The English Language

Cloudy · **Joined:** Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:30 am **Posts:** 5277

spotes wrote:

Cloudy wrote:

Tonight at our live trivia game at Saint's in St. Matthews, we got this question:

True or false, "irregardless" is a legitimate word.

We knew that dictionaries had added "irregardless" as a word fairly recently, and so we answered "true". We got it wrong. :cry:

We challenged Bob and Marty, who run the game, and they said, "Yes, it is in the dictionary, but that does not make it a legitimate word." I need some help here, what makes a word legitimate?

SHMEKL mentioned many years ago that "irregardless" was a word invented by H.L. Mencken in order to win a bet with one of his editors or publishers or someone of that ilk.
Supposedly, his word had to be in regular usage within a certain amount of time. I believe he won that bet.
If it's good enough for Mencken, it's good enough for me.

At least you came away from that game learning something.
You learned that Bob and Marty don't know how to construct a quality live trivia game.

Actually, Bob and Marty run a pretty good live trivia game. Our team has challenged them on their answers a lot of times over the years. Many times they have given us credit for our answers that were not exactly what they were looking for, and many times we have learned that they were right.

With the hundreds and hundreds of questions they have thrown at us over the years, it is not very often that we have a problem with the answers to their questions.

The problem our team has with "irregardless" is what constitutes a "legitimate" word? I've got a feeling that there may be some group of grammarians, who decide if words are "legitimate" or not. Does anyone know if there is such a group, and if there is such a thing as a "legitimate" word?

Dante · **Posted:** Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:43 am

Cloudy wrote:

The problem our team has with "irregardless" is what constitutes a "legitimate" word? I've got a feeling that there may be some group of grammarians, who decide if words are "legitimate" or not. Does anyone know if there is such a group, and if there is such a thing as a "legitimate" word?

There are indeed people who appoint themselves to this position. But, no, there is no formal, agreed upon group for the world who does this. Though there are many groups who think they do.

Cloudy · **Joined:** Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:30 am **Posts:** 5277

Dante wrote:

Cloudy wrote:

The problem our team has with "irregardless" is what constitutes a "legitimate" word? I've got a feeling that there may be some group of grammarians, who decide if words are "legitimate" or not. Does anyone know if there is such a group, and if there is such a thing as a "legitimate" word?

There are indeed people who appoint themselves to this position. But, no, there is no formal, agreed upon group for the world who does this. Though there are many groups who think they do.

DANTE, great...! Seeing that there is no official group of lexicons, perhaps we should start our own. :lol:

FrankC · **Posted:** Thu Nov 10, 2011 5:05 am

Cloudy wrote:

Dante wrote:

Cloudy wrote:

The problem our team has with "irregardless" is what constitutes a "legitimate" word? I've got a feeling that there may be some group of grammarians, who decide if words are "legitimate" or not. Does anyone know if there is such a group, and if there is such a thing as a "legitimate" word?

There are indeed people who appoint themselves to this position. But, no, there is no formal, agreed upon group for the world who does this. Though there are many groups who think they do.

DANTE, great...! Seeing that there is no official group of lexicons, perhaps we should start our own. :lol:

I always thought that The Oxford Dictionary of The English language was the final arbiter on the validity of English words.

Rhino · **Joined:** Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:40 pm **Posts:** 633

The one thing we have to remember about dictionaries is that they list common usages, rather than adhering to a priori standard definitions. Dictionaries definitely follow the Dante view of words where anything that communicates an idea consistently is fine by them. The usages have to be widespread and in at least mass publications if not quite formal ones admittedly, but usage is all that matters. Even when a word is used incorrectly in a wide enough distribution, that "definition" will make its way into a dictionary listing, regardless of its more precise usage and meaning by academics or specialists.

The example that has caused me most trouble explsining is of course the neologistic use of "agnostic" as a (not possible - they form a binary condition) third option between theism and atheism. The technically correct meaning of the word as referring to an epistemological position on how knowledge can and cannot be obtained is in the process of being abandoned in favor of the impossible ontological position that (somehow) "means" you neither have nor lack belief in deities. Nothing at all I or others can do to stop it - usage rules with dictionaries. Your opinion on whether this is good or bad doubtless depends on whether you believe there should be fixed standards of communication, or an ever-shifting reflection of normal argots.

