Words changing meaning.

[Brian Moore]

Prompted by reading the quote about Northern Ireland from Gordon Brown from the BBC website: "We believe that the problems that exist in devolving policing and justice are all soluble problems", I wonder if there are words people really don't care about if they change meaning or usage, and other ones that really would be missed. Has the sitting/was sat battle been lost, and does it matter? Is the your/you're distinction (lost on the Facebook generation, it seems) worth fighting over, and how soon will 'coruscating' be redefined as 'excoriating'? I'm not uninterested in the usage of 'disinterested' either. Cue pedants v. peasants...

[Alec Rivers]

Which word(s) will we be expected to use in place of 'infer', once it has fully become synonymous with 'imply'?

[Charlie Reams]

"We believe that the problems that exist in devolving policing and justice are all soluble problems"

For the less educated amongst us, can you explain what's wrong with this?

lost on the Facebook generation, it seems

Nope.

Which word(s) will we be expected to use in place of 'infer', once it has fully become synonymous with 'imply'?

Deduce?

[David Williams]

"We believe that the problems that exist in devolving policing and justice are all soluble problems"

For the less educated amongst us, can you explain what's wrong with this?

I think it's a trick question. You're supposed to think he's saying the problems can be dissolved, rather than solved, but 'soluble' is OK for both. I think the error is that, while you can devolve functions such as policing, justice is more of a conceptual thing irrespective of who administers it.

[Lesley Hines]

"We believe that the problems that exist in devolving policing and justice are all soluble problems"

For the less educated amongst us, can you explain what's wrong with this?

I love the idea of "plink plink fizz" policing! More of that
(I'm fully aware soluble means able to be solved but that's very funny)

the Facebook generation

uz nos loadsa wrinklies wiv crap grammar 2

[Charlie Reams]

"We believe that the problems that exist in devolving policing and justice are all soluble problems"

For the less educated amongst us, can you explain what's wrong with this?

I think it's a trick question. You're supposed to think he's saying the problems can be dissolved, rather than solved, but 'soluble' is OK for both. I think the error is that, while you can devolve functions such as policing, justice is more of a conceptual thing irrespective of who administers it.

You overestimate me, David, it wasn't a trick question. I imagine Gordie intended the metaphorical use of "justice" to mean "the enforcement and formation of laws", which I don't think is terribly upsetting, but maybe Brian would disagree.

[Alec Rivers]

Which word(s) will we be expected to use in place of 'infer', once it has fully become synonymous with 'imply'?

Deduce?

Sorry, I don't agree. A thesaurus might list them together but, in my mind, 'deduce' refers to a conclusion drawn only from available evidence, whereas 'infer' additionally seems to carry an element of conjecture and supposition. Either way, I certainly use the two words differently.

[Charlie Reams]

Sorry, I don't agree. A thesaurus might list them together but, in my mind, 'deduce' refers to a conclusion drawn only from available evidence, whereas 'infer' additionally seems to carry an element of conjecture and supposition. Either way, I certainly use the two words differently.

While that would be a useful distinction, it appears to be your own creation. Deduce was the first word off the top of my head and it's also the first word of the ODE definition for imply. Plenty of other alternatives, like decide and conclude, are also available. We're not going to lose the concept of inference.

[Peter Mabey]

Which word(s) will we be expected to use in place of 'infer', once it has fully become synonymous with 'imply'?

Deduce?

Similarly, as 'refute' seems to have replaced 'deny', I hope 'rebut' might be used (with evidence - or preferably proof - being given). Unfortunately, flatly unsupported denial seems to be standard practice, so that message board discussions often generate more heat than light.

[Charlie Reams]

Similarly, as 'refute' seems to have replaced 'deny', I hope 'rebut' might be used (with evidence - or preferably proof - being given).

Can't make sense of this at all. Please explain?

[Brian Moore]

"We believe that the problems that exist in devolving policing and justice are all soluble problems"

For the less educated amongst us, can you explain what's wrong with this?

Did I say his usage was wrong? I might merely have been commenting on the changing meaning of the word 'soluble', rather than displaying ignorance.

lost on the Facebook generation, it seems

Nope.

Point taken, gross generalisation - but the "sat"/"was sitting", and "your"/"you're" choices seem to end up on the grammatically questionable side of the fence in the vast majority of postings I see. Maybe I just keep the wrong company.

