Words you think English should have or bring back.

For the discussion of language mechanics, grammar, vocabulary, trends, and other such linguistic topics, in english and other languages.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1456
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Fri Sep 16, 2016 9:12 pm UTC

Mega85 wrote:http://alt-usage-english.org/humorousrules.html
The rules contradict themselves
22 - It behooves us all to avoid archaic expressions.
25 - To ignorantly split an infinitive is a practice to religiously avoid.
Whether to boldly split an infinitive, archaically to leave it atomic, to use pretentiously Latin grammar, or to alter the alteration arrangement, awkwardly.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
Monika
Posts: 3573
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:03 am UTC
Location: Germany, near Heidelberg
Contact:

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby Monika » Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:01 am UTC

Quizatzhaderac wrote:The rules contradict themselves.

That appears to be the joke.
#xkcd-q on irc.foonetic.net - the LGBTIQQA support channel
Help please

User avatar
Monika
Posts: 3573
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:03 am UTC
Location: Germany, near Heidelberg
Contact:

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby Monika » Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:02 am UTC

buttered_cat_paradox wrote:"The Meaning Of Tingo" book is full of words I'd like English to have. :)
(I ran a quick search and it seems like nobody mentioned it. Check it out, it's full of great words from around the world)

The word I personally miss the most when speaking English is an equivalent of the Hebrew word תתחדש. It's a super-common word you say to someone whenever they got something new (a haircut, a shirt, a gift, anything at all). It combines "I noticed you got something new", "I like your new thing" and "I hope you enjoy your new thing" in a very concise way.

I want this word in German and English now. How is it pronounced?
#xkcd-q on irc.foonetic.net - the LGBTIQQA support channel
Help please

User avatar
ThirdParty
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:53 pm UTC
Location: USA

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby ThirdParty » Sun Sep 18, 2016 9:15 pm UTC

Monika wrote:
buttered_cat_paradox wrote:The word I personally miss the most when speaking English is an equivalent of the Hebrew word תתחדש. It's a super-common word you say to someone whenever they got something new (a haircut, a shirt, a gift, anything at all). It combines "I noticed you got something new", "I like your new thing" and "I hope you enjoy your new thing" in a very concise way.
I want this word in German and English now. How is it pronounced?
Google says: /tit.ħäˈde̞ʃ/ when spoken to a male, /tit.ħädˈʃi/ when spoken to a female.

buttered_cat_paradox
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 11:40 pm UTC

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby buttered_cat_paradox » Sun Sep 18, 2016 9:29 pm UTC

Indeed. And tit-häd-shu when spoken to a group.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1456
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:52 pm UTC

Monika wrote:
Quizatzhaderac wrote:The rules contradict themselves.

That appears to be the joke.
I mean rules 22 and 25 contradict each other, entirely apart from the gag of each rule being an example of it's own undesirable behavior.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 2410
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby Eebster the Great » Mon Sep 19, 2016 2:11 pm UTC

Not strictly speaking. There are pretty much always ways to avoid splitting infinitives without resorting to archaic or awkward constructions. It just might not always be the most obvious way. (Not that there is anything wrong with splitting infinitives, generally.)

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1456
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Mon Sep 19, 2016 4:09 pm UTC

The prescription itself archaic: "boldly to go" was the fading dominate form at the time the prescription was first commonly discussed. The original point of the rule was to preserve the form that is now archaic.

Alternate constructions themselves aren't always awkward, but the process restructuring a sentence because a certain verb tense doesn't take adverbs, is.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 2410
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby Eebster the Great » Mon Sep 19, 2016 5:07 pm UTC

Literally fifteen minutes ago my evolution professor complained about misspelling "dominant."

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2221
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby Copper Bezel » Mon Sep 19, 2016 5:50 pm UTC

So if this is the frequency illusion at work, we're all subjected to dozens of instances of "dominate" used as an adjective every day and don't even notice it. It's like the neutrino of usage errors.
Quizatzhaderac wrote:Our perceptions add an imaginary component to our real friends, making the relationship complex.

Soupspoon wrote:Even my real real friends are pretty much all irrational.


she / her / her

User avatar
Grop
Posts: 1758
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby Grop » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:01 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:Literally fifteen minutes ago my evolution professor complained about misspelling "dominant."


I would say its spelling is quite simple though :lol:. It is exactly spelled the way I say it.

