K
Keith Willoughby
Guest
Jon Senior wrote:
> Keith Willoughby [email protected] opined the following...
> 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
Sure it does. Everyone knows what a PIN number is. All the sense in the
world.
> (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.
Why?
[...]
>> 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.
The verb exists. Deal with it.
> I do not lase. Scientists have not lased. Laser is an
> abbreviation.
Acronym.
> It already made little sense as a noun. It makes even less sense as
> one part of a non-existant verb.
You seem to have a different meaning than most people for "it makes no
sense". The word 'lase' may not meet your high standards for neologisms,
but it makes perfect sense.
> 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.
You're entirely mistaken, I'm afraid. It's a new word.
> 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.
No. *****ing about it shows a lack of understanding of how language is
used. We've been calling a lizard a "slow worm" for hundreds of years,
for exampe, and English has survived. Most people manage to deal with
these inconsistencies in language.
>> 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?
I'm afraid you'll have to ask the people who started using it. They
obviously saw a need.
> What was wrong with "firing a laser"?
Nothing. What's wrong with 'lasing'?
> It has served us well for many years, which seems to be both your
> argument for the use of a word, and against it.
Not at all. It's my argument in favour of "NATO Phonetic Alphabet" and
"lasing". It's not my argument against "phonetics" as a scientific
discipline, nor against "to fire a laser", because I'm not against them
at all. You're the one proscribing words.
>> > 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.
No, I didn't. I said whenever you get the opportunity. Ie, whenever it
comes up. The other interpretation of that is "every single waking
hour", which would be . . . a perverse interpretation.
> 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.
Maybe where you come from. Where I come from - Earth - correcting
strangers on their use of correct words is considered rude behaviour.
--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand."
> Keith Willoughby [email protected] opined the following...
> 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
Sure it does. Everyone knows what a PIN number is. All the sense in the
world.
> (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.
Why?
[...]
>> 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.
The verb exists. Deal with it.
> I do not lase. Scientists have not lased. Laser is an
> abbreviation.
Acronym.
> It already made little sense as a noun. It makes even less sense as
> one part of a non-existant verb.
You seem to have a different meaning than most people for "it makes no
sense". The word 'lase' may not meet your high standards for neologisms,
but it makes perfect sense.
> 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.
You're entirely mistaken, I'm afraid. It's a new word.
> 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.
No. *****ing about it shows a lack of understanding of how language is
used. We've been calling a lizard a "slow worm" for hundreds of years,
for exampe, and English has survived. Most people manage to deal with
these inconsistencies in language.
>> 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?
I'm afraid you'll have to ask the people who started using it. They
obviously saw a need.
> What was wrong with "firing a laser"?
Nothing. What's wrong with 'lasing'?
> It has served us well for many years, which seems to be both your
> argument for the use of a word, and against it.
Not at all. It's my argument in favour of "NATO Phonetic Alphabet" and
"lasing". It's not my argument against "phonetics" as a scientific
discipline, nor against "to fire a laser", because I'm not against them
at all. You're the one proscribing words.
>> > 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.
No, I didn't. I said whenever you get the opportunity. Ie, whenever it
comes up. The other interpretation of that is "every single waking
hour", which would be . . . a perverse interpretation.
> 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.
Maybe where you come from. Where I come from - Earth - correcting
strangers on their use of correct words is considered rude behaviour.
--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand."
