Legal Drinking Age in the United States

Сообщение от Squishalot

Who would question the validity of a phrase that's been in use for two generations? The only question is whether its origin was a strict debasement or something else.

So by that argument, 'pwned' will be a valid word in about 20 years time?

The phrase "I couldn't care less" was only in America 1-2 decades longer than the other one...should we question the validity of that in America too?

One makes sense (i.e. is understood correctly) when read literally. The other doesn't.

That I derived it? I'm not doing any deriving. The phrase is 30 years older than I am. I'm using a common American phrase.

I'll rephrase. If you're not using it in its original context, it's unlikely that your use of it was derived from the original context that you're claiming.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

So by that argument, 'pwned' will be a valid word in about 20 years time?
If it rises out of the jargon category, where it is now. It's perfectly valid when used in the context of jargon.

One makes sense (i.e. is understood correctly) when read literally. The other doesn't.
It makes perfect sense ...if you understand the phrase.

"Head over heals" (if that's another American phrase you've never heard of than ignore this) in a vacuum makes no logical sense if you don't understand the phrase... but if you do understand the phrase, you understand what the phrase means. Languages may use words as their smallest conceptual building blocks in theory, but concepts always develop that encompass more than just individual words.

If you're not using it in its original context, it's unlikely that your use of it was derived from the original context that you're claiming.
How am I not using it in it's original context (i.e. as an American colloquialism)?

Сообщение от Squishalot

If it rises out of the jargon category, where it is now. It's perfectly valid when used in the context of jargon.

Which leaves 'could care less' in its category of colloquialism, where it may be perfectly valid as a colloquialism, but invalid as proper English. "I don't got no smarts" may be valid as a colloquialism, but it's not proper English. Going into music, "I can't get no satisfaction" isn't intended to be an ironic / sarcastic statement, it's just butchering the English language as a colloquialism.

"Head over heals" (if that's another American phrase you've never heard of than ignore this) in a vacuum makes no logical sense if you don't understand the phrase... but if you do understand the phrase, you understand what the phrase means. Languages may use words as their smallest conceptual building blocks in theory, but concepts always develop that encompass more than just individual words.

Head over heels (unless you're a Resto Shaman in real life, of course) at least is similar to its literal meaning in context (e.g. rolling down a hill whereby your head is passing over your heels and knocking you over forwards). (At least, I assume that's the meaning of the phrase, in the 'Jill came tumbling after' sense, right?)

'Could care less', again, means the exact opposite of its literal meaning in context.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

Which leaves 'could care less' in its category of colloquialism, where it may be perfectly valid as a colloquialism, but invalid as proper English. "I don't got no smarts" may be valid as a colloquialism, but it's not proper English. Going into music, "I can't get no satisfaction" isn't intended to be an ironic / sarcastic statement, it's just butchering the English language.

A) There is a linguistic difference between slangisms and colloquialisms.
B) Colloquialisms are completely valid and proper English. They're informal English, which is something different.

Head over heels (unless you're a Resto Shaman in real life, of course) at least is similar to its literal meaning in context (e.g. rolling down a hill whereby your head is passing over your heels and knocking you over forwards). (At least, I assume that's the meaning of the phrase, in the 'Jill came tumbling after' sense, right?)
Gotta love how you'll wiggle anything to fit your explanation, but get anal about any wiggling I do to explain something...

Obviously "head over heels" qua phrase means much more than "head over heels" qua individual words taken in a vacuum.

That that phrase is less illogical when taken in vacuum is irrelevant, because we're not supposed to take any phrase in a vacuum when we hear it.

Сообщение от Squishalot

Colloquialisms are completely valid and proper English. They're informal English, which is something different.

I disagree, but I've got no supporting evidence to do so, so I'll leave it at that. I can accept that a colloquial term doesn't need to be a 'proper' English term, but perhaps disagree that 'could care less' is colloquial in the first place. Should something that's derived from a mistake (hypothetically considering it was, or otherwise, substitute 'pwned' instead if you want) be considered correct?

Obviously "head over heels" qua means much more than "head over heels" qua individual words taken in a vacuum.

Obviously, if you know the meaning of a phrase, it means more than taking the individual words in a vacuum.

