Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"Login" is not a verb

loginisnotaverb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 67 posts

Re: "Login" is not a verb

#31

Post by aoriste »

georgieporgie wrote: post #21
Maciek416 wrote: post #2

I'm beginning to think that linguistic prescriptivism is going to have a hard time holding up against the crazy mixing bowl that is the Internet and, to a wider extent, globalization. It's fun to play grammar nazi and all, but I've started to resign to the fact that people are simply going to do what they're going to do. Look at the state of English only a couple centuries ago. Language evolves quickly. Who's to say…

> "Google" and "email" did "Google" and "email" don't contain prepositions. I log in. You log in. We all logged in. I login. You login. We all logined. What? We all loggedined? We all loggedin? If we just acknowledge that "login" is a noun referring to your credentials, where as "log in" (or "log on") means to supply one's login/credentials, then it's all hunky-dory.

I do not see that a space makes much of a difference.

Plenty of linguists would admit 'login' as a verb. There is very little difficulty in accepting that 'to log in' and 'to login' mean the same thing.

In this case "in" does not function as a preposition, it is part of the verb. The evidence for this is immediately apparent when we consider that "to log" and "to log in" really are two different activities. We do not mean that we record anything when we login to a machine, what we are doing is obtaining access to it by means of an exchange of previously established authenticating information - and while this step may involve making a record of our login, it need not for the basic sense of that action to remain intact.

Also, we have no trouble with a multi-word verbs in English, if you don't believe me, try googling 'phrasal verbs'. This article is either a gag, or really is just an example prescriptavist nonsense which attempts in futility to combat the last 50 years of linguistic consensus.

Re: "Login" is not a verb

#32

Post by baddox »

petercooper wrote: post #14
Maciek416 wrote: post #2

I'm beginning to think that linguistic prescriptivism is going to have a hard time holding up against the crazy mixing bowl that is the Internet and, to a wider extent, globalization. It's fun to play grammar nazi and all, but I've started to resign to the fact that people are simply going to do what they're going to do. Look at the state of English only a couple centuries ago. Language evolves quickly. Who's to say…

I've started to resign to the fact that people are simply going to do what they're going to do. Look at the state of English only a couple centuries ago. Language evolves quickly. Blindly accepting all changes goes too far in the other direction. People can write however they like, but people with an interest in communicating clearly in written English usually adopt a middle way by developing their own style based on…

As soon as you say some usage is incorrect or "goes to far," you're claiming there's a line in the sand somewhere. Who is going to draw that line? There would have to be some governing body. Personally I'd rather argue that random speakers tend to be wrong, then try to lobby a language-government to change a language if there was something I disagreed with.

On top of that, the fact of the matter is that we use different "languages" in different domains. When writing something for a public or semi-public audience, I do think there should be a formal specification for English so that you can KNOW deterministically if your composition is correct. For verbal conversation it's unreasonable to expect people to conform to a formal grammar. For instant messaging it's apparently unreasonable (or at least hopeless) to expect any resemblance to "formal" English.

Re: "Login" is not a verb

#33

Post by baddox »

Maciek416 wrote: post #2

I'm beginning to think that linguistic prescriptivism is going to have a hard time holding up against the crazy mixing bowl that is the Internet and, to a wider extent, globalization. It's fun to play grammar nazi and all, but I've started to resign to the fact that people are simply going to do what they're going to do. Look at the state of English only a couple centuries ago. Language evolves quickly. Who's to say…

If you can be understood as you intended, your communication was effective and therefore "correct" on the most basic level. Beyond that, until there's a formal grammar for English, it's up to YOU to try to conform your language usage for some desired effect (e.g. to appear educated).

Re: "Login" is not a verb

#34

Post by petercooper »

baddox wrote: post #32
petercooper wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've started to resign to the fact that people are simply going to do what they're going to do. Look at the state of English only a couple centuries ago. Language evolves quickly. Blindly accepting all changes goes too far in the other direction. People can write however they like, but people with an interest in communicating clearly in written English usually adopt a middle way by developing their own style based on…

As soon as you say some usage is incorrect or "goes to far," you're claiming there's a line in the sand somewhere. Who is going to draw that line? There would have to be some governing body. Personally I'd rather argue that random speakers tend to be wrong, then try to lobby a language-government to change a language if there was something I disagreed with. On top of that, the fact of the matter is that we use differ…

you're claiming there's a line in the sand somewhere.

