But - and I'm embarrassed to admit it - I do.s1m0n wrote:...or you'd still be using "whom" in your everyday speech.
Not as consistently as I might, sure, and I do question the utility of the difference any more, and it depends on whom I talk to.
But - and I'm embarrassed to admit it - I do.s1m0n wrote:...or you'd still be using "whom" in your everyday speech.
It happens faster in English, for some reason, than in many other languages. I'm told that Cervantes is much more like contemporary spanish than his contemporary, Shakespeare, is like modern english.awildman wrote:Imagine how fast language must have changed before literacy was a thing. Somebody would know better than I, but it is conceivable that a couple hundred years difference could result in the same language being almost unintelligible. Almost every time travel show/book ignores this fact.
I have a Tamil friend. His own language is one of the longest-surviving classical languages on the planet, if not number one on that list, and its standards were crystallized into rules long ago, so it's been consistent over the centuries. He's constantly frustrated that English grammar doesn't have real rules to hang his hat on, but general standards with wiggle-room instead.s1m0n wrote:It happens faster in English, for some reason, than in many other languages. I'm told that Cervantes is much more like contemporary spanish than his contemporary, Shakespeare, is like modern english.awildman wrote:Imagine how fast language must have changed before literacy was a thing. Somebody would know better than I, but it is conceivable that a couple hundred years difference could result in the same language being almost unintelligible. Almost every time travel show/book ignores this fact.
What counts is that we understand your meaning.Peter Duggan wrote:Nothing to do with spell checkers, but think I said 'homonyms' and meant 'homophones'... which is interesting because I had the latter in my head as I typed!
It gives us "ghoti" for "fish". When I was in Japan, my fellow Japanese students would complain about English's seeming randomness of spelling pronunciation, when contrasted with their consistent syllabic system. "Think of words in English spelling as being more like kanji," I offered, and they had something of an "Aha!" moment. Don't know if it really helped, though.s1m0n wrote:...but we preserve some ancient spellings.
Every generation has its pedants, and we both were among that number. I'm talking about generations en masse, not as individuals.Nanohedron wrote: Not in my case. I had a grasp of this when I was young, and I know young folks now who are sticklers too, so the age argument doesn't apply.
And I hope I still am. I just checked, and I see I draw a breath yet. But I like to think I'm only a pedant when asked to be, or when the conversation - such as this one - doesn't discourage it. I've told younger pedants to tone it down.s1m0n wrote:Every generation has its pedants, and we both were among that number.Nanohedron wrote: Not in my case. I had a grasp of this when I was young, and I know young folks now who are sticklers too, so the age argument doesn't apply.
Of course. And that is why I brought up the individual case. Yin and yang, you see.s1m0n wrote:I'm talking about generations en masse, not as individuals.
And I wouldn't suggest it was. I just find your foremost emphasis on it to be somewhat one-sided.s1m0n wrote:My observation about age and change isn't controversial among language historians.
Well, it happens. Is happening constantly, in fact. A new generation comes along that invests less and less in the distinction. What follows is period in which you see two forms being used interchangeably for both definitions. Eventually, consensus my arrive that one spelling is the more 'correct', and then dictionaries will start listing the second with a 'see the first' note. For example:Nanohedron wrote: But you raise an inescapable question: At what remove can we really say that meaning - such as the difference between "homonym" and "homophone" - is ultimately unimportant? I don't think we can...
Incidence: The rate at which events occur
Incidents: ,pl A number of events
Will become:
Incidence: see Incidents
Incidents: A number of events; The rate at which events occur
And I picked these examples because it's absolutely happening. Even if you knew these distinctions, and doubtless we all do, I doubt many of us will be startled to read, "There have been a number of incidence..." in a quality publication.
Precedence: The order of procedure or privilege.
Precedents: ,pl Rules determined by prevailing previous rulings.
Will become:
Precedence: see Precedents.
Precedents: Rules determined by prevailing previous rulings; The order of procedure or privilege.
Well, I certainly hope you're off the mark, there. If we know the meaning, I think it behooves us to be startled.s1m0n wrote:I doubt many of us will be startled to read, "There have been a number of incidence..." in a quality publication.
And that's another one. I'd pat you on the back for not writing "pealed", as is often seen, but I wouldn't insult you so.s1m0n wrote:Keep your eyes peeled, then.
It's a good thing I intend to be cremated, because otherwise I'm afraid they'd have to bury me with my shaking fist of indignation sticking out of the ground.s1m0n wrote:I'm annoyed when I see them but these days I'm no longer surprised.
I think that's a muscle-memory error. We start typing a word and let muscle memory take over, but sometimes, your muscles take you into a similar but different word.Peter Duggan wrote:Nothing to do with spell checkers, but think I said 'homonyms' and meant 'homophones'... which is interesting because I had the latter in my head as I typed!
Why not? I set out to deliberately annoy you with "pique slang", after all.Nanohedron wrote: I'd pat you on the back for not writing "pealed", as is often seen, but I wouldn't insult you so.
But I did insult you. Just backhandedly, is all.s1m0n wrote:Why not? I set out to deliberately annoy you with "pique slang", after all.Nanohedron wrote: I'd pat you on the back for not writing "pealed", as is often seen, but I wouldn't insult you so.