But then what is an evolution professor?

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2221
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby Copper Bezel » Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:16 pm UTC

Since I usually see it in writing, I have to ask - do people who use "dominate" as an adjective pronounce it with the reduced stress on the final syllable, like the stress pattern of "celibate"?
Quizatzhaderac wrote:Our perceptions add an imaginary component to our real friends, making the relationship complex.

Soupspoon wrote:Even my real real friends are pretty much all irrational.


she / her / her

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2147
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby Lazar » Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:20 pm UTC

I would guess so; I've never heard the adjective pronounced with a full vowel in the third syllable. But that said, I'm not sure we can assume an ironclad relationship between spelling and pronunciation on this point. For an example in somewhat the opposite direction, I hear a lot of people pronounce "pundit" as "pundant", but I've never seen it spelled that way.
And remember, my friends, future events such as these will affect you in the future.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2221
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby Copper Bezel » Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:34 pm UTC

Huh, I hadn't heard that one. But yeah, good point.
Quizatzhaderac wrote:Our perceptions add an imaginary component to our real friends, making the relationship complex.

Soupspoon wrote:Even my real real friends are pretty much all irrational.


she / her / her

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 2410
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby Eebster the Great » Mon Sep 19, 2016 10:23 pm UTC

Yeah the usual pronunciation is /ˈdɒ.mɪ.nənt/ or /ˈdɑ.mɪ.nənt/, never /ˈdɑ.mɪˈnænt/. But there is still clearly a difference between that and /ˈdɒ.mɪ.nət/, missing the /n/. The difference is probably subtle enough so if you already think it's spelled the other way, you won't hear the distinction.

Etymologically speaking, you would expect the -ant ending for a present active participle and the -ate ending for a perfect passive participle. So something "dominant" would be dominating other things, while something "dominate" would be dominated by other things. Obviously this rule doesn't really work all of the time, but in this case it does.

Grop wrote:But then what is an evolution professor?

A professor of evolution . . . I'm taking a class in Human Evolution and my professor made a point about the spelling of that word because I guess it annoys her.

Derek
Posts: 2085
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby Derek » Tue Sep 20, 2016 1:58 am UTC

Lazar wrote:I would guess so; I've never heard the adjective pronounced with a full vowel in the third syllable. But that said, I'm not sure we can assume an ironclad relationship between spelling and pronunciation on this point. For an example in somewhat the opposite direction, I hear a lot of people pronounce "pundit" as "pundant", but I've never seen it spelled that way.

And TIL that "pundant" isn't a word.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25230
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Sep 20, 2016 3:30 am UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:Etymologically speaking, you would expect the -ant ending for a present active participle and the -ate ending for a perfect passive participle. So something "dominant" would be dominating other things, while something "dominate" would be dominated by other things. Obviously this rule doesn't really work all of the time, but in this case it does.
What do you mean in this case it does? "Dominate" isn't an adjective in standard English, and when it is used as one it is synonymous with "dominant".

Or do you just mean that etymology tells you it's the -ant ending because it has the active meaning? I suspect that's not a terribly helpful thing to notice, as people who know about verb forms in Latin is likely a group without much overlap with people who use "dominate" as an adjective.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 2410
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby Eebster the Great » Tue Sep 20, 2016 5:27 am UTC

It's not a reason you would expect an English speaker to know how to spell it (as you say, they would probably know the correct spelling before the Latin etymology in almost all cases), it's just a reason you could understand the spelling after the fact. Rereading my post, I realize it's not very clear.

Mega85
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2016 4:48 am UTC

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby Mega85 » Sat Nov 05, 2016 1:36 am UTC

is "trypophobia" a word? i've seen in used online for the fear of holes. however no dictionaries recognize it.

User avatar
Flumble
Posts: 1698
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby Flumble » Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:14 am UTC

I'd say it certainly is a word, but there's no consensus about its meaning because it's not recognized as an actual phobia currently.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 2410
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby Eebster the Great » Sat Nov 05, 2016 3:57 am UTC

Is there an official list of "actual phobias"? As I understand it, if a real person somewhere presented with all the symptoms of a specific phobia for small holes, then it would be "actual." And there are a lot of people with strange phobias; it isn't common of course, but even rare disorders can affect tens of thousands of people. Given the nature of specific phobias, it seems like it would be impossible to create any kind of meaningfully comprehensive list.

That said, most people who claim to have trypophobia probably don't, since they likely don't understand the details of what a phobia is.

Dzhayk
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:51 pm UTC

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby Dzhayk » Tue Feb 14, 2017 3:24 pm UTC

Distinction between singular and plural in the 2nd person.

(If that hasn't already been posted)

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1456
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Tue Feb 14, 2017 8:06 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:Is there an official list of "actual phobias"? As I understand it, if a real person somewhere presented with all the symptoms of a specific phobia for small holes, then it would be "actual." And there are a lot of people with strange phobias; it isn't common of course, but even rare disorders can affect tens of thousands of people. Given the nature of specific phobias, it seems like it would be impossible to create any kind of meaningfully comprehensive list.
The American psychiatric association and the world health organization both publish such lists.

I think there's a distinction between legitimately having a specific phobic anxiety disorder, and the subject of that phobia warranting it's own diagnostic criteria.

For example Wikipedia [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_phobias]lists several names[/url ] for phobias of X color. For each of these if we wanted to discuss the impact to a patient and the appropriate treatments we could just write it out once and paste in the color again and again. Conversely, fear of injections does get it's own listing because it has it's own complications.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 2410
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby Eebster the Great » Tue Feb 14, 2017 8:36 pm UTC

The Wikipedia list specifically states it is incomplete; however, it does list trypophobia. I'm not aware of the APA's list: is it available online anywhere? In either case, I doubt it would claim to be comprehensive.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1456
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:28 pm UTC

They do, and it's in convenient tree form.

The Wikipedia list seems to largely be a product of people on Wikipedia loving words; which is fine.
Note the use of the term "condition", which is just as vague medically as it is in lay speech. Trypophobia is a condition, but not (as far as I know) one that meets the criteria for being a disorder.

As for being complete, it is in a specific sense. It doesn't cover things not confirmed by science. It also doesn't cover "trivial" variations of the same disorder.

I'm not a psychologist, but I get the sense from trying to look up literature on this that psychologists aren't very interested in the fine details of what the subject of a phobia is.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25230
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:30 pm UTC

Yeah, wiki editors and psychologists have different reasons for naming things, so it makes sense to have different resulting lists.

I liked discovering the word "trypophobia" not because I have a condition serious enough to talk to a doctor about, but because it's nice to know I'm not alone in having a minor revulsion reaction to a certain type of visual pattern. (Also it gave me a tag to use or blacklist back when I was more active on Tumblr.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

speising
Posts: 1867
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby speising » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:57 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Yeah, wiki editors and psychologists have different reasons for naming things, so it makes sense to have different resulting lists.

I liked discovering the word "trypophobia" not because I have a condition serious enough to talk to a doctor about, but because it's nice to know I'm not alone in having a minor revulsion reaction to a certain type of visual pattern. (Also it gave me a tag to use or blacklist back when I was more active on Tumblr.)

I'm somewhat annoyed by the pictures Google displays insensitively on top for an innocuous search for that word.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2221
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby Copper Bezel » Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:18 am UTC

You could accuse the Wikipedia page of the same, and that's far more directly "curated" as a form of resource.
Quizatzhaderac wrote:Our perceptions add an imaginary component to our real friends, making the relationship complex.

Soupspoon wrote:Even my real real friends are pretty much all irrational.


she / her / her

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 2410
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC

Re: Words you think English should have or bring back.

Postby Eebster the Great » Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:51 pm UTC

Quizatzhaderac wrote:They do, and it's in convenient tree form.

The Wikipedia list seems to largely be a product of people on Wikipedia loving words; which is fine.
Note the use of the term "condition", which is just as vague medically as it is in lay speech. Trypophobia is a condition, but not (as far as I know) one that meets the criteria for being a disorder.

As for being complete, it is in a specific sense. It doesn't cover things not confirmed by science. It also doesn't cover "trivial" variations of the same disorder.

I'm not a psychologist, but I get the sense from trying to look up literature on this that psychologists aren't very interested in the fine details of what the subject of a phobia is.

It would be covered under either F40.228 "Other natural environment type phobia" or F40.298 "Other specified phobia" . My point was just that you can't say whether something can be, in principle, a "real phobia." You can just say whether or not it is common.


Return to “Language/Linguistics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests