atw: Re: Change of collective noun use and other changes - why? Just because [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- From: Bob Trussler <bob.trussler@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 22:08:53 +1100
I seem to remember some kids at school would invent words and we would use
them for a while, adding variations and more words as we went along. Most
of these new words were dropped and forgotten but a few stayed on.
Surely there is an inventive and fantasy side to creating new words.
Bob T
On 19 March 2012 21:12, Michelle Hallett <michelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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*<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*<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.
>
>
--
Bob Trussler
Other related posts:
