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