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
Sizik
Posts: 1145
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:48 am UTC

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

Postby Sizik » Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:53 pm UTC

'Shut up' might work in some cases.
gmalivuk wrote:
King Author wrote:If space (rather, distance) is an illusion, it'd be possible for one meta-me to experience both body's sensory inputs.
Yes. And if wishes were horses, wishing wells would fill up very quickly with drowned horses.

User avatar
Eugo
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 5:38 am UTC
Location: here
Contact:

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

Postby Eugo » Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:55 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
elfsprin wrote:saying "i provided it," when you mean to indicate a past perfect action, sounds silly

Well, yeah, because that's a grammatically incorrect way to form the past perfect in English.

Also, why do you have this objection to "provided", but not to, say, every single other regular English verb?

Well, why stop here? Make them regular - invent new rules, so these would abide by them. If there's a rule about it, it's regular (as in "regulated"). Here's a brief list of what can be done in that respect: http://ndragan.com/lange/prought.html.
United we stand politically corrected, divided we fall in love

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

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

Postby Iulus Cofield » Fri Oct 14, 2011 8:16 am UTC

English is already trending towards regularizing all verbs. It's just a very, very slow trend.

Polydeuces of Fortinbras
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:01 am UTC

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

Postby Polydeuces of Fortinbras » Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:52 am UTC

I would heartily support bringing back ymbe.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25740
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 » Fri Oct 14, 2011 11:54 am UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:English is already trending towards regularizing all verbs. It's just a very, very slow trend.
You sure about that?
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
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

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

Postby Lazar » Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:02 pm UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:English is already trending towards regularizing all verbs. It's just a very, very slow trend.

I don't think so. Recent centuries have seen a number of regular verbs being made irregular, notably "dive", "hang", "sneak" and "plead". I even know a guy who uses the past participle "broughten".
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25740
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 » Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:04 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:
Iulus Cofield wrote:English is already trending towards regularizing all verbs. It's just a very, very slow trend.
I don't think so. Recent centuries have seen a number of regular verbs being made irregular, notably "dive", "hang", "sneak" and "plead". I even know a guy who uses the past participle "broughten".
As far as I know, catch/caught is another recent(ish) one.

If a language summarily got rid of *all* irregulars at once, then there wouldn't be any patterns people could use to make additional verbs irregular, but as long as there are still some, it seems people will continue to make others, even while regularizing a few of the less common ones that are already irregular.
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
yves
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

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

Postby yves » Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:02 pm UTC

I would like to see xor come into usage, distinguishing between or and exclusive or. I would pronounce it [zɒr].

Also, let's say person 1 is talking to person 2, and there is someone not involved in the conversation called person 3. What if person 1 uses the word we in conversation? Is he referring to person 1 and person 2, person 1 and person 3, or person 1, 2, and 3? There needs to be a distinction.

User avatar
Eugo
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 5:38 am UTC
Location: here
Contact:

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

Postby Eugo » Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:23 pm UTC

yves wrote:I would like to see xor come into usage, distinguishing between or and exclusive or. I would pronounce it [zɒr].

I agree. Or at least make either/or mandatory - and consider the regular or inclusive.

But, until then, the regular or seems to imply xor in a question. For example, some versions of windowses (if a windows is singular, then...) there's a dialog(ue) asking "do you want to copy or move files from this location: yes/no". Starts making sense if you consider it an inclusive or, but the tone of the question, at least to my ears, actually conveys a xor.

Which is fine with me, I usually answer the A xor B questions with a "yes".

Also, let's say person 1 is talking to person 2, and there is someone not involved in the conversation called person 3. What if person 1 uses the word we in conversation? Is he referring to person 1 and person 2, person 1 and person 3, or person 1, 2, and 3? There needs to be a distinction.

"Get out of my mind" seems to be all too common here, eh? In Serbian, "we" pretty much excludes the person addressed; in Russian, there's a distinction of "we with you" (my s toboy), even when the speaker and co-speaker (a word missing in English) are alone. In English, it seems ambiguous to me - in so many pop songs she tells him to "think about us" - us who, her and who else? To my ear, "us" doesn't apply "you and me" while I'm talking to you about you and me - it does only if we're talking about the rest of the Universe. Don't know other languages well enough to competently say anything on this matter.

Such minor differences often make me miss the substance of a sentence, because the speaker (or writer) and I don't always agree on the scope of "we". Or at least I get to scratch my head.
United we stand politically corrected, divided we fall in love

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 2691
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC

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

Postby Eebster the Great » Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:00 pm UTC

Eugo wrote:For example, some versions of windowses (if a windows is singular, then...)

As I understand it, you should be using the singular there anyway (cf. "some types of food," "some kinds of music").

Derek
Posts: 2136
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

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

Postby Derek » Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:32 pm UTC

yves wrote:Also, let's say person 1 is talking to person 2, and there is someone not involved in the conversation called person 3. What if person 1 uses the word we in conversation? Is he referring to person 1 and person 2, person 1 and person 3, or person 1, 2, and 3? There needs to be a distinction.

