Lost for words...

[barkwindjammer]

'At the end of the day!' is another.

Roy.

my Tourettes kicks in with this one

"23:59 and 59 seconds-precisely"

 

[condeesteso]

Wow, good responses!! Enjoyed reading. Eric the V first post truly excellent... and on a lighter note re Geordie... Michael Macintyre saying some guy looked across the bar and said "Is yous lookin' at us?" (he was alone). M M says "Just how many mistakes can you make in one sentence?" Funny, that!

 

[RogerM]

No one's touched on the incorrect use of "less" in place of "fewer" yet. I get thoroughly pineappled by people who should know better - particularly BBC interviewers - who talk about "less people" - and I'll swear that recently I heard one refer to "a less amount" of people. Whenever I hear "less people" I normally respond by saying they are the same size as they always were - it's just that there are fewer of them. Rant - like - over, for sure!

 

[Benchwayze]

All languages must evolve, or we would still be using words like 'prithee', and 'methinks' on a regular basis.


However, I agree Richard and I believe the authorities have shunned Fowler's 'English Usage and Abusage' for some years now. My online dictionary won't even accept abusage, but then it is an American browser, so I am not surprised! Please, don't get me started on punctuation and your-you're and its-it's. :roll:

John

 

[woodbloke]

Interesting reads to date...let's not forget that the language is a 'living' thing and whether we like certain phrases or not, sufficient usage within the populace at large means that they become 'official'. You only need to read a piece of 19th century text from the Times to realize how the language moves on, even more obtuse is trying to fathom your way through Chaucer...init? - Rob

 

[RogerM]

Interesting reads to date...let's not forget that the language is a 'living' thing and whether we like certain phrases or not, sufficient usage within the populace at large means that they become 'official'. You only need to read a piece of 19th century text from the Times to realize how the language moves on, even more obtuse is trying to fathom your way through Chaucer...init? - Rob

I completely agree Rob, but sometimes a word which has a precise meaning is misused so often that the original precise meaning is lost. Then when we want to express ourselves precisely and unambiguously there isn't a word that will do that any more.

 

[Lons]

All languages must evolve, or we would still be using words like 'prithee', and 'methinks' on a regular basis.

What :shock: When did that happen :?: News to me :? :?

 

[Benchwayze]

All languages must evolve, or we would still be using words like 'prithee', and 'methinks' on a regular basis.

What :shock: When did that happen :?:

Since we replaced it with the word please Lons! :mrgreen:

John
:wink:

 

[Pvt_Ryan]

methinks I still use methinks... :/

 

[studders]

4soof.

A new take on an old favourite?

 

[Benchwayze]

methinks I still use methinks... :/

Me to PR, although, I didn't say that no one used it any more, but it is a word that isn't used a lot these days.
Methinks I should have composed my post 'carefuller'! :lol:

Cheers

John

 

[DOOGYREV]

First, here's a tale.
Some years ago I was driving through south London, wife beside me, 2 daughters in back. We approached one of the long hills near Crystal Palace, and I saw a guy on a bike cycling up-hill very impressively. Without thinking (much) I said "Wow, he looks fit."
The reaction from the back of the car was immediate and electric - the daughters were beside themselves... near pain with laughter.
That was when I learned that 'fit' means something else now, and one man mustn't say that about another man. That was not always the case.
I realised I had just lost a word from my vocabulary.
Very long before that, there was another word I was fond of - 'gay'. I still believe the word gay captured a feeling, a state that no other word in our language quite does. Gay is kind of happy but light, bouncy, casual, bright... it is a word with a lot of colour and vibrance.
We lost that one years ago.

SO, recently I have been re-introducing 'lost' words in order to get the word count back up. If one gets nicked, then bring one back to replace it.
I am currently working on 'wireless' and 'lavatory'. Wireless is a great word... "Did you hear the interview with xyz on the wireless yesterday?" And if you ever looked inside one, it was excitingly wire-full.
I fear we are close to losing 'lavatory', which we would live to regret. It is elegant (as a word) and distinct in the English language. Toilet / toilette... I prefer the French. And as for 'bathroom' it simply avoids the subject.
So help me out. From now on, bog oak shall be known as 'lavatory oak'.

Any other words we all need to re-activate??

Some great posts, I have enjoyed reading them.
Some of the words I would like to see 're-activated' are; Hoodwinked, Artisan and Lackadaisical.

I also like the idea of Onomatopoeia when it comes to the creation of new words, like the welsh for microwave is something like 'pop ti ping' although I am unaware of the origin, I believe it works well.

 

[Digit]

As stated earlier, the language evolves, only dead ones, such as Latin and classical Greek, do not.
Prithy, for example is a derivation of 'pray thee', but evolution is no excuse for lack of grammar, punctuation or bad spelling.

Roy.

 

[DOOGYREV]

I saw a episode of QI a while back, an I was pleased to hear that they have abolished the apostrophe to indicate the possessive, I never could get the hang of that thing, it just means feet to me.
They also stated that they no longer teach i before e with the exception being after c, because as it turns out there are exceptions to the rule then there are in the rule itsself.

 

[Digit]

that they have abolished the apostrophe to indicate the possessive,

Who has? Actually it does not indicate possession, it indicates a missing letter, usually E, as in Dan's, possessive, as opposed to Dans, plural.
How would you manage this without the apostrophe?
There was an example of this recently in a Sunday paper with street names, eg, 'Pipers Croft' versus 'Piper's Croft', somewhat different I think. It all comes down to grammar, as no longer taught, as being unimportant.

Roy.

 

[RogerM]

that they have abolished the apostrophe to indicate the possessive,

Who has? Actually it does not indicate possession, it indicates a missing letter, usually E, as in Dan's, possessive, as opposed to Dans, plural.
How would you manage this without the apostrophe?
There was an example of this recently in a Sunday paper with street names, eg, 'Pipers Croft' versus 'Piper's Croft', somewhat different I think. It all comes down to grammar, as no longer taught, as being unimportant.

Roy.

You're not married to Lynn Truss by any chance are you Roy? I do agree with you though. It all comes back to what I said earlier concerning the retention of words (and grammar) that have a precise meaning, which eventually becomes lost if they are deemed to be interchangeable. I need only refer to my own "bete noir" - "less" and "fewer".

 

[Digit]

You're not married to Lynn Truss

Who?

The apostrophe was introduced to help remove ambiguities from the written word, remove them and you reintroduce those ambiguities.
But why stop there? Let's remove punctuation marks, capital letters, sentences and paragraphs. If anyone thinks that that is good idea I suggest they try reading some posts on the various social sites!

Roy.

 

[DOOGYREV]

that they have abolished the apostrophe to indicate the possessive,

Who has?
Roy.

Birmingham
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... uncil.html

 

[Digit]

Typical socialism! They don't know what they are talking about so they ban others.
Or should I have written, 'They dont know what there talking about so etc etc etc'.
Dumbing down is now official policy.
I'll bet they know all about Councillor's-Councillors expenses though,
No wonder employers are spending millions teaching school leavers to read, write and count, or should that be Count?

Roy.

 

[gus3049]

For those of you that enjoy language try this link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY

Whilst I sort of agree with him, I am old enough to hold on to the way I learnt my language like grim death. I agree wholeheartedly with 'numbers' and 'amounts' , 'less' and 'fewer' etc., drives me nuts.