posted
In a sense, every word we use was "made up" at some point or another. We did not use to say anything at all, and then alnguages formed and evolved. But now, with an english language full of more words than I can count at my disposal, is it ok for me to make up a word? There have been powerful people able to make up words, such as the "return to normalcy," but I'm just little old me, writing along, with the distinct desire to make something a word that isn't. What do you think?
Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003
|
posted
When my nephew was only about five, my sister had a heck of a time with him, because he would make up a word and then run around asking everyone what it meant. She finally had to tell him to learn the existing words first, and then make up his own.
You, Christine, are old enough to make up your own words. Writer's do it every day.
posted
Popular opinion suggests that ideas are based on words and that this is why we don't have many memories from our early childhood, before we had words with which to think about the world. So, if a word disappears, then all the ideas associated with the word disappear. This is why in "1984" they were changing the very langugae we speak.
I therefore propose that we eliminate the word politician from our vocabulary.
posted
I seem to make up words when I talk, sometimes without really trying to. If I don't have something that fits, I just say a word anyways. I don't notice until people ask. I can't think of any examples because its usually an on the spot kind of thing, but it happens. I think I make up sentence structure more often than I make up words though...personally it feels like I'm formulating ideas faster than I can possibly speak or write or even type them, and it just comes out a mess sometimes.
So yeah, make up all the words you want. As long as the context to figure it out is there, it's all good. How is that any different from using an existing word that most people don't know? Readers will figure out what "lackadaisical" means if they look at the sentence, so they'll figure out what your words mean as well.
posted
In this case, the word is "teenagism." (The case that prompted this posting, I've done this a time or two before.)
"When Gabrielle shouted that Marianne did not care about anyone but herself, Marianne could safely brush these things off as teenagisms delivered in the heat of anger."
Gabrielle is a teenager, Marianne is her mother. I know, I know...I could find the words in the existing language to say what I mean here, but I typed in the word and I kind of thought it worked.
posted
Alright, I'm probably going to get crucified for this, but I would make "funner" a word, so everybody would stop complaining about it when I say it. Just because I'm an English major doesn't mean I can't say "funner" if I feel like it. I like the word, and I think it should be legitimitated.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted
I have a distinct dislike for the verbalizing of nouns. 'He helicoptered to the seashore' just doesn't cut it for me.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted
I love new words and evolution of language. Keep in mind, Christine, that for every new word put into use there are just as many that drop out of use. Thus, our dictionary keeps growing, but our common-use vocabulary really doesn't all that much. Take for example the loss of 'typewriter' to be replaced by 'computer' or 'word processor.' Anybody out there know what 'hames' are? 150 years ago you would have. But all of you know what windshield wipers are and roughly how they work.
For those curious, hames are the metal or wooden braces used to attach the tugs (the heavy leather straps that the horse actually uses to pull the wagon) to the pulling collar around his neck.
So, yes. Help the language evolve. Make up all the words you want. English is, I believe, unique among the earth's languages in that it does change and evolve and broaden to a degree other languages find difficult. These days many non-English languages incorporate English words for new concepts instead of making up words of their own, mainly because their languages simply are not flexible enough to allow for it. For instance, in German, instead of simply making up a whole new word, they would be more likely to form a word by stringing together a bunch of words that describe, rather than simply name, a new object or concept. Hubby knows a few of these. These days, however, they're highly likely to adopt the much shorter English alternative.
[This message has been edited by djvdakota (edited July 27, 2004).]
posted
I am curious whether there is an age-range during which most language evolution occurs. Take, for example, my younger son's use of "awesome" and my older son's unfortunate use of the the -word- "bootylicious". (for which use he gets smacked!)
How many of the words we now routinely use in casual conversation would have made our parents cringe?
Taking the "reductio al absurdem" route, does that mean most modern casual conversation and writing is "cringely"?
posted
Firstly, Christine, the fact that "funner" makes you cringe causes me great offension. I would submit that "funner" is not a teenagism as I am not a teenagist, but rather it is an easierism. Why use 2 words, like more fun, when one will do?
Ha! That's quite the ironic sentence, Kolona. Way to ironize the discussion.
Finally, mikemunsil, I believe your son's usage of awesome has been around for quite some time, probably longer than your son, so don't blame the teenagists for that. Bootylicious, however, that one is a little newer. For our current youth, rap music is the source of 99% of language evolution, even for the kids who don't like rap music. Hence "bootylicious" and "crunk."
DJV, you're absolutely right about Germans ganking our words. English words are the in thing over there. They love 'em.
While many other countries opt to adopt new English words, the French-- obstiferous, as only the French can be-- insist on striking such perfectly good English words from their language and creating true French words in their place. Thus while many other languages will have more and more foreign words incorporated, the French language will no doubt remain purer for their obstiforousity.
Susan
EDIT: ROFL!!! I make up my own word and STILL cannot spell it consistently!! *blush, grin!!*
[This message has been edited by shadowynd (edited July 28, 2004).]
I was going to make that point about the French too - how they are so careful to protect their culture that they do create their own words for things that start out in English/American, which other countries just take and use.
Their perogative... just as complaining about an American theme park located there was their perogative (even if it is based on European fairy tales!).
"Teenism" - a bit shorter and smoother, and teen/teenager are used for the same thing.
posted
I don't like teenism as well, because I keep reading it as teeny-ism. Otherwise, I'm not sure that I would have even noticed that it was a made up word.
posted
Actually, dakota, the word 'typewriter' hasn't been replaced. There are still and always will be objects called or that have been called 'typewriters,' and which have been replaced by objects called 'word processors' and 'computers.' Just like papyrus is still a word although it's been replaced with paper. (I'm sure there are better examples.)
And although you're right that some words drop out of usage, a great many simply switch to the 'archaic usage' column. Those that might truly disappear are probably slang expressions with fleeting lives anyway.
I always pity the French (apologies to any Frenchmen who might take offense, seeing how I understand they're inordinately proud of their language) since I read that French is purposely a very static language, with only about 60,000 or 80,000 words (600,000 or 800,000 ?? I can't remember now, but first guesses are usually right and all those zeroes don't look right), while American English has umpteen words and counting. As a writer, I like the greater odds.
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited July 28, 2004).]
posted
AS far as french goes, it depends on where the french is being used. While I would agree that there is probably very little change in European french, Canadian Quebecois and American Cajun have evolved from the original. I understand speaking Quebecois in France will get you some pretty odd looks and possibly a few laughs.
Posts: 1473 | Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted
Hmm. Kalona, forgive me for not making myself perfectly clear. But I never meant to imply that 'typewriter' is no longer a valid word, or no longer a used word. I simply said it has fallen out of 'common usage' because people--the vast majority anyway--no longer use that archaic machine. And the word has become archaic, to a degree, along with the object. It's practically a museum piece. My kids are fascinated by them because they're so OLD. They're, like, antiques!
I thought I made it fairly clear that 'typewriter' as a common-use word has been replaced by 'computer' or 'word processor' in the context of the object and its purpose. Nobody sits at a computer and calls it a typewriter. And kids these days eye those ancient typewriters sitting dusty on the shelves and wonder if it might make them a mint on Antiques Roadshow where the appraiser will methodically demonstrate, to the fascination of all, exactly how it works.
I pity the French as well (Pity? Maybe not pity). For one of the beauties of the English language, especially here in America, is that it constantly evolves, morphs, flows, yet is fast becoming the most powerful language on earth.
[This message has been edited by djvdakota (edited July 28, 2004).]
posted
I think making up words is a practice in Wellivity. In fact one of my life goals is to find a word I made in the Dictionary. It is quite a Demugglidited effort since the Fauld of my words are mostly Eaged in my brain. If only I had the Harnos to actually use them in real Conversment.
Posts: 1895 | Registered: Mar 2004
|
quote:'typewriter' as a common-use word has been replaced by 'computer' or 'word processor' in the context of the object and its purpose. Nobody sits at a computer and calls it a typewriter.
It's been replaced in the context of the object and its purpose, but not in the word itself. 'Typewriter' as a word hasn't been replaced, common-use or otherwise. 'Typewriter' as an object has been replaced. I completely agree with that second part: I don't think anyone sat down at even the first word processors or computers and said they were sitting at a typewriter. But it wasn't the word in question, it was the object.
Now, where some silliness is happening even as I type at my computer, is with shoulder wraps for women. Same object, different word now. Used to be 'shawls' now they're 'capelets.' I guess 'shawls' is too old-fashioned. Of course now, isn't 'old-fashioned' now 'retro?'
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited July 28, 2004).]
posted
I think you're talking at cross-purposes here.
As I understand it, djvdakota's original point was that the number of words being commonly used tends to remain fairly constant, even as the total number of words increases. It's not that the word "typewriter" on longer exists or has been replaced by a new word for the same thing, it's that society has changed in such a way that, because typewriters themselves have become rather uncommon, the word is no longer used much. However, because computers and word processors have taken over the function formerly performed by typewriters, the words "computer" and "word processor" are much more commonly used now. In a sense, they have replaced "typewriter" as part of the common-usage vocabulary.
posted
Cars have replaced carriages as objects, but both are still words. 'Cars' has pretty much replaced 'automobiles' as a word in common usage, though they both mean the same thing. Computers have replaced typewriters as objects, but both are still words. 'Capelets' may replace 'shawls' as a word in common usage, though they both mean the same thing.
posted
Actually, capelet used to mean something different from shawl. It was shorter than a shoulder cape and sometimes built as part of a longer garment.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Jul 2003
|
quote:Cars have replaced carriages as objects, but both are still words. 'Cars' has pretty much replaced 'automobiles' as a word in common usage, though they both mean the same thing.
Yes, that's right. But you say this as if it contradicts djvdakota's point, when it actually pretty much proves it.
Posts: 1517 | Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted
I'm sure it all comes out in the wash, but I simply maintain that we haven't lost the word 'typewriter' the way we've lost 'automobile.' Typewriters will always be specific objects distinct from computers or word processors, while cars and automobiles (at least presently) are the same objects with two different names.
That's right, Mary. I'd forgotten. Yikes. Now we won't know if someone means a short shoulder cape (I'm picturing the flap on Sherlock Holmes' coat, actually) or a modern shawl. WILL IT NEVER END????
posted
Just a note, but people like myself (for whom English is their second language) are still taught words like "automobile" as current and active in the English language, when we learn English. We tend to learn words like "car" in casual conversation or by reading casual English.
Posts: 2710 | Registered: Jul 2004
|
But we will lose 'typewriter' from common usage the way we've lost 'stagecoach.' Nobody is claiming that typewriters or stagecoaches no longer exist as objects, just that as the objects fall from common use and are replaced by other things, the words used to label them fall from common use and are replaced by other words that label different things. This tends to keep the set of common-usage words about the same size as time goes on.
Mike - I asked some of my english-is-their-second-language friends and they said they were confused with the same thing when they first came to an english speaking country.
I would say that automobile is still alive and well in the english language. It doesn't mean "car" because it means simply "anything with 4 wheels and a motor" (maybe it was used as "car" back when all they made were "cars"?). Thus, the automotive industry makes and sells cars, trucks, vans, whatever. And they don't advertize that they sell "automobiles" because that is vague and unclear. But, you can still find the word in dealer brochures.
But, I'm wondering if what you were taught was British English (or Standard English) and not American English. Maybe it's different in Britain?
posted
(Note capital letters to denote a raised irritated voice)
IF THIS THING BLOWS UP INTO ANOTHER ARGUMENT THAT GETS SOMEONE SO UPSET THEY QUIT THIS GROUP I'M GOING TO BE VERY PISSED OFF!!! SO GET OFF IT!!!
PHEW!!
Thanks for defending me, Eric. Thanks for your insightful explanations Kalona. This sounds very much like arguing with my sisters--everyone, essentially, arguing on the same side but so enchanted by the emotions of the argument they think otherwise. Kalona has some good points. Eric has some good points. But it's not worth making so much fuss over. Nor is it so darned important that anyone has to spend one more second proving beyond doubt that they are right and the other is wrong.
posted
The word cars hasn't really replaced automobiles because automobiles refers to various types vehicles in addition to cars such as trucks and vans. As common usage automobiles is out of fashion but just typewriter, the word, is not synonymous with computer, automobiles is not synonymous with cars.
I love semantics
How about sith, porpentine and apricock. While common in usage 400 years ago, today we've replaced them with since, porcupine and apricot.
But back on topic for a minute. Check out this site for some of the words introduced into the english language by Shakespeare.
posted
Wow. Perceptions are strange things. I'm sorry you read emotions into anything I wrote, dakota, but I assure you they weren't there. Even my caps above were joking I guess I should have added a smiley. (My kingdom for an emoticon!) I thought I had simply made a passing comment that was taking on a life of its own. Actually, I was kind of hoping it'd develop its own word to add to the lexicon.
You're right about 'automobiles,' Robyn_Hood, but as I wrote with that example, it probably wasn't the best.
quote:just that as the objects fall from common use and are replaced by other things, the words used to label them fall from common use and are replaced by other words that label different things.
Exactly, Eric. But some things simply change names while the objects have not fallen from common use. It is in this respect that we more truly 'lose' a word, although that loss usually means 'file under archaic.'
Lorien, I agree. Language is wonderful.
Spelling, however, isn't. Where did 'Kalona' come from? Ah well. <musical notes> tomato, tomahtoh, Kolona, Kalona, let's call the whole thing off <end musical notes>
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited July 29, 2004).]
posted
> But some things simply change names while > the objects have not fallen from common > use.
Yes. Nobody is arguing that with you. I think everyone here agrees.
> It is in this respect that we more > truly 'lose' a word, although that loss > usually means 'file under archaic.'
Fine. The point I've been trying to make, though, is that we also lose words from common usage just because the objects the words describe are no longer commonly used. I'm not saying it's the only way we lose words, or that it is the most true way in which words are lost, just that it happens.
posted
Actually, I thought we were discussing not arguing, till we hit the caps. I don't think I said there was only one way to lose words; in fact, just the opposite, and I felt the typewriter example was more useful from that angle. But it doesn't matter.
I can't imagine anyone quitting the board over common usage typewriters or cars, but lest we tempt fate...I will rest my apparently weak case.
posted
OK. Forgive the caps. It's just that I kept reading these posts and considering past 'discussions' in my family (which is the family sport) that go pretty much like what I'm reading here. You see, in my family there is very little distinction between an argument and a discussion, so, once again, I chose the wrong word to include in my reply. It should have read like this:
quote:This sounds very much like discussions with my sisters--everyone, essentially, discussing on the same side but so enchanted by the emotions of the discussion they think otherwise.
So what we end up with is something like this:
Point A made. Point A refuted. Point A defended by someone else. Point A re-explained, because obviously no one understood what was being said in the first place. Point A refuted in pretty much the same way by imposing point B. Point B refuted. Point B defended by someone else. Point B re-explained, because obviously no one understood what was being said in the first place. Point B refuted in pretty much the same way by imposing point C or RE-imposing point A...
Yadda, yadda, yadda. On and on and on until we have a full blown argument going, everyone hates each other, and an otherwise fun family party turns into a brawl of words.
Now what I've done is thrown gasoline on a match and caused a grass fire. Forgiveness sought on all sides. But I still think "Nor is it so darned important that anyone has to spend one more second proving beyond doubt that they are right and the other is wrong," is appropriate to the bent of this discussion.
Don't be mad wiff me Kolona. PWEASE!!
(Must be PMS. )
[This message has been edited by djvdakota (edited July 29, 2004).]
posted
This proves to me that Y'all are writers. All the writers I know IRL can spend hours arguing semantics. I've even come to blows with a co-author of mine about what I meant by a simple sentence like "the door opened." Posts: 1895 | Registered: Mar 2004
|
I learned English from my mother while we lived in the mining camps of northern Chile, some French from my grandmother, Mapuche from my wet nurse, and some really stinging gaelic curses from my grandfather. My mother in turn learned her English from her father, who taught her Scottish English from treatises on navigation, which were all he would read, and as there were no schools at that time in the Altiplano, her education was somewhat iconoclastic, although she was rather good at navigating.
I went to college and learned more English in Panama, but with a heavy Spanish accent, then moved to Arkansas and Oklahoma, where I learned some regionalisms and rapidy lost every trace of my former Scotch-Chilean accent, simply as a survival strategy.
So, my English, such as it is, is somewhat arbitrary, and I know that comes out in some of the awkward sentence constructions that I use, but shee'it! it ain't no wunder I'm confused! No?
[This message has been edited by mikemunsil (edited July 29, 2004).]
quote:I've even come to blows with a co-author of mine about what I meant by a simple sentence like "the door opened."
Gah! I'm not surprised. Do you mean to imply that it opened itself (whether that be magically or technologically achieved), or that some unknown agent opened it without being observed?
posted
We should always have the right to communicate, even made up words, and the right to say that they shouldn't be said if we disagree. If you want take it as a reponsibility to define and redefine the conceptual structures that we look at things through (that's essentially what language is, one level up from image and thought)...
"Bandersnatch" is one of my favorites from a famous poem.
So yes, you have the right to use words that have never been used before. That's probably something you ought to do to stretch the imagination! I use it as an exercise for my friends, combining words to make new ones for example.
I can give you the French perspective on that issue. I lived there for the first 20 years of my life, and in the US for 10.
I write in English. I don't write in French.
However, I can tell you that, yes, us French peopl are quite chauvinistic and alwasy ready to fly to the defense of our culture, especially against American culture. It may be a historical thing. The English and French were the two conflicting super-powers in Europe for nearly two millenia (making the US/USSR cold war a joke), and including such wars as the Hundred Year War. I think that to a lot of people, speaking english would be to admit having finally been beaten.
On the other hand, most of the laws (yes, there ar LAWS) as to the use of non-french names are mostly due to old white men (yes, you can add stupid) I used english words everyday talking to my buddies. And some english-sounding names that had no relationship at all to the english word. a "smoking" for exemple is a tuxedo. Don't ask.
I would also point out the introduction of many french words in the english language. And german, spanish etc... one of the major reasons the english language is so rich is that it has been a multinational one from the begining, mixing germanic and romanesque tongues from the get-go. Bascially, the english language is so rich because it steals from many sources. Another richness is the ability to combine words into a new one, ie: xenocide, and still make perfect sense.