My point is that if you explain the basic context of 'head over heels', someone who was learning English and understood it literally would be able to understand how the phrase fits into the context. That's not likely to occur with 'could care less'.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

What makes "owned" any more correct? Language is, at its root, arbitrary. It's a human machination that apart from a few necessary outside restrictions (like being limited to sounds we can actually make), it's self-evolving. So if we're going to come to some understanding of correctness, we need to come to some understand of the principles of language. I have maintained and continue to do so that language is about conveying concepts clearly. Thus, if a word is in common use over a period of time within a large group of people, then it is a proper word. Since the phrase in question is only used commonly in America, we call it a colloquialism. Pwned is used only commonly used by people within the gaming/computer culture, so we call that jargon.

I...disagree that 'could care less' is colloquial
...
You're serious? It's a common phrase used in informal speech in a particular region. That's what a colloquialism is.

My point is that if you explain the basic context of 'head over heels', someone who was learning English and understood it literally would be able to understand how the phrase fits into the context. That's not likely to occur with 'could care less'.

The relative thinking capacity of someone learning the language has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've been talking about. I'm very good friends with half a dozen Korean guys who I knew before they could speak a word of English. There were so many English phrases they didn't understand that it became a chore explaining a new one to them every day. One I remember well was "hit the lights"; that one caused quite a stir.

Сообщение от Squishalot

Thus, if a word is in common use over a period of time within a large group of people, then it is a proper word.

Wiki seems to refer to that as a dialect, not a colloquialism. That would suggest that it's separate from English, where a person who wasn't familiar with the phrase wouldn't be able to understand the concept.

If anyone with an understanding of textbook English hadn't seen the phrase 'could care less' before in the context of its meaning 'couldn't care less', how would they interpret it?

The relative thinking capacity of someone learning the language has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've been talking about.

I'm not sure how your example of a group of people who don't understand English is relevant to a discussion about conveying concepts in English clearly.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

I'm not sure how your example of a group of people who don't understand English is relevant to a discussion about conveying concepts in English clearly.

So wait...you're calling me out for responding to your irrelevant claim?

You're losing your touch.

Wiki seems to refer to that as a dialect, not a colloquialism.
How are you even comparing those two words?

A dialect is a particular variety of a language specified and distinguished by its phonology, grammar, and vocabulary. A colloquialism is a phrase used in common, informal speech usually in a specific geographic region.

American English is a dialect (or at least a proto-dialect), "could care less" is a colloquialism. It's like comparing Apples and Apple Trees... it really makes no sense.

If anyone with an understanding of textbook English hadn't seen the phrase 'could care less' before in the context of its meaning 'couldn't care less', how would they interpret it?
What is textbook English? Everything but knowing what this specific phrase means? Either they know it or they don't.

Сообщение от Squishalot

So wait...you're calling me out for responding to your irrelevant claim?

No, I'm calling out your claim of irrelevance. I thought that was fairly clear. I'm saying that someone who understood textbook English (see below) wouldn't understand the phrase, and you respond with an example of someone who understands no English as an example of how my claim is irrelevant?

What is textbook English? Everything but knowing what this specific phrase means? Either they know it or they don't.

I'll define it tentatively as English, not including any colloquialisms or jargon which are specific to a particular region. If you said 'could care less' to an Englishman, they would assume that you literally cannot care more.

Сообщение от pezz

This whole conversation is arctadubalubrious.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

I'll define it tentatively as English, not including any colloquialisms or jargon which are specific to a particular region. If you said 'could care less' to an Englishman, they would assume that you literally cannot care more.
So...?
That's exactly what it means to be a colloquialism. If a Brit told that same person to "light up a #$%" he would think you meant to set fire to "a rough or defective spot in a woven fabric," which is pretty much the only definition I can find that isn't colloquial or slang. Does that mean anything? All it means is that !@# is a British colloquial term (it could also be slang, I don't speak British, so I don't know) for a cigarette.

I'm saying that someone who understood textbook English (see below) wouldn't understand the phrase, and you respond with an example of someone who understands no English as an example of how my claim is irrelevant?

...someone who was learning English...

My example was clearly about my Korean friends learning English. I'm the one who's up past his bed time...I should be making the stupid mistakes, not you.

Сообщение от Monday

I'm honestly very surprised that you're still arguing about this. +

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

I'm honestly very surprised that you're still arguing about this. +

I'm surprised you don't know us better.

