"The Sixties"...

[BoSoxGal]

I think it's patently ridiculous to reject an entire field of academic study and the norms that govern language as 'elitist'; which other rules that govern language usage, definitions of words, etc. shall we reject wholesale as 'elitist'?

Which other fields of study/professions and conclusions from those fields shall we reject wholesale as elitist?

What about all those folks who think they know enough about law to practice in the courts on behalf of clients, even though they lack a law license - aren't we being 'elitist' given that our bar organizations aggressively pursue cases against those alleged to have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law?

LJ's comparison of linguists - people who generally hold advanced, and usually terminal degrees in their fields - with anyone who picks up a keyboard and writes about fashion and/or film is also patently ridiculous.

Meade's post is spot on.

[Guinevere]

Science is based on theory and experimentation; linguistics is based on previous usage and trends. Thus, I do not give a linguist's opinion the same deference that I give a climate scientists. It's kind of like asking a professional musician which type of music is better, classical or jazz. Its more a matter of opinion.

I have no problem with a reporting of the usage and how common/uncommon (or standard/non-standard) it is. But I do object to someone imposing cultural biases on a language; the biggest determinant of a language's acceptability whosul be how unambiguously it communicates what ideas are desired to be conveyed.

Linguists are historians, generally. They look at how something has evolved, they do not predict how it will evolve in the future. It's a similar analysis as when you look at the strict constructionist view of the Constitution.

I'm with you BigRR, I think language is a living, breathing, changing thing (like the Constitution), and I'm not hung up on what it used to be, or whether or not it is "perfect" (with some exceptions based on the formality of the setting). For the most part, so long as the communication is understood -- because after all, that is what language is for -- it is generally successful.

[BoSoxGal]

Those are both lay opinions (which by the way, don't even coincide with a dictionary definition of linguistics - but hey, dictionaries are bullshit) given that they come from two lawyers with no advanced degrees in language-related fields.

I admit I'm a bit surprised to see two attorneys make such assertions, given that ours is a field that very much depends on words and their meanings and using (or not) the right word at the right time.

In any case, I've no doubt whatsoever that you are both quite wrong and no doubt whatsoever that you'll argue your positions to the bitter end, being nonplussed in the face of argument from somebody who has actually studied linguistics at the advanced degree level - so I'll leave you to your conclusions, reached irregardless of reality.

[rubato]

Calling someone "Elitist" is how someone who is inept and unable condemns someone who is highly skilled and makes themselves feel better for being worse. An example of unwitting self-satire.

or as Michel de Montaigne said:

"Since we cannot attain unto it, let us revenge ourselves with railing against it."


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

The sixties are the second or third great hinge of history in the 20th century. The generation conceived during and just after WWII came of age and became the first generation which was self-aware, as a generation. With the sixties there is a before and an after which was permanently different. The civil rights struggle came to fruition and led to the anti-Vietnam-war movement which generated the 2nd women's movement which preceded slightly the gay rights movement. Silent Spring kick-started the environmentalist movement and led to the restoration of rivers, lakes, bays, air quality, salmon runs, bird migrations, peregrine falcons, bald eagles, brown pelicans and spawned a hundred groups devoted to a cleaner and healthier environment. We learned that we have a right not to be poisoned by industry and we developed the social and political mechanisms to begin to defend ourselves against entities which put profit over human lives.

Our values are different. How we see ambition and how we rank success are different.


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

Calling someone "Elitist" is how someone who is inept and unable condemns someone who is highly skilled and makes themselves feel better for being worse.

At times, no doubt, that is true. At other times, it is the condemnation of someone who can only make themselves feel better by demeaning others. But in any event, I called an attitude, not a person, elitist.

I think it's patently ridiculous to reject an entire field of academic study and the norms that govern language as 'elitist'; which other rules that govern language usage, definitions of words, etc. shall we reject wholesale as 'elitist'?

I have done neither; indeed, all I have called elitist is your statement calling people ignorant, uneducated, and/or ignoring their education based on their usage of the language. I have nothing against linguists, I am just not ceding control of the language to them anymore than I will cede my religious beliefs to someone because (s)he holds a DD. Clearly, I will listen to what is said and factor it into my opinion, but ultimately I will decide what I believe.

What about all those folks who think they know enough about law to practice in the courts on behalf of clients, even though they lack a law license - aren't we being 'elitist' given that our bar organizations aggressively pursue cases against those alleged to have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law?

In some cases that is consumer protection, in others, elitism, in still others, protecting the income stream of lawyers. And FWIW, in many states nonlawyers can now do things that were once considered the practice of law. For example, real estate closings in my state no longer need a lawyer, only an escrow agent; non attorneys can, for example, practice before the US Patent Office, the IRS, the US Tax Courts, and the US Immigration Courts without a law license upon passing an exam that they possess an understanding of the relevant procedural and substantive law in those forums. Some states are even allowing paralegals to draft agreements and offer other services (which were once considered the practice of law) to the public on their own.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I will listen to what is said and factor it into my opinion, but ultimately I will decide what I believe.

Well just for us old fuddy-duddy types, what do you think "nonplussed" actually means? Or are you going to maintain that it means whatever the speaker/writer wants it to mean?

Are you in the "baffled" camp or the one that thinks it means "unbaffled"?

I'm using those words somewhat loosely of course. (The preceding sentence was in parentheses but I removed them for Joe's sake)

[Lord Jim]

Definition of nonplussed in English:
nonplussed
Syllabification: non·plussed
Pronunciation: /nänˈpləst

1(Of a person) surprised and confused so much that they are unsure how to react: he would be completely nonplussed and embarrassed at the idea


2 North American informal (Of a person) not disconcerted; unperturbed.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/de ... nonplussed

Well, no matter how nonplussed you may be about this, I have to tell you I'm completely nonplussed...

[BoSoxGal]

Right, but again, the American Heritage Dictionary follows the Oxford and mentions the other usage as uncommon and considered improper by linguists; the Merriam Webster and Webster's New Collegiate provide only the (proper) Oxford definition with no mention of the non-standard usage.

I've always used the Oxford meaning, which is utilized extensively (obviously) in British literature and also American literature.

Irregardless of the preceding debate, I'm nonplussed by folks who assert that definitions are up to them to decide as they see fit, rejecting the age old process of standardizing usage. Poor Noah must be rolling in his grave.

[Big RR]

I will listen to what is said and factor it into my opinion, but ultimately I will decide what I believe.

Well just for us old fuddy-duddy types, what do you think "nonplussed" actually means? Or are you going to maintain that it means whatever the speaker/writer wants it to mean?

Are you in the "baffled" camp or the one that thinks it means "unbaffled"?

I'm using those words somewhat loosely of course. (The preceding sentence was in parentheses but I removed them for Joe's sake)

Well Meade, as Jim shows the dictionary gives two meanings depending on where it is used, and I am content with that. Yes, the North American definition is recognized by some linguists (maybe even most, I don't have access to the same AHD that BSG has) as uncommon/improper, but regionalisms are often used in common language, and I will attribute the definition used in a region as the most likely usage of the word when someone uses it. Just like my example before of the verb "to table" where the British and US meanings are the opposite of each other as well, we have to consider where the word is used. I can understand some would want a definite answer, but such answers are often not available unless we give control of a language to some oversight body (like I understand the academie francais has over the French language), something I don't think is necessary or even useful.

Again, I see language as a tool which is used to communicate the ideas, and so I turn to usage (common, regional, etc.), along with context, when I want to understand what someone says. I may not even like the way they choose to phrase something, but understanding what they say is of paramount importance.

[BoSoxGal]

FYI, the American Heritage Dictionary can be accessed online for free, Big RR. Same with the M-W and Webster's Collegiate.

[Big RR]

thanks.

[rubato]

I will listen to what is said and factor it into my opinion, but ultimately I will decide what I believe.

Well just for us old fuddy-duddy types, what do you think "nonplussed" actually means? Or are you going to maintain that it means whatever the speaker/writer wants it to mean?

Are you in the "baffled" camp or the one that thinks it means "unbaffled"?

I'm using those words somewhat loosely of course. (The preceding sentence was in parentheses but I removed them for Joe's sake)

The meaning of words are based on a collective agreement which is somewhat malleable over time. Those who seek to express themselves and be understood will make an effort to understand what is the state of that collective agreement at that time and conform in a way which is comprehensible to their audience. Those who seek to understand will make an effort to adapt to the imperfections in someone else's attempts at expression.

Someone who was ignorant of the most common meaning of the term "nonplussed" might use it to mean the opposite not realizing that to most listeners they are saying the opposite of what they intend. But such a person who was honestly trying to communicate would not continue to defend the usage having learned that most of the educated world would not understand what they were trying to say. They would drop the Kallikak dialect except when speaking to other Kallikaks.

yrs,
rubato

The derivation of Kallikak is interesting in this context.

[rubato]

A timely example Illustrating accepted usage:

http://ww2today.com/



Aug
6
1944
US breakout continues, British locked in combat

Seeing that the situation was becoming, desperate, Corporal Bates then seized a light machine-gun and charged the enemy, moving forward through a hail of bullets and spnnters and firing the gun from his hip. He was almost immediately wounded by machine-gun fire and fell to the ground, but recovered himself quickly, got up and continued advancing towards the enemy, spraying bullets from his gun as he went. His action by now was having an effect on the enemy riflemen and machine gunners but mortar bombs continued to fall all around him.

He was then hit for the second time and much more seriously and painfully wounded. However, undaunted, he staggered once more to his feet and continued towards the enemy who were now seemingly nonplussed by their inability to check him.

yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

Meade--one more--what is one billion:

one thousand million (1,000,000,000) as in the US

or

one million million(s) (1,000,000,000,000, one trillion in the US) as in British usage?

eta: I do know in some fields (such as banking) the US definition has been accepted by the Brits, but I've still heard many Brits use the term One (or ten or whatever) thousand million and then use billion to refer to a million million(s); I've also heard the terms "Old Billion" and "New Billion". When I worked with the English, I usually to clarified the usage by writing the number out, but I don't know what the schools teach and how common the "Old" usage is.

Those who seek to express themselves and be understood will make an effort to understand what is the state of that collective agreement at that time and conform in a way which is comprehensible to their audience.

which is precisely why an understanding of regionalisms is important. I'd hate to offer a Brit a billion pounds wthout knowing exactly how they understood it.

Those who seek to understand will make an effort to adapt to the imperfections in someone else's attempts at expression.

Precisely, rather than call them ignorant or uneducated, which is what I originally objected to. (oops, there I go ending a sentence in a preposition...).

[MajGenl.Meade]

As usual, you wriggled out of providing a straight answer. Nonplussed I bet

Billion = a big number. Different people may have a different definition of what "big number" is. It is still the same 'thing' - i.e. a big number

Your example only works if you can compare two actual usages: one where a billion means a lot and one where it means no number at all - the opposite, see?




And credit where it's due, please. I was the one pointing to the North American informal usage (i.e. misuse) of "nonplussed" - a word that means what it means and not its exact opposite no matter how many fools think it is. LJ was quoting me. (A very wise thing to do)

[Big RR]

Your example only works if you can compare two actual usages: one where a billion means a lot and one where it means no number at all - the opposite, see?

I gave an example of opposites with the verb "to table", and pointed out that one billion is a word denoting a precise number, but that the Brits and Americans see that number as very different. I'd much rather get one billion dollars based on the British as opposed to the American usage, wouldn't you?

If you see that as "wriggling out of providing a straight answer", there's not much more I can say.

[MajGenl.Meade]

The word "table" can be applied to a number of things. It (AFAIK) denotes a flat surface - specifically a piece of furniture with that feature. It can then be applied to many things - flat geographic features. But it still indicates a flat surface and not a bunch of spikes.

To table a motion is not a word but a concept. It means to put the motion "on" the table in both contexts. One society chose to use that to signify putting it aside - the other to mean putting it into play.

What does "nonplussed" mean - choose one

[BoSoxGal]

To table a motion is not a word but a concept. It means to put the motion "on" the table in both contexts. One society chose to use that to signify putting it aside - the other to mean putting it into play.

That's an excellent clarification, Meade.

[Big RR]

Meade--two can play at that game:

Nonplus is a compound word including the prefix non (meaning not or nothing) and plus (meaning to add). To be nonplussed a motion is not a word but a concept. It means there is nothing to add after the action that has the person(s) nonplussed is completed. One society chose to use that to mean that they are so surprised as to become speechless by what was done, the other to signify that they are so disinterested by what occurred that they have nothing more to say. Both usages are in conformity with the Latin root of the word nonplussed.

The point is, the meaning of table (when used as a verb) is different depending on who is uttering it. When my British colleagues tabled an issue for the next meeting, they meant they were scheduling it to be discussed; as an American I thought it meant we would not discuss it at the next meeting. That is a HUGE difference--word, concept, or whatever you want to call it. When someone says they are tabling a motion, they are communicating an idea--an idea that is often different based on whether the person stating it is British or American. The same is true for nonplussed.

So tell me, what is the unambiguous definition of the verb "to table" ? It's not to place something on a table (unless you're maybe a waiter); it's to either bring something up for consideration or to remove it from consideration, and which of those it is depends on who is speaking. I won't ask you to choose one, as it is pointless to do so.