What's the point in meaningless words?
1. Well, there are times when grammar dictates a word is required even though none is appropriate.
2. There are other times when we don't want to display our ignorance, so use a meaningless word that sounds impressive.
3. And still other times when we need to explain something but don't have the time or energy to trawl through a dictionary.
4. <your category here>

A recent example: I read an article describing a disease as 'idiopathic'. This comes under category 2 above, as it means, near enough, 'arising from some peculiar, unknown cause', but sounds informative.

Meaningless nouns (placeholders?) are especially useful under category 3: 'thingy', 'wotsit' or my personal favourite 'doobrie'.

So - do you know of any other meaningless words, that fall into any of the categories? Personal favourites as well as those used by others are valid, with bonus points for words that sound meaningful (category 2).

Fisk

wossname, thingumajig, wossface (for a person), chief cook and bottlewasher (when you don't want to talk about, or explain, your job in detail) etc.

Also, in AWADspeak, newly made Enthusiasts.

Well, like, yaknow, like, i really, like, have a thing against, like, meaningless words, yaknow, like, when speaking. Yaknow, like how, like some people, like, just don't really get to the point, 'cause, youknow, like its so * obvious?
( * very frequently f***ing)

this board has wonderful word plays, and so much thought goes into each word. If a word is misused, the topic veers off into playing with the misused word, with so much creativity, It leaves me feeling like the unarmed opponent in the game of wits!

It leaves me feeling like the unarmed opponent in the game of wits!

Me too.

For instance, I can only fuzzilly deduce that the term you used - yaknow - is a corruption of Yak now. This, presumably (and I'm awful at looking things up) comes from Tibet, and refers either to a) the desire to eat yak stew, now, or b) using Yak as the word to refer to part of a yak (isn't this the opposite of synecdoche?), a desire for a steaming bowl of yak milk.

Given that Tibetans are not famous for wordplay, I would have to further conclude that it is not an aspect of working class Tibetan culture being spread here, but perhaps one from the intelligentsia - viz the lamas. Now they are more than likely to have been vegetarian, in which case one must conclude that this is perhaps the final sentence in a zen koan that makes sense to initiates, but sounds like one hand clapping to us.

Allowing my imagination to run free, I presume the story would go something like this:

A student approached the Master one day and said, "Master, I meditate. I understand the fourfold path. I follow the eight rules. Yet my belly feels empty."
And the Master, raising a finger at a passing working class devotee, said: "Yak now". And the student understand all.

I obviously need more drugs...

well, its hard to get just the right tone when writing:
you'd need to do a screen play:
Bored looking middle aged woman on side walk, with some NY landmark visible in background (Woolworth building is closest to me right now, but could be any NY landmark) Obviously chewing a large wad of gum: and then You know, sounds something close to yaknow, or jaknow or gaknow (as in geet? = Did you eat?)

But if I am not mistaken, in addition to a exquisitely beautiful Hindu temple, and a Japanese Buddhist temple, we do have a Tibetan Buddhist temple in Queens, so perhaps I am wrong! it could be NY speak is more heavily influenced by Tibet than I realized!

it could be NY speak is more heavily influenced by Tibet than I realized!

Who knows?

The Dalai Lama (whi is everywhere and everything)

I like doohickie for something you can't quite put a name on. Jack of all trades master of none is more often used to describe a job with no title.

I like doohickie for somethink you can't quite put a name on.

Me too, although people will confuse doohickies with dooverlackies, whatchamacallits, jiggers and even common or garden widgets.

But, but, it seem so clear. You use the thingamagig, you know, the one with the caboobers that you scrunch together to fix up to doohickie. EVERYBODY knows, you can't make your garden variety widget work without a doohickie. Phsssh (insert rolling-eye towards the sky emoticon here)

I think Web-enabled would just about qualify for a Category 2 Meaningless Word.

Just about every software vendor now insists that their software has this impressive feature. It may just mean they can launch a browser from within their application.

There is a commercial for a credit card that is supposedly Cyberized. The advertisers imply that your card is safe from internet fraud and many other terrible things that happen when you go online. However if you read the fine print at the end of the ad you discover that all Cyberized means is that you can check your balance online.

The 4th category, perhaps, is for Meaningless Words coined by someone who thinks that they do have a meaning - Malapropisms almost (but not quite) come into this category - I suppose Creative Mondegreenism might be a better term.

The whole of medicine would be up a mucky creek with no paddle if not for Category 2 words!

You go to the doctor and say "Doctor, I have this skin rash". She prods you about and announces in a serious voice that ah, yes, you have a skin rash. 'Cept she uses LATIN! Ah, the last refuge of the scoundrel (sorry father)

"caboobers" are great! Though I'll have to be careful expressing a liking for them, I think. Especially in the case of rollicking great big caboobers.

Isn't "doohickie" a verb, meaning "give a love-bite to"?

..and I've been told that "widget" is the official name for the thingumajig that lives in a beer can (especially Guinness) and injects nitrogen when you open the can, thus providing a "draught beer" effect. Or did I imagine it?

Sorry, my standards are very exacting, I know.

Brill!

"We're evolving towards being fully Web-enabled and Cyberized by the second quarter of the current financial year"


Works for me. Could do with a few more Category 2 financial terms, though!

newly made Enthusiasts

Yep, pretty meaningless in my case, right enough!

I like chief cook and bottlewasher for when you don't want to divulge your occupation. Sure there are some good Category 2s in that area - impressive euphemisms for jobs that no-one wants, and no-one wants to admit doing.

yaknow, like

Guilty as charged, Helen! I'm inclined to stick in "y'know" as a sort of filler word, too. But it isn't necessarily meaningless, despite the fact that there's no point in saying something the audience knows already.
I reckon "you know" actually means "I don't know".

Or maybe "you know" is somehow short for "Do you know what I mean?"

We're in a strange language land here, because uncertainties become certainties and questions become statements at the drop of a hat - y'know?

If you want meaningless words for occupations how about consultant. I'm sure there can be legitimate consultants, but mostly, it seems to be a tag stuck onto jobs to make them look more high tech than they really are.


My husband informs me that he is a consultant, but that still doesn't mean that I know what it is.

.... and the Indonesian for whatsit, thingy and all these other words is [insert drum roll here] anu. Something has obviously got lost in translation somewhere.

Bingley

I think my favourite is "Vice-President in charge of Special Projects".

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
"Of fizgigs, flukes and folderol--
"Of frumpery and feazings--
"And where the boondocks can be found--
"And why whangdoodles have no wings."
-Alison Wonderlicht

there must be a gazillion of these; but here are a few:

gadgets: gizmos, doohickeys, thingamabobs, doodads, widgets, whirligigs
knicknacks: gimcracks, trangams, whigmaleeries, fizgigs, tchotchkes, bibelots, folderol
from Mad magazine (in the 50s): veeblefetzer, furshlugginer, squamish (the 43-man variety)
from my friend John: contravivulating, goofaglarbian, furthermoreover
others: pakaloomer, brackerfritch, farshimalt(?)

anyone ever heard these latter three?

whirligigs--isn't this a real thing? --any one of several small, usually hand crafted toys that have movement but do nothing (a New England egg beater-- it has the crank and gears, but no "whisks" at the end). they are meant as toys to keep children busy. There is an other one that has a crank the drive a small piston clockwise in a X slot routed in a 3 inch block of wood.
Where as a thingamajig, or thingamabog, is a meaningless word? (or rather a noun that does not name a thing!)
and I guess that is one category of words--nouns that are not the names of a person, place or thing, where as i saw meaningless words as the verbal "fluff" added by careless speakers. yaknow?

whirligigs--isn't this a real thing? --any one of several small, usually hand crafted toys that have movement but do nothing

Well, I would assume that the term whirligig probably came from this because, if it doesn't do anything, it can usually be considered meaningless.

So many mind-stimulating posts, that I do not know where to start.

Names to obscure one's real job - I prefer Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief (which is how I describe MY job!)

Widgets are an example of a meaningless word that has been adopted and now has a real meaning (indeed, it injects somethingor other unnatural into my canned beer - it's enough to make me go back to home brewing! says he in disgust)

Surely words like "thingamajig" aren't nouns that describe nothing - they are describing everything - or, more properly, they have a universality that becomes specific only by reference to their context.

I have a vague feeling in the back of my head that whirligig is an archaic term for the smallish, dancing type of insect that hangs around damp areas and make nuisances of themselves at picnics. One can see how such a name could be transferred to all of the other things that we use it for.

The 4th category, perhaps, is for Meaningless Words coined by someone who thinks that they do have a meaning.

I like this! But 'Creative Mondegreenism'... hmmm. You mean it sounds meaningful to the person talking, but actually means nothing?

Can anyone think of any examples??

This could be amusing...

tchotchkes,

I apparently missed this one when I read tsuwm's post the first time. My former employer has a whole line of keychain-watches, bottle-opener-watches, flashlight-watches, picture-frame-watches that they proudly claimed as tchotchkes. They were proud of their meaningless junk!

>whirligigs--isn't this a real thing? --any one of several small, usually hand crafted toys that have movement but do nothing<

What I used to call a whirligig is what everyone in Australia calls a Hill's Hoist. (Help me, how to explain this without a picture???)
An upright metal pole, with three or four 'spokes' protruding at right angles from it at the top. Wires run between these spokes creating a web of washing lines. YOu hang your washing on it and the whole contraption rotates in the breeze.
The Hill's Hoist is a sophisticated model with a winch, so that you can lower the lines to hang washing out, then raise them high up to dry. It is touted as an example of Australian design ingenuity, though I am not sure whether it is the overall spider web shape or the winch amendment that is the basis of this ingenuity.

PS Have now gone and investigated on the web. What I mean by all the garbage above is apparently a 'rotating clothesline.'
http://www.hills.com.au

For example, this:
>>PS Have now gone and investigated on the web.

The first rule we learn is that English sentences HAVE to have a subject, but I found sentences like this one several times in this Board , usually avoiding " I ". Is there a rule?
Ciao
Emanuela

Emanuela,

In most cases, when you see a sentence, which should have the subject I, but does not, the speaker (writer) is speaking in an informal manner. It is incorrect, but understood in an informal setting.

Is there a rule?

Oh yes - it is the Catch22 of English:

All rules have exceptions, including this one.

In reply to:

---

All rules have exceptions, including this one.

---

OK, please supply an example of an exception to the above stated rule.

All rules have exceptions, including this one.

This is a paradox of the same kind od Russell's paradox or the paradox of the barber - We already found an example with "Hofstader?? law".

In a a village , there is just one barber . The barber is the one who shaves all men that (which?) do not shave themselves.
Question: Who shaves the barber?

Ciao
Emanuela

It's technically known as ellipsis, and even more technically known as exophoric ellipsis.

Exephoric ellipsis is the omission of words that can be recovered (i.e. worked out) from the non-linguistic situation, and is most often used in informal conversation, e.g. Coming! for I'm coming .

Cataphoric ellipsis is the omission of words that can be recovered from the grammatical context, e.g. We phoned the plumber and asked him to come tomorrow, where the repeated subject (we asked) has been omitted.

Bingley

Bingley

Exephoric ellipsis? Cataphoric ellipsis?

And here I was prepared to fob off Emanuela with the simple 'explanation' that it's all telegraphese to save us from RSI.

Your answer sounds ever so much more impressive. Are you in competition with tsuwm for the 'most knowledgable about the language' award on AWAD?

cheer

the sunshine warrior

shanks,

My opinion, according to the presented evidence, is that tsuwm is our resident word expert, and that sweet Mr.
B. is our language expert. And, if we can consider these two as our language doctors, then we have a paradox.

Emanuela, I think I might have the answer to your paradox.
Will send private to check.

Jackie

Good points. And good doctors too.

I think I too may have the answer to Emanuela's conundrum. Will send private to you to check! (Maybe we can work up a Chinese Whispers chain?)

Question: Who shaves the barber?

Ok shanks, I don't know about the answer, but I'll chinese whisper my attempt to you and perhaps we'll get a number of variants (or never know what we all thought...!)

>>whigmaleeries, fizgigs, tchotchkes, bibelots, folderol

allô tsuwm. Bibelot is actually a French word used to describe a small decorative object. You know, the kind usually accumulated over the years, little statuettes, souvenirs et al. It is quite specific in its meaning.

Emanuela, the barber can be a woman and she can shave herself. (All right guys, don't all say "eewww yuck" at the same time...I meant her legs)

I feel embarassed , since, yes, of course, you can be right, but I was not expecting an answer...
Since the paradox of the barber (thinking of the barber as a man) is not just a joke, but is one of examples of self-referring sentences from which raised the modern mathematical logic-I can be wrong or at least imprecise, I don't know the subject well .

I could restate the problem in this way :
" This sentence is false"
Question : Is the the above question true or false?
Ciao
Emanuela

This sentence is false

Yes, emanuela, my first thought was that the barber paradox was unanswerable. But we didn't allow for the fact that Russell's example was hampered by the time of writing, eh?

Thinks: 'eh' is meaningless, but speaks volumes!
Thinks 2: why would the French 'hein' work better here??

If I recall correctly, Hofstadter (in Godel, Escher, Bach) suggested such self-referential statements could be answered by the invented word "mu" - which effectively unasks the question.

My personal opinion is that blowing a raspberry is more effective - or just laughing, of course.


Zen again...

Fisk

Good to see you back, Shona.

Of course, as far as I am aware, it was this paradox (or one akin to it: "The set of all sets that are not members of themselves") that caused Russell and Whitehead to give up on their Principia. Also was probably what set Godel off on his Incompleteness Theorem - one of the most important epistemological results of this century (probably equal first with Heisenberg and Uncertainty). So all hail the humble paradox!

>All rules have exceptions, including this one.
OK, please supply an example of an exception to the above stated rule.

Brilliant, Max!

How about:
All generalisations are meaningless.
Is that a higher level paradox?

What interests me is that the above statement is, as far as I'm concerned, true, meaningful and useful. I think the same applies to many paradoxes, including mav's original.

Keeping true to this thread, many 'meaningless' words are similarly meaningful enough when used in context.

So, contentious statements for the day:

1. Meaning has almost nothing at all to do with logic.
2. On occasion, meaning has very little to do with Dictionary definitions.


Just some moderate personal opinions.


Post-modernish Fish

Hi Fishus, pedalling full speed ahead again !
As long as you admit that the meaning of meaning includes at least an intent to communicate, you can't avoid a certain amount of generalization: A word has to mean the same thing to at least two persons, even though their experience is necessarily different (raspberries include green and red ones). There is no communication without generalization, to paraphrase a famous '68 slogan.

John Searle (one of America's many big gun philosophers of mind today) claims that it's all down to the difference between syntax and semantics (yay, back on the linguistic track again).

His contention (controversial, and certainly not one I agree with), is that computers, for instance, can replicate the syntax of human interaction, but can not be claimed to 'know' (oh my word, the cross references are thrilling - would this be connaitre, savoir or comprendre?), the meaning (semantics) of what they do. His Chinese Room thought experiment is one of the most famous of the last 25 years or so.

The problem that this gives one (and now we're back to philosophy, language be darned) is that of dualism all over again. If the 'mind', 'consciousness' or 'meaning' are not mechanical, then whence do they come? Searle claims they are mechanical but different from anything we are able to model ("It's life, Jim, but not as we know it"), because we will never, using the empirical third person reference pojnt, be able to investigate meaning, which requires a first person reference point.

And of course, Jerry Fodor believes we will never know what it is like to be a bat. Daniel Dennett believes he has 'Quined qualia', and Hilary Putnam believes something else altogether...

cheer

the sunshine warrior

All rules have exceptions, including this one.

OK, please supply an example of an exception to the above stated rule.

Itself.

(raspberries include green and red ones).

... and shanks, the references go on - we're back to cockney rhyming slang here! (Raspberry tart)

Glad to see my little philosophical fish has got the bicycles in gear...

(raspberries include green and red ones).

... and shanks, the references go on - we're back to cockney rhyming slang here! (Raspberry tart)

Green heart? Perhaps we're talking of Hearts of Oak here?

computers, for instance, can replicate the syntax of human interaction, but can not be claimed to 'know' the meaning (semantics) of what they do

Hi again shanks,
You'll have to send me references to Chinese Rooms, bats, Dennetts etc privately, I think!

But regarding the above statement, I'd probably subscribe to something like the Turing Test viewpoint: Does it matter? How can we ever really be certain anyone shares 'meanings'?

To which the answer probably has to be another raspberry.
(thanks for the rhyming slang reference, mav - but why don't we blow "treacles"??)

I'd also say that any sharp division between form and content, or in this case syntax and semantics, is almost definitely an artificial one. We may be back to mav's Keats reference: "Beauty is Truth"!
http://wordsmith.org/board/showthreaded.pl?Board=miscellany&Number=7585


P.S. for those who are wondering, the Turing Test involves a person conversing with both another person and a computer by typewritten means (such as this Board ). If the tester can't tell the computer and human apart, the computer may be called "intelligent", at least as far as the tester is concerned. For the moment, anyway.
Sort of.

There is no communication without generalization

Certainly agree with that one, wsieb.
Double-edged sword, though, as all generalisations throw the (individual) baby out with the bath-water!


P.S. Flatmoders - I'm not talking to myself, honest..

whew! turing away from all this philosophical gas for a mim, and returing to the barber: forget the pronoun and give the barber a name, say Figaro. Figaro shaves all those in the village who don't shave themselves.

so Figaro shaves Pedro, et al; and he shaves Figaro, one way or another. not shaving would be a poor business decision.

why don't we blow "treacles"??

Great question - but you presuppose logic in CRS?

Hey shanks. I also must plead ignorance as to the Chinese room thought experiment. A bit of a clue in would be nice.

There is a some important differences between connaître, savoir and comprendre. In the context we are discussing now...
Connaître means knowing more or less precisely.
Savoir means remembering in a way that you can repeat the knowledge.
Comprendre means understanding the subject or thing.

As to Jerry Fodor. True, we will never know what it is like to be a bat, but it is also true that we will know what it is to by any other person in the world. You can generalize or assume, but you can never know for sure.

I forget what the point was, but the Chinese room thought experiment goes something like this:

Imagine a room containing a person who does not understand Chinese and a list of all possible questions in Chinese with the answers, also in Chinese. Every so often somebody transmits a question in Chinese into the room. The person in the room looks up the question in the list of Chinese questions and then transmits the appropriate answer. How can the people outside tell whether or not the person inside understands Chinese?

Bingley

Bingley

I think you're just about right. You don't take it as far as Searle does, though, because he uses this thought experiment to point out what he considers the difference between syntax and semantics. He says that, as far as any observer outside is concerned, the man in the room, or the room itself, seems to understand Chinese. But we know that the man in the room hasn't a clue about Chinese - he is just manipulating, to him meaningless, symbols. Ergo, the Turing Test plays us false: even if someone, or some entity, could behave human (or speak Chinese) that is no assurance that this person is human (or understands Chinese).

In fact a number of philosophers have attacked this thought experiment, and there was, famously, some rather vitriolic correspondence between Searle and Dennett on this issue (I think it may have been in the New York Times). I (personal opinion only) plump for Dennett's interpretation and reject Searle's - but the debate ain't done and dusted yet.

cheer

the sunshine (pretentiously philosophising) warrior

ps. As far as the thinking like a bat thing goes, see Wittgenstein on 'the beetle in the box', and remark on how fragile is the basis upon which we attribute consciousness to others...

- I'm not talking to myself, honest..

Good to know! Otherwise I should call you a solipsist, since this is where one ends up by categorically refuting the possibility to share meaning.

It wasn't Fodor who wrote the classic paper "What is it like to be a bat", it was Thomas Nagel. Sorry if I misled you.

I appreciate that this isn't the forum in which to carry on about one of my obsessions (consciousness studies in philosophy and science), so here's a link to take you to some reference material:

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online.html

Once you get there, however, you are going to have to do your own looking up.

For those who prefer their information printed, and part-digested, here are some books that talk about these matters:

Consciousness Explained Daniel Dennett (also wrote the more well-known Darwin's Dangerous Idea)

The rediscovery of the mind John Searle (had to include him in fairness - I may disagree with his ideas, but his advocacy of freedom of speech and other liberal notions makes him someone I respect)

How the mind works Stephen Pinker (one of the best all-round books on the subject, by the well-known author of The language instinct)

How brains think William Calvin (a research scientist in neurobiology explains how the brain works to produce thought - outstanding stuff, though you may have to get past his own hobby-horse of ballistics being the key to consciousness/intelligence)

Think Simon Blackburn (a general introduction to philosophy, and a remarkably good one, in my opinion)

I think all of these are still in print, and they should be available on Amazon (or your local big bookshop could order them for you).

I shall do my best not to talk about consciousness and meaning any more on this board. I promise (I can be a good boy, I can...)

cheer

the sunshine warrior

the Turing Test plays us false

Well yes, shanks (or am I addressing Searle?), but my point is that it doesn't matter!

More accurately, it doesn't matter to me.

Which, of course, means that I will soon discover that this Board and all its many and varied characters are merely the invention of a state-of-the-art Artificial Intelligence.

I will soon discover that this Board and all its many and varied characters are merely the invention of a state-of-the-art Artificial Intelligence.

Who the Hal are you, then?

... me thinks you mistake me.

Shona

I have tried to say at every turn that I am merely representing Searle's ideas, even though I disagree with them!

Ah well, so much for the ability of language as a communication tool. (Sulking in his tent - bring me Briseis now, and make sure she's scrubbed!)

so much for the ability of language as a communication tool

There now, shanks - the failure was mine!

by am I speaking to Searle I meant it to be taken that I didn't think you were his stand-in.

Yeah, let's take a tour of our baronial lands.

Who the Hal are you, then?

Don't do that Dave.

Dave.
Don't do that.



(less than a year away, eh?)

More recently, I'm just another aspect of The Matrix, Max.

More recently, I'm just another aspect of The Matrix, Max.

Was told by a colleague once that I reminded her of the cool Laurence Fishburne character in the matrix - Morph[eus]. But then, it was close to her review, and she wanted a raise...

In reply to:

---

(Sulking in his tent - bring me Briseis now, and make sure she's scrubbed!)

---

You heel, shanks.

Bingley

Nothing Styx to you like a bad rep...

Morph[eus]

Flattery indeed!

- sort of half-plasticine, half king of cool?
(Morph is known over here as an animated plasticine character - a weak forerunner to Wallace and Gromit) (Waddya mean, who's Wallace and Gromit?!)

Personally I'm just like Keanu Reeves. In much the same way as Peewee Herman isn't.


By the way, thanks for the consciousness refs, shanks. Keep me busy for a while... (you wish!)

>In much the same way as Peewee Herman isn't.

So, closer to PeeWee are you? Wouldn`t want to be going to the movies with you then.

(she says while hoping the non-U.S. residents understand the reference)

In reply to:

---

So, closer to PeeWee are you? Wouldn`t want to be going to the movies with you then.

(she says while hoping the non-U.S. residents understand the reference)

---

As I understood it, If one went to the movies with PeeWee, one could be fairly certain that he would leave one completely alone, being otherwise occupied. Sitting right next to him might be rather distasteful, however.

as PeeWee used to say:
I know you are, but what am I?

Well, basically, I think basically is a meaningless word. Maybe it had once some basic meaning, but these days it is used basically as a tedious filler word, especially by anyone being interviewed on TV -- go ahead, count em. It's driving me nuts -- basically.

Carpe rutila

In reply to:

---

Well, basically, I think basically is a meaningless word.

---

Like, that is just so true, you know? I think, it's like you've basically hit the nail on like, the head, you know?

I see, in view of the toughening competitive situation, you have based your strategy on your core competence

In reply to:

---

I see, in view of the toughening competitive situation, you have based your strategy on your core competence

---

Kindly clarify that statement. Seldom has anyone dared accused me of competence in anything, so your statement leaves my neurons (yes, both of them) completely baffled.

One man's (mine) example of meaningless words are another man's neuronic alarm

By the way, thanks for the consciousness refs, shanks. Keep me busy for a while... (you wish!)

Pleasure.

More than happy also to point you towards personal discussions and archives (of a leetle salon I once frequented) with all sorts of consciousness debates on it. (But only if you become truly obsessed like I am.)

It seems to me that there are some words that, being redundant in context, achieve meaninglessness (or have it thrust upon them?)

For instance, I find a number of people in the UK using the phrase "my work colleagues". I have never understood why the word 'work' has to be in there, since 'colleague' implicitly carries that meaning anyway.

Dear shanks,
Now, with due respect, do I sniff a faint relent of auto-YART here?
http://wordsmith.org/board/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=words&Number=1139&page=&view=&sb=&vc=1

As I posted that message, the sense of deja vu was strong enough for me to have listened to it! And I didn't even bother to search. Dang. Heck. Poot. Or as a lady on another board said - I am furking stuping.

Ah well - at least it's all taking me closer ot addict. (Am I an incipent addict here, or an inchoate one?)

inchoate one

Hey, shanks, is that really how you spell incoherent?

In reply to:

---

Ah well - at least it's all taking me closer ot addict. (Am I an incipent addict here, or an inchoate one?)

---

You make a good point, shanks. Since addicts are renowned for showing a depraved indifference to the means used to quiet their cravings, we should expect similar conduct from AWAD addicts, nascent or otherwise. As the monkeys on our respective backs grow ever larger and more insistent, we should expect to see ever more shameless skulduggery in pursuit of the next fix. I say this by way of explaining why I am about to post this same reply 285 times!

That was clever wsieber, how did you make the link appear in a separate minimised screen? Or is it just a blip on my computer?

>...a separate minimised screen? Or is it just a blip on my computer?


must be the DTs from your former(?) addiction.

DTs?
Duplicated Threads?
Damnable Trends?
Dipsomaniacal Tippling??

That was clever
Hi Jo,
That's an undeserved compliment, for once. On my computer, all the links quoted in AWAD appear in separate Windows, when clicked...

I think basically is a meaningless word

A classic indeed!
And one which I'm very