[Charlie Reams]

"We believe that the problems that exist in devolving policing and justice are all soluble problems"

For the less educated amongst us, can you explain what's wrong with this?

Did I say his usage was wrong? I might merely have been commenting on the changing meaning of the word 'soluble', rather than displaying ignorance.

I'm not sure what ignorance has got to do with it, I just asked what you thought was wrong with it. Soluble as a synonym for solvable appears in Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage (pub. 1926) so if you consider that a changing usage, you must be older than you look

[David Williams]

For the less educated amongst us,

Should that be "fewer"? Or "less-educated"? I thought we'd implied you were home-educated anyway, or did you refute that? All fairly disinteresting, however.

[Lesley Hines]

IMHO, I enjoy the way that words change their meanings over time. I love the way that historical events can be tracked and traced with language, and the effect that has on society as a whole. Shakespeare was credited with adding more than three thousand words to the English language, but many of those he simply used in new ways. An example would be of how 'tsunami' used to be used as a term for a massive tidal wave (still is, obviously) but now it also conjures distinct images of the natural disaster that occurred in Indonesia in 2004. Social and political events are dynamic, and thus language must evolve to cope with those changes.

As far as grammar goes, I think punctuation's vital if one wants to convey accurately exactly what happened (they're looking for their ball over there) but on social networking sites and similar laziness, speed, and the desire to use the same language as everyone else tends to step in. I believe that using language appropriately is as much a skill as being able to use it correctly. If I want to write to my bank manager, for example, I will use formal language and it will be immaculately punctuated to convey the general esteem in which he ought to hold me (and therefore give me money). However, I'm happy to use texting abbreviations, emoticons, shorthand and other linguistic tools in an electronic social setting to make myself seem more approachable. I have many friends who have superb qualities, but not necessarily grammatical and other linguistic abilities. Communication on that accepted level is fine for everyone, so why change it?

I would also add that in no way does this have anything to do with age. My Dad's close to being illiterate, having left school at 13 and been a builder all his life. However, he has one of the finest, sharpest, most creative and curious minds of anyone I've ever met, so on that level I'm not convinced it's relevant.

[Brian Moore]

I'm not sure what ignorance has got to do with it, I just asked what you thought was wrong with it. Soluble as a synonym for solvable appears in Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage (pub. 1926) so if you consider that a changing usage, you must be older than you look

It's still changing usage though (but not in my lifetime, thanks) - according to the OED, 'soluble' originally meant "Of the bowels, etc.: Free from constipation or costiveness; relaxed." Admittedly this was in the 15th century, but the use of the word 'soluble' to mean 'capable of being resolved' only appears in 1826, and its use in maths to mean 'solvable' only appears in 1902. Barely more than a gnat's crotchet ago, in the history of the English language. I haven't worked out to which date I'd like to tie its proper usage. Hmm, Thursday, 16th April 1739 at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon sounds reasonable, on reflection.

[JimBentley]

IMHO, I enjoy the way that words change their meanings over time. I love the way that historical events can be tracked and traced with language, and the effect that has on society as a whole. Shakespeare was credited with adding more than three thousand words to the English language, but many of those he simply used in new ways. An example would be of how 'tsunami' used to be used as a term for a massive tidal wave (still is, obviously) but now it also conjures distinct images of the natural disaster that occurred in Indonesia in 2004. Social and political events are dynamic, and thus language must evolve to cope with those changes.

As far as grammar goes, I think punctuation's vital if one wants to convey accurately exactly what happened (they're looking for their ball over there) but on social networking sites and similar laziness, speed, and the desire to use the same language as everyone else tends to step in. I believe that using language appropriately is as much a skill as being able to use it correctly. If I want to write to my bank manager, for example, I will use formal language and it will be immaculately punctuated to convey the general esteem in which he ought to hold me (and therefore give me money). However, I'm happy to use texting abbreviations, emoticons, shorthand and other linguistic tools in an electronic social setting to make myself seem more approachable. I have many friends who have superb qualities, but not necessarily grammatical and other linguistic abilities. Communication on that accepted level is fine for everyone, so why change it?

I would also add that in no way does this have anything to do with age. My Dad's close to being illiterate, having left school at 13 and been a builder all his life. However, he has one of the finest, sharpest, most creative and curious minds of anyone I've ever met, so on that level I'm not convinced it's relevant.

This ^

I don't give a fuck how words are supposed to be used really. I often use words in strange ways to subvert their meanings, make up words and totally bastardise other words if it helps me say something I want to say in a particular way. Expression is more important than rigour.

[Alec Rivers]

Thursday, 16th April 1739 at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon ...

A mere 8,545,593,452 seconds ago (approx).

[Jon O'Neill]

IMHO, I enjoy the way that words change their meanings over time. I love the way that historical events can be tracked and traced with language, and the effect that has on society as a whole. Shakespeare was credited with adding more than three thousand words to the English language, but many of those he simply used in new ways. An example would be of how 'tsunami' used to be used as a term for a massive tidal wave (still is, obviously) but now it also conjures distinct images of the natural disaster that occurred in Indonesia in 2004. Social and political events are dynamic, and thus language must evolve to cope with those changes.

As far as grammar goes, I think punctuation's vital if one wants to convey accurately exactly what happened (they're looking for their ball over there) but on social networking sites and similar laziness, speed, and the desire to use the same language as everyone else tends to step in. I believe that using language appropriately is as much a skill as being able to use it correctly. If I want to write to my bank manager, for example, I will use formal language and it will be immaculately punctuated to convey the general esteem in which he ought to hold me (and therefore give me money). However, I'm happy to use texting abbreviations, emoticons, shorthand and other linguistic tools in an electronic social setting to make myself seem more approachable. I have many friends who have superb qualities, but not necessarily grammatical and other linguistic abilities. Communication on that accepted level is fine for everyone, so why change it?

I would also add that in no way does this have anything to do with age. My Dad's close to being illiterate, having left school at 13 and been a builder all his life. However, he has one of the finest, sharpest, most creative and curious minds of anyone I've ever met, so on that level I'm not convinced it's relevant.

This ^

I don't give a fuck how words are supposed to be used really. I often use words in strange ways to subvert their meanings, make up words and totally bastardise other words if it helps me say something I want to say in a particular way. Expression is more important than rigour.

This ^^

I heard this piece of brilliance the other day, when we were talking about someone in my football team's girlfriend..

"I've never even met the girl, and listen to me, judging the cunt out of her!"

I dunno if that's relevant but it was certainly funny.

[Charlie Reams]

It's still changing usage though (but not in my lifetime, thanks) - according to the OED, 'soluble' originally meant "Of the bowels, etc.: Free from constipation or costiveness; relaxed." Admittedly this was in the 15th century, but the use of the word 'soluble' to mean 'capable of being resolved' only appears in 1826, and its use in maths to mean 'solvable' only appears in 1902. Barely more than a gnat's crotchet ago, in the history of the English language. I haven't worked out to which date I'd like to tie its proper usage. Hmm, Thursday, 16th April 1739 at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon sounds reasonable, on reflection.

If you were genuinely observing a shift that happened in the 1820s at the start of this thread then I salute you.

[David Williams]

someone in my football team's girlfriend

Ambiguous, and topical!

[Marc Meakin]

Where is Phil Reynolds when you need him.

[Clive Brooker]

An example (of a word being used in a new way) would be of how 'tsunami' used to be used as a term for a massive tidal wave (still is, obviously) but now it also conjures distinct images of the natural disaster that occurred in Indonesia in 2004.

The event of Boxing Day 2004 was a textbook tsunami. Other than making it universally known, I don't see how it has caused the word to be used in a new way.

Also, being picky, a tsunami is not necessarily associated with tidal action, nor do they have to be massive.

Perhaps I'd better try my own example to allow myself to be shot down in return. Those of a certain age will remember the Greenham Common Women's Peace Camp. The word "peace" became hijacked - it was often difficult to use it without appearing to give a political opinion. I remember hearing a suggestion that to reflect modern priorities, "Remembrance Day" should be renamed "Peace Day", a move which would have offended many thoroughly peaceful people who did not at the time regard the aims of the Peace Camp as wholesome.

[David Williams]

I saw someone complaining a while back at "kamikaze" being used to describe almost anything self-destructive. I think he felt that this diminished the horror of the WW2 suicide attacks. But "kamikaze" actually means "divine wind", and refers to a typhoon that destroyed a Mongol fleet that threatened Japan in the thirteenth century. I would have thought the original corruption of the meaning was more objectionable than the recent one.

[Peter Mabey]

Similarly, as 'refute' seems to have replaced 'deny', I hope 'rebut' might be used (with evidence - or preferably proof - being given).

Can't make sense of this at all. Please explain?

To refute a statement is to prove it to be false - it is not sufficient to simply assert the contrary.

[Ian Volante]

Similarly, as 'refute' seems to have replaced 'deny', I hope 'rebut' might be used (with evidence - or preferably proof - being given).

Can't make sense of this at all. Please explain?

To refute a statement is to prove it to be false - it is not sufficient to simply assert the contrary.

This isn't a trend I've noticed at all, am I listening to the wrong radio stations?

[Charlie Reams]

To refute a statement is to prove it to be false - it is not sufficient to simply assert the contrary.

Right, I'm with you. Haven't heard that particular (ab)use, but given how often you hear reporting of the form "A says that X, B says that not X, and now our next item", I can see how the confusion arises.

[Brian Moore]

To refute a statement is to prove it to be false - it is not sufficient to simply assert the contrary.

If we hang on to that strict definition then the recent statement by the three MPs who are to be charged with false accounting that "We totally refute any charges that we have committed an offence" would not meet with your approval, I guess, though if it were phrased "We will totally refute any charges that we have committed an offence" it would be acceptable.

The OED notes the use of 'refute' in the loose sense, though adds that that is "criticized as erroneous in usage guides in the 20th cent. In many instances it is unclear whether there is an implication of argument accompanying the assertion that something is baseless".

I think that this might be a lost battle, not helped by an ambiguous etymology. This is unlike the misuse of the word 'coruscate', the use of which in the clichéd phrase "coruscating review" to mean 'scathing' or 'savage' has nothing to do with the Latin root coruscare, which means "to vibrate, glitter, sparkle, gleam".

What happens when incorrect usage outnumbers correct and etymologically justifiable usage? Do we just observe and move on (and maybe shed a tear or two to show that we knew and we cared)? Does it matter if words lose touch with their roots, if we know what it means in common usage? Can I get more question marks in a single paragraph than James??

[David Roe]

One that annoys me is the now more-or-less-universal "rough justice" to mean "injustice", when originally it meant the opposite.

[David Williams]

I thought I was pretty clued up on the pedantry side, but I came across one new to me in The Times yesterday. If 30 apples are divided equally between a number of boys, how many does each get? Answer is 15, because if there were more than two they would be divided "among", not "between".

In general, I don't think these things matter much. Some are beneficial. Strictly "fortuitous" means accidental, with no connotation of good luck, but the 'wrong' usage is a useful one. What I do hate is the ones like "refute" in particular, because if I read that someone has refuted a charge I really have no idea whether he's disproved it or he's just denied it.

[Peter Mabey]

. Some are beneficial. Strictly "fortuitous" means accidental, with no connotation of good luck, but the 'wrong' usage is a useful one.

Nor really - 'fortunate' would be better.
I remember that in reviewing a paper, I used 'fortuitous' to describe some results which were favourable but not statistically significant. The author, being unaware of the correct meaning, was most offended, thinking that I'd accused him of massaging his figures.

[Ian Volante]

I think that this might be a lost battle, not helped by an ambiguous etymology. This is unlike the misuse of the word 'coruscate', the use of which in the clichéd phrase "coruscating review" to mean 'scathing' or 'savage' has nothing to do with the Latin root coruscare, which means "to vibrate, glitter, sparkle, gleam".

Strange, I've never seen it used in the incorrect way as described. In fact, I've only ever seen it used to describe grass/similar plants blowing in wind, or using that as a metaphor. Or is that a simile?

[Brian Moore]

I think that this might be a lost battle, not helped by an ambiguous etymology. This is unlike the misuse of the word 'coruscate', the use of which in the clichéd phrase "coruscating review" to mean 'scathing' or 'savage' has nothing to do with the Latin root coruscare, which means "to vibrate, glitter, sparkle, gleam".

Strange, I've never seen it used in the incorrect way as described. In fact, I've only ever seen it used to describe grass/similar plants blowing in wind, or using that as a metaphor. Or is that a simile?

Maybe it's one that just catches my eye now ... it cropped up in two successive issues of Private Eye, the second of the issues also including a Ped'ants Corner rebuke over the very same.

Google throws up 211 instances of "coruscating review", though my case is not helped by the first entry, which is a review of an album entitled Coruscating.

[David Williams]

Does anyone here write a weekly column for The Times called 'The Pedant'? Today's centres around the three MPs "refuting" the charges against them, and sets out the differences between refute, rebut and deny.

Sadly, when I looked for it on Times-online by searching for the word "refute", the first link was to another column making exactly the same point, and the next half dozen were headlines of Times stories. In every case it appeared to have been used incorrectly.

[Rosemary Roberts]

Sadly, when I looked for it on Times-online by searching for the word "refute", the first link was to another column making exactly the same point, and the next half dozen were headlines of Times stories. In every case it appeared to have been used incorrectly.

A few years ago I was given the Times Style Guide. But I've never opened it either.

[Brian Moore]

I'm starting to get confused now that 'pissed' is being used in the American sense, i.e. 'pissed off', rather than 'drunk'. I'm having to re-read sentences to work out which meaning of 'pissed' is more likely.

'Off' seems quite a useful tag: add it to 'hacked', 'buggered' or 'whacked', and the meaning changes rather significantly. It would be a shame to lose its useful application for lively expressions.

[Brian Moore]

I think that this might be a lost battle, not helped by an ambiguous etymology. This is unlike the misuse of the word 'coruscate', the use of which in the clichéd phrase "coruscating review" to mean 'scathing' or 'savage' has nothing to do with the Latin root coruscare, which means "to vibrate, glitter, sparkle, gleam".

Strange, I've never seen it used in the incorrect way as described.

A timely piece in The Independent today:

"Flashing and flaying: Anthony Day has written in to point out this sentence, from Adrian Hamilton's Thursday comment column: "The key part of the draft which the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, sought to water down is the clause in which the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, cast coruscating comments on the behaviour of the British authorities."

Now, it may be that his Lordship's judicial prose is so brilliant that it may be said to throw off flashes of light, which is what "coruscate" means. However, in the context it is more likely that the writer wanted to comment on the severity of the judgment, suggesting that to be at the receiving end of it was like having your skin ripped off. The word for that is "excoriate".

The erroneous use of "coruscate" for "excoriate" is so common that I suspect we may be witnessing a shift in usage that will eventually have to be acknowledged by dictionaries and allowed to stand. But for now, let's try to get it right."

See, it's not just me.

[Gavin Chipper]

"The erroneous use of "coruscate" for "excoriate" is so common that I suspect we may be witnessing a shift in usage that will eventually have to be acknowledged by dictionaries and allowed to stand. But for now, let's try to get it right."

See, it's not just me.

So common? I have never used either of these words, correctly or incorrectly, and I very rarely come across them at all! Maybe common in a proportional sense but that's all.

[Miriam Nussbaum]

I'm starting to get confused now that 'pissed' is being used in the American sense, i.e. 'pissed off', rather than 'drunk'. I'm having to re-read sentences to work out which meaning of 'pissed' is more likely.

I'm confused in the other direction whenever I read things like this board. (I myself don't say "pissed" without the "off", but I hear it all the time.)

Another thing I'd never seen before is the use of "crap" and "rubbish" as adjectives, e.g. "this page is a bit crap", "as rubbish as ever",…(which I thought looked pretty foreign the first time I saw it, but now I find myself almost wanting to use them that way sometimes). In light of this, would things like "rubbisher" and "crappest" be valid words?

[Alec Rivers]

In light of this, would things like "rubbisher" and "crappest" be valid words?

Rather than crap, crappy is more often used in comparative and superlative senses, i.e. crappier, crappiest. Crapper is used by some as another word for toilet. Rubbish is bisyllabic so its comparative and superlative forms would sit less comfortably on the English tongue. They are therefore not used, AFAIK.

[Ian Volante]

In light of this, would things like "rubbisher" and "crappest" be valid words?

Rather than crap, crappy is more often used in comparative and superlative senses, i.e. crappier, crappiest. Crapper is used by some as another word for toilet. Rubbish is bisyllabic and thus sits less comfortably on the English tongue in comparative and superlative form.

I've used crap as Miriam described all my life. Will be affected by dialectic usage no doubt.

[Miriam Nussbaum]

In light of this, would things like "rubbisher" and "crappest" be valid words?

Rather than crap, crappy is more often used in comparative and superlative senses, i.e. crappier, crappiest. Crapper is used by some as another word for toilet.

That's all exactly the same as in my dialect (that last is why I said "crappest" ^_~); the only difference I've noticed so far in this particular lexical area is that we only use "crap" as a noun here in the US (at least where I'm from).

[Ian Volante]

In light of this, would things like "rubbisher" and "crappest" be valid words?

Rather than crap, crappy is more often used in comparative and superlative senses, i.e. crappier, crappiest. Crapper is used by some as another word for toilet.

That's all exactly the same as in my dialect (that last is why I said "crappest" ^_~); the only difference I've noticed so far in this particular lexical area is that we only use "crap" as a noun here in the US (at least where I'm from).

I use crap as a noun and a verb, either to mean (to) poo, or to mean things that are rubbish.

[Gavin Chipper]

I think it's when things are used as mass nouns that they "become" adjectives. You say something is crap rather than a crap, so it sounds like an adjective and that you can add ER and EST.

[Miriam Nussbaum]

…And a verb. Yeah. XD

I think it's when things are used as mass nouns that they "become" adjectives. You say something is crap rather than a crap, so it sounds like an adjective and that you can add ER and EST.

Or an abstract noun, like "fun". But yeah. Predicate nouns getting reinterpreted as adjectives…it's fun.

[Dinos Sfyris]

Ask Howard. He's crap

[Gavin Chipper]

There's also words like RUBBISHLY. So we get adverbs out of them as well. I think CRAPLY is far more likely to be used than CRAPPILY. Well let's see what Google says (this is exciting). CRAPLY 23,600 - 35,400 CRAPPILY. Fuck off! It was quite close though.

[Rosemary Roberts]

Yesterday's spoiler thread discusses what Clarke Carlisle might do when he stops playing football. I've only ever seen him on the screen, but it doesn't look to me to be an immediate problem. I've been wondering whether I dare describe him as "fit".

[Karen Pearson]

Yesterday's spoiler thread discusses what Clarke Carlisle might do when he stops playing football. ........I've been wondering whether I dare describe him as "fit".

Oh yes, I think so!! Good looking, fit, articulate, intelligent? Definitely!

As the boys deem it appropriate to discuss the attractiveness or otherwise of female contestants, I see no reason why we shouldn't do the same with the male ones.

[Matt Morrison]

As the boys deem it appropriate to discuss the attractiveness or otherwise of female contestants, I see no reason why we shouldn't do the same with the male ones.

I would honestly say that the attractiveness of young male contestants has been WAY more heavily discussed here than that of their female counterparts, to a huge factor.

[Ian Volante]

As the boys deem it appropriate to discuss the attractiveness or otherwise of female contestants, I see no reason why we shouldn't do the same with the male ones.

I would honestly say that the attractiveness of young male contestants has been WAY more heavily discussed here than that of their female counterparts, to a huge factor.

But not in the "Words changing meaning" thread.

[Alec Rivers]

As the boys deem it appropriate to discuss the attractiveness or otherwise of female contestants, I see no reason why we shouldn't do the same with the male ones.

I would honestly say that the attractiveness of young male contestants has been WAY more heavily discussed here than that of their female counterparts, to a huge factor.

But not in the "Words changing meaning" thread.

Speaking of which, I was going to mention the hijacking of the word 'fit' to mean attractive, until I realised I should be grateful people aren't using 'buff'.

[Oliver Garner]

As the boys deem it appropriate to discuss the attractiveness or otherwise of female contestants, I see no reason why we shouldn't do the same with the male ones.

I would honestly say that the attractiveness of young male contestants has been WAY more heavily discussed here than that of their female counterparts, to a huge factor.

Eg George Robertson

[Ben Hunter]

Oh yes, I think so!! Good looking, fit, articulate, intelligent? Definitely!

Clarke Carlisle makes me feel like an amoeba