Keith Willoughby
[email protected] opined the following...
> It's been just under a thousand years since the Norman invasion. That
> seems a good baseline for 'English'. However, if you're reduced to
> nitpicking that figure . . .
No. Seems as good as any other. I wasn't sure what the significance was.
> >> > A child, is brought up in seclusion. The people who teach it, call cats
> >> > dogs, and vice versa. They also answer yes for no, and no for yes. When
> >> > it has reached adulthood, it is "released" into the "wild" and left to
> >> > survive. You encounter this person and after a while, work out what has
> >> > that they're knowledge is faulty. Do you correct them?
> >> >
> >> > </thought experiment>
> >>
> >> Well, the analogy isn't nearly the same. Nobody sane calls a cat a
> >> dog. The NATO Phonetic Alphabet is known as such by millions of
> >> people.
> >
> > So in the thought experiment above... is the child insane?
>
> The child doesn't exist. It's all very well postulating situations that
> don't exist as "thought experiments", but it bore no relationship to reality.
Are you suggesting that the above is impossible?
> > Did you in fact read it, or did you just decide that I referred to
> > cats as dogs and charge on regardless?
>
> No, I read it. And I told you the analogy isn't relevant. It isn't.
Is too. ;-) A thought experiment allows you to explore avenues of
thought in a similar manner to a real experiment. There is nothing
impractical or impossible about the experiment I offered.
> > Personal Idenitification Number Number. You know you're absolutely right
> > there!
>
> *Yes, I am right*. See, people don't say "personal identification number
> number". They say "PIN Number". It's not the same thing at all. I can
> tell the difference, so why can't you?
And "pin" means?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pin&db=* will
provide some answers. The page contains two definitions which are
abbreviations. If you treat "pin" as a word in its own right, then a
"pin number" makes no sense (Except possibly when referring to a large
numbered collection of sharp metallic objects!). If it is an
abbreviation, then the sentence should make sense with the abbreviation
expanded.
> > And you think that I would be the one lacking social skills in that
> > situation?
>
> That's right.
OK. Limited circle of friends? Do you find it difficult to hold normal
conversations without resorting to swear words? Or is it just strangers
at whom you are happy to swear?
> > Could you really not deal with them without resorting to insults and
> > foul language?
>
> I could. I would choose not to. See, sometimes it's not "resorting" to
> insults and "foul" language. Sometimes, it's heartily deserved as the
> first response.
Such as when the cagers try to kill me. Even then it's the adrenaline
talking.
> > Yes. It is. Speaking as someone who has relatively recently been
> > educated I can safely say that there is a significant dumbing down
> > occurring in this society. If you are in any doubt, try checking the TV
> > schedules,
>
> No, hang on. The subject is the use of neologisms, not what's on TV. How
> does the creation of the word 'lasing' indicate 'dumbing down'? Who on
> Earth is using 'lasing' in a 'dumb' manner? How does the 50-year usage
> of "Phonetic Alphabet" lead to dumbing down?
"Lasing" is indicative of dumbing down because it provides a continuous
tense for a non-existant verb. I do not lase. Scientists have not lased.
Laser is an abbreviation. It already made little sense as a noun. It
makes even less sense as one part of a non-existant verb. For someone to
think "lasing" is possible, implies a major crack in their comprehension
of language. Not the rules of grammar as defined in a book, but its
daily usage.
The usage of "Phonetic Alphabet" does not necessarily lead to dumbing
down (Although in some cases it does lead to misunderstanding). It does
however shown up a lack of understanding.
> What word would you prefer for that act? And does your distaste stretch
> to all neologisms concerned with new technology?
Why does it need "a" word? What was wrong with "firing a laser"? It has
served us well for many years, which seems to be both your argument for
the use of a word, and against it.
> > I presume that you can cite a number of points at which I have forced
> > this issue into an unrelated conversation.
>
> You said yourself that you correct people whenever it comes up. It
> appears to be a crusade.
The key point here is "whenever it comes up". It has come up now about 3
times in my life. You implied that I go out of my way to bring the topic
up. I do not.
> <snigger> You'll have to do a bit better than that. Having little regard
> or patience for pedants is hardly sociopathic behaviour.
I never suggested it was (Although it may be indicative of such a
tendency). Having abusive language as a considered response to a
stranger offering a correction would suggest sociopathic behaviour.
Jon