This is called inclusive/exclusive we. As Eugo mentioned, it exists in some languages.

As I understand it, you should be using the singular there anyway (cf. "some types of food," "some kinds of music").

Both of those examples are mass nouns. Compare "some kinds of dogs".

However I'm not entirely sure what he meant by "some versions of windows(es)" any ways. Does he mean Windows the Microsoft OS? Then it should be "some versions of Windows". I think the reason is because "Windows" is a mass noun, or at least behaves like one, but I'm not sure.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

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

Postby Iulus Cofield » Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:43 pm UTC

I've only seen Windows used in the singular in formal writing, but this is tempered by it always being used with a counter, e.g., "versions of Windows", "copies of Windows".

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 2691
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC

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

Postby Eebster the Great » Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:53 am UTC

Derek wrote:Both of those examples are mass nouns.

And so is Windows, hence my point.

Derek
Posts: 2136
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

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

Postby Derek » Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:25 am UTC

Sorry, I though you were making a more general claim. I think we've both come to the same conclusion then.

User avatar
Grop
Posts: 1838
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

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

Postby Grop » Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:03 am UTC

In my view, Windows is one product, which comes in several versions.

User avatar
12obin
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:15 am UTC
Location: TO
Contact:

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

Postby 12obin » Sat Nov 08, 2014 12:54 am UTC

I think there should be an adjective meaning "excessively or unpleasantly salty". The salt equivalent of what "cloying" is to "sweet".
Because we need salt, but also shouldn't drink salt water or have a huge excess of salt, we have biological safeguards in place that tell us when there's too much salt. It's a distinct sensation common to pretty much everyone, and that's why I think it's a gap.
Robin. Ey em eir. Visit.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 2691
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 08, 2014 12:58 am UTC

That's true. I can't think of words meaning "excessively bitter" or "sour" either, despite the fact that foods that have these flavors in the extreme taste distinctively and strongly unpleasant. Sweet has "cloying" and "saccharine" though, and probably others, despite the fact that excessively sweet tastes are much less common.

User avatar
12obin
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:15 am UTC
Location: TO
Contact:

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

Postby 12obin » Sat Nov 08, 2014 1:11 am UTC

I think that bitter and sour are different in that those words on their own can imply an unpleasant taste, whereas sweet and salty are more generally desirable.

I mean lots of sour and bitter things are pleasant. But speaking linguistically, rather than culinarily.

Of the four, now that I'm thinking about it, salt is the most value neutral. Like in a poem or something, sweet, sour and bitter would all have clear metaphorical meanings.

Because that's what necessitates words like "cloying", I imagine: the fact that "sweet" is so strongly associated with "pleasant".
Robin. Ey em eir. Visit.

User avatar
ThirdParty
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:53 pm UTC
Location: USA

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

Postby ThirdParty » Fri Nov 14, 2014 6:14 am UTC

My thesaurus recommends "brackish" for too salty, "acerbic" for too sour, and "acrid" for too bitter.

User avatar
12obin
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:15 am UTC
Location: TO
Contact:

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

Postby 12obin » Fri Nov 14, 2014 6:33 am UTC

Mm acerbic is quite good.
Is that what brackish means? That's interesting! I always thought it meant like, swampy.
Robin. Ey em eir. Visit.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 2691
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC

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

Postby Eebster the Great » Fri Nov 14, 2014 7:44 am UTC

They aren't very close synonyms. Both "acrid" and "acerbic" could apply to either sour or bitter food, or generally any unpleasant taste

Derek
Posts: 2136
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

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

Postby Derek » Fri Nov 14, 2014 9:22 am UTC

I don't think "brackish" works here. Brackish is applied to bodies of water, not to food.

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

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

Postby bigglesworth » Fri Nov 14, 2014 9:42 am UTC

It works by analogy, and I find it very evocative.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25740
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 » Fri Nov 14, 2014 1:30 pm UTC

Except, brackish water is *less* salty than like 97% of the water on Earth, so I'm not sure how well the analogy holds up.
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
ThirdParty
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:53 pm UTC
Location: USA

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

Postby ThirdParty » Fri Nov 14, 2014 2:18 pm UTC

Derek wrote:I don't think "brackish" works here. Brackish is applied to bodies of water, not to food.
The American Heritage Dictionary gives two definitions for "brackish". Definition 2 is "Distasteful; unpalatable: a thin, brackish gruel." So it can totally be used for food.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1510
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 Nov 14, 2014 4:21 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Except, brackish water is *less* salty than like 97% of the water on Earth, so I'm not sure how well the analogy holds up.
Something like 99.9999% percent of things (by mass) are clearly uneatable (That should be how we spell "inedible"). A word for "Too salty to be pleasant to eat" would generally be used in the context of things one might potentially eat; in which case, brackish water is very salty. Brackish water also often has all the superficial appearances of fresh water.