The only solid line I drew was that flat-out anarchy is a step too far. You talk about governing bodies and "language governments," even though I endorsed the current "middle way" paradigm of house styles (like the Chicago Manual of Style, the Associated Press house style, the Times of London style) as offering the best of both worlds. There is no dichotomy of a total free for all versus having a "language government."

When writing something for a public or semi-public audience, I do think there should be a formal specification for English so that you can KNOW deterministically if your composition is correct.

See, I disagree with that. Being with the gamut of what is considered professional, written English is good enough. US English and British English have differing formal standards (and even those aren't fixed by any one group), yet are easily read by both types of reader. Having multiple standards within an overall gamut of professional English is the current system and people adhere to whatever house style they wish (or, more commonly, mix together different notions of what they consider to be good).

Working within a gamut offers both structure and flexibility without resorting to "language governments" or language anarchy.

Re: "Login" is not a verb

#35

Post by hugh3 »

baddox wrote: post #30
mahmud wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The English language doesn't have a word with three or more repetitions of a letter. "LOOOL" and "mmmmmmuah" excepted.

orly? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/viii

VIII? That's not a word, it's a number.

Or, more accurately, it's a representation of a number using characters which happen to be letters of the alphabet.

Re: "Login" is not a verb

#36

Post by hugh3 »

petercooper wrote: post #34
baddox wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As soon as you say some usage is incorrect or "goes to far," you're claiming there's a line in the sand somewhere. Who is going to draw that line? There would have to be some governing body. Personally I'd rather argue that random speakers tend to be wrong, then try to lobby a language-government to change a language if there was something I disagreed with. On top of that, the fact of the matter is that we use differ…

you're claiming there's a line in the sand somewhere. The only solid line I drew was that flat-out anarchy is a step too far. You talk about governing bodies and "language governments," even though I endorsed the current "middle way" paradigm of house styles (like the Chicago Manual of Style, the Associated Press house style, the Times of London style) as offering the best of both worlds. There is no dichotomy of a t…

I think many of these arguments are just about the confusion between an in-the-system and out-of-the-system perspective.

Suppose I say "Joe Bloggs shouldn't be President". You could reply "Who are you to say that? We have a democratic system, and if the people choose to elect Joe Bloggs as President then Joe Bloggs should be President". And of course you'd be right in that I don't have the right to stand outside the system and declare that Joe Bloggs shouldn't be President. But if we zoom in on the democratic system then you'll see all sorts of people standing around arguing about whether Joe Bloggs should or should not be President, which is probably the level on which I meant to make my pronouncement in the first place.

Similarly, if I say "login" isn't a verb, it's not because I'm setting myself up as the independent arbiter of what is and isn't a word, I'm merely expressing a ground-level preference within-the-system preference that it should not be considered a verb (due, in this case, to inconsistency and the impossibility of sensibly putting it into past tense), and words come and go due to just such sorts of ground-level arguments.

So, with that out of the way, I agree that "login" shouldn't be a verb. Also, "panini" is plural and the singular is "panino".

Re: "Login" is not a verb

#38

Post by B-30 »

"Asinine fascist unwilling to brook dialogue (thus, no contact or comments on the web site) and unwilling to consider that English is English precisely because it has no rules that cannot change, and thus became the international lingua franca" is a longish phrase.

It simply is.

Re: "Login" is not a verb

#39

Post by aero142 »

Login can be a verb, we just haven't collectively decided how to conjugate it. Correct in language is usually more a function of convention rather than functionality. There just aren't rules to handle this. It can either be "he logs in" where we just revert to the two word version, which appears to be the most common approach, or you just conjugate and recombine. "He logsin". This is harder to recognize and pronounce so I prefer the former. Eventually, the matter will get settled by convention and then grammar nazis will nitpick people for not knowing the rules for conjugating verb phrases correctly.

Re: "Login" is not a verb

#40

Post by jplewicke »

mahmud wrote: post #24
georgieporgie wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggest a new, combined form: looose. The meaning will be drawn from context. I anticipate efficiency improvements world-wide.

The English language doesn't have a word with three or more repetitions of a letter. "LOOOL" and "mmmmmmuah" excepted.

From /usr/share/dict/words on OSX, I get the following:

whenceeer (probable corruption of whenceever, and hence not legit)

wallless

bossship

demigoddessship

goddessship

headmistressship

patronessship

Post reply on HN