Misunderstood concepts/phrases that make me crazy

[Jared Lash]

The difference between 'language evolution' and 'ignorance'/'uneducation' is purely in the eye of the beholder. In linguistics (in which I'm mastering next year) scientists are far beyond the point where there's 'good' and 'bad' language. Sadly, the public opinion isn't there yet.

Hey Vorago,

I assume you've read your share of Noam Chomsky's work, right?

Have you read "The Language Instinct" by Steven Pinker? If so, what did you think?

 

[LiquidMidnight]

The scientific method is applied and we look for ways to prove that hypothesis false, adjusting as we go until we find a hypothesis that accounts for all or nearly all observed happen-stances.

Actually, that right there is a big gripe of mine. We are looking to refute a hypothesis, not prove it wrong. Science proves and disproves nothing. Theories are based upon statistical percentages that come through empirical observation. Any type of event is subject to any number of confounding variables which may or may not be known to the observer. Proof means that a dependent variable will react exactly the same way 100% of the time, which is pretty much utterly impossible considering how many confounding variables may be prevalent in the environment. That's why a statistical measurement is always associated with an alpha level (i.e., p = .05) to help researchers deduce how much of their findings may be related to chance factors.

Wow, I feel like Peter Mac. with this post. Does that make me smug?

 

[Munjibunga]

I actually think it came from a study that showed that at any given time, only 10% or so of our neurons were active. Which makes sense depending on what task our brain is undertaking, whether its trying to remember a phone number, putting together a bookshelf, writing song lyrics or anything else there are very different regions of the brain being incorporated to differing degrees.

No, that's not from whence it came (he said, trying to avoid a hanging preposition). It's a misquote of Albert Eistein.

 

[Munjibunga]

This thread is full of facepalm..

Who cares if people use a phrase or saying wrong... Get over it.

First, an elipsis has three dots; a period, one. Second, I guess we might as well work our way toward blithering illiteracy. It doesn't matter, right?

 

[Munjibunga]

LOL, well, I didn't intend for this thread to just be a forum for random ranting.

I agree that in everyday conversation (and even in formal writing), there certainly comes a point when it's more trouble than it's worth, and even counterproductive, to be concerned with grammar and spelling. After all, the point of grammar is clear communication. Bad grammar can and does cause miscommunications, and I think we'd all agree that that's not ideal, especially in formal applications like law, politics, or journalism. Imagine the ensuing mess if a congressional bill were to read, "Affordable healthcare for our citizenry is the United States' penultimate priority and we should budget accordingly."

I think people take this attitude ("it doesn't matter as long as we both understand each other") too far. You (collectively; I don't mean you specifically, tZer) may think it's acceptable to write lazily on an internet forum, or in an internal company email, but then many people wonder (noisily) why they're not getting paid "what they're worth," etc... There is a causal relationship. I hope this makes sense.

Frankly, I'm not offended by the term "grammar Nazi," even though I was raised Jewish Decent grammar (and flawless spelling, especially in the spell-check age) are appropriate expectations for adults.

Dave, we are two hearts beating as one. In my business, if I get a resume (please forgive my missing accent marks) with more than one spelling error or any poor grammar at all, it goes in the trash. My company's product is a written report. Cruddy communication skills, either written or spoken, belong in someone else's company. Take note, all you job seekers.

 

[Vorago]

Hey Vorago,

I assume you've read your share of Noam Chomsky's work, right?

Have you read "The Language Instinct" by Steven Pinker? If so, what did you think?

Yes I've read TLI.

First of all I want to say that it's probably the best written book on language ever, style wise that is.

Content wise: Well, this book is a mix between a more general introduction to linguistics, and more specific (to some degree Chomskyan, although Pinker doesn't fully agree with Chomsky) ideas about Universal Grammar, innate language structures, etc.

The general introduction on phonology, morphology, basic syntax, evolution theory etc, is excellent, no controversy there, the problem is that Pinker mixes this up with his 'innate ideas' which are controversial to say the least.

What I don't like about Pinker is the way he manipulates some of his evidence (like the so called 'language genes' and the information on the KE (iirc) family). He's very good at only taking snippets out of other studies to prove his point, while the rest of the data sometimes shows that he can't make very strong claims at all on the subject in question. The more you read in on the subject, the more this becomes obvious up to the level you can start asking questions about his scientific method of constructing theories.

There's a lot more to this, and a lot more (specific, linguistic) reasons why I don't like Pinker (anymore), but to be honest with you I really don't have the time right now to reread my ba. scription on language evolution (I'm leaving tonight for the French Alps) which covered some of these issues.

If I'm back from France, and you remind me of it, I'll look up some more stuff.

Meanwhile, an author I thought had a very refreshing look on things like language evolution, acquisition, UG etc is Micheal Tomasello: Link Removed .

Another critical review of TLI I liked a lot is a book by Geoffrey Sampson: The Language Instinct Debate : http://www.grsampson.net/BLID.html

I could also give you my references from my ba scription, which gives you a nice starting point for further reading. Most of it is in English, so let me know if you're interested.

 

[Mark Reccord]

Dave, we are two hearts beating as one. In my business, if I get a resume (please forgive my missing accent marks) with more than one spelling error or any poor grammar at all, it goes in the trash. My company's product is a written report. Cruddy communication skills, either written or spoken, belong in someone else's company. Take note, all you job seekers.

I just reviewed resumes from co-op engineering students for a placement in my company. Out of 12 resumes, six had what I would consider serious spelling and grammar errors. I just threw them out. Whether the applicants didn't know any better or were too lazy to proofread their resumes is irrelevant to me, as both cases reflect equally poorly on them. As an interesting side note, the students with the best written resumes were the ones who speak English as a second language.

 

[Jared Lash]

No, that's not from whence it came (he said, trying to avoid a hanging preposition). It's a misquote of Albert Eistein.

Munji, I think this is similar to the phrase "the real McCoy" in that there are several plausible explanations for its origin. But I don't believe the original quote from Einstein mentioned a figure at all, let alone 10%, which makes me wonder if that was indeed the source.

Vorago,

Yeah, I'd be interested in further reading, but no rush on recommendations. First, I've got a number of books to finish first, and secondly because linguistics is more of a side interest for me rather than a true area of study.

 

[tZer]

I think people take this attitude ("it doesn't matter as long as we both understand each other") too far. You (collectively; I don't mean you specifically, tZer) may think it's acceptable to write lazily on an internet forum, or in an internal company email, but then many people wonder (noisily) why they're not getting paid "what they're worth," etc... There is a causal relationship. I hope this makes sense.

It does make sense.

And I don't think anyone will ever accuse you of writing lazily!

 

[DanielleMuscato]

Munjibunga, you reminded me of another one

"Whence" = "from where"
"Wither" = "to where"
"Hence" = "from here"
"Hither" = "to here"
"Thence" = "from there"
"Thither" = "to there"

I see people misuse these in the most ironic circumstances (usually when they're trying to sound educated ). "From whence" is redundant and grammatically incorrect, not to mention archaic

 

[DanielleMuscato]

Actually, that right there is a big gripe of mine. We are looking to refute a hypothesis, not prove it wrong. Science proves and disproves nothing.

Thanks for the clarification! I appreciate it.

 

[Munjibunga]

Munjibunga, you reminded me of another one

"Whence" = "from where"
"Wither" = "to where"
"Hence" = "from here"
"Hither" = "to here"
"Thence" = "from there"
"Thither" = "to there"

I see people misuse these in the most ironic circumstances (usually when they're trying to sound educated ). "From whence" is redundant and grammatically incorrect, not to mention archaic

I stand embarrassed and corrected. I was trying to sound educated, but my degree in geology let me down. Please pass the dunce cap. BTW, What about yon?

 

[Munjibunga]

Well, then again ...

[Q] From Marty Robinson: “Last week you quoted Sir Christopher Wren as referring to ‘The Ailes, from whence arise Bows or Flying Buttresses to the Walls of the Navis.’ I’m sorry to learn that Sir Christopher used the redundancy from whence.”

[A] This is another of those grammatical shibboleths, like avoiding a plural verb with none or not splitting one’s infinitives, that are open to linguistic debate, to put it mildly. The argument against this form is that whence already includes the idea of coming from some place, so that including from makes it tautological.

The debate is complicated by the fact that whence is not that common a word these days, being rather literary; I had trouble finding a modern example that wasn’t prefixed by from. This is from Newsday of 11 November 2004: “He is a legendary figure in his native England, whence I have just returned.” That’s a good example of the “proper” use.

Objectors to from whence have support in logic, but logic doesn’t feature much in English constructions, especially idioms, which is how one perhaps should regard the phrase these days. One newspaper archive I consulted, hardly comprehensive, contained more than 250 cases of from whence just in 2004. It succeeds because it is informal and colloquial compared with whence used alone, a construction that is unusual enough to force readers to stop and work out the meaning.

And even a brief look at historical sources shows that from whence has been common since the thirteenth century. It has been used by Shakespeare, Defoe (in the opening of Robinson Crusoe: “He got a good estate by merchandise, and leaving off his trade, lived afterwards at York; from whence he had married my mother&#8221, Smollett, Dickens (in A Christmas Carol: “He began to think that the source and secret of this ghostly light might be in the adjoining room, from whence, on further tracing it, it seemed to shine&#8221, Dryden, Gibbon, Twain (in Innocents Abroad: “He traveled all around, till at last he came to the place from whence he started&#8221, and Trollope, and it appears 27 times in the King James Bible (including Psalm 121: “I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help&#8221.

Though Dr Johnson objected to it in his Dictionary of 1755, calling it “A vicious mode of speech” (he meant it was reprehensible, not depraved or savage), most objections to it are no earlier than the twentieth century. One reason may be that its critics are unaware of its long pedigree.

I'm an ignoramus in pretty heady company.

 

[Munjibunga]

I'm going to be OK.

 

[IanStephenson]

wherefore art though romeo?

Miss-used to mean WHERE are you? In fact it means WHY(ish)

 

[IanStephenson]

While we're at it - a Quantum Leap is the smallest leap you can make. It's impossible for a leap to be smaller (though it could be used to represent a qualitive change rather than a quantitive one)

 

[Munjibunga]

wherefore art though romeo?

Miss-used to mean WHERE are you? In fact it means WHY(ish)

She didn't mean, "Where are you, Romeo?" She meant, "Why the hell do you have to be a Montague?"

 

[Munjibunga]

One of my favorites: "Oh, that happened light years ago." A light year is a distance, not a time.

 

[Jared Lash]

She didn't mean, "Where are you, Romeo?" She meant, "Why the hell do you have to be a Capulet?"

Romeo was a Montague. Juliet was a Capulet.

It's fun being snarky . . .

But I still want to be Munji when I grow up.

 

[Munjibunga]

While we're at it - a Quantum Leap is the smallest leap you can make. It's impossible for a leap to be smaller (though it could be used to represent a qualitive change rather than a quantitive one)

Not necessarily. A quantum leap is an electron jumping from one energy state to another. It's not large by energy or distance standards, but it has significant ramifications in the atomic realm. The saying is intended more to imply a significant change in the state of matters at hand.