Cloudy · **Joined:** Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:30 am **Posts:** 5277

Rhino wrote:

The one thing we have to remember about dictionaries is that they list common usages, rather than adhering to a priori standard definitions. Dictionaries definitely follow the Dante view of words, where anything that communicates an idea consistently is fine by them. The usages have to be widespread and in at least mass publications, if not quite formal ones admittedly, but usage is all that matters. Even when a word is used incorrectly in a wide enough distribution, that "definition" will make its way into a dictionary listing, regardless of its more precise usage and meaning by academics or specialists.

The example that has caused me most trouble explaining is of course the neologistic use of "agnostic" as a (not possible - they form a binary condition) third option between theism and atheism. The technically correct meaning of the word as referring to an epistemological position on how knowledge can and cannot be obtained is in the process of being abandoned in favor of the impossible ontological position that (somehow) "means" you neither have nor lack belief in deities. Nothing at all I or others can do to stop it - usage rules with dictionaries. Your opinion on whether this is good or bad doubtless depends on whether you believe there should be fixed standards of communication, or an ever-shifting reflection of normal argots.

Nice post, even though you make me feel like a feel like a freshman taking his first college English class again. Yeah, I was taking notes, but I was at a loss, because I didn't know how to spell a lot of the words, let alone what they meant. (I got a "C" in English back in 1964, and was happy with it.)

I must take my hat off to you for your most erudite post. However, I am still not sure if there is if there is such a thing as a "legitimate" word, or who or what determines if it is "legitimate" or not.

p.s. I'm going to make a wild ass guess. I'm gonna guess that RHINO is an English professor at an Ivy League college, or something close.

Cloudy · **Joined:** Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:30 am **Posts:** 5277

[quote="FrankC]

I always thought that The Oxford Dictionary of The English language was the final arbiter on the validity of English words.[/quote]
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Frank, I like your answer, it makes sense to me. However, I am still in a quandary as to what a "legitimate" word is, and who or what decides what are "legitimate" words.

I know that "irregardless" is a ridiculous word to use, but has it somehow become a "legitimate" word simply because so many stupid people now use it.

p.s. I think the question here is, what the Hell is a "legitimate" word, and how it is defined?

Dante · **Posted:** Fri Nov 11, 2011 11:32 am

Rhino wrote:

The example that has caused me most trouble explsining is of course the neologistic use of "agnostic" as a (not possible - they form a binary condition) third option between theism and atheism. The technically correct meaning of the word as referring to an epistemological position on how knowledge can and cannot be obtained is in the process of being abandoned in favor of the impossible ontological position that (somehow) "means" you neither have nor lack belief in deities. Nothing at all I or others can do to stop it - usage rules with dictionaries. Your opinion on whether this is good or bad doubtless depends on whether you believe there should be fixed standards of communication, or an ever-shifting reflection of normal argots.

Agreed on agnostic. That one irritates me to no end. Of course, I also have the same problems with colloquial usage of atheism. But, as always, society wins, whether you, me, or anyone else likes it. It has more ups than downs, in the long term.

Cloudy · **Joined:** Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:30 am **Posts:** 5277

Last Monday, our "Trogdor" team won at live trivia again. When Bob came over to our table to present us with the $25.00 gift certificate, I told him that I had tried to Google "Legitimate Word", but could find no mention of it. I also told him about our "English Language" thread, and the all of the wise grammarians, who post to it. None of whom had ever heard of term "Legitimate Word". Then I asked him, "Who or what determines if a word is legitimate or not, and how is it defined?"

Bob looked very embarrassed and said, "I don't know, but irregardless is a double negative." I replied, "Of course it is. We all know that, but it is in the dictionary, and lots of people use it." Bob gave me a look, that said, "I see what you mean." Though, Bob did not say it, I am sure that he created the term "Legitimate Word" himself, and now realizes that he had worded his question poorly.

Thanks for your help on this one guys.

Akbar71 · **Posted:** Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:17 am

I stopped for a quick bite at Bob Evan's on my way into work this afternoon. My server kept asking, "Did you want _____?"
"Did you want water?"
I let this one go with a simple, "No, thank you.".
Later, "Did you want bread or bisquits?"
This time I asked, "When?"
"With your meal."
"I haven't had my meal yet."
"It'll be ready soon. Did you want bread or bisquits with it?"
"I'm sorry, I don't understand the question."
"You can have bread or bisquits. Oh- or banana bread!"
"Ah- no, thank you."
"Did you want gravy?"
I figure it's a lost cause at this point and simply said, "Yes, please."

