atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Gee, this list drags you in if you let it! Someone makes a passing comment 
and the next thing you know you're into a full-blown discussion. That 
would be all right if I could bill someone for the time I'd need to engage 
properly in the debate - and if my work could still get done while I did 
so...

But luckily in this case Peter has said much of what I would have wanted 
to say anyway. 

Specifically on the subject of 'put', I'd just like to point out that what 
people seem to be advocating here is replacing a simple, general-purpose 
word that we all use effectively almost every day with one of a number of 
fancier-sounding words that carry additional connotations that, in most 
cases, are unnecessary or even distracting. For example, as I started to 
say in my earlier post, 'add' really means something a bit different from 
'put' - it has the connotation of an increase ('to join or unite so as to 
bring about an increase or improvement' - Merriam-Webster) that's usually 
quite irrelevant. You couldn't change 'I put my hand over my eyes' to 
something like 'I added my hand in front of my eyes' without creating a 
ridiculous effect - and prompting the question 'what was already there in 
front of your eyes?' As for the word 'place' - well, this has almost the 
same meaning as 'put', but I think it suggests a more careful positioning. 
What I'm saying is that, yes, there are more precise words, but it's 
better to use an imprecise word than use a word that carries an additional 
meaning that just isn't appropriate to the context. 

Another effect of continually using precise words inappropriately like 
this is that the specific meaning associated with the precise word is 
gradually eroded. This is what's happened with 'utilise', which actually 
originally had a different meaning from 'use', but which is now almost 
always used simply as a fancier-sounding substitute. 

In response to Flavia, I just wanted to say a couple of things. First, I'm 
glad you did join in the discussion - it's good to get your perspective. 
Secondly, I have to agree with others that your lecturer was way off base 
in his/her attitude to 'put' and 'get' - and the threat of automatic 
failure for using them was just ridiculous. Strangely, the subject of 
English grammar seems to attract this kind of bizarre behaviour and all 
kinds of strange taboos have been perpetuated by those designated to teach 
it - it often seems these taboos serve mainly to create an aura of 
authority around their proponents. I'd advise anyone who's in any doubt 
about any of these issues to have a look at the work of established 
writers - people who have been recognised for using words powerfuly - and 
see if they follow these bizarre rules. I think you'll find most good 
writers don't hesitate to use 'put' and 'get' - although where the context 
calls for a more vivid word or phrase they'll find one, or even create 
one. 

One of the best pieces of writing I ever read on the subject of using 
fancy words where simple ones would do was George Orwell's essay Politics 
and the English Language (it's about political writing but much of it has 
relevance to other writing too).You can read the whole thing at 
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm.

Howard









Peter G Martin <peter.martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
01/03/2007 12:02 PM
Please respond to
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


To
<austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Topic





TRIM File Ref











Hallett, Michelle:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 10:23:11 +1100,  you wrote:
> I'm not sure I agree with Peter. He says 'put' is short and meaningful. 
It's
> not especially meaningful, it is like 'get', it gets (use intentional) 
used
> in a variety of sentences where you can't think of a specific word.

Of course it's meaningful.  Its most common modern meaning
is simple enough.

Try :
"place something: to move something into a particular place or position"

... which I found in a trice as the top priority meaning in the first
web dictionary I came across.

And as I mentioned in a separate post, it is not insignificant that
simple old software engineers use the words "put" and "get" all the time
in their programming -- because they work !

A word is not responsible for those who misuse it.
In fact, I would suggest that you act more "professionally" if you use
this word in its clearer context and thereby encourage its "proper"
use, instead of trying for Latinate or Frenchified substitutes.

They may go down well with some, but then if you want to do that all
the time, you can talk about leveraged opportunities for suitable 
placement
in the relevant location.

And see where that gets you.  Sure "add" is not bad.  But neither is 
"put".

Why not refuse to be moved by those who misuse words and simply use them
properly ?

--Peter M

**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to 
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to 
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject field.

To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field.

To search the austechwriter archives, go to 
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter

To contact the list administrator, send a message to 
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************

Other related posts: