Language

[Greg the Grouper]

@hackenslash @21st Demon Lord

I figured it might be better to move the language bit, hopefully this is a good spot for it.

I have to ask, though: Demon, when a new edition of a dictionary has an altered definition for a word, is it your opinion that the authors of said dictionary have declared to the world at large that, henceforth, this word will mean this thing?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Mmm descriptivism and prescriptivism... again!

 

[Deleted member 42253]

Definition of dictionary according to the Oxford Dictionary:
a book or electronic resource that lists the words of a language (typically in alphabetical order) and gives their meaning, or gives the equivalent words in a different language, often also providing information about pronunciation, origin, and usage.

That dictionaries get kept up to date and new words are added at all times, is one of the reseason I defer to their authority. In addition to that, experts in the fields words come from are consulted for every word. Discussions that can take decades culminate in changes of definitions at some times ... so .. yeah, dictionaries are great.

Also, if you speak a couple of languages, you got no choice but to rely on dictionaries.

Addendum: They actually do announce any changes and revision to the world. Barely anyone is interested though.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Hey, we've probably been having this conversation for thousands of years. What are a couple thousand more?

 

[Sparhafoc]

The idea 21st is that dictionaries *describe* how words are used, they don't prescribe how words must be used.

One problem that arises is when you encounter technical subjects. The non-technical dictionary may provide an answer that is how people use the word without acknowledging or realizing or including that the way people generally use the word doesn't align well with what the word actually means in a technical sense.

Good examples of this include 'theory' and 'law'. The general meaning of these words is not at all what they indicate in science.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Definition of dictionary according to the Oxford Dictionary:
a book or electronic resource that lists the words of a language (typically in alphabetical order) and gives their meaning, or gives the equivalent words in a different language, often also providing information about pronunciation, origin, and usage.

That dictionaries get kept up to date and new words are added at all times, is one of the reseason I defer to their authority. In addition to that, experts in the fields words come from are consulted for every word. Discussions that can take decades culminate in changes of definitions at some times ... so .. yeah, dictionaries are great.

Also, if you speak a couple of languages, you got no choice but to rely on dictionaries.

Addendum: They actually do announce any changes and revision to the world. Barely anyone is interested though.

So to clarify, as an example, do you believe that linguistic experts got together, decided that 'sick' will from now on also refer to something one might consider awesome as well as illness, and then have their most recent edition reflect that decision?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I feel this is an uncharitable thread to someone that has already admitted to not being a native English speaker. Scientific terminology is practically a second language already. This English-Scientific-Chovanism appears to be very unhelpful when trying to meet people where they already are.

 

[Deleted member 42253]

Depends on the word and dictionary.

Doubt they went through that much effort for 'sick', but they do consults foremost experts in the field for more complicated stuff and even posed the definition of, a little harder cases, to the respective communities, if the definition of the word was in dispute.

Btw. to stay up to date on whats going on with the dictionary:

Updates to the OED | Oxford English Dictionary

Discover the latest update to the Oxford English Dictionary

public.oed.com

 

[Deleted member 42253]

@he_who_is_nobody Yeah, I can talk shop at a pretty high level, if its something I am used to, like programming, but I try to stay out of stuff like advanced physics(seriously discussed), since I am lacking the vocabluary .. weirdly enough, the same applies to cooking. Then again, how many of you, can name the different types of spatula?

Good example: Recently I was talking to someone about Brexit and the effects on the financial sector. I was trying to say, that financial companies moved their offices and staff out of London. Tragically, I called those "assets", which is not wrong, but in a financial context, asset has a different meaning. I was tared and feathered for that and called "dishonest" and a "bad faith actor".

One of the reasons I am adamant about using the simple, mainstream definition of terms, unless everyone agreed to a technical conversation. Nothing wrong with conversing at a high level, but you can not just force someone into that(Without being clear about his background).

 

[Greg the Grouper]

@he_who_is_nobody

I wasn't aware that anyone involved in the conversation wasn't a native English speaker, and it wasn't my intention to mock or speak down to anyone.

This thread was meant as a branch off of the thread do non physical things exist?, where the conversation began to drift to definitions, dictionaries as an authority on definitions, and whether or not one should start with a colloquial definition for a conversation to teach someone or if one should start with rigorous definitions typically used in a relevant context.

 

[Deleted member 42253]

@psikhrangkur Another question would be, if the dictionary is not the ultimate authority on how to use language, which regions definition of terms do we go with?
I know I should try to be a little more classy, but let us take "gammon", "gobshyte" or "bonkers" as an example. Or something I recently learned at an irish wedding "do some damage". I am still hurting and that was months ago.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Well first, I would argue that language is determined by those who speak it. A word only means whatever meaning people relate to it.

As for regional terms, it would generally go by region, though so long as people can communicate effectively, the language has served its purpose.

As far as more technical subjects, it becomes harder, because these rigorous definitions are part of how one comes to understand and discuss these subjects. I would have a difficult time discussing wastewater with you if you insisted we use the colloquial definition of 'head'.