Сообщение от Squishalot

So...?
That's exactly what it means to be a colloquialism.

No, a colloquialism would typically cause the Englishman to question what you were talking about, because your phrase didn't make sense. Where this is a problem is that your colloquialism can make sense in and of its own right.

Anyway, going back to the original point (way back there somewhere), whether it's a colloquialism or not doesn't change the fact that it's a butchery of the English language, by virtue of its figurative meaning being the opposite of its literal meaning.

My example was clearly about my Korean friends learning English. I'm the one who's up past his bed time...I should be making the stupid mistakes, not you.

In my mind, I had a mental image of a person who had a command of basic English. In any event, the fact that you had to teach the Koreans what each phrase meant exactly defeats the purpose. If you told someone learning English that "could care less" means "couldn't care less", they'd wonder what the hell you were on.

I'm honestly very surprised that you're still arguing about this. +

I'm surprised you don't know us better.

Indeed. Did you want to take my place? My mind doesn't seem to be all here - not working that well either. I think it's too hot in my corner of the office at the moment.

Сообщение от Monday

Indeed. Did you want to take my place? My mind doesn't seem to be all here - not working that well either. I think it's too hot in my corner of the office at the moment.

No thanks. I learned not to argue with HSR long ago, mainly as I have a case of Buffy Speak and I'm still in High school, so meh.

Сообщение от Squishalot

Since when did being in High School have anything to do with it? :P

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

No, a colloquialism would typically cause the Englishman to question what you were talking about, because your phrase didn't make sense. Where this is a problem is that your colloquialism can make sense in and of its own right.
So your point is that someone who doesn't know what the phrase means doesn't know what the phrase means.

That's quite a step forward.

Anyway, going back to the original point (way back there somewhere), whether it's a colloquialism or not doesn't change the fact that it's a butchery of the English language, by virtue of its figurative meaning being the opposite of its literal meaning.
How is that a butchery of English? We park in driveways and drive on parkways...oh no, what butchery! I gave an account of what it means to be "correct" in language, and from that concluded that a change that sticks and becomes common is perfectly acceptable. All you've done is say that it's bad English, with no standard of measurement.

Сообщение от Monday

Since when did being in High School have anything to do with it? :P

Two reasons.

I haven't spent any time on the origin of languages since about two years ago in AP Geography/World Civ. I'm really rusty, and frankly I'm not going to bother arguing about whether something is jargon or will ascend into regular use in 20 years.

And secondly: I really dislike arguing with people who have higher education than me. People, Aestu especially, try and mask their true purpose with the longest and most obscure words they can find to make themselves sound intelligent and well informed.

Сообщение от Squishalot

So your point is that someone who doesn't know what the phrase means doesn't know what the phrase means.

My point is that someone who doesn't know what the phrase means (to you) will be able to infer a meaning from it regardless. This wouldn't actually work with most colloquialisms. If I ask you to give me a fair shake of the sauce bottle in this argument, taken literally, it wouldn't make any sense. You could read into it and try to derive the colloquial meaning, but on its own, there's no sauce bottle here, so why am I asking you to give me a fair shake of it?

It's the same idea that many parents don't understand the language kids use generally. If they're being asked to 'get down with it', a first instinct is to take it literally, until they attempt to read into it. Do colloquialisms hinder the communication of concepts? Possibly, if your target audience doesn't know them. Would colloquialisms hinder the communication of concepts to an international community? Absolutely.

How is that a butchery of English? We park in driveways and drive on parkways...oh no, what butchery! I gave an account of what it means to be "correct" in language, and from that concluded that a change that sticks and becomes common is perfectly acceptable. All you've done is say that it's bad English, with no standard of measurement.

I gave you a standard of measurement - as comparable to English, with no colloquialisms or jargon included. What other standard can there be? If a colloquialism was that accepted, it would be English.

People, Aestu especially, try and mask their true purpose with the longest and most obscure words they can find to make themselves sound intelligent and well informed.

Funden, did you just compare Hyperspacerebel to Aestu....? oO;;

Сообщение от Monday

Funden, did you just compare Hyperspacerebel to Aestu....? oO;;

No. Well, perhaps in an indirect way, but my point was that I don't debate with anybody who has graduated from a university.

Legal Drinking Age in the United States

Ответить