Now, I am a professional server, so I was not mean about this. I was very polite and smiling. The "did you want" phrasing just grated on me, though.

spotes · **Joined:** Mon Jan 11, 2010 11:27 pm **Posts:** 1558

Akbar71 wrote:

I stopped for a quick bite at Bob Evan's on my way into work this afternoon. My server kept asking, "Did you want _____?"
"Did you want water?"
I let this one go with a simple, "No, thank you.".
Later, "Did you want bread or bisquits?"
This time I asked, "When?"
"With your meal."
"I haven't had my meal yet."
"It'll be ready soon. Did you want bread or bisquits with it?"
"I'm sorry, I don't understand the question."
"You can have bread or bisquits. Oh- or banana bread!"
"Ah- no, thank you."
"Did you want gravy?"
I figure it's a lost cause at this point and simply said, "Yes, please."

Now, I am a professional server, so I was not mean about this. I was very polite and smiling. The "did you want" phrasing just grated on me, though.

Aha!
I contend that you did, indeed, understand the question!
What kind of language comprehension example is that to set in front of the kids...?

I always make sure that my language correction filter is at its lowest setting before trundling out among the masses.
Now, correcting friends and loved ones repeatedly... that's where the fun begins! :mrgreen:

TURBO: (to bartender) Can I get a Stoli orange on the rocks?
SPOTES: (to bartender) I believe he means "May I get a Stoli orange on the rocks?".
TURBO: shoots glance

Later the same day-
TURBO: Spotes, can you pass the salt?
SPOTES: Why, yes I can. Thanks for caring enough to ask.
TURBO: shoots glance

Later the same day-
TURBO: I'm leaving. Spotes, can you play my boards?
SPOTES: Maybe. Is its keyboard in Klingon?
TURBO: shoots SPOTES

I like to think that I enrich the trivia playing experience...

Cloudy · **Joined:** Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:30 am **Posts:** 5277

Akbar71 wrote:

I stopped for a quick bite at Bob Evan's on my way into work this afternoon. My server kept asking, "Did you want _____?"
"Did you want water?"
I let this one go with a simple, "No, thank you.".
Later, "Did you want bread or bisquits?"
This time I asked, "When?"
"With your meal."
"I haven't had my meal yet."
"It'll be ready soon. Did you want bread or bisquits with it?"
"I'm sorry, I don't understand the question."
"You can have bread or bisquits. Oh- or banana bread!"
"Ah- no, thank you."
"Did you want gravy?"
I figure it's a lost cause at this point and simply said, "Yes, please."

Now, I am a professional server, so I was not mean about this. I was very polite and smiling. The "did you want" phrasing just grated on me, though.

Heck, I would have just told her what I wanted, and have been done with it. If she kept asking more questions, I would have simply said, "Thanks, but I only want what I just told you. Oooh, gravy, that sounds good. Yeah, throw some gravy on there too..."

..............................
............................... Looks yummy to me...

p.s. I'm not much interested into getting into debates with waitresses, plumbers, roofers, or car mechanics... They are all smarter than I am in their field of knowledge, even if their English ain't so good.

Cloudy · **Joined:** Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:30 am **Posts:** 5277

Here is the beginning of a sentence that I just read on AOL:

"None of the parties has asked..."

Is "has" the right word to use, or would "have" be correct? I find myself going both ways on it.

Rhino · **Joined:** Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:40 pm **Posts:** 633

This is one of those technically correct versus "sounds correct" things.

None is singular. It's a blended word that was originally a contraction of "not one" so should be conjugated the same way. So replace "none" with "one" and it's easy to see that "has" is accurate.

However it sounds like it should be plural because people mentally add "of us" or "of them" and feel like "have" sounds better.

It's a mixed bag for usage right now but within ten years it's a fair bet that the correct singular will be as rare as the correct plural with "data".

Cloudy · **Joined:** Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:30 am **Posts:** 5277

Rhino wrote:

This is one of those technically correct versus "sounds correct" things.

None is singular. It's a blended word that was originally a contraction of "not one" so should be conjugated the same way. So replace "none" with "one" and it's easy to see that "has" is accurate.

However it sounds like it should be plural because people mentally add "of us" or "of them" and feel like "have" sounds better.

It's a mixed bag for usage right now but within ten years it's a fair bet that the correct singular will be as rare as the correct plural with "data".

Thanks, RHINO...

p.s. You have impressed me with your command of the English language several times. I'm gonna guess that your profession has something to do with writing, maybe teaching English, or perhaps both. Please don't tell me that you are an insurance or used car salesman. :lol:

FrankC · **Posted:** Sun Nov 27, 2011 1:21 am

Rhino wrote:

This is one of those technically correct versus "sounds correct" things.

None is singular. It's a blended word that was originally a contraction of "not one" so should be conjugated the same way. So replace "none" with "one" and it's easy to see that "has" is accurate.

However it sounds like it should be plural because people mentally add "of us" or "of them" and feel like "have" sounds better.

It's a mixed bag for usage right now but within ten years it's a fair bet that the correct singular will be as rare as the correct plural with "data".

"Sounds correct" I bieleve has come to dominate American English at least to me. I would say "none have" but I also say "no one has" or "not one has" because that just sounds correct. "None has" sounds like finger nails on a chalk board to me. When it come to personal pronouns it gets really confusing. how about "I have", "you(singular) have", and then "he, she, it has". In the plural It is 'we have, you have, they have". If anyone went around saying "I has or you has" they would be considered ignorant and uneducated.

When I was a kid I use to say "et" for the past tense of eat. It was pounded out of me by the nuns. In later years I heard Lawence Olivier and other English people saying "et". It was a correct past tense for the English, but to me today it sounds totally wrong. My daughter makes fun of me for pronouncing the "H' in herbs, it is supposed to be erbs in American English, but I have heard many English people prononce the "H", so today I pronounce it both ways and both sound fine to me. English is a bitch, but a very understandable bitch.

Dante · **Posted:** Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:10 am

FrankC wrote:

"Sounds correct" I bieleve has come to dominate American English at least to me. I would say "none have" but I also say "no one has" or "not one has" because that just sounds correct. "None has" sounds like finger nails on a chalk board to me. When it come to personal pronouns it gets really confusing. how about "I have", "you(singular) have", and then "he, she, it has". In the plural It is 'we have, you have, they have". If anyone went around saying "I has or you has" they would be considered ignorant and uneducated.

When I was a kid I use to say "et" for the past tense of eat. It was pounded out of me by the nuns. In later years I heard Lawence Olivier and other English people saying "et". It was a correct past tense for the English, but to me today it sounds totally wrong. My daughter makes fun of me for pronouncing the "H' in herbs, it is supposed to be erbs in American English, but I have heard many English people prononce the "H", so today I pronounce it both ways and both sound fine to me. English is a bitch, but a very understandable bitch.

The immortal battle between prescriptivists and descriptivists will continue until we all speak Arabic.

Akbar71 · **Posted:** Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:33 pm

I'm not sure whether I should be posting this here or in the SIX topic.
Since my team at Stewart's is effectively out of the Smartest Bar competition, I played the Wednesday SIX game at the Stained Glass Pub in Siver Spring, MD, on my way to Virginia for Thanksgiving. (A lovely, enjoyable group of players who welcomed my unannounced visit warmly.) One of the Final SIX questions was, "Which William wrote the poem, The Phonix and the Turtle?" We all agreed Blake made the most sense and we were all shocked that the answer was Shakespeare. After the game one of the players looked it up on some handheld internet device and found the Wikipedia entry, which stated that the poem is "widely considered Shakespeare's most obscure work." Can something that is "widely considered" truly be "obscure?"

Rhino · **Joined:** Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:40 pm **Posts:** 633

Dante wrote:

The immortal battle between prescriptivists and descriptivists will continue until we all speak Arabic.

Yeah but if that happens I will speak correct Arabic, insha'Allah. :twisted:

Dante · **Posted:** Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:00 am

Rhino wrote:

Dante wrote:

The immortal battle between prescriptivists and descriptivists will continue until we all speak Arabic.

Yeah but if that happens I will speak correct Arabic, insha'Allah. :twisted:

La ilaha illa grammar, Rhino rasulugrammar! Sallgrammarhu alayhi wa sallam.

FrankC · **Posted:** Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:15 am

Dante wrote:

FrankC wrote:

"Sounds correct" I bieleve has come to dominate American English at least to me. I would say "none have" but I also say "no one has" or "not one has" because that just sounds correct. "None has" sounds like finger nails on a chalk board to me. When it come to personal pronouns it gets really confusing. how about "I have", "you(singular) have", and then "he, she, it has". In the plural It is 'we have, you have, they have". If anyone went around saying "I has or you has" they would be considered ignorant and uneducated.

When I was a kid I use to say "et" for the past tense of eat. It was pounded out of me by the nuns. In later years I heard Lawence Olivier and other English people saying "et". It was a correct past tense for the English, but to me today it sounds totally wrong. My daughter makes fun of me for pronouncing the "H' in herbs, it is supposed to be erbs in American English, but I have heard many English people prononce the "H", so today I pronounce it both ways and both sound fine to me. English is a bitch, but a very understandable bitch.

The immortal battle between prescriptivists and descriptivists will continue until we all speak Arabic.

Thank you Dante, I never heard of prescriptivists and descriptivists. I read up on them and I lean toward the descriptivists. I was not an English major. I just love the English Language with all its accents, dialects, and varities of grammar.

Dante · **Posted:** Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:45 am

FrankC wrote:

Thank you Dante, I never heard of prescriptivists and descriptivists. I read up on them and I lean toward the descriptivists. I was not an English major. I just love the English Language with all its accents, dialects, and varities of grammar.

I always imagine prescriptivists screaming (gruntly properly?) at our evolutionary ancestors: "Do not evolve! This is the way we should be, based on our brief experiences on this Earth!"

Rhino · **Joined:** Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:40 pm **Posts:** 633

Dante wrote:

FrankC wrote:

Thank you Dante, I never heard of prescriptivists and descriptivists. I read up on them and I lean toward the descriptivists. I was not an English major. I just love the English Language with all its accents, dialects, and varities of grammar.

I always imagine prescriptivists screaming (gruntly properly?) at our evolutionary ancestors: "Do not evolve! This is the way we should be, based on our brief experiences on this Earth!"

On the other hand, if it were not for people who care about a defined structure, there would have been no language in the first place to phrase that thought. If every small clan of troglodytic gibberers gets to decide what "Ook" means (and of course it means everything really - give that librarian a banana) and how to chisel it in stone, how then would they communicate with other clans? There is a reason that English literacy exploded not after Chaucer but after Caxton - who first standardized the language.

The big difference though in using a biological metaphor for a sociological construct is that by definition changes in the former that become the norm are superior, whereas the latter changes stick only if they are more popular. McDonalds sells the most hamburgers, but nobody sane considers them the best. Same for every other commodity that depends on popularity for its continued existence, including intellectual and aesthetic commodities. I cannot think of any example where the finest and most exquisite offering in any genre or category is the one most favored by the population at large. Can't imagine language being the one exception.

Rhino · **Joined:** Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:40 pm **Posts:** 633

Dante wrote:

Rhino wrote:

Dante wrote:

The immortal battle between prescriptivists and descriptivists will continue until we all speak Arabic.

Yeah but if that happens I will speak correct Arabic, insha'Allah. :twisted:

La ilaha illa grammar, Rhino rasulugrammar! Sallgrammarhu alayhi wa sallam.

Ya got me there. My entire stock of Arabic is maybe a dozen words, none of which I can decline, conjugate or even pronounce with any certainty of correctness. Best I can guess is my grammar (in the English part) is a bit questionable. I agree on reflection it would have been nicer had I used a conditional and the subjunctive. Sorry about that. But - if that were to happen I really would try to use correct Arabic!

Dante · **Posted:** Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:38 am

Rhino wrote:

Ya got me there. My entire stock of Arabic is maybe a dozen words, none of which I can decline, conjugate or even pronounce with any certainty of correctness. Best I can guess is my grammar (in the English part) is a bit questionable. I agree on reflection it would have been nicer had I used a conditional and the subjunctive. Sorry about that. But - if that were to happen I really would try to use correct Arabic!

The attempt was more:

There is no God but grammar, and Rhino is his messenger [lit. Rhino is the messenger of grammar]. May grammar grant him peace.

After checking with a friend who speaks Arabic, he says I shouldn't quit my day job.

New Scaratings

The English Language

Who is online