atw: Re: Change of collective noun use and other changes - why? Just because [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- From: Michelle Hallett <michelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:12:29 +1100
Sorry Peter, but I have real trouble believing that the kind of initiative
which lead to improvements in agriculture came from laziness. I think it's more
likely this type of innovation came from economic or population pressure.
Lazy nomads usually settled in areas where the food supply was abundant, so
they didn't have to do much more than walk outside and pick it up. There were
plenty of places like that before civilization and agricultural cultivation
destroyed them. Not in Australia, of course, it has always been pretty arid but
in other continents, the Pacific Northwest in the US, for example.
Even language innovation doesn't always come from laziness, which is why it
annoys me that these changes do.
Michelle
On 19/03/2012, at 1:29 PM, Peter.Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Michelle:
>
> You may not like the idea that laziness is a factor, but human progress
> has been hugely based on laziness.... otherwise known as the pursuit of
> leisure...
>
> It took a lazy nomad to realise if you stayed in one place and planted
> special grasses in large numbers there, you could save yourself the effort of
> having to wander over the countryside to find something to eat.
> That person's lazy descendent later found that if you harnessed up oxen or a
> horse you could save yourself the effort of having to push a plough...
> And of course, earlier ancestors had found you could save yourself the effort
> of carrying fire around with you everywhere by striking a flint... laziness
> again.
> Our civilisation arose from, and survives on the basis, of laziness.
> Don't be afraid of it. You wouldn't be where you are without it.
>
> And a few other pursuits. ..
>
>
> Peter M
>
>
>
> From: Michelle Hallett <michelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 19/03/2012 12:55 PM
> Subject: atw: Re: Change of collective noun use and other changes -
> why? Just because [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
> Sent by: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> Michael,
>
> I think this is an interesting explanation and may well explain why people
> are using 'below' as an adjective rather than an adverb (after all, there is
> no verb in the sentence). But it doesn't explain the wholesale confusion
> between possessive and plural by well educated professional native English
> speakers. I don't mind the language changing. Additions like WTF and ROFL
> amuse me. But I don't like the idea that language might be changing because
> people are lazy in its use
>
> Michelle
>
>
>
> On 19/03/2012, at 11:13 AM, Michael Lewis <michael.lewis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Frequently, yes - but "most frequently"? Hardly - unless by "don't know" you
> mean "don't know it the way I do". Generations ago, well educated people used
> expressions like "methinks he is a dastard knave" and "it meseems that the
> apocalypse is nigh". The vocabulary and the grammar have changed, but not
> because of non-native speakers.
>
> There's an underlying point that is valid, though. Native speakers are like
> non-native speakers in that they over-regularise. That's why most nouns
> finish up taking the normal -s (or -es) in the plural, instead of the earlier
> forms like "sistren" (though we still retain "brethren" in special contexts,
> and "children" is still more common than "childs").
>
> We can see this happening with young children. They use the correct form
> "men" at first, then learn the rule about adding "-s" and change to "mans"
> for a while, then they re-learn "men" as an exception to the general rule.
> Much language change is simply the fading away of exceptions, especially the
> rare ones - the verb "be" retains its odd inflexions because we all use it
> too often to get a chance to forget the specifics, but "leaped" has
> superseded "leapt" in most cases.
>
> - Michael
>
>
> On 19 March 2012 10:26, <Peter.Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Michelle:
>
> Language is most frequently changed by those who don't know the language
> rather than those "who really care about it".
>
>
> --
> This message contains privileged and confidential information only
> for use by the intended recipient. If you are not the intended
> recipient of this message, you must not disseminate, copy or use
> it in any manner. If you have received this message in error,
> please advise the sender by reply e-mail. Please ensure all
> e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or
> using.
Other related posts:
