Literally, Really, Very, Truly, Seriously

[PM 2Ring]

English is not a pigeon. Or a duck.

[Lenoxus]

And in a way, the English we all speak is a sort of massively-complex pidgin creole, what with all the alternative words and usages.

Fixed.

English is not a creole (or a pidgin).

True, it's not literally (!) either of those things ,in the usual senses of those words. But it's also not a system with a one-to-one correspondence between word and meaning. (Perhaps we could order languages on a scale from "totally creole" to, I don't know, "homogenous in origin, and logical". English would be much closer to the creole side of this scale, I think, what with all the diferent langages it borrows from.)

Hence, there's nothing wrong with a word acquiring an alternative meaning, and in some circumstances, it's even okay for the meaning to be contrary to the original. My complaint about "literally" is that the addition of another meaning may result in a semantic void, the niche for a single word which unambiguously means "no metaphor here".

Like nearly all semantic voids, we can still work around it. Look at the fixes people have developed for the void "gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun". (Though each fix is independently controversial!) But something is still lost, just like it would be a loss if we had a gender-neutral pronoun and then somehow lost it. (It was right here a second ago, I swear…)

(As far as I know, English has never had a truly-ooly unequivocally gender-neutral pronoun, because there has never been a point in its history where one word meant 'she' and another meant 'he' and a third word meant 'xe' or whatever; nor has there been a time with only a neutral pronoun and no gendered ones.)

[Iulus Cofield]

Every natural language fails to have every word have exclusively one meaning and this has nothing to do with the amount of loanwords or other features borrowed from foreign languages. In fact, a recent loanword is more likely to have only one meaning than an indigenous word that has had time for its meanings to grow.

And of course the process of borrowing loanwords is nearly completely unrelated to the process that forms creoles. Preventing polysemy is not only impossible and foolhardy, but let's do try to avoid the polysemization of a technical word when it's being used in a technical discussion. Technical discussions are so much clearer when we are all speaking the same semi-artificial technical language.

[gmalivuk]

But it's also not a system with a one-to-one correspondence between word and meaning.

Nor is any natural language.

[Qaanol]

English is not a creole (or a pidgin).

Tell that to the Angles, Saxons, and Normans.

[gmalivuk]

Borrowing words or evolving from another language doesn't make something a creole.

[Qaanol]

Everytime England got invaded and the invaders and the natives spoke different languages, the two groups had to figure out some way of communicating. And the next generation grew up speaking a mashup of their parents’ tongue and their rulers’. Or, at least, that’s my null hypothesis, because why would it ever not happen that way?

[goofy]

With a creole, two groups who don't share a language create a third language. That is, a language is created where no language existed before. But that's not what happened with English. With English, we have a continuity of language from 900 to the present.

[Qaanol]

With a creole, two groups who don't share a language create a third language. That is, a language is created where no language existed before.

Yep, that’s my point.

But that's not what happened with English. With English, we have a continuity of language from 900 to the present.

I adamantly disagree. We may use the same word “English” for the language of the Angles under Egbert of Wessex as we do for the language of the Anglo-Saxons under Cnut of Denmark, as we do for the language of the English under William of Normandy, as we do for the language of Shakespeare, but those are not the same languages. Certainly I as a modern native speaker of the English Language would have no understanding of the language of Wessex in the 900s, nor they of my language.

[Iulus Cofield]

Beautiful ideas Qaanol, but the littlest of research would tell you why they're wrong. There's almost zero evidence of any influence Celtic had on English (what evidence there is is only for toponyms and geographic phenomena that didn't exist in the Anglo-Saxon homelands, such as "crag"s.), much less creolization. Creolization is a very distinctive process.

Furthermore, it is not hard to discover that contemporary American English is the daughter language of Middle English which was the daughter language of Old English which was the daughter of Old Low German which was the daughter of Proto-Germanic which was the daughter of Proto-Indo-European, all learned as first languages by children from their parents and the changes happening generationally until they became unrecognizable by lay people
without any linguistic training. The names of languages sometimes change slower than the languages themselves, but make no mistake we are not such uneducated simpletons to say English has a thousand plus year history and mean it was spoken a thousand years the same as it is today. No, we mean there is a clear descent from that language to the one today, becoming distinct from it's related languages in various stages such that a phylogenetic tree can be made of languages as easily as they can be made of species.

[Qaanol]

Beautiful ideas Iulus Cofield, but the littlest of research would tell you why they’re wrong. It is not hard to discover that contemporary American English is the daughter language of MIddle English which was a mashup of Old English, French, and Latin, in approximately equal proportions. Like so.

The effect of the Norman conquest on the English language may or may not meet the technical criteria for a creole, but it is folly to suggest the English of 1065 is even close to being the same as the English of 1095.

[gmalivuk]

Certainly I as a modern native speaker of the English Language would have no understanding of the language of Wessex in the 900s, nor they of my language.

That's not what "continuity" means, though.

[Lenoxus]

Golly, I had no idea that comment of mine would cause such a discussion. I was originally just making a tangential remark on my own "dog vs chien" example (a remark made with much ignorance about the topic of pidgin languages). In terms of the original "literally" question, or in terms of almost any other grammar question, I don't think that much matters about the ancient origins of English, if what is being asked is "How should people use this word?" and not the probably-more-interesting "What is the deal with figurative language in English?"

(On the prescriptivist-to-descriptivist spectrum my own position is something like: languages in general are better off with certain features and without other ones, regardless either of how people currently use the langauge or how experts citing past usage precedent think it ought to currently be used. "Pre" and "de" are asking the wrong questions, although de makes a good deal more sense. I've been struggling to find the right word and I just realized it's "reformist". Allrighty then.)

This is a fascinating discussion. Carry on!

[Qaanol]

That's not what "continuity" means, though.

