The Lost Art Of Writing

[beak]

I find that the split infinitive is often more precise and less likely to interrupt the thought being exposed. "he failed to completely learn cursive" is usefully different from "He completely failed to learn cursive," and is not initially misleading (as would be "He failed to learn cursive completely": which could support either meaning, but appears — until the very last word — to support an unintended meaning.)

 

 

Teaching a student of English that "transpire" differs from "happen" is useless when nobody but the teacher uses the two words thus. In fact, it is worse than useless, if the student's eventual employer uses the two words as synonyms and expects his new employee to understand him as others do.

 

In neither opinion do you surprise me. But in the second, you disappoint as well - not that this will bother you, I know. What a ............................................... rest of comment edited away on second thoughts.

Edited July 25, 2011 by beak

[beak]

.....the Orwellian criticism. ..........

And we see even earlier references quoted above. Nothing is new, least of all me! I have a mini-problem with the term though; it gives a 'retro' and fictional air to the topic (do you agree?) and somehow labels it in a way that makes it appear as though already dealt with, and 'old hat', when it is as current a problem as ever.

 

I'll bet everyone who thinks this way sees their own time and situation as 'the end of civilization as we know it', when the process has been eternal, I would guess, but that does not overturn the idea that it is still important, does it?

[KateGladstone]

You may be disappointed in me; I'm disappointed that the situation I describe is a fact.I assume that you wish I had said: "Yes, indeed — teach the student an English that he will never hear save from the mouth of his teacher: an English that others will perforce misunderstand."I do not at all recommend keeping a student ignorant of the fact that native speakers of English once usually meant different things by the words "transpire" and "happen." Likewise, I don't recommend keeping students ignorant of the fact that native speakers of English increasingly mean the same thing by the words "transpire" and "happen." What led you to the wrong assumption that my will to avoid imposing the latter ignorance required me to impose the former ignorance? Why, for that matter, do you — it seems to me — consider it so important to impose the former ignorance?It seems to me, Beak, that you've decided that the English you learned in your formative years is the only English, now and forever — as if an automobile mechanic or salesman or driving-instructor had decided long ago that the only type of car in existence is the one that he himself learned to drive on (be it the Edsel or the Maxwell or the Model T), that no other makes or models are cars at all, and that their existence ought nowise to be countenanced or admitted.

[KateGladstone]

Beak's grumblings increasingly call to mind this poem, whose author I hav forgotten (if ever I knew it) —"GOING TO THE DOGS My granddad, viewing earth's worn cogs, Said things were going to the dogs;His granddad in his house of logs, Said things were going to the dogs;His granddad in the Flemish bogs. Said things were going to the dogs;His granddad in his old skin togs, Said things were going to the dogs;There's one thing that I have to state – The dogs have had a good long wait."

[beak]

 

It's just not working, is it! Perhaps we are a pair fated never to understand each other, on this topic at least.

[KateGladstone]

To those who claim that they oppose all extension of a word to cover more than one meaning — e.g., "anticipate" used to cover also "expect" — why don't you likewise oppose and resent the fact that a hisyorically plural term ("you") was extended to cover the singular? Isn't that, too — the loss of a second-person singular — a serious loss of meaning? If you indeed find it intolerable that "anticipate" is swallowing "expect," or that any word has likewise lost some earlier distinction of meaning ...then why on Earth find it tolerable — as Ii think you you do — that "you" swallowed "thou"? To you who imagine that you unalterably oppose all changes that remove shades of meaning -- start "thou"-ing, and see how far it gets thee.

[KateGladstone]

Re: "It's just not working ... !" — precisely what is this "it" that you want so very much to work?

[beak]

One last try: Kate, in what sense is it a good thing that the meaning of anticipate is lost and the word comes to mean nothing more than expect?

[DAYoung]

.....the Orwellian criticism. ..........

And we see even earlier references quoted above. Nothing is new, least of all me! I have a mini-problem with the term though; it gives a 'retro' and fictional air to the topic (do you agree?) and somehow labels it in a way that makes it appear as though already dealt with, and 'old hat', when it is as current a problem as ever.

 

I'll bet everyone who thinks this way sees their own time and situation as 'the end of civilization as we know it', when the process has been eternal, I would guess, but that does not overturn the idea that it is still important, does it?

 

No, the Orwell reference isn't fictional (i.e. unreal, if this is what you meant) or 'retro'. He cared deeply for the English language, and gave a clear and rigorous defence of it. 1984 is a warning on the dilution of language. His essays contain primers on how to write well.

 

I might have mentioned Sophists in Plato's dialogues, or Petronius' complaints about 'stale' language. But 'Orwell' is a modern reference, which applies directly to our language.

 

His name, in this, suggests an ongoing current in intellectual life, and a specific example of English affirmed (in its richness and nuance).

