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

English as She Is Spoke (1884) [pdf]

exclassics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 147 posts

Re: English as She Is Spoke (1884) [pdf]

#131

Post by nerdponx »

smcl wrote: post #119
nerdponx wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Along similar lines, expect a spelling convergence of "wary" and "weary" in the next 5-10 years due to so many people not knowing the difference between the two, not bothering to check, and perpetuating confusion by using the wrong one in their own writing.

It's weird how people mix these up, I think it's due to incorrectly assuming it's related to the verb "to wear". While we're on the subject - more then and less then are becoming very common due to the similarity in how than/then are pronounced in US accented English.

I wonder if this particular mixup is due to people using voice dictation instead of typing. iOS makes that particular error all the time when I dictate.

This particular spelling mixup seems unlikely to persist because people know and understand both words, and it's considered basic knowledge, like your/you're, and I would expect similar memes and derision for people who don't attempt to distinguish them.

Re: English as She Is Spoke (1884) [pdf]

#132

Post by yamtaddle »

DangitBobby wrote: post #106
yamtaddle wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, it has a history. Any use that is described as incorrect has a history, else it wouldn't come up. Is it distracting? Is there another word that perfectly replaces it, is understood by practically all English speakers, and that's not distracting? Yes and yes, so: "to be composed of" should be preferred. I further doubt, very much, that the choice to substitute "to be comprised of" is an informed one in very near…

Cool. Words are defined by how people use them, not the other way around. People have been using it enough for the "official" definition to have expanded to include your pet peeve usage, and is undeniably actually correct usage no matter how many paragraphs you type out having no relevance to the matter. Complaining about it won't accomplish anything, it's over. Unless your goal is to try to change the definition of…

Descriptions and sound advice needn't be in agreement.

[EDIT] Sorry, that was needlessly curt. I don't think we actually disagree that much anyway—I'm not advancing prescriptivism, and this issue doesn't bother me that much (I was just using it as an example!), though I do notice it. I can find support in the dictionary for my use of "incorrect" here— :-) —but it was probably an incorrect word to have used to express what I was getting at in the first place, and my poor choice there may have been the cause of much of this exchange.

Re: English as She Is Spoke (1884) [pdf]

#133

Post by smcl »

nerdponx wrote: post #131
smcl wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird how people mix these up, I think it's due to incorrectly assuming it's related to the verb "to wear". While we're on the subject - more then and less then are becoming very common due to the similarity in how than/then are pronounced in US accented English.

I wonder if this particular mixup is due to people using voice dictation instead of typing. iOS makes that particular error all the time when I dictate. This particular spelling mixup seems unlikely to persist because people know and understand both words, and it's considered basic knowledge, like your/you're, and I would expect similar memes and derision for people who don't attempt to distinguish them.

You'd think so, but I've when I've brought this up (and weary/wary) people often do the "languages evolve" thing. It's happened before with things like "colour" and "aluminium" so I don't think we can rule it out again.

Re: English as She Is Spoke (1884) [pdf]

#134

Post by yamtaddle »

denton-scratch wrote: post #125
DangitBobby wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "incorrect" use of comprise is correct and has been in use since the 18th century [1]. 1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comprise

Merriam Webster are the arch-descriptivists. If a usage is attested anywhere, MW lists it as correct. Basically, they don't believe that any usage attested anywhere can be incorrect. If you want to know whether a usage is correct or not, don't ask MW.

Descriptivist dictionaries aren't about giving advice on usage that best communicates, so consulting them as a usage guide is usually not the best idea. They're to help one understand unfamiliar words or usage—including common but maybe-not-great ones!—not to use as a guide to what's best. Finding a definition in a dictionary isn't enough to justify a choice, aside from confirming that one has not done something entirely novel.

Re: English as She Is Spoke (1884) [pdf]

#135

Post by denton-scratch »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #129
denton-scratch wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Merriam Webster are the arch-descriptivists. If a usage is attested anywhere, MW lists it as correct. Basically, they don't believe that any usage attested anywhere can be incorrect. If you want to know whether a usage is correct or not, don't ask MW.

Correct according to whom?

Humpty Dumpty is not an authority on the meaning of words.

Re: English as She Is Spoke (1884) [pdf]

#136

Post by ragazzina »

gherkinnn wrote: post #8
akolbe wrote: post #6

What's remarkable is how good machine translation (DeepL, Google Translate) has become at handling idiomatic expressions in recent years. Still not perfect, of course (there's still the odd clanger), but anyone trying to do the same task today would fare considerably better.

I disagree. I can't speak for Deepl, but Google remains terrible at idioms. Give the phrase "There's mud all over the shop." a try.

"I went inside the place/bar, and there was mud all over the shop" gets translated correctly by DeepL. With restaurant/home/office/stables, it fails.

Re: English as She Is Spoke (1884) [pdf]

#137

Post by amanaplanacanal »

denton-scratch wrote: post #135
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct according to whom?

Humpty Dumpty is not an authority on the meaning of words.

That’s the thing. Nobody is. Words were not handed down from god. Language changes continuously. Notice how we aren’t speaking proto-indo-european any more?

Re: English as She Is Spoke (1884) [pdf]

#138

Post by denton-scratch »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #137
denton-scratch wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humpty Dumpty is not an authority on the meaning of words.

That’s the thing. Nobody is. Words were not handed down from god. Language changes continuously. Notice how we aren’t speaking proto-indo-european any more?

I'm trying to avoid this conversation :-) I think descriptivism/prescriptivism is probably off-topic in this thread.

Oh well -

Someone upthread implied that the purpose of a descriptivist dictionary is to help readers/hearers to understand unfamiliar words, not to guide writers/speakers in correct usage. Thing is, they're all descriptivist. There are opinionated guides like Fowler (and the subject of this article! /on-topic), but I don't know of an opinionated lexicon.

Re: English as She Is Spoke (1884) [pdf]

#139

Post by pbhjpbhj »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #69
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Give the phrase "There's mud all over the shop." a try. // In which dialect of English is that an idiomatic expression? Never heard it before (en-gb native). What's the interpreted meaning??

".. all over the shop" is a perfectly ordinary British Isles idiom. Perhaps more widespread than that.

Yes, "all over the shop" is an adverbial expression meaning someone/something was haphazard, lacking in control, or behaving unusually.

"Messi [a footballer] was all over the shop"

might be said if he was regularly out of position in match, or performed uncharacteristically unskillfully. The verb is implied here.

If you say "mud was all over the shop" then the only interpretation I know is that a literal shop has mud over [the inside of] it. That's not idiomatic; it's just plain language.

It could work if you were talking about mud doing something unexpected; maybe a misbehaving oil well.

What's your interpretation of the full expression "there's mud all over the shop"?

Re: English as She Is Spoke (1884) [pdf]

#140

Post by amanaplanacanal »

denton-scratch wrote: post #138
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the thing. Nobody is. Words were not handed down from god. Language changes continuously. Notice how we aren’t speaking proto-indo-european any more?

I'm trying to avoid this conversation :-) I think descriptivism/prescriptivism is probably off-topic in this thread. Oh well - Someone upthread implied that the purpose of a descriptivist dictionary is to help readers/hearers to understand unfamiliar words, not to guide writers/speakers in correct usage. Thing is, they're all descriptivist. There are opinionated guides like Fowler (and the subject of this article! /o…

Honestly it’s just my pet peeve. It’s like grammar nazis. I want to tell them this just isn’t how language works.
Post reply on HN