Right, but I also pointed out the big, glaring, Norman conquest-shaped discontinuity.

[gmalivuk]

it is folly to suggest the English of 1065 is even close to being the same as the English of 1095.

I'd say what's folly is to suggest that all of English magically changed all at once because the aristocracy happened to be French.

[eSOANEM]

Beautiful ideas Iulus Cofield, but the littlest of research would tell you why they’re wrong. It is not hard to discover that contemporary American English is the daughter language of MIddle English which was a mashup of Old English, French, and Latin, in approximately equal proportions. Like so.

Whilst that chart may be technically correct in terms of the entire lexicon, there was some research I saw a while ago which compared the charts for the entire lexicon, written and spoken English (and possibly also differentiating between socio-economic strata as well, I'm not sure) which showed that, for spoken English (and to a slightly lesser extent, written English) was almost entirely Germanic in origin with the vast majority of the Latin terms shown in your chart being technical terms not in common parlance and the French terms usually being restricted in use to the upper classes and slightly more common in written English.

it is folly to suggest the English of 1065 is even close to being the same as the English of 1095.

I'd say what's folly is to suggest that all of English magically changed all at once because the aristocracy happened to be French.

This.

The aristocracy were Norman so they would have spoken French but this would have had no effect on your average peasant who never sees his lord and only sees anyone who might have seen him when he pays his taxes.

The people who dealt with the aristocracy but who were not themselves nobles may well have ended up speaking a pidgin (although, in some parts of England, such people may have already known a bit of French anyway) but they would probably not have used it when speaking to the peasants who would not understand much of it.

[goofy]

The effect of the Norman conquest on the English language may or may not meet the technical criteria for a creole, but it is folly to suggest the English of 1065 is even close to being the same as the English of 1095.

It is folly to suggest that English suddenly changed into a different language after 1066. Estimates on how many Norman French speakers lived in England range from 2 to 10 percent of the total population. Most people in England had no direct contact with the Norman French-speaking nobility. The Peterborough Chronicle was written 100 years after the Norman invasion, and it looks a lot like Old English:

mc.xl. On þis gær wolde þe king Stephne tæcen Rodbert eorl of gloucestre þe kinges sune Henries. ac he ne myhte for he wart it war. þer efter in þe lengten þestrede þe sunne ⁊ te dæi. abuton nontid dæies. þa men eten. ð me lihtede candles to æten bi ... wæron men suythe of wundred ...

It was a few hundred years until the language was markedly different.

If Middle English was a creole and not a continuation of Old English, then what happened to Old English?

By "continuity", I mean that we can show that, while it is very different in many important ways, the English of today is a descendent of the English of 1000.

[sdkelso]

I'm jumping in with little context, so this may not have much bearing on where the discussion has gone. The examples in the OP are common examples of how philistines impoverish our language. What becomes popular, unfortunately, gradually becomes accepted, but that doesn't mean that it should be. The words (e.g. literally, etc.) are used neither literally nor figuratively, but as empty, wasted filler that don't so much add emphasis as they weigh down the sentences that they're in.

This impoverishment, which is what it is as words are losing both meaning and function, is a problem for anyone who takes language seriously and is recognized as such by almost any editor you'll come across (Mark Twain once said, paraphrased, "Every time you want to use the word very, write instead damn. Your editor will delete it and your writing will be as it should."). Perhaps it's only because I study English, but I find precision and purpose in an utterance important. I think it was suggested as soon as the second post that the way to avoid the dilemma proposed by the OP is by using adjectives or figures that properly convey the magnitude of what you wish to say, which one will find are often the very ones that he sticks very in front of.

Which is the more effective sentence: "I was literally on the edge of my seat." or "I was on the edge of my seat."? Strunk & White will have it that the second is better as it is more concise and direct and therefore more powerful, not weighed down by words not doing anything--for what it's worth, I agree.

For those citing the OED in favor of accepting the "figurative" usage of the words, I think you're making an appeal to unqualified authority. As good of a writer as Chaucer was, his use of a particular word in a particular way is not an argument for that usage. If you'd like to give actual reasons (see how the word is doing work for me) for your argument, I'd be glad to hear them.

Again, sorry if I've leaped in with too little context. I notice that the prescriptionist/descriptionist debate has come up, which is always a fun one (care to guess which side I'm on?). Please continue the debate, but make sure you make every word tell

[Iulus Cofield]

Sometimes I just want to say things and could care less about the precise meanings I may or may not be implying and
how speakers of other dialects could possibly interpretate them.

[sdkelso]

Sometimes I just want to say things and could care less about the precise meanings I may or may not be implying and
how speakers of other dialects could possibly interpretate them.

I don't have much of a problem with what you say in informal conversation. What worries me is that often what becomes popular in informal conversation becomes acceptable in formal writing, the result of which is linguistic poverty. One may accuse me of committing a slippery slope fallacy, but it has happened in the past. An example is the word aggravate in the sense of "irritate." In 1969, 43% of the members of The American Heritage Dictionary's Usage Panel were in favor of the usage, whereas in "the most recent survey" (I'm referring to the third edition of the dictionary published in 1997) the number rose to 68%. In an age where everything seems to be threatened by nihilism, I feel a vague responsibility to mobilize against it--at least by speaking proper English.

In short, the conclusion it seems is barring the road by which casual use becomes proper use. If we did that, everyone should be satisfied. Also, in this solution prescriptivists win, which means everything comes out as it should. That's how I would have it anyway. The heat goes on, though.

[eSOANEM]

I'm jumping in with little context, so this may not have much bearing on where the discussion has gone. The examples in the OP are common examples of how philistines impoverish our language. What becomes popular, unfortunately, gradually becomes accepted, but that doesn't mean that it should be. The words (e.g. literally, etc.) are used neither literally nor figuratively, but as empty, wasted filler that don't so much add emphasis as they weigh down the sentences that they're in.

No.

Before we even get into your argument itself, your opening is an attempt at both an ad hominem and, in the context of the rest of the post, an unjustified assertion.

They pretty definitely are used as intensifiers (to add emphasis). Whether you view intensifiers as dead weight is up to you, but doing so, is not really going to get you anywhere.

This impoverishment, which is what it is as words are losing both meaning and function, is a problem for anyone who takes language seriously and is recognized as such by almost any editor you'll come across (Mark Twain once said, paraphrased, "Every time you want to use the word very, write instead damn. Your editor will delete it and your writing will be as it should."). Perhaps it's only because I study English, but I find precision and purpose in an utterance important. I think it was suggested as soon as the second post that the way to avoid the dilemma proposed by the OP is by using adjectives or figures that properly convey the magnitude of what you wish to say, which one will find are often the very ones that he sticks very in front of.

No, the words are not losing meaning. That would only happen if they were no longer understood by the majority of native speakers. This is very definitely not the case. What is actually happening is that they are gaining a new usage in addition to retaining there previous one; if anything, a more precise term (something you, apparently, value) would be "enrichment".

Also, another ad hominem, congrats, now you can just say that everyone who disagrees with you "doesn't take language seriously". Great debating form there.

And no, it's most certainly not just because you study English that you value precision. Many people value precision. They also know when it is unnecessary. Furthermore, maybe it is because you study English that you are too embedded in the language as it was to truly grasp the language as it is and will be.

Which is the more effective sentence: "I was literally on the edge of my seat." or "I was on the edge of my seat."? Strunk & White will have it that the second is better as it is more concise and direct and therefore more powerful, not weighed down by words not doing anything--for what it's worth, I agree.

What Strunk & White say is irrelevant and an appeal to authority (which you accuse the other people in this thread of later). Furthermore, it is not even a particularly good authority given all of its many problems (" It is often so misguided that the authors appear not to notice their own egregious flouting of its own rules").

Anyway, how you interpret it is irrelevant, what is relevant is the intended meaning; how the speaker meant it to be interpreted and, in general, the speaker would not have included the word had they not thought it would intensify their statement.

For those citing the OED in favor of accepting the "figurative" usage of the words, I think you're making an appeal to unqualified authority. As good of a writer as Chaucer was, his use of a particular word in a particular way is not an argument for that usage. If you'd like to give actual reasons (see how the word is doing work for me) for your argument, I'd be glad to hear them.

But somehow Strunk & White are an acceptable source despite not following itself whilst the OED does? And the OED, whilst it doesn't remove words, does mark them as archaic if they have dropped out of common use so no-one is citing Chaucer as evidence for the intensifying usage of "literally" (with the possible exception of being a counter to the argument that it is a neologism) so, that's a strawman fallacy as well.

Again, sorry if I've leaped in with too little context.

It would be nice if you'd already read the rebuttals to your arguments.

Anyway, for someone who talks about fallacies used against you, you do use them an awful lot. I count two ad hominems, an unjustified assertion, an appeal to authority, and a strawman in one post alone.

I don't have much of a problem with what you say in informal conversation. What worries me is that often what becomes popular in informal conversation becomes acceptable in formal writing, the result of which is linguistic poverty. One may accuse me of committing a slippery slope fallacy, but it has happened in the past. An example is the word aggravate in the sense of "irritate." In 1969, 43% of the members of The American Heritage Dictionary's Usage Panel were in favor of the usage, whereas in "the most recent survey" (I'm referring to the third edition of the dictionary published in 1997) the number rose to 68%. In an age where everything seems to be threatened by nihilism, I feel a vague responsibility to mobilize against it--at least by speaking proper English.

Actually no. That's one fallacy I don't think you've comitted. You're quite right, that is what happens. What becomes standard in spoken English becomes standard in written English and eventually becomes archaic. This is not the same as creating linguistic poverty because this is the exact same process which brought English, from old English (which is pretty much unintelligible to most English-speakers who haven't specifically studied it) to where it is today. By your argument, old English must be a vastly richer language (which appears to be something you value) yet you do not give any credance to how Chaucer wrote in your prescriptions of grammar. This is a fundamental inconsistency in your argument and one which you must address or else your argument is one of kettle logic.

In short, the conclusion it seems is barring the road by which casual use becomes proper use. If we did that, everyone should be satisfied. Also, in this solution prescriptivists win, which means everything comes out as it should. That's how I would have it anyway. The heat goes on, though.

Why would we? Unless you believe that English as it stands is somehow better than any other language (and even a moment's consideration should tell you how absurd a position this is), why bother stopping English's evolution? Furthermore, how would you even begin doing such a thing?

And why would everyone be satisfied? This is the mind projection fallacy. It would be a very sad day when the language was not allowed to evolve as it is should were it left alone.

As for "prescriptivists win, which means everything comes out as it should" that's another unjustified assertion. I believe that, in general, descriptivism is better than prescriptivism (and, if necessary, will provide arguments as to why, but this is not the thread for that) but will never just assert that prescriptivism is better.

[goofy]

For those citing the OED in favor of accepting the "figurative" usage of the words, I think you're making an appeal to unqualified authority.

No, in citing the OED I was making an appeal to usage.

As good of a writer as Chaucer was, his use of a particular word in a particular way is not an argument for that usage.

What about the writers who have actually used figurative "literally", like Murdoch, Fitzgerald, Dickens, Joyce, Thackeray and Nabokov. Whose opinion should I trust on how to write English, William Strunk or Scott Fitzgerald?

Or Mark Twain? This quote is from the OED:

1876 ‘M. Twain’ Adventures Tom Sawyer ii. 20 And when the middle of the afternoon came, from being a poor poverty-stricken boy in the morning, Tom was literally rolling in wealth.

If you'd like to give actual reasons (see how the word is doing work for me) for your argument, I'd be glad to hear them.

