That's as maybe and I'm not questioning its frequency of use. It's just wrong. Folk use pacific instead of specific, of instead of have. Frequency of use should not make something somehow accurate.

Ain't it a shame that they'll probably all make it into the dictionary.
(After our time, hopefully)

Racy.

Nothing to do with value judgement. One can think stuff but not understand why. It is not wrong. In fact our brain is busier unconsciously than consciously and we spend a lot of awake time trying to grasp the result of it. Understanding oneself is way more complicated than needing a point of external reference. It has to do more with tolerating ambiguity, even within oneself. And with cognition. Epistemology. I do not think we are ok with long term inner dissonance, but it happens all the time. To fall for somebody that you actually cerebrally dislike.. to give an example. And when you consciously try to fall out of love, doesn't it get worse (better, imho)? That situ is not purely emotions vs one's ratio. I do not think we are units as isolated as we would like to be.

Did I see the shade in a daylight or inside the store before I bought it? Hahahah..Did I know the pink is called pink? I know what you mean, not trying to disagree with your theory just adding an angle. Wool was a good example, since I find it really useful. I could have bought the wrong shade while not understanding why it fits better, one realizes that later, there is delay. I also think that not understanding oneself and accepting the ambiguity has more potential than looking for harmony. I think that even conscious intent of our own actions might not help us understand ourselves better.

__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H. Pestalozzi

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is a matter of depth.” S.P. Cadman

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." A. Einstein

Will it get codified, though? I can't say I agree with our attitudes, despite the fact that my thoughts are identical with yours. Language will absorb our attitude. It will make it accurate, codified and appropriate. Our kids will laugh how finicky we used to be. I wouldn't be outraged...it is natural. Feels ignorant but internet makes it faster.

I think libarian is the worse.

Not while I have breath in this body. Then I'm uploading myself into the interwebs so I can watch them all at the back...

Solider.


Their're (I am not kidding. I could cry).


I'm all for the evolution of meaning - not sure I can cope with the evolution of spelling rules etc.

Hang on a second...

Just a moment ago you seemed to me to be claiming that it was possible to make a mistake in understanding your own thoughts... and now you've got intimate knowledge of what's going on in Rufus' head?

That's a bit of a contradiction, don't you think?

I tell you what, let's do an experiment: For a month I will sometimes substitute "Agree" for "Disagree" here on EF. I won't give any further cues, you'll just have to guess if what I actually mean is "Agree" or "Disagree". And you think that language will adapt to accommodate that, not to mention becoming more accurate, codified, and appropriate?

This must be some novel theory of communication or epistemology the likes of which I've never heard.

Please, enlighten me, but just substitute words randomly in your response... I'm guessing that this will make the whole process both more efficient and enjoyable for at most one of us.

__________________
If everyone you know agrees with you consistently, they are either not listening, or not capable of critical thought.

I could care less..I know it irks people. Rules are to be broken though, and humans do it to be different. I think there are more thugs proud of their incorrect spelling (even unintentional) than pedants flaunting their infallibility. I think people care for language which is nice. I like wearing no holes in my nylons and do not mind being corrected if it is not done in an annoying manner. That said - I think that even you know that quality thoughts do not care for how they are spelled. They have a life on their own, people often miss them because they are busy correcting spelling. It can be a show stopper. The smartest, most accurate notions often come misspelled. Are they incorrect?

__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H. Pestalozzi

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is a matter of depth.” S.P. Cadman

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." A. Einstein

I think I mostly agree with you - apart from the "even you" crack which I'm kind of choosing to rise above because I'm choosing to think I know what you mean. A kind of reciprocal mind-reading, if you will.


Apart from the last bit. If they're misspelled they'll alienate a good deal
of their audience. Then they lose impact. So no, not correct.


Rules are broken, and if it's coming out of a place of not-knowing, then ok. But educate for change. If it's a wilful messing around because the rules are known but they're being subverted/flouted/played with for a pacific () effect, then all good.


But if it's done out of ignorance and apathy, then I have a massive problem with it.


Believe me when I say that I know that not every excellent notion, or expression of understanding, has to be grammatically accurate - but it makes communication a whole lot easier if it is.

It is absolutely possible and in fact frequent to not understand oneself. I agree with Roofus. I understand the language theory of accuracy/appropriacy...yet I know the process of absorbing mistakes and turning them into correct vocab is inevitable. It has to do with prognosis and one's perception of correctness vs communicability. I do not want it that way yet know it will happen.

I can see libarian on its way to legitimacy. Etymology used to be part of language learning, it was logical, I think these days it is economy of the language taking over, rhyming, onomatopoeia. The less we read and more we carelessly write, faster the uncodified non-legit make it to the correct category.

It is not difficult to agree with Roofus, why the ott reaction, Jag?

__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H. Pestalozzi

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is a matter of depth.” S.P. Cadman

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." A. Einstein

It's RUFUS. I know you enjoy messing with stuff, but that's my name. I'm not keen when folk mess with my RL name either.


And I honestly think you're finding excuses. Yes I know things change when we rush - but knowing how to self-correct, self-edit, is important.


Etymology isn't part of language learning - it's language history. You have to understand the infinitive before you can conjugate the verb. Understand the root form then riff on it.


Language economy, as you put it, loses a lot in translation. It cannot all be about speed. There has to be pleasure in it too. To use your example - libarian - and one of mine - solider (I'm reading a lot of Macbeth essays) - it's often a mis-hearing or mispronunciation driving the spelling and if it's not caught, it propagates.

"Even you" meant somebody who cares a great deal for good quality form. Ignorance and apathy are the worst. We should questions our filters sometimes...I like the stuff that makes me check my filters. People playing with form do that I think. To discard content because the form is not perfect is silly, so is to care so little for the form that it obfuscates the meaning.

Rufus! My mnemonics get in the way sometime.

You have edited a lot - so my earlier response is a bit vague.

I may seem like looking for excuses for a phenomenon you consider wrong...yet I can't look for excuses for something I consider inherently to be a part of language development. We may dislike it (I do) yet the shift is happening. I am not usually looking for a perfection of form when casually communicating, content prevails.I think most people are not. Mistakes shift and will shift from the ocassional periphery into the codified and correct category irrespectively of us disliking it.

Etymology is great, makes learning and correct spelling easier. Ears interfere big time with correct spelling, imho.

I would not discard economy of the language as a potent motor for the shifts of codification. I think it motivates it, actually. The frequency is just a symptom. The rules are more simple, faster, spelling gets phonetic and away from complex etymology. Whether we like it or not is irrelevant.

We can harp on it. Or not. The only thing that helps the status quo in my experience is more reading. Both in quantity and quality.

__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H. Pestalozzi

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is a matter of depth.” S.P. Cadman

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." A. Einstein

ott?

You are having a dream which involves you climbing a ladder, then something happens and suddenly you're on a waterslide. Completely ignore the question of if it is a happy dream, or a nightmare, or what the ladder or the waterslide "mean" or if they actually exist. Concentrate now. While you were dreaming the bit about the ladder, was it actually a waterslide that you were dreaming of, but you somehow mistook it for a ladder? Later, while you were dreaming about the waterslide, was it actually a ladder which you mistook for a ladder?

While you are dreaming of a ladder you don't mistake the ladder for something else, for example a watermelon. Your dream may change and suddenly involve watermelons, but then you don't somehow mistake them for ladders, or waterslides, do you?

When you awake, you may or may not remember details, but even then, you aren't mistaken that you'd been dreaming are you? You may say something like "first I was on a ladder, then a waterslide", but you aren't mistaken and have to conclude that both were in fact, watermelons that you were thinking of.

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about that you can't be mistaken about in your thinking.

Descartes gave us "I think, therefore I exist", (and he give a similar argument about thoughts - his version was "even if I'm thinking mistakenly, I am still indisputably thinking"). He gave us proof of our existence, but he left us alone in the world (solipsism).

It wasn't until Wittgenstein came along and observed that we have language, and that misunderstandings sometimes happen when we use it, that the problem of other minds (solipsism) was finally resolved. Wittgenstein gave us proof of each other's existence by pointing out that we sometimes misunderstand each other.

The very fact that I am struggling to get this fairly simple idea across to you is proof that you and I are distinct beings - I'm not mistaken about what I'm thinking about. I may not be expressing it particularly well, but I'm not misunderstanding what it is that I am thinking about.

LiB, you started it. Help me out here.

__________________
If everyone you know agrees with you consistently, they are either not listening, or not capable of critical thought.

I solopsisy, therefore I is.

I can't even write on the "Word of Today" thread without causing havoc.

Alright, well I haven't read all the responses. Actually, I haven't read any beside yours but yeah, I agree. Totally worth it dude. Keep on trucking and all.

What this forum needs is a /slap button.

I could slap you with a ban, would you prefer that?

Wow, I always only call it "f&uck" I had a bad dream" - no room for misunderstandings.
Do you regale a partner with all this when you wake up in the morning :-).

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to communicate. Are you talking about bombarding me with watermelons? Ladders perhaps?

Jag - you might be looking for misunderstanding. I know I can come out as confrontational when I am not being confrontational, you come across unpalatably patronizing sometimes, we all probably do.

I am pointing out our fab ability to not understand not only to others but also oneself, the constructive chaos and ambiguity it brings. A chance... I am not saying you are mistaken. There are moments when we think (while we are not mistaken, gotta keep putting in this dislaimer), when our thoughts question the logic and the illusion of set order we have had just until now. Dtto for talking to somebody else. Misunderstandings are good - confront our adjustability, get us from the autopilot, bring concepts to consciousness, etc. I think a lot depends on how we manage these misunderstandings...what quality discourse (inner or outer) we promote.

__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H. Pestalozzi

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is a matter of depth.” S.P. Cadman

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." A. Einstein