps one from
> having to answer it constructively.
In my case, it was more like grasping at straws than sniffing in disdain.
My cheap dictionary (Webster's New Universal Unabridged, 1979) did include
the definition "relating to or of the trivium" and for "trivium" offered
either "in the Middle Ages, the lower division of the seven liberal arts"
or "the three anterior radii of a holothurian or other echinoid considered
collectively." I didn't intuitively connect the Middle Ages with a modern
usage of "trivial" to mean "elementary," though now that it's been
explained, I see the sense in it.
I ask questions to get answers. The answers I've received here have been
quite helpful. Thank you.
Gwen Lenker
colf...@minn.net wrote in article <3354463c...@news.minn.net>...
>
> Are you being disingenuous? It seemed clear to me that Brent was
> saying that you tossed off your remark as if it were a trivial little
> factoid so obvious that no one would challenge it.
Not disingenuity, it was honest befuddlement, which K. Edgcombe and John M.
Lawler have by now assuaged.
Gwen Lenker
K. Edgcombe <ke...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in article
<5j27mb$4...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>...
> >
> There is a use of the word common amongst mathematicians which is quite
close,
> I think, to Brent's use. If I say in mathematics that something is
trivial I
> mean that it requires no proof, being obvious to the meanest
intelligence.
Aha! That explains it to my satisfaction, thank you.
Chris Perrott
Albert Marshall wrote:
>
> In article <01bc4904$ee76ef40$310635c6@jason>, Jason Lambert
> <ja...@nextwork.com> writes
> >Is "got" really a word? If so, what is its meaning in today's society
> >(close your dictionaries--I'm speaking of real life)? Let me give you an
> >example of my day...
> >
> >
> >I got some shampoo from the cupboard.
> >I got into the shower.
> >I got wet.
> >I got clean.
> >I got out of the shower.
> >I got dried off.
> >I got some clothes on.
> >I got some breakfast.
> >I got my briefcase.
> >I got into my car.
> >I got to work around 9:00.
> >I got myself some coffee.
> >I got some work done.
> >
> >
> >
> I've got your drift.
>
> "Get" is possibly the most versatile word in the English language.
>
> On it's own it usually means "to obtain", "to become", or (by extension of
> "to become displaced") "to move".
You've got to tell them it means "must".
--
Chris Perrott
K. Edgcombe
In article <01bc49ff$ae03bd20$LocalHost@default>,
Gwen Lenker <gale...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Brent Hetherwick <heth...@math.wisc.edu> wrote in article
>>
>> This isn't exactly a trivial "fact" that you may blandly assert without
>> dispute. In fact, many with interests in the philosophy of language
>
>I am struck, however, by what looks to be an unusual usage here of
>"trivial" and "trivially." I've tried substituting "unimportant" and
>"unimportantly," but that doesn't seem -- I don't know -- it just seems
>something's wrong with my interpretation. When I substitute
>"unquestionable," "undoubtable," "incontrovertible," or similar words for
>"trivial," though, there doesn't seem to be any jarring inconsistency.
>
>Is it possible that someone who was born in the '70s, and thus has heard
>the word "trivial" most often followed by the word "pursuit," may have
>inferred that "trivial" means "undeniably true"? Might that be what Brent
>means?
>
>"trivial" might be taking place?
>
>
I think, to Brent's use. If I say in mathematics that something is trivial I
think that originally the adjective was applied to the proof - which is not too
far from the "insignificant" meaning, but it then got attached to the statement
being proved.
Of course, this, like the useful word "clearly", can be and is used to
intimidate those less confident in the subject, or to to cover up the fact that
one has actually no idea to prove it but it looks as though it ought to be
true.
I don't know how far back this usage goes but I think it was around in the
sixties. The use in "Trivial Pursuit" is quite distinct from this, I think,
and relates to the description of the items in the game as "trivia".
Katy
Steve Lewin
In message <01bc4904$ee76ef40$310635c6@jason>
"Jason Lambert" <ja...@nextwork.com> writes:
> Is "got" really a word? If so, what is its meaning in today's society
> (close your dictionaries--I'm speaking of real life)? Let me give you an
> example of my day...
> I got up this morning.
< snip a lotta gots >
> I got some work done.
> Need I go on?
You do, don't you ? But got is still the past tense and past
participle of the verb to get. It can often be replaced by some other
construction but so what ?
Got it ?
Steve
(BTW my dictionary has 22 meanings for *get* so your list is barely
scratching the surface)
bruce bowser
> Is "got" really a word? If so, what is its meaning in today's society
> (close your dictionaries--I'm speaking of real life)? Let me give you an
> example of my day...
>
> I got up this morning.
> I got into the shower.
> I got wet.
> I got clean.
> I got out of the shower.
> I got dried off.
> I got some clothes on.
> I got some breakfast.
> I got my briefcase.
> I got into my car.
> I got to work around 9:00.
> I got myself some coffee.
>
> Need I go on?
Tony Cooper
"I need to go do (something)".
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Lewis
never "I've got to get it".
"I's godda git" is pretty common too.
--
THEY ARE LAUGHING AT ME, NOT WITH ME Bart chalkboard Ep. 7G12