Edited July 25, 2011 by DAYoung

[DAYoung]

To those who claim that they oppose all extension of a word to cover more than one meaning — e.g., "anticipate" used to cover also "expect" — why don't you likewise oppose and resent the fact that a hisyorically plural term ("you") was extended to cover the singular? Isn't that, too — the loss of a second-person singular — a serious loss of meaning? If you indeed find it intolerable that "anticipate" is swallowing "expect," or that any word has likewise lost some earlier distinction of meaning ...then why on Earth find it tolerable — as Ii think you you do — that "you" swallowed "thou"? To you who imagine that you unalterably oppose all changes that remove shades of meaning -- start "thou"-ing, and see how far it gets thee.

 

No doubt there were folks lamenting the loss of these cases. (I hope 'case' is the right word.) And I think English has lost something in this. I don't know how much it's lost - perhaps not anything earth-shattering. Certainly we've missed a nuance still available in other languages.

 

But those of us coming after can't expect to magically reinvent their popular usage - hence, 'thou-ing' and 'thee-ing' are unlikely to help.

 

Having said this, it is nice that these words pop up in literature, e.g. the New Testament, translations of Thomas Mann's Magic Mountain, and elsewhere. It's a reminder, if nothing else.

[KateGladstone]

/1/ "Case" is indeed the wrong word for a distinction of number.

 

/2/ I never claimed that making "anticipate" and "expect" synonymous was good — I merely pointed out that it was a fact: that it had happened. As with any fact, circumstances will arise in which we ignore this fact at our peril.

 

Someone who has been taught, and who actually believes, that "anticipate" never refers to the same thing as "expect" will be at a disadvantage when his wife says: "I anticipate that you'll come home drunk again tonight at 3 A.M." — for his training, if he accepts it as valid, must lead him to conclude that she looks forward to the prospect.

 

Analogy:

A staunch supporter of the British monarchy may say — may, perhaps, actually believe - —that the southern portion of North America should never have become, and therefore properly is not and can never be, any such thing as the "United States." He is entitled to his own opinion — but he is not entitled to his own facts. If he wishes to teach history or geography, to to speaker write upon current events, he will be at a disadvantage — and he will place his readers and listeners at a disadvantage, if he pretends that some fact he dislikes (some change in the boundaries of nations, or in the boundaries between the use of one word and another) has never occurred. To accept— even to teach about — the existence of the United States (or the existence of a re-defined "anticipate") does not require calling it "good" — and I did not call "good" the re-definition of "anticipate."

[KateGladstone]

Beak's objection to "anticipate" meaning "expect" — that this cannot be good — could with equal force oppose the word's currently standard meaning of "look forward to": because in the seventeenth century "anticipate" had meant "prevent." Someone living then, and defending this older meaning of the word, could well have asked: "In what sens is it a good thing that the proper meaning of 'anticipate' is lost, and the word comes to mean nothing more than 'look forward to'?"

[DAYoung]

/1/ "Case" is indeed the wrong word for a distinction of number.

 

You're right. It's a declension, not a case. All cases are declensions, but not all declensions are cases.

 

Forgetting my Greek...

Edited July 25, 2011 by DAYoung

[Moagy]

my use of terse comes from a professor already ancient when I took his class 40 years ago. (He first brought to my attention the destruction of language wrought by mass media, the news "readers," particularly.

 

I feel I must leap to the defence of myself and my fellow newsreaders here. I'm not a journalist, it's not my job to write the news, but only to read it in a manner which is appropriate for the type of news and the station on which it is being broadcast so that it is easy to understand.

 

Technically I should read whatever is put in front of me without question, but at the risk of sounding like an old fogey, I find that many of the younger journalists today who haven't had the more rigorous grounding in grammar (and sometimes spelling...) which I had, will make grammatical errors which I just don't want to have to read. At this point, I usually call the journalist explain what's wrong and ask them if they are alright with my changing it. I ask because it is their bulletin, their work, and I'm only their mouthpiece. 9 times out of 10 they agree.

 

So as you see Mickey, not all news readers are hell bent on destroying the language, some of us seek to preserve it!!

 

 

Someone who has been taught, and who actually believes, that "anticipate" never refers to the same thing as "expect" will be at a disadvantage when his wife says: "I anticipate that you'll come home drunk again tonight at 3 A.M." — for his training, if he accepts it as valid, must lead him to conclude that she looks forward to the prospect.

 

Kate:

 

I confess, your attitude perplexes me. You seem to be advocating here, and in quite a few other of your posts, that it is somehow better to be ignorant; that having a more wide ranging or deeper degree of knowledge than others is a disadvantage and should be quoshed. The husband is not at a disadvantage, the wife is, because through her ignorance she set up an expectation that was false.

 

If the above scenario were actually to happen and he had made the conclusion you suggest, then surely his next step is to educate his wife about the difference between anticipate and expect so that she doesn't make the same mistake again. He should bring her up to his level, not be expected to sink to the lower one. Once he's got over his raging hangover, of course...

[Mickey]

 

So as you see Mickey, not all news readers are hell bent on destroying the language, some of us seek to preserve it!!

 

.