 

[Deleted member 42253]

Problem is, that we can not hold a proper conversation with people of all backgrounds internationally like that psikhrangkur, also that, at times, a referee is needed ... and thats kinda the dictionary, isnt it?
And to be honest, the english language is small and cute, not the most useful to illustrate complex matters ... we would all have to learn German(They actually got a tense for something you maybe planned to do in the future 20 years ago, if you traveled to the past) if you wanna go hardcore.

Sides, gotta face it, you or me .. we aint no Shakespheare, lingustic experts or foremost experts in our field. We simply do not get to argue language outside of philosophy. I ll apologize if, by chance, anyone here actually is though.

Addendum: Sides, the smart way to explain things, is in a way that everyone understands.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Sides, gotta face it, you or me .. we aint no Shakespheare, lingustic experts or foremost experts in our field. We simply do not get to argue language outside of philosophy. I ll apologize if, by chance, anyone here actually is though.

Within my field, I would argue that I have every right to challenge erroneous uses of words, and frankly Shakespeare would be entirely out of his depth in the modern world linguistically.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

I can't speak for anyone else, but yeah, I'm no expert on anything.

Still, I'll try to back up a lot, and hopefully work my way back up to this point.

Language, in my opinion, is a tool, like a hammer. The purpose of a tool is to perform a specific task, or to make that task easier to perform: language improves our ability to communicate, hammers improve our ability to drive nails into wood.

The task itself is what determines what qualifications are necessary to complete it. If the task in question is to lift 100 lbs, then all that's needed is to lift 100 lbs. You could bring in someone or something capable of lifting 200 lbs, but this is unnecessary, as lifting 100 lbs is enough to complete the task.

In casual conversation, rigorous and precise definitions aren't required. One need not be capable of explaining local climate patterns, or the water cycle, to discuss that it's currently raining, and the implications such rain has on a person's day-to-day routine. However, when it comes to technical professions, especially those of an academic nature, these rigorous definitions become fundamental to discussion.

head_1 noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced American Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

Definition of head_1 noun in Oxford Advanced American Dictionary. Meaning, pronunciation, picture, example sentences, grammar, usage notes, synonyms and more.

www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com

This is what I found of Oxford's definitions of 'head'. Even if you were to refer to the definition concerning rivers, or even more accurately, the definition referring to pressure, neither of these would be sufficient to grasp wastewater as a subject, or to discuss it at length.

In comparison, the glossary of Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Volume 1, Eighth Edition, from Sacramento State's Water Programs, lists 'head' as follows:

"The vertical distance, height, or energy of water above a reference point. A head of water may be measured in either height (feet or meters) or pressure (pounds per square inch or kilograms per square centimeter). Also see discharge head, dynamic head, static head, suction head, suction lift, and velocity head."

This definition even illustrates why the dictionary falls short here. It's understood through how it relates to other definitions, through other phenomena. I can't plug and play with the dictionary, and come up with a coherent explanation.

 

[Deleted member 42253]

"The vertical distance, height, or energy of water above a reference point. A head of water may be measured in either height (feet or meters) or pressure (pounds per square inch or kilograms per square centimeter). Also see discharge head, dynamic head, static head, suction head, suction lift, and velocity head."

This definition even illustrates why the dictionary falls short here. It's understood through how it relates to other definitions, through other phenomena. I can't plug and play with the dictionary, and come up with a coherent explanation.

Uhm ... thats exactly what you did.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

If you're willing to take the textbook as a source for a definition over the dictionary, and you're willing to accept its definition over others in the dictionary, then I'm honestly not sure what your original contention was. Can I just say that dictionary definitions of evolution don't suffice in the context of actually explaining what it is and how it functions to someone, and that we need to appeal to a more rigorous definition used in the field?

 

[Deleted member 42253]

Nothing wrong with that.
But you gotta be clear about that and mutually agree on that in advance(Or at least that would be a good idea). Cant just expect anyone to know, what a head of water is or who Hecatoncheires is ... or why something being as hard as adamant means "very hard".

In case that was not agreed on and considering you have no clue what kind of background your conversation partner has, wouldnt it be preferable to use simple language as the default(Especially in an open forum)? And well .. thats dictionary definitions(I guess you could go lower than that, but even I refuse to write even more infantile than I already do).
Sides, its always better to talk in a way, everyone understands, except if you are pressed for time.

And yes, I know how fucking annoying that can be and how refreshing it is, when you can cram a whole textbook of information into one page, cause you know that the one reading it, has 30 years of education that lets him understand that.

Sides, whats even more annoying is, when someone turns into a philosopher all of a sudden when running out of arguments and starts squabbling over the definition of words. Its nice to be able to go BAM! Dictionary! in those cases.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

The problem with that is that colloquial definitions often don't suffice for these conversations. It's kind of like trying to drive a nail into wood with a sock, because that's just what you had at the time, and it just seems simpler to try and make that work instead of finding a hammer.

 

[Deleted member 42253]

I prefer to take my time, write a little more and make sure everyone is on the same page and treat technical discussions as the exception rather than the norm.

Sides, remember those discussions that sometimes take hours, just for you to realize, that you have been talking about 2 completly different things, cause no one took the time, to clear up the meaning of a term?