O noes! The theme is gone!

I hate what people have done to the English language, which is already a complicated mess of exceptions and contradictions. I want to scratch my eyes out when people change the meaning of words that have meant one thing for hundreds of years, or worse, make up a word and use it so much that dictionaries relent and add it (see: adj "performant").

Jeff:

or worse, make up a word and use it so much that dictionaries relent and add it (see: adj "performant").

You obviously would know more about this than I. But weren’t all words made up at one time or another? Whats the qualifications to add a word to dictionaries and make it official ?

Right? You beat me to it, but how do we know that waffles are waffles and not pancakes. Maybe we got the two switched and we are calling them the wrong things.

For Christ's sake, now you want to litigate the entire evolution of language for all of time?

Well if we cannot agree on whether or not to add fluoride to water, it seems only logical that everything is now open to debate.

For better or worse, that's what tends to happen: the "definition" of the language evolves to match use, rather than the other way around. Prof. Anne Curzan, the former Dean of LSA at U-M, has a segment on Michigan Public Radio where she dives into some of these things:

https://www.michiganpublic....t-they-say

One of her earlier books is exactly about the question of attempts at institutionally defining English, and how it interacts with usage evolution. I hadn't realized she'd written it until I went looking at her bio, but it seems like a good fit for this particular thread side-quest.

https://www.goodreads.com/b...ng-english

Jeff:

For Christ's sake, now you want to litigate the entire evolution of language for all of time?

You must be new to CoasterB....

Oh, wait.

Brian Noble:

the "definition" of the language evolves to match use, rather than the other way around

Jeff:
For Christ's sake,

Perfect example.

No, this is definitely something Jesus, the son of God and Lord and Savior of all creation is into. I know because I read it in his rulebook (written in ancient Greek and Hebrew which nobody speaks anymore). And I'm always objectively right.

Jeff:

make up a word and use it so much that dictionaries relent and add it

But isn’t this literally every word in the dictionary? Or is the dictionary like the Amish where the optimal time is a point at which we just stop progressing?

I agree that language will always progress and change, but sometimes, like when a non-word like "irregardless" is used incorrectly so much that it's added to the dictionary when it means exactly the same as "regardless", it's pretty ridiculous. Speaking of which, when will "rediculous" be added? I propose that if it is, we should also add "diculous", define it, and then "rediculous" could properly be defined as "diculous, again".

I hate "irregardless" with a fiery passion. I think it came about when people didn't know if they wanted to say "regardless" or "irrespective," and so they just mashed them together.

From Merriam Webster on irregardless:

The reason we, and these dictionaries above, define irregardless is very simple: it meets our criteria for inclusion. This word has been used by a large number of people (millions) for a long time (over two hundred years) with a specific and identifiable meaning ("regardless"). The fact that it is unnecessary, as there is already a word in English with the same meaning (regardless) is not terribly important; it is not a dictionary's job to assess whether a word is necessary before defining it. The fact that the word is generally viewed as nonstandard, or as illustrative of poor education, is likewise not important; dictionaries define the breadth of the language, and not simply the elegant parts at the top.

The older I get, the less bothered I get by this type of stuff. Purpose of language is to communicate. If I know what you are saying, I tend not to get up in arms about words being nonstandard, less elegant, etc. Certain communications need to be more precise/formal. But much of every day communications doesn't require that. And maybe its because I spend so much of my working day involved in drafting where language is critical that I am ok getting a break from that.

Much of Europe doesn't add fluoride to its drinking water. So, I don't view it as crazy to think about whether we should add it to ours. I don't view it as a top priority/first day issue though. But I also don't think we should blindly move forward with things we have done for long periods of time simply because they have been done that way for a long time. Circumstances change. We learn more info. Often times something has been done a certain way because it makes sense to do that. But that won't necessarily be the case to the horizon or even shorter term for certain things.

GoBucks89:

The older I get, the less bothered I get by this type of stuff.

The more my friend says "supposably" instead of "supposedly", the less I cringe, but only because I'm used to it. Regardless, "irregardless" just sounds blatantly wrong to me every time I see/hear it.

"Supposably" still bumps me, but I would never correct someone live. Same with "nucular."

Regarding "irregardless," I still hate "irregardless," regardless of what Merriam-Webster says, and irrespective of how commonly used it is.

I've read Shakespeare. We've already bastardized the language beyond redemption.

Like most of the things across the course of this discussion, I think language is a living, breathing, always morphing thing - we just happen to be alive for this 75 years of the show. It's not right or wrong - it's just ours.

I guess I'm surprised at how concrete some ideas are to people. My world is much less set.

It's interesting.

"Should of" makes we want to stab myself in the eye with a fork.

My wife says "boughten" a lot. As in, "I've boughten that before," rather than "I have bought that before."

Don't forget "I seen it". Justifiable homicide.