 

Actually, I admire newsreaders in the old style, those gentlemen and ladies who understood their job was to read the copy, not act it. Such readers were never abundant in my country and now seem utterly extinct. Worse still, the faces who now pollute our airwaves seem to be editing the copy on the fly, substituting their own tired gaffes and malapropisms for the fresher ones supplied by the copywriters, who are generally a generation younger and ignoranter.

[HDoug]

Since we're talking about words and meanings, here's a Ted video (stream or download) of Erin McKean redefining the dictionary. Kind of an oldy (2007, I think) but I just ran into it and it seems like some following this thread might enjoy (or hate!).

 

Doug

[beak]

.....the Orwellian criticism. ..........

And we see even earlier references quoted above. Nothing is new, least of all me! I have a mini-problem with the term though; it gives a 'retro' and fictional air to the topic (do you agree?) and somehow labels it in a way that makes it appear as though already dealt with, and 'old hat', when it is as current a problem as ever.

 

I'll bet everyone who thinks this way sees their own time and situation as 'the end of civilization as we know it', when the process has been eternal, I would guess, but that does not overturn the idea that it is still important, does it?

 

No, the Orwell reference isn't fictional (i.e. unreal, if this is what you meant) or 'retro'. He cared deeply for the English language, and gave a clear and rigorous defence of it. 1984 is a warning on the dilution of language. His essays contain primers on how to write well.

 

I might have mentioned Sophists in Plato's dialogues, or Petronius' complaints about 'stale' language. But 'Orwell' is a modern reference, which applies directly to our language.

 

His name, in this, suggests an ongoing current in intellectual life, and a specific example of English affirmed (in its richness and nuance).

I agree absolutely. My point was that the term (and therefore the motive behind it concerning language) may seem dated, not that it is. I'm going to suggest that to many younger people, the simple fact of when he wrote will be enough to discredit his ideas. In this I will be wrong in many instances, I know, but in many more instances, I believe, there is something in it.

[DAYoung]

I agree absolutely. My point was that the term (and therefore the motive behind it concerning language) may seem dated, not that it is. I'm going to suggest that to many younger people, the simple fact of when he wrote will be enough to discredit his ideas. In this I will be wrong in many instances, I know, but in many more instances, I believe, there is something in it.

 

Yes. And it's not only young people (by which, I'm guessing, you mean folks under forty or fifty). Plenty of mature scholars also believe that old ideas are inherently dubious.

 

Now, it's certainly true that facts and theories grow stale, and require constant testing and elaboration. But recognising this does not commit us to intellectual amnesia, which sometimes afflicts even the brightest minds.

[beak]

Beak's objection to "anticipate" meaning "expect" — that this cannot be good — could with equal force oppose the word's currently standard meaning of "look forward to": because in the seventeenth century "anticipate" had meant "prevent." Someone living then, and defending this older meaning of the word, could well have asked: "In what sens is it a good thing that the proper meaning of 'anticipate' is lost, and the word comes to mean nothing more than 'look forward to'?"

I am enjoying the caricature of my position that you are constructing here. I think I know this man, but it's not me.

 

Well, believe it or no, I was not educated in the 1600s, but in the 1960s, and anticipate had the useful connotation of acting a certain way because one expected something, encompassing your 'prevent'. It still does. Given that we have the word expect, I don't see any benefit in both words meaning no more than the same thing. Just for the record, I said that I regretted anticipate meaning no more than...

 

I expect the two of us are boring the pants off everyone else with all of this, so I for one am going to leave it there.

[Chevalier]

@Kate

Thanks for pointing out the "You had better" problem.

 

Well, this is the crux with living languages, they change a lot. It's interesting that a certain degree of ignorance seems to be an important factor. "Transpire", as it is used in contemporary English, is already a case of changed meaning. Most other languages only understand the meaning similar to evaporating (Transpiration -> Evaporation). You say transpire .. and the French or German guy will think you are talking about sweating.

 

I am unable to judge many cases you are talking about, because I am living in the German speaking world for too long, but I know similar problems frequently seen in Germany. I learned German in school first, from a very good German teacher. I am still confused, because I found many people using something that appears to me like a pidgin German. I asked myself "How could they let that happen to their language", and it took me a long time to understand that this development is perfectly normal.

I know German better than English now, even better than most native speakers, simply because I invested a lot of time learning it. Many people won't bother that much, they use it every day on the streets, why bother learning the subtleties? I don't think this way, but I kinda understand why they think this way. Language is an instrument of communication, and many people are fine as long as they understand the everyday speech.

 

Grammar and standardized high languages are pretty new inventions, inventions of the scholars, not the common people. Launguage is a complex collection of willful decisions to speak something *this* way. There's always the language of books and scholars, and then there are the languages of all those other people around. This is nothing new, in fact nobody in ancient Rome would have speaken literary Latin on the streets. German is rather small, compared to the States, but they have many different kinds of German. It's not only the way how something is pronunced that is different, even the grammar and use of certain words is.