atw: Re: Change of collective noun use and other changes - why? Just because [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- From: Howard Silcock <howard.silcock@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:07:16 +1100
Hi Ros
You appear to be making an interesting comment about possible effects of a
particular type of communication that I was suggesting. Well, I don't want
to be critical, but I wonder if it might be worth reflecting on the
possible effects of your own style of communication? You make an
interesting assertion ('I fear that ridicule is likely to be
counter-productive') but don't explain why you think this, adding instead
an extremely vague remark that it's a 'long story', plus some cryptic
references to 'communication climate' and 'superiority'.
This leaves me wondering whether you have some genuine helpful insights
that you could share but either (a) you're too pressed for time now to
provide them or (b) you think they're too difficult for people on this list
to follow or irrelevant to the purpose of the list. Or is your
assertion more of a gut feeling that you don't want to put into words?
Possibly it's none of these, but without anything else to go on I'm likely
to make judgments that could be way off mark.
In short, the effect of your communication on me is to leave me somewhat
baffled!
Howard
On 20 March 2012 08:42, Ros Byrne <ros.byrne@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ouch!
>
> Howard and Michelle - I fear that ridicule is likely to be
> counter-productive.
>
> (It's a long story about communication climate, communication that is
> perceived is being 'superior' rather than equal etc).
>
> Glad to see you're also recommending less-risky ways to promote language
> behaviors we want to encourage.
>
> Ros
> __
>
> On 19/03/2012, at 1:55 PM, Howard Silcock wrote:
>
> Hi Michelle
> I share your dislike of 'below' as an adjective, but I have to admit
> that it's a bit strange that 'above' is accepted in the parallel usage -
> for example, 'the above paragraph' is OK but 'the below paragraph' is
> frowned on. I think we're going to have to give up and ride in the
> direction the horse is going pretty soon.
>
> On your general point about language lovers and linguistic change, my
> advice to language-lovers is to be proactive and point out - even ridicule
> - the worst examples and to write to dictionary-compilers and make your
> views known. After all, we are professional language-users. We can't stop
> change but we can point out the worst abuses and it can have an effect.
>
> Howard
>
>
> On 19 March 2012 12:55, Michelle Hallett <michelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>> 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".
>>>
>>>
>
>
Other related posts:
