> However, human nature, as displayed by the history of languages,
> disagrees with you. When you speaking of hailing a cab, you don't think
> of a cabriolet ("cab" for short), a two-wheeled, two-seat, one-horse
> carriage with a folding top; but that's where the name came from. And
> when you read "carriage" in the previous sentence you probably weren't
> connecting it with "carry", but that's its origin. Word meanings and
> usages have fuzzy boundaries, and extending them is natural. We would
> have a much harder time communicating if we had to invent a new word
> every time we encountered something that was a bit different from the
> last thing we had seen that was similar to it.
True. At the same time, however, human nature does not
mean "correct". In your above examples, for instance,
No one ever told me where the word "cab" came from (yes,
I knew by making an educated guess:) And I'll even go
so far as to agree with what you say. But "carriage" is
a new word, compared to "carry". "Cab" is a word apart from
"cabriolet". So we are, in a sense, in the habit of inventing
new words for slightly different usages. At the same time,
we also have a tendency, as human beings (or at least American's,
I'm not a linguist:) to create or change words where there is
no real need. Slang being the most obvious example. How many
words do we need to express, for instance, killing someone?
Yes, words do change over time, and I take greate enjoyment
in learning the etymology of words, but when we've got words
to use, and they're just being changed for no visible reason,
or used because they "sound good" (read: most words used in
business "jargon":) it doesn't make much sense to me.
> #At the same time, words are constantly being "slanged",
>
> Did you mean that to be self-referential?
<sly grin and sigh> I love irony... :)
> #I think, because of a lack of understanding of actual definitions,
> #people generaly don't know what a word is supposed to mean, and
> #only knows its definition by its source or the definition a reader/
> #user will give to it at the time. Someone reading the word
> #"subjective" might not know the actual definition, and may assume
> #it has something to do with, say, the subject of a sentence.
>
> As it does when it is the name of a grammatical case.
Yes, but person "A" who uses it in conversation to person "B"
might mean one thing, while person "B" hears another.
> Well, if they copied each other there'd be real fights about copyright.
> -- Do you believe that dictionaries create or fix meaning? They do not.
Of course they don't (and no, I don't:)
> They describe the meaning of words as they are used. People consult
> dictionaries to find out what other people mean when they use the words,
But that alone can cause confusion in a language. Which dictionary
do "we" use if, say, there's an argument over the meaning of a word?
> just as they consult atlases to find out where places are, because these
> reference books reflect the real world -- unlike consulting a company's
> web site to find out the exact title of their chief financial officer.
> The company creates the title; if they call her "Comptroller" or "Chief
> Financial Officer" or "Vice President for Finance", that IS her title,
> and if they change it, it IS changed; they define it, so they cannot be
> wrong. (This is a made-up example, so please, nobody tell me that
> there's a legal reason to keep them distinct.) But if Merriam-Webster
> decided to change the definition of "fig" in their next edition to make
> it the same as the definition of "prune", the definition would be wrong.
OK, now what if all the dictionary-writers got together and
decided to change "fig" to mean "prune"? Would that make it
right?
> Lexicographers look at usage and try to figure out how people mean a
> word. They may quite honestly and competently come to somewhat different
> conclusions. Such is life.
Certainly... :)
Chris
"I feel if a person can't communicate,
the very least they can do is shut up."
~ Tom Lehrer ~