2 minutes ago, svelok said:Dictionaries describe, not prescribe
No prescription fixes stupid
Where is our article?
8 minutes ago, Megatronrex said:No prescription fixes stupid
Linguistic change isn't stupidity. We're not dumber than our ancestors were even though we don't speak Old Norse or because at some point we started spelling "to" differently depending on if it was acting as an adverb or a preposition.
11 minutes ago, svelok said:Linguistic change isn't stupidity. We're not dumber than our ancestors were even though we don't speak Old Norse or because at some point we started spelling "to" differently depending on if it was acting as an adverb or a preposition.
Taking a word that has one meaning and expanding its definition to include the literal opposite of that word is stupid. There is literally no argument that can change my view of this.
If we're not dumber than our ancestors then why are we as a society slowly reverting to a system of pictographs over words with clear and literal meanings?
Please don't take this as some kind of hostility on my part. I just really, really am not a fan of what I see as the further dumbing down of the English language.
11 minutes ago, svelok said:Linguistic change isn't stupidity. We're not dumber than our ancestors were even though we don't speak Old Norse or because at some point we started spelling "to" differently depending on if it was acting as an adverb or a preposition.
No, we aren't dumber. I think ignorant may be a better term. Since the codification of language by dictionaries etc. we have given ourselves a standard for accurate usage. Before this, meanings could change and were more fluid until the population forgot that a word could even mean something different. Languages change with the downfall of organized governments and the rules and regulations they bring. Look at Latin. It morphed into a variety of languages without the Romans around to keep it all together. We have some of that today, mostly in slang. But I think the minute you put down a definition for words and usage you stratify the public based on their ability with or knowledge of language. So being ignorant of the correct meanings is different from being dumb. And with enough ignorance I suppose meanings will change.
Imagine if we played Armada this way. If enough people played a rule wrong it would all of a sudden become right!
1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:The Merriam-Webster dictionary literally added a statement to the definition of literally that states that literally can mean figuratively .
That makes me sad.
But I was actually referring to his use of pay to win, and the rage train against bf2 that was based on incorrect assumptions that was driven by bloggers and YouTubers that did zero research, and irresponsibly put out false information.
10 minutes ago, Megatronrex said:Taking a word that has one meaning and expanding its definition to include the literal opposite of that word is stupid. There is literally no argument that can change my view of this.
If we're not dumber than our ancestors then why are we as a society slowly reverting to a system of pictographs over words with clear and literal meanings?
Please don't take this as some kind of hostility on my part. I just really, really am not a fan of what I see as the further dumbing down of the English language.
Language changes. It doesn't mean it's getting 'dumber'. Change doesn't equal decay. Many words have changed meanings over the years, some to their exact opposite meaning. And it's not a recent phenomenon. Aweful is bad now, but used to mean full of awe. Nice used to mean silly or foolish. Human language evolves, it changes, it adapts. It also grows. Some estimate that over 8000 words are added to our language every year, while close to 1000 are added officially to the dictionary every year. Hard to say it's getting dumber when it's actually growing in size, depth, and breadth. If anything, English started out pretty dumb, and it has a long ways to go. It lacks a lot of nuance of other languages. Many languages have words that simply don't translate to English, which is part of the reason the language grows and changes. It's also full of problems. Sounds and spellings that are in direct conflict with one another. Rules, exemptions to the rules, and exemptions to those exemptions. Multiple versions of the same word. It's really a pretty ugly language that honestly needs to be updated. English began in the 500s, but didn't even bother to standardize spelling till the 1750s, and many words change spelling and pronunciation depending on which country you are in even to this day.
Emojis aren't replacing or supplanting language, they are expanding it. Because someone knows what the eggplant emoji means doesn't mean they forgot the couple correct terms and the other 100 stupid nicknames for the same thing. It's an expansion of the language, not a replacement.
Many of histories most intelligent people and some of it's greatest writers were bad spellers or had a pretty poor grasp of basic grammar rules.
Ben Franklin, Yeats, Da Vinci, Churchill, Einstein, and Hemmingway all struggled with spelling. Shakespeare spelled his name in different ways throughout his writing career.
In other words, stop yelling at the clouds, stop telling kids to get off your lawn, and learn to adapt, grow, and flourish along with our language.
Taking a word that has one meaning and expanding its definition to include the literal opposite of that word is stupid. There is literally no argument that can change my view of this.
18 minutes ago, kmanweiss said:In other words, stop yelling at the clouds, stop telling kids to get off your lawn, and learn to adapt, grow, and flourish along with our language.
Get off my lawn!!!
3 minutes ago, Stasy said:Get off my lawn!!!
I literally do yell at people for that. My property is full of woods and completely surrounded by roads and people are always using my driveway for weird purposes. I've caught people dumping their trash (this includes toilets, refrigerators and once a very large dildo), having sex (in and out of their vehicle), using the bathroom (#1 and #2), and 1 idiot who tried to pitch a tent and camp out. The bathroom users get so embarrassed when I tell them I got them on camera taking a dump and make them pick it up and take it with them. I love telling people to stay off my lawn!!!
34 minutes ago, Megatronrex said:Taking a word that has one meaning and expanding its definition to include the literal opposite of that word is stupid. There is literally no argument that can change my view of this.
2 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:
Never said it doesn't happen. Just that it's stupid.
In defense of my POV the meaning of that word changed sometime around the 12th century. The first English dictionaries didn't appear until the 1500s and most people in the world were illiterate during both time periods.
22 minutes ago, Megatronrex said:Taking a word that has one meaning and expanding its definition to include the literal opposite of that word is stupid. There is literally no argument that can change my view of this.
Awful used to mean really good, as did egregious; so I hope you never say either of those!
If you dust a house you're removing particles, if you dust a cake you're adding them. It even has a name - auto-antonym .
30 minutes ago, Megatronrex said:If we're not dumber than our ancestors then why are we as a society slowly reverting to a system of pictographs over words with clear and literal meanings?
Why is a picture with a clear and literal meaning less advanced than a word with a clear and literal meaning? (Except, as we've established, words don't always have those). Egyptian hieroglyphs corresponded directly to sounds despite being pictures, while Japanese characters are evolved from pictographs. That doesn't make them backwards compared to English.
37 minutes ago, Megatronrex said:Please don't take this as some kind of hostility on my part. I just really, really am not a fan of what I see as the further dumbing down of the English language.
I don't, this is just a linguistic pet peeve of mine. The notion that one way of speaking is superior to another has historically been used very, very often as a means of oppressing a certain culture or class - and still is to this day. And it's a notion with no basis in linguistic science. So it bugs me when I see it, even when it's innocuous.
There is no connection whatsoever between the meaning of a word and the intelligence of the speaker. Words are symbols that convey a meaning based on context and mutual understanding, not an unchanging sacred prescription passed down from on high. With the exception of pidgins (which are by definition not yet full languages), every language is capable of expressing the same ideas and concepts. You might be lacking some nouns here or there, but ideas are a separate class from language . (If you want proof, just think back to any time you were trying to talk, but found yourself blanking, " it was, what's the word, for, uhh... ")
50 minutes ago, durandal343 said:No, we aren't dumber. I think ignorant may be a better term. Since the codification of language by dictionaries etc. we have given ourselves a standard for accurate usage. Before this, meanings could change and were more fluid until the population forgot that a word could even mean something different. Languages change with the downfall of organized governments and the rules and regulations they bring. Look at Latin. It morphed into a variety of languages without the Romans around to keep it all together. We have some of that today, mostly in slang. But I think the minute you put down a definition for words and usage you stratify the public based on their ability with or knowledge of language. So being ignorant of the correct meanings is different from being dumb. And with enough ignorance I suppose meanings will change.
This is sort of what I meant. Dictionaries do not tell us how language is meant to be, they describe how it is. The rules are written by the speakers, and change from moment to moment. When I say Armada, you think of a tabletop game, not the Spanish fleet. You know what I mean by TRCs. You even know what it means to be tabled, even though none of those will appear in most dictionaries. (We have our own glossary, and even our relatively tiny linguistic community can't agree on what the terms mean!)
Linguistic change can be caused by ignorance, but that doesn't say anything about the change itself - every language is capable of expressing the same ideas and concepts, and every spoken language is in a constant and continual state of changing. The term "tabled" was co-opted to fill a niche that wasn't previously occupied; but it's not like we couldn't express the notion before, and we're not any dumber after.
I won't get into the Roman/Latin stuff because history isn't my strong suit, but suffice to say the Roman Empire had about a brazillion different languages spoken in it, and Latin is still in use in some fields to this day, for no particular reason except tradition.
51 minutes ago, durandal343 said:Imagine if we played Armada this way. If enough people played a rule wrong it would all of a sudden become right!
How do you think chess came to exist?
Regardless, that's an inappropriate comparison. Armada is a game; an ends. Language is a means. When I say "we will literally never get another Armada article", you know exactly what I mean. That makes it correct, and my ability to express the idea is unimpeded.
What do you mean "imagine if we played Armada this way."
People do .
For Proof:
Orange
and
Purple
, and yet somehow
a third option
.
3 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:What do you mean "imagine if we played Armada this way."
People do .
For Proof:
Orange and Purple , and yet somehow a third option .
That was the joke
Just now, durandal343 said:That was the joke
Orange and Purple is never a Joke.
2 minutes ago, svelok said:Awful used to mean really good, as did egregious; so I hope you never say either of those!
If you dust a house you're removing particles, if you dust a cake you're adding them. It even has a name - auto-antonym .
You're absolutely correct. There's no shortage of words with obfuscated meanings. I wasn't around when the meaning of your specific examples changed to rail against them the way I am against Literally.
8 minutes ago, svelok said:Why is a picture with a clear and literal meaning less advanced than a word with a clear and literal meaning? (Except, as we've established, words don't always have those). Egyptian hieroglyphs corresponded directly to sounds despite being pictures, while Japanese characters are evolved from pictographs. That doesn't make them backwards compared to English.
You clearly (and thankfully) don't get texts from my girlfriend. Nothing but emojiis and no one ever interprets them to mean what she wanted them to but she keeps on doing it. I'm not criticizing how other cultures languages work just my own.
13 minutes ago, svelok said:I don't, this is just a linguistic pet peeve of mine. The notion that one way of speaking is superior to another has historically been used very, very often as a means of oppressing a certain culture or class - and still is to this day. And it's a notion with no basis in linguistic science. So it bugs me when I see it, even when it's innocuous.
Glad to know that you're not taking my opinion as some kind of attack and I'm actually enjoying this exchange.
(using as an enhancer not a word or specific phrase unto itself)
15 minutes ago, svelok said:There is no connection whatsoever between the meaning of a word and the intelligence of the speaker. Words are symbols that convey a meaning based on context and mutual understanding, not an unchanging sacred prescription passed down from on high. With the exception of pidgins (which are by definition not yet full languages), every language is capable of expressing the same ideas and concepts. You might be lacking some nouns here or there, but ideas are a separate class from language . (If you want proof, just think back to any time you were trying to talk, but found yourself blanking, " it was, what's the word, for, uhh... ")er get another Armada article", you know exactly what I mean. That makes it correct, and my ability to express the idea is unimpeded.
On this we disagree completely. On a daily basis I have to deal with people who consistently misuse the same words. I wholesale meat for a living and I couldn't tell you how many times people ask for 1 item when they mean another, and those same people justify it by saying "I know that ain't what it is, but that's what I call it". I literally have a spreadsheet that serves as a pseudo decoder ring for making sure I get my regular customers the products they use as opposed to what they order. I hate it when people say "you know what I mean", because often I don't.
So once again I reitterate
Taking a word that has one meaning and expanding its definition to include the literal opposite of that word is stupid. There is literally no argument that can change my view of this.
I read your last statement and replace 'literal' with 'figurative' on automatic pilot now.
2 minutes ago, Megatronrex said:Taking a word that has one meaning and expanding its definition to include the literal opposite of that word is stupid. There is literally no argument that can change my view of this.
1 hour ago, Tirion said:But I was actually referring to his use of pay to win, and the rage train against bf2 that was based on incorrect assumptions that was driven by bloggers and YouTubers that did zero research, and irresponsibly put out false information.
During my time on the beta, it certainly felt like it was in the "pay-to-win" direction. Not only do you have cards that give you new, stronger gear and abilities, you also have upgrades for abilities, like the star card that reduces cool downs by up to 50% which I got in a random pack. I also got 2 more cards that increased my rate of fire and damage. I jumped into a game and when on a 19 kill streak in an A-Wing.
So it's hard to not think BF2 will be pay-to-win. I know EA said they were going to fix the loot crates.
But now there are BioWare developers speaking out against EA's business model of forcing players into micro transactions. EA has also shut down Visceral Games who was working on a single player Star Wars game. If you read both of the se articles, you'll see a common theme EA has in game development: Keep players coming back for more in an open world environment.
“It has become clear that to deliver an experience that players will want to come back to and enjoy for a long time to come, we needed to pivot the design. We will maintain the stunning visuals, authenticity in the Star Wars universe, and focus on bringing a Star Wars story to life. Importantly, we are shifting the game to be a broader experience that allows for more variety and player agency, leaning into the capabilities of our Frostbite engine and reimagining central elements of the game to give players a Star Wars adventure of greater depth and breadth to explore.”
https://www.polygon.com/2017/10/17/16490960/ea-closing-visceral-games-star-wars-game-delayed
"...they are generally pushing for more open-world games. And the reason is you can monetise them better. The words in there that were used are 'have them come back again and again' [not quite but that's the gist - see above]. Why do you care about that at EA? The reason you care about that is because microtransactions: buying card packs in the Mass Effect games, the multiplayer. It's the same reason we added card packs to Mass Effect 3: how do you get people to keep coming back to a thing instead of 'just' playing for 60 to 100 hours?
...
What we're seeing is a "cynical" chasing of the games making big money. "You've seen - what is BioWare's new franchise coming out?" he asked.
"Anthem," the host duly answered.
"Right," Heir said. "It's not a traditional-looking BioWare game, right? If that's what you're seeing from a place like BioWare, owned by EA, a place where I worked for seven years; if that's what you're seeing from Visceral now closing and going to this other Vancouver studio; what it means is that the linear single-player triple-A game at EA is dead for the time being."
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-10-23-manveer-heir-bioware-mass-effect-ea-monetisation
It's frustrating to see EA go in this direction. It may not be pay-to-win like mobile games are, but it's pretty **** close.
14 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:
Best argument so far
I personally love how a post asking about when we are going to get some long overdue updates turned into a page long linguistic debate. This is how hard up we are for news FFG. Throw us a bone already!
47 minutes ago, Megatronrex said:On this we disagree completely. On a daily basis I have to deal with people who consistently misuse the same words. I wholesale meat for a living and I couldn't tell you how many times people ask for 1 item when they mean another, and those same people justify it by saying "I know that ain't what it is, but that's what I call it". I literally have a spreadsheet that serves as a pseudo decoder ring for making sure I get my regular customers the products they use as opposed to what they order. I hate it when people say "you know what I mean", because often I don't.
That's a literal language barrier. If you think of meat wholesalers as speaking their own dialect, you and yours have certain terms with specific meanings within your linguistic/cultural group. Your customers come from a different dialect, and that stuff isn't part of their cultural purview. You both know what a ribeye is, but you may well have two different words for it.
It's completely analogous to a hypothetical world where all meat wholesalers exclusively speak French, and all your customers exclusively speak English. Your spreadsheet is a de facto dictionary, serving the actual purpose of a dictionary - to describe parlance such that it can be understood by an outsider or researcher.
If this seems silly, it's not. We tend to think of it all as one big English, cleanly delineated from Spanish or German or whatever, but it's not. The difference between what constitutes a language (German vs English), a dialect (UK English vs US English), or just a meat wholesaler having a different set of understood terminology than their customers, is completely socio-political. Linguistically, it's just a spectrum.
You wouldn't call a customer dumb just because they come in and want to buy a chuletón , even if you've got no idea what that means.
4 minutes ago, kmanweiss said:I personally love how a post asking about when we are going to get some long overdue updates turned into a page long linguistic debate. This is how hard up we are for news FFG. Throw us a bone already!
Ah, but you assume I need a reason to debate linguistics.
At all times my body is ready for the opportunity to present itself.
I think we should discuss the Nordic languages.
No, but I've worked in a Deli, and had someone ask for Ham , serve them Ham , and be screamed at because I didn't get them Bologna .
I think that's what he's talking about.
2 minutes ago, svelok said:At all times my body is ready for the opportunity to present itself.
With clothes on right?