The fact that it's used by good writers is the best argument for its acceptability. If you don't want to use it, fine. But it's clearly used and understood by writers who know what they're doing - unless you consider Dickens, Joyce and Twain to be philistines who are impoverishing our language.

[gmalivuk]

Perhaps it's only because I study English, but I find precision and purpose in an utterance important.

No, that has nothing whatsoever to do with your studying English. Many of us have or still do, and some of us additionally teach it, and yet we're all comfortable with the fact that everything changes, including language.

If you want to kill English by turning it into a dead, unchanging tongue, you're entitled to your own goals. Just don't expect any support from those of us who think it's a cool way to communicate.

[sdkelso]

Oh dear, let me see what I can make of this one. Since the other responses are similar, I won't reply to them specifically--I'll just add a few short comments at the end of this post.

No.

Before we even get into your argument itself, your opening is an attempt at both an ad hominem and, in the context of the rest of the post, an unjustified assertion.

They pretty definitely are used as intensifiers (to add emphasis). Whether you view intensifiers as dead weight is up to you, but doing so, is not really going to get you anywhere.

It is certainly not an ad hominem. It is a statement about what I intend to argue for. Then you beg the question, as whether or not the words function as intensifiers or dead weight is precisely what is in question.

No, the words are not losing meaning. That would only happen if they were no longer understood by the majority of native speakers. This is very definitely not the case. What is actually happening is that they are gaining a new usage in addition to retaining there previous one; if anything, a more precise term (something you, apparently, value) would be "enrichment".

Also, another ad hominem, congrats, now you can just say that everyone who disagrees with you "doesn't take language seriously". Great debating form there.

And no, it's most certainly not just because you study English that you value precision. Many people value precision. They also know when it is unnecessary. Furthermore, maybe it is because you study English that you are too embedded in the language as it was to truly grasp the language as it is and will be.

Yes, the words are losing meaning. If I use the word aggravate now in normal conversation, most people will take it to mean "irritate" (this meaning is the first entry in my computer's dictionary). It is effectively losing its meaning. And I wouldn't say that it is getting enriched, because the word irritate already means "irritate." So because of careless misuse, one word gradually loses its more precise meaning and gains the meaning of a word we already have. That I would call impoverishment.

Isn't linguistic impoverishment a problem for anyone who takes language seriously? Read my post carefully before you fallaciously (straw man) accuse me of any more fallacies I haven't committed.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I'm talking about specific cases in which I think precision is more valuable than vagueness. Feel free to attack the reasons I give for my position in regard to these specific cases.

What Strunk & White say is irrelevant and an appeal to authority (which you accuse the other people in this thread of later). Furthermore, it is not even a particularly good authority given all of its many problems (" It is often so misguided that the authors appear not to notice their own egregious flouting of its own rules").

Anyway, how you interpret it is irrelevant, what is relevant is the intended meaning; how the speaker meant it to be interpreted and, in general, the speaker would not have included the word had they not thought it would intensify their statement.

I didn't appeal to Strunk & White's authority, I cited them and then used their reasons. Your unjust accusations are doing nothing but distracting you from the reasons that I've provided. (Sorry, I had to delete your url tags as I'm a new user.)

Your second statement is simply untrue (or at least debatable). There is plenty of literature on this if you care to study. A couple good places to start are "The Intentional Fallacy" by Wimsatt and Beardsley and "The Death of the Author" by Barthes. (Not entirely relevant, but the point is that you can't just say that.)

But somehow Strunk & White are an acceptable source despite not following itself whilst the OED does? And the OED, whilst it doesn't remove words, does mark them as archaic if they have dropped out of common use so no-one is citing Chaucer as evidence for the intensifying usage of "literally" (with the possible exception of being a counter to the argument that it is a neologism) so, that's a strawman fallacy as well.

I'm sorry. Any author then. Take your pick. I don't care who uses a word in what way, it will never be an argument for it becoming an accepted usage. And for the sake of your account below, no straw man fallacy was committed--I didn't mean Chaucer and only Chaucer. (You might accuse me of contradiction, but I'd accuse you of equivocation. We're talking about different types of intention here. I'm talking about my argument and its transparency, you're talking about giving words meanings that they don't have [and that they don't even function as if they had].)

It would be nice if you'd already read the rebuttals to your arguments.

Anyway, for someone who talks about fallacies used against you, you do use them an awful lot. I count two ad hominems, an unjustified assertion, an appeal to authority, and a strawman in one post alone.

It would be nice if you made any real ones. And I count none--read more carefully next time.

Actually no. That's one fallacy I don't think you've comitted. You're quite right, that is what happens. What becomes standard in spoken English becomes standard in written English and eventually becomes archaic. This is not the same as creating linguistic poverty because this is the exact same process which brought English, from old English (which is pretty much unintelligible to most English-speakers who haven't specifically studied it) to where it is today. By your argument, old English must be a vastly richer language (which appears to be something you value) yet you do not give any credance to how Chaucer wrote in your prescriptions of grammar. This is a fundamental inconsistency in your argument and one which you must address or else your argument is one of kettle logic.

Again, I'm talking about specific cases of specific uses. I'm clueless as to how you managed to get from "We should not use words a, b, and c in ways p, q, and r because such uses lead to linguistic impoverishment for reasons x, y, and z" to "The older the better. Stop all linguistic development." Another straw man fallacy for your count.

Why would we? Unless you believe that English as it stands is somehow better than any other language (and even a moment's consideration should tell you how absurd a position this is), why bother stopping English's evolution? Furthermore, how would you even begin doing such a thing?

And why would everyone be satisfied? This is the mind projection fallacy. It would be a very sad day when the language was not allowed to evolve as it is should were it left alone.

As for "prescriptivists win, which means everything comes out as it should" that's another unjustified assertion. I believe that, in general, descriptivism is better than prescriptivism (and, if necessary, will provide arguments as to why, but this is not the thread for that) but will never just assert that prescriptivism is better.

What?! So according to you, if I think that casual use, in cases that the use leads to linguistic impoverishment, should not be a sufficient condition for proper use, then I think that English is better than other languages? I'm confused, and I think you are too. First, I'm not claiming that English or any other language shouldn't evolve. Second, if I was claiming that English shouldn't evolve, what you said still doesn't follow.

When I said everyone I meant myself and the person I was responding to. He could continue to be imprecise casually, and I wouldn't have to worry about reading academic writing full of the figurative usage of the word literally. And why do you say that? Why shouldn't we take steps to prevent evolution of particular words when said evolution leads to linguistic impoverishment. Feel free to give reasons. And I know that you don't think that said evolution leads to linguistic impoverishment, but I have given reasons why I think it does--feel free to respond to those as well. But "mind projection fallacy," I'd never heard of that one. Noted.

A harmless joke which you failed to recognize as such (I thought that the "that's how I would have it anyway" would be a dead giveaway). I feel like we haven't gotten anywhere and that I've spent this time defending myself from baseless accusations that could have been avoided with more careful reading. Please do me that courtesy next time. As for your argument, perhaps another time.

Okay, for the others (I apologize if I miss you). An appeal to usage is an appeal to authority and has nothing to do with either the form or the content of the argument (unless you think that usage is an appropriate premise, which I think is an unstable ground to rest upon--it is certainly very close to an appeal to unqualified authority). gmalivuk, you've committed a straw man fallacy--that is not what I have argued. If after you consider my argument a second time and you still feel your claim is justified, I'd accuse you of a slippery slope fallacy. I think that casual use, in cases that the use leads to linguistic impoverishment, should not be a sufficient condition for proper use, and I don't think that that is a vice grip on language evolution.

[goofy]

Yes, the words are losing meaning. If I use the word aggravate now in normal conversation, most people will take it to mean "irritate" (this meaning is the first entry in my computer's dictionary). It is effectively losing its meaning. And I wouldn't say that it is getting enriched, because the word irritate already means "irritate." So because of careless misuse, one word gradually loses its more precise meaning and gains the meaning of a word we already have. That I would call impoverishment.

The meaning of aggravate changed in the 19th century when it took on the meaning of "irritate" in addition to "make worse". This might be impoverishment, but what exactly is the effect of this impoverishment? It doesn't mean that our ability to communicate is made worse. Semantic change is a demonstrated fact about all languages. Words have been gaining and losing meanings for as long as language has been written down, and presumably for thousands of years before that. If semantic change makes communication worse, then how can we still communicate? It would appear that any worsening is compensated for. There is no reason to think that the change of the meaning of aggravate is going to prevent us from communicating. MWDEU has about a page of examples of aggravate used to mean "irritate", and I'm not confused by any of them.

Isn't linguistic impoverishment a problem for anyone who takes language seriously?

I take language seriously. And yes, if it was actually true that languages became impoverished in some way, that would be a problem. But it isn't true - at least not if we understand "impoverish" to mean "degrade to the point of communication problems" or something like that. I'm curious to know how you define impoverishment. I think you would have a problem in determining which words are unimpoverished and which are impoverished, since the meaning of every word in every language has changed at some point. You would also need to show how impoverishment is a problem.

:lol: I'm sorry. Any author then. Take your pick. I don't care who uses a word in what way, it will never be an argument for it becoming an accepted usage.

Then what does make it an accepted usage?

An appeal to usage is an appeal to authority and has nothing to do with either the form or the content of the argument (unless you think that usage is an appropriate premise, which I think is an unstable ground to rest upon--it is certainly very close to an appeal to unqualified authority).

How else do we determine what words mean, other than by examining how they are used?

Why shouldn't we take steps to prevent evolution of particular words when said evolution leads to linguistic impoverishment. Feel free to give reasons.

You can take whatever steps you want to prevent semantic change, I just don't think you will make any difference.

[gmalivuk]

So because of careless misuse, one word gradually loses its more precise meaning and gains the meaning of a word we already have. That I would call impoverishment.

Welcome to the existence of synonyms. They might have similar meanings, but they aren't identical by any means. Evidently people saw a need for a different shade of meaning near the one already provided by "irritate", so they started using "aggravate" to mean something similar.

Isn't linguistic impoverishment a problem for anyone who takes language seriously?

No. On the contrary, many people who take language seriously would deny that it's even a real thing in a living, dominant language like English.

I don't care who uses a word in what way, it will never be an argument for it becoming an accepted usage.

Then please define "accepted" without any reference to what is in fact accepted by users of a language. And note that in so doing, you are impoverishing our language of the meaning we should expect from a word that contains "accept" in it, by somehow separating it from the meaning of "accept" (or do you have a nonstandard personal definition of that word, too?).

An appeal to usage is an appeal to authority and has nothing to do with either the form or the content of the argument (unless you think that usage is an appropriate premise, which I think is an unstable ground to rest upon--it is certainly very close to an appeal to unqualified authority).

This is language we're talking about. How a language is used is determined by actual usage and nothing else. What usages are accepted are determined by actual acceptance and nothing else. What is "proper" in a language is determined by what speakers of that language deem to be "proper" and nothing else.

Yes, it's an argument from popularity, but that doesn't make it fallacious, because in this case we are arguing from common usage to make claims about common usage. I challenge you to provide any better source for studying how language is used.

I think that casual use, in cases that the use leads to linguistic impoverishment, should not be a sufficient condition for proper use.

You are begging the question by calling it linguistic impoverishment. You have yet to demonstrate that such a thing exists at all, and furthermore that it is a thing that is happening here.

[sdkelso]

I hope it's okay if I respond to both posts separately--there's just too much to cover in one post.

Great questions, goofy, I'll do my best to answer them.

The meaning of aggravate changed in the 19th century when it took on the meaning of "irritate" in addition to "make worse". This might be impoverishment, but what exactly is the effect of this impoverishment? It doesn't mean that our ability to communicate is made worse. Semantic change is a demonstrated fact about all languages. Words have been gaining and losing meanings for as long as language has been written down, and presumably for thousands of years before that. If semantic change makes communication worse, then how can we still communicate? It would appear that any worsening is compensated for. There is no reason to think that the change of the meaning of aggravate is going to prevent us from communicating. MWDEU has about a page of examples of aggravate used to mean "irritate", and I'm not confused by any of them.

First, semantic change does happen and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm referring to specific examples of semantic change still in the process of happening, the results of which I find undesirable. But you raise a good question by asking about the result of this specific semantic change. All I can say is that when I see that a word is being used in such a way that it is gradually losing its meaning in favor of the meaning of a word which is already commonly used, the language suffers. No these cases usually don't result in ambiguity or confusion, but we've effectively lost a word. It is word erosion, nothing more.

I take language seriously. And yes, if it was actually true that languages became impoverished in some way, that would be a problem. But it isn't true - at least not if we understand "impoverish" to mean "degrade to the point of communication problems" or something like that. I'm curious to know how you define impoverishment. I think you would have a problem in determining which words are unimpoverished and which are impoverished, since the meaning of every word in every language has changed at some point. You would also need to show how impoverishment is a problem.

The bolded is all I meant to say. See my comment above.

Then what does make it an accepted usage?

Again, I'm not saying that language evolution is a bad thing. I'm talking about specific cases in which there are good reasons to want to sidestep the change. In any case where a word is losing meaning and becoming more imprecise, I don't find usage a convincing argument. Just because people are doing it doesn't make it right.

How else do we determine what words mean, other than by examining how they are used?

Above.

You can take whatever steps you want to prevent semantic change, I just don't think you will make any difference.

Could the step be as simple as doing my best to speak precisely and, when the occasion calls for it (which is rarely--why I love threads like this), encouraging others to do the same?

[eSOANEM]

It is certainly not an ad hominem. It is a statement about what I intend to argue for. Then you beg the question, as whether or not the words function as intensifiers or dead weight is precisely what is in question.

I was referring to the use of the term "philistine" to describe those who disagree with you. At the very least, this is an appeal to emotion. And I did not beg the question. I asserted a statement which I then proceeded to justify with the rest of my post; at no point did I use the fact that they are used as intensifiers to show they were used as intensifiers ergo, I did not beg the question.

Yes, the words are losing meaning. If I use the word aggravate now in normal conversation, most people will take it to mean "irritate" (this meaning is the first entry in my computer's dictionary). It is effectively losing its meaning.

If the word "literally" is now used two ways, one of which is the old way, in what possible sense has it lost meaning?

As for "aggravate", it is still sometimes used for "exacerbate", particularly in a medical context, however, seeing as it did have one meaning, and now has one common meaning (albeit a different one) and its original meaning is still covered by other words, no meaning has been lost

I didn't appeal to Strunk & White's authority, I cited them and then used their reasons. Your unjust accusations are doing nothing but distracting you from the reasons that I've provided. (Sorry, I had to delete your url tags as I'm a new user.)

Your second statement is simply untrue (or at least debatable). There is plenty of literature on this if you care to study. A couple good places to start are "The Intentional Fallacy" by Wimsatt and Beardsley and "The Death of the Author" by Barthes. (Not entirely relevant, but the point is that you can't just say that.)

The accusation is not unjust; if the writer of a guide does not stick to their own rules, clearly those rules should either not be taken as literal truth, or the writer is not a reasonable authority as they hold an inconsistent position. Either way, I see no reason why, because they have given an argument (which doesn't even make sense, otherwise "very" wouldn't exist as a word) I should accept it.

I'm sorry, but I'm not about to buy a book or two because of a debate on the internet, can you please summarise their main points. My reasoning behind why I said that the intent was more important than the inference when determining meaning is because meaning can vary between idiolects. In this case, the only way to determine the exact meaning of a word in somebody's idiolect is by their intent and their inference.

You can not conclude anything based on someone else's inference because you're going to introduce another jump between idiolects. You can however make conclusions based on their intent (which can be determined by looking at a sufficiently large sample of usage).

I'm sorry. Any author then. Take your pick. I don't care who uses a word in what way, it will never be an argument for it becoming an accepted usage. And for the sake of your account below, no straw man fallacy was committed--I didn't mean Chaucer and only Chaucer. (You might accuse me of contradiction, but I'd accuse you of equivocation. We're talking about different types of intention here. I'm talking about my argument and its transparency, you're talking about giving words meanings that they don't have [and that they don't even function as if they had].)

If authors aren't a source for determining language, what is your source? How do you determine what the correct grammar of English is?

Again, I'm talking about specific cases of specific uses. I'm clueless as to how you managed to get from "We should not use words a, b, and c in ways p, q, and r because such uses lead to linguistic impoverishment for reasons x, y, and z" to "The older the better. Stop all linguistic development." Another straw man fallacy for your count.

But those specific cases are following an identical process to other cases of linguistic evolution. To single out individual cases of the same process is absurd. If you believe these instances of this process are "wrong", the process must be "wrong" in which case the argument follows.

What?! So according to you, if I think that casual use, in cases that the use leads to linguistic impoverishment, should not be a sufficient condition for proper use, then I think that English is better than other languages? I'm confused, and I think you are too. First, I'm not claiming that English or any other language shouldn't evolve. Second, if I was claiming that English shouldn't evolve, what you said still doesn't follow.

You're claiming that your specific preferred dialect of English is more "correct" than the others. Given that the exact borders between languages are somewhat fuzzy, it is not an enormous jump to claim that this "correct" English is better than other Germanic languages. It would certainly be a more logical position than trying to claim a separate "correct" dialect for every language in existence (particularly given the aforementioned difficulty in defining when a dialect becomes a separate language).

Why shouldn't we take steps to prevent evolution of particular words when said evolution leads to linguistic impoverishment. Feel free to give reasons. And I know that you don't think that said evolution leads to linguistic impoverishment, but I have given reasons why I think it does--feel free to respond to those as well.

Because you have not shown any such thing. You have shown the meaning has changed. I have shown that the word contains the same, or more meanings as before and that any meanings lost are still covered by other words; in this case, I fail to see any possible measure by which the meaning could be said to have been lost from the system, but if you have one, I'd be glad to hear it.

An appeal to usage is an appeal to authority and has nothing to do with either the form or the content of the argument (unless you think that usage is an appropriate premise, which I think is an unstable ground to rest upon--it is certainly very close to an appeal to unqualified authority).

You must acknowledge though, that, from a descriptivist (and therefore empirical and scientific) point of view, usage is the highest authority and an appeal to usage is not fallacious. Trying to argue against an appeal to usage will, unless you provide evidence against that usage, just be the old descriptivist/prescriptivist debate which, I'm sure we can agree, will not sway anyone here.

...

I'm referring to specific examples of semantic change still in the process of happening, the results of which I find undesirable. But you raise a good question by asking about the result of this specific semantic change. All I can say is that when I see that a word is being used in such a way that it is gradually losing its meaning in favor of the meaning of a word which is already commonly used, the language suffers. No these cases usually don't result in ambiguity or confusion, but we've effectively lost a word. It is word erosion, nothing more.

So you are the judge, jury and executioner when deciding whether a change is correct or not? That doesn't seem a very reasonable position.

Also, in both the cases you have cited, the original meaning is either retained, or there is another word which covers the meaning (literally retains its original meaning and aggravate retains it a bit but is covered by exacerbate). No word has been effectively lost so I fail to see how the language suffers other than against arbitrary aesthetic concerns.

Again, I'm not saying that language evolution is a bad thing. I'm talking about specific cases in which there are good reasons to want to sidestep the change. In any case where a word is losing meaning and becoming more imprecise, I don't find usage a convincing argument. Just because people are doing it doesn't make it right.

How else do we determine what words mean, other than by examining how they are used?

Above.

This is not an answer. You have stated that writers are not valid sources for determining meaning, you have also stated that an appeal to usage is fallacious. Assuming you do have some way of determining meaning (which you must do in order to communicate), it must be a rather unusual one to not rely on a corpus or common usage and so you must tell us what it is otherwise we cannot have a reasoned debate.

[sdkelso]

Welcome to the existence of synonyms. They might have similar meanings, but they aren't identical by any means. Evidently people saw a need for a different shade of meaning near the one already provided by "irritate", so they started using "aggravate" to mean something similar.

Evidently people became careless and the word aggravate lost the subtle shade of meaning it already had. What difference do you see in the words as they're currently used?

No. On the contrary, many people who take language seriously would deny that it's even a real thing in a living, dominant language like English.

See my comment in response to goofy. Or, since he seems to be the only one who understood what I meant, I'll say it again: If someone takes language seriously, then he or she would view linguistic impoverishment as a problem if such a thing existed.

Then please define "accepted" without any reference to what is in fact accepted by users of a language. And note that in so doing, you are impoverishing our language of the meaning we should expect from a word that contains "accept" in it, by somehow separating it from the meaning of "accept" (or do you have a nonstandard personal definition of that word, too?).

Fallacy of accent, as you're quoting me out of context. Of course usage determines acceptance. For (I hope) the last time: I'm referring to specific cases in which words are becoming impoverished. In such cases, usage is not an acceptable argument for making the new usage standard (or accepted). It works the same way as the refutation of any appeal to unqualified authority works: you are ignore and obscuring the reasons I've provided--please stop it.

This is language we're talking about. How a language is used is determined by actual usage and nothing else. What usages are accepted are determined by actual acceptance and nothing else. What is "proper" in a language is determined by what speakers of that language deem to be "proper" and nothing else.

Yes, it's an argument from popularity, but that doesn't make it fallacious, because in this case we are arguing from common usage to make claims about common usage. I challenge you to provide any better source for studying how language is used.

Ideally before language changes for the worse we could take steps to prevent such change (such as encouraging proper use [which is determined both by past usage and by reason, i.e. should we give up the meaning of one word so that it can mean the same thing as another word we already have--no]). I mean exactly what I say in what you respond to below: I think that casual use, in cases that the use leads to linguistic impoverishment, should not be a sufficient condition for proper use.

You are begging the question by calling it linguistic impoverishment. You have yet to demonstrate that such a thing exists at all, and furthermore that it is a thing that is happening here.

I am not begging the question, you are not reading what I'm writing. I have demonstrated "that such a thing exists" and I've given reasons for why I think "that it is a thing that is happening here." Read more closely and you'll find them.

eSOANEM, I've just seen your post. Give me a moment.
Edit: I'm exhausted just reading your response, let alone trying to answer it now. I'm having fun, guys, but I'm not used to such intense argument. I'll try to get back to you either tonight or tomorrow.

[goofy]

Then what does make it an accepted usage?

Again, I'm not saying that language evolution is a bad thing. I'm talking about specific cases in which there are good reasons to want to sidestep the change. In any case where a word is losing meaning and becoming more imprecise, I don't find usage a convincing argument. Just because people are doing it doesn't make it right.

You didn't answer my question. If the fact that people are doing it doesn't make it right, then what does make it right? Also you haven't explained what you mean by "impoverished", other than "something you find undesirable". If that's all you mean, that's fine, but you won't convince us.

Could the step be as simple as doing my best to speak precisely and, when the occasion calls for it (which is rarely--why I love threads like this), encouraging others to do the same?

But exactly in what way is using aggravate to mean "irritate" not precise? I understand that it might not be precise if it led to some confusion. But it doesn't.

[skullturf]

Wow, there are a lot of people debating here. So I'm a little hesitant to throw in my two cents, but I will.

I agree that linguistic impoverishment would be a bad thing. To take an exaggerated example, suppose that the word "orange" vanished from English tomorrow. Then I suppose it would become slightly harder to say certain things. We'd have to use awkward workarounds like "reddish-yellow" or "the color of a tangerine".

Now of course, words don't actually just vanish from the language. But they do change meaning. Perhaps at some point "aggravate" only meant "exacerbate", and then at some later time, people started saying it to mean "irritate". (NOTE: I don't know the history of the word "aggravate", but for the sake of argument, let's say that this is exactly the case: "aggravate" used to only be used to mean "exacerbate", but now many people also use it to mean "irritate".)

Has something been lost? Even if the word "aggravate" didn't exist at all, we would still be able to say on the one hand "exacerbate", "worsen", "make more serious" and on the other hand "irritate", "vex", "bother", "annoy".

I think it's hyperbole to describe these types of changes as "linguistic impoverishment". Yes, I suppose something has been "lost", but what has been lost exactly? We've lost the ability to say "aggravate" without context and have the word have only one meaning. But context would typically make clear which of the two meanings was meant. Has the language really functionally, practically, become impoverished?

(Is language impoverished because "bank" can mean "financial institution" and "side of a river"?)

[sdkelso]

Alright, fellas, I think I got in over my head here. Don't get me wrong, I think that I could counter most of your current objections, but due to the nature of argument all that would get me is a host of new objections which I may or may not be able to answer. With final papers due soon and tests to study for, I don't have the time or energy to fight a war on what is now four fronts. Fair play to you all--you're all worthy adversaries. Consider yourselves victorious, at least for now.

[Eugo]

English is not a creole (or a pidgin).

Depends how you define these terms - including the term "english language". If you define it to include all its variants currently being spoken around the world, and admit that many a novelty seeps from the outlying regions into the core, then it is.

Also, historically, it's a mix of native germanic group, latin and french, so it may have been a different creole at different times, but generally was one for centuries.

[gmalivuk]

English is not a creole (or a pidgin).

Depends how you define these terms

Well of course it does. But the way linguists define these terms, English is not a creole (or a pidgin). If you want to define "creole" as "any language that has ever borrowed words from any other language", then sure, English is a creole. But then so is every other language that has ever existed, meaning you've redefined "creole" so as to be completely useless.

[Eugo]

Well of course it does. But the way linguists define these terms, English is not a creole (or a pidgin). If you want to define "creole" as "any language that has ever borrowed words from any other language", then sure, English is a creole. But then so is every other language that has ever existed, meaning you've redefined "creole" so as to be completely useless.

Also depends on what you consider a borrowed word, and at what percentage do you draw a line. Is everything latin and french considered borrowed or not, that is the question.

[gmalivuk]

Also depends on what you consider a borrowed word, and at what percentage do you draw a line. Is everything latin and french considered borrowed or not, that is the question.

No, that is not the question, because as I said it would be stupid to define "creole" so broadly in the first place.

[Eugo]

Also depends on what you consider a borrowed word, and at what percentage do you draw a line. Is everything latin and french considered borrowed or not, that is the question.

No, that is not the question, because as I said it would be stupid to define "creole" so broadly in the first place.

Maybe it was not The Question, but it was my question. I wasn't expecting an answer.

[Derek]

The Peterborough Chronicle was written 100 years after the Norman invasion, and it looks a lot like Old English:

mc.xl. On þis gær wolde þe king Stephne tæcen Rodbert eorl of gloucestre þe kinges sune Henries. ac he ne myhte for he wart it war. þer efter in þe lengten þestrede þe sunne ⁊ te dæi. abuton nontid dæies. þa men eten. ð me lihtede candles to æten bi ... wæron men suythe of wundred ...

It was a few hundred years until the language was markedly different.

Not to disagree with your overall claim, but the fact that I can read a fair portion of that (and pretty much the entire first sentence) makes me suspect that its closer to Middle English than Old English:

On this year would the King Stephen took Rodbert Earl of Gloucester the king's son Henry*. ... Thereafter in the ... . Today ... The men ate ... I lit the candles to eat by ...

If anyone has the actual translation I would be curious to know how I did.

*This looks like a "subject verb direct-object indirect-object" construction. I think this would probably be better translated to modern English as "King Stephen took the king's son to Rodbert Earl of Gloucester". Do any Modern English dialects allow "take" to have two objects? Like "I took Mary the book" (compare "I gave Mary the book" and "I took/gave the book to Mary").

[Makri]

Apparently, it's Early Middle English. I couldn't find a translation and didn't even get far with a dictionary... But it's "Robert, Earl of Gloucester, son of King Henry". Henries is genitive, so kings ... henries is a discontinuous genitive phrase, and sune is accusative of "son". tæcen means "take captive, seize" in this case. No insinuation of direction or anything. me is impersonal/generic "(some)one", so I'm sure it say "candles were lit". I also gathered that the second sentence starts "But he could not, because..."

[goofy]

Apparently, it's Early Middle English.

Yes, it's Early Middle English, that was my point. It was written around 1150 and Middle English is dated from about 1050 to 1450. To my eyes the main difference between it and Old English is that it has less inflection. It's clearly a continuation of Old English.

English is not a creole (or a pidgin).

Depends how you define these terms - including the term "english language". If you define it to include all its variants currently being spoken around the world, and admit that many a novelty seeps from the outlying regions into the core, then it is.

No, that still doesn't make it a creole.