That's all of course assuming we're using the a technically definition of brackish water. The word "Brackish" comes from a word for salty, which makes ocean water extremely brackish.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
Envelope Generator
Posts: 580
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:07 am UTC
Location: pareidolia

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

Postby Envelope Generator » Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:45 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:That's true. I can't think of words meaning "excessively bitter" or "sour" either, despite the fact that foods that have these flavors in the extreme taste distinctively and strongly unpleasant.


I'm not a native speaker but I've somewhere along the line picked up the idea that "puckering" can mean "extremely sour". Can it?
I'm going to step off the LEM now... here we are, Pismo Beach and all the clams we can eat

eSOANEM wrote:If Fonzie's on the order of 100 zeptokelvin, I think he has bigger problems than difracting through doors.

User avatar
12obin
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:15 am UTC
Location: TO
Contact:

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

Postby 12obin » Fri Nov 14, 2014 7:55 pm UTC

I don't know that I've ever heard "puckering" used that way. I would understand it but it would be sort of whimsical I think, not a common usage.
Robin. Ey em eir. Visit.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25740
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 » Fri Nov 14, 2014 8:27 pm UTC

I've definitely seen "mouth-puckering" used that way, but not "puckering" by itself.
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: 2691
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC

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

Postby Eebster the Great » Fri Nov 14, 2014 9:13 pm UTC

Could spicy food therefore be described as "anus-puckering"?

Derek
Posts: 2136
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

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

Postby Derek » Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:28 pm UTC

ThirdParty wrote:
Derek wrote:I don't think "brackish" works here. Brackish is applied to bodies of water, not to food.
The American Heritage Dictionary gives two definitions for "brackish". Definition 2 is "Distasteful; unpalatable: a thin, brackish gruel." So it can totally be used for food.

Well I won't argue with a dictionary, but I don't think I've ever heard brackish used that way, and I would probably do a double take if I did.

User avatar
12obin
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:15 am UTC
Location: TO
Contact:

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

Postby 12obin » Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:31 pm UTC

Derek wrote:Well I won't argue with a dictionary, 


You're no fun!
Robin. Ey em eir. Visit.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 2691
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 15, 2014 5:38 am UTC

Arguing with a dictionary would be much more fun if the dictionary argued back.

User avatar
12obin
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:15 am UTC
Location: TO
Contact:

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

Postby 12obin » Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:02 am UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:Could spicy food therefore be described as "anus-puckering"?


Spicy lube.
Robin. Ey em eir. Visit.

Derek
Posts: 2136
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

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

Postby Derek » Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:38 am UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:Arguing with a dictionary would be much more fun if the dictionary argued back.

Yeah, that's why I post in N&A and SD.

User avatar
MWak
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 9:18 pm UTC
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

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

Postby MWak » Mon Aug 08, 2016 9:45 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:Arguing with a dictionary would be much more fun if the dictionary argued back.


Just argue with an online dictionary and then click to a random word to see how it responds. Loads of fun

Mega85
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2016 4:48 am UTC

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

Postby Mega85 » Thu Aug 11, 2016 9:45 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:
Iulus Cofield wrote:English is already trending towards regularizing all verbs. It's just a very, very slow trend.

I don't think so. Recent centuries have seen a number of regular verbs being made irregular, notably "dive", "hang", "sneak" and "plead". I even know a guy who uses the past participle "broughten".


Do you mean "boughten"? I've occasionally heard people say "boughten" for the past participle of "buy". I've never heard "broughten" before.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 2691
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC

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

Postby Eebster the Great » Fri Aug 12, 2016 12:48 am UTC

The Grammarist claims "boughten" is an archaic form of the passive past participle of "buy," so it wouldn't really qualify as a regular verb being made irregular.

Mega85
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2016 4:48 am UTC

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

Postby Mega85 » Fri Aug 12, 2016 2:10 am UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:The Grammarist claims "boughten" is an archaic form of the passive past participle of "buy," so it wouldn't really qualify as a regular verb being made irregular.


Oh. So the people who use "boughten" are actually preserving an historical form that's been lost for most speakers.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

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

Postby Lazar » Fri Aug 12, 2016 2:12 am UTC

Mega85 wrote:Do you mean "boughten"? I've occasionally heard people say "boughten" for the past participle of "buy". I've never heard "broughten" before.

Both. He was this guy I knew from a language forum – he was from Wisconsin, and had a lot of interesting features in his dialect.

Such forms, especially ones other than "boughten", generally primarily show up when a past participle is being used with another particle such as "out" or "up"; for instance, in informal speech I would most likely say "I have caught it" and "I have brought it" (while also sporadically using "I have caughten it" or "I have broughten it") but would normally say "I have caughten up with it" or "I have broughten it in?". I really do not know how widespread this feature is myself, even though it is definitely a natural dialect usage for at least myself (like the use of "by" to mean "at").
Exit the vampires' castle.


Return to “Language/Linguistics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests