More on understanding...
Sep. 5th, 2001 07:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexpgpFellow LJer ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
vuzh asked, in a comment to my previous post:
I think an apt analogy has to do with listening to someone speaking on the radio as you drive cross-country.
When the signal is strong and there is no noise, the speaker's voice is clear and you can understand everything that's being said. This can be likened to people communicating using grammatically correct sentences.
As you move away from the station, the signal weakens and noise begins to interfere with the voice; you have to work harder to understand the message. By analogy, one must work harder to understand people who use poorly formed sentences.
As you move ever further away, the noise may cause you to misunderstand what's being said, despite your best effort to make out the message. (The same result may obtain for very poorly formed sentences.)
There will come a point where it's no longer worth while listening to that station, because so much noise is apparent in the signal, you can't tell what's being said no matter how hard you try. At this point, communication breaks down. The listener's ability to capture the content of the message has been exceeded by the distortion introduced into the message by either distance or poor grammar.
But all this really doesn't answer the question, does it? If the message gets through, what's the beef?
Well, I think the "error" with poor grammar and structure lies in the lack of respect it signals toward one's correspondent, all other things being equal. But that, I feel, is a diatribe all on its own...
* * *
vuzh is right when he notes that changes in the language are typically instigated by the hoi polloi and not the "elite" (whatever and whoever that might be). However, in the process, life gets just a little bit more difficult.
For example, there was once a time when the prefix "bi-" meant "every two" in words such as "biweekly," "bimonthly," and "biannual." This, despite the common tendency to use it in the sense of "twice every." So now, check out the following definition, taken from Merriam-Webster OnLine for biweekly:
Main Entry: 1bi·week·ly
Pronunciation: (")bI-'wE-klE
Function: adjective
Date: 1832
1 : occurring twice a week
2 : occurring every two weeks : FORTNIGHTLY
Contrary to what is often "taught" in school, the numerical order of the definitions has nothing to do with which is more correct, though the ordering may reflect what the dictionary editorial board feels are the prevailing priorities of usage. In any event, I've never met anyone who predicates his or her usage of a word on the basis of where, numerically, the intended meaning appears in the word's dictionary entry.
Getting back to the point, let me ask the following question: Of what possible use is this word?
If someone offers me a subscription to a "biweekly publication," what does that mean, beyond the fact that it's a periodical and that it is published more than once a month (and maybe up to 8 times in one month)? They should tell me "every two weeks" or "twice a week" and forget they ever knew how to spell "biweekly."
One may as well order a small memorial that reads:
Biweekly
1832-19??
Requiescat in Pace
Anyway... got to get to work. I have about 5 pages of the translation left, and all day "tomorrow" in which to read it over, check spelling, etc.
Cheers...
vuzh asked, in a comment to my previous post: if you state something which is grammatically and / or definitively incorrect, and you're understood, then where's the error?A very good question, and one that needs answering.
I think an apt analogy has to do with listening to someone speaking on the radio as you drive cross-country.
When the signal is strong and there is no noise, the speaker's voice is clear and you can understand everything that's being said. This can be likened to people communicating using grammatically correct sentences.
As you move away from the station, the signal weakens and noise begins to interfere with the voice; you have to work harder to understand the message. By analogy, one must work harder to understand people who use poorly formed sentences.
As you move ever further away, the noise may cause you to misunderstand what's being said, despite your best effort to make out the message. (The same result may obtain for very poorly formed sentences.)
There will come a point where it's no longer worth while listening to that station, because so much noise is apparent in the signal, you can't tell what's being said no matter how hard you try. At this point, communication breaks down. The listener's ability to capture the content of the message has been exceeded by the distortion introduced into the message by either distance or poor grammar.
But all this really doesn't answer the question, does it? If the message gets through, what's the beef?
Well, I think the "error" with poor grammar and structure lies in the lack of respect it signals toward one's correspondent, all other things being equal. But that, I feel, is a diatribe all on its own...
vuzh is right when he notes that changes in the language are typically instigated by the hoi polloi and not the "elite" (whatever and whoever that might be). However, in the process, life gets just a little bit more difficult.For example, there was once a time when the prefix "bi-" meant "every two" in words such as "biweekly," "bimonthly," and "biannual." This, despite the common tendency to use it in the sense of "twice every." So now, check out the following definition, taken from Merriam-Webster OnLine for biweekly:
Main Entry: 1bi·week·ly
Pronunciation: (")bI-'wE-klE
Function: adjective
Date: 1832
1 : occurring twice a week
2 : occurring every two weeks : FORTNIGHTLY
Contrary to what is often "taught" in school, the numerical order of the definitions has nothing to do with which is more correct, though the ordering may reflect what the dictionary editorial board feels are the prevailing priorities of usage. In any event, I've never met anyone who predicates his or her usage of a word on the basis of where, numerically, the intended meaning appears in the word's dictionary entry.
Getting back to the point, let me ask the following question: Of what possible use is this word?
If someone offers me a subscription to a "biweekly publication," what does that mean, beyond the fact that it's a periodical and that it is published more than once a month (and maybe up to 8 times in one month)? They should tell me "every two weeks" or "twice a week" and forget they ever knew how to spell "biweekly."
One may as well order a small memorial that reads:
1832-19??
Requiescat in Pace
Anyway... got to get to work. I have about 5 pages of the translation left, and all day "tomorrow" in which to read it over, check spelling, etc.
Cheers...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Two nits picked
Date: 2001-09-06 06:55 am (UTC)2. The epitaph should read "Requiescat in Pacem", as "peace" should be in the accusative case.
And 'biweekly' is an excellent example of 'word rot'. Thanks!
One nit scratched...
Date: 2001-09-06 10:40 am (UTC)As regards the second, as I am not a Latin scholar, I'll take your word for 'pacem' being the accusative form, but:
(a) The Catholic Encyclopedia, in an article on Pax in the Liturgy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11595a.htm), has it as 'pace'.
(b) The Merriam-Webster OnLine (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=requiescat) dictionary has it as 'pace'. (The link goes to 'requiescat'; the scroll box shows the alternatives.)
(c) The 1913 Webster's Unabridged doesn't have it at all. :^)
(d) A Google Web search shows 398 occurrences of the phrase with 'pacem' and 5140 with 'pace.
Of course, of these, maybe (b) is the only "solid" piece of evidence, and of what, I'm not sure. I have a feeling this is one of those cases where, if you're right, the foreign language expression may have been corrupted on its way into being borrowed, and I'm not particularly warlike when it comes to having borrowed expressions - especially Latin ones - conform to foreign usage (an example of this is the unfortunate and interminable "is 'data' singular or plural" debate).
So, I'm going to stick with what has come to be familiar usage over the years, and one supported by immediately available references, with 'pace'.
Cheers...