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 21:05:16 +1100
Hi Howard,
I don't like the above paragraph construct either, it should be the
above-mentioned paragraph. But you're right, it is more acceptable.
I do try the ridicule thing. I had one guy at work promise faithfully never to
use possessive as plural and below as an adjective, only to receive an email
from him the next day beginning 'the below email'. I really don't want to ride
that horse but commiserating with you is helping me accept the inevitable.
Michelle
On 19/03/2012, at 1:55 PM, Howard Silcock <howard.silcock@xxxxxxxxx> 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:
