Comments on: If you’ve got it, flout it

By: garymar

garymar — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:53:04 +0000

Mr. Ripley,

I know this thread is already dead, and you’ll probably never see this, but my reply to your #31 post is as follows:

Shakespeare is the god of English, Austen one of his angels.

By: Cryptic Ned

Cryptic Ned — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 18:19:22 +0000

I don’t think that “indifference” is an obscure and archaic term used by word snobs. It’s reasonable to get annoyed when two words that used to mean different things come to mean the exact same thing, but it’s unavoidable.

But it works out; nowadays “disinterest” is a synonym for “indifference”, and what “disinterest” used to mean is now conveyed by the term “objectivity”.

By: language hat

language hat — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:23:44 +0000

to insist that nevertheless they continue caring about spelling is getting close to rule-worship/snobbery/exclusivity/conformity for its own sake

applauds

I’d say, “Why do we need ‘disinterest’ to mean ‘indifference’ when we already have an elegant term for the condition in question?”

Who’s “we”? If you’re the only one left using it, exactly who are you impressing and/or enlightening? Would you prefer we still use bead in its original and hence “correct” sense of ‘prayer’? See above regarding rule-worship/snobbery/exclusivity/conformity for its own sake.

By: almostinfamous

almostinfamous — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 06:21:34 +0000

this post has peaked my interest.

By: Mr Ripley

Mr Ripley — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:18:19 +0000

Ah, but garymar, now everyone says mitigate against. Which is only forgivable when there are militating circumstances.

As for Jane Austen, her use of a phrase certainly refutes the claim that it’s a “modern barbarism”; but I never quite understood the whole, “It must be legit because a great storyteller, or a character created by one, said it.” Using, say, Shakespeare as an arbiter of usage would just make things worser.

I tend to go in the opposite direction from Chris #19: rather than say, “Okay, we’re losing the distinctive meaning of ‘disinterested’ but now we have ‘unbiased’ as a tool to take its place,” I’d say, “Why do we need ‘disinterest’ to mean ‘indifference’ when we already have an elegant term for the condition in question?”

By: dust

dust — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 04:04:36 +0000

Language change…

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/flaunt

transitive senses
1 : to display ostentatiously or impudently : PARADE
2 : to treat contemptuously

usage Although transitive sense 2 of flaunt undoubtedly arose from confusion with flout, the contexts in which it appears cannot be called substandard . If you use it, however, you should be aware that many people will consider it a mistake. Use of flout in the sense of flaunt 1 is found occasionally .

By: garymar

garymar — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:07:17 +0000

In the sixties I once read a column by an English-language ‘maven’ (was it Cleveland Amory?) who decried the hideous modern barbarism of militate against. Then I noticed this phrase in a Jane Austen novel, and concluded that columnists often don’t know what they’re talking about.

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:49:08 +0000

Careening refers to the practice of grounding a ship on the falling tide to allow work on its hull. Mr Wimberly would doubtless prefer “careering” (galloping). I’m of the opinion that careening conveys the idea of slaloming more effectively than careering does, with the idea of leaning way over to one side. But I’m a native speaker of New Jerseyan, so I have some strange locutions. (Here’s a material-determinist idea: American cars careen more than European because of their soft suspension—I’m thinking fondly of my 1985 Mercury Marquis.)

By: chris

chris — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:18:24 +0000

mc: Yeah. I learned Latin and can spell. my baby sister didn’t and can’t spell her way out of a paper bag. She earns about twice what I do in the same industry. Yay spelling!

By: mc

mc — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:04:19 +0000

chris y at 19 – i think that’s the right distinction to make, in considering which distinctions to defend. you also mention latin. for what it’s worth, i decided a while back to try to stop caring about spelling – on the basis that if fewer and fewer people are going to learn latin/greek/etymology etc., to insist that nevertheless they continue caring about spelling is getting close to rule-worship/snobbery/exclusivity/conformity for its own sake. i never quite succeeded in getting myself to stop caring, but i still think it is basically the right position – given how seldom spelling actually obscures meaning. and of course reading pre-19th century writers reminds you how little they cared about spelling conformity. and it didn’t hold them back much in making a contribution to scholarship/human knowledge etc.

By: Cryptic Ned

Cryptic Ned — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:27:20 +0000

Sure, these distinctions will blur with time as language lives on.

For example, I have no idea what the mistake being pointed out in comment #22 is. Do pirates have something to do with using an equals sign instead of a hyphen?

By: Mo MacArbie

Mo MacArbie — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:06:01 +0000

Sure, these distinctions will blur with time as language lives on. Ans even worse, soon dictionary spellings will include numerals.

By: jen r

jen r — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:05:24 +0000

Oh, cut the BBC copyeditors some slack. I’m sure they’re overworked and underpaid, just trying to eek out a living as best they can.

(I thought about trying to work in a riff on the misuse of “begs the question”, but so few people get that right that I was afraid people would think I meant it unironically.)

By: James Wimberley

James Wimberley — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:00:08 +0000

Whenever I read of out=of-control cars careening along the street, I’m sorry for the pirates on board trying to scrape the barnacles off.

By: eweininger

eweininger — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:19:12 +0000

Ground control to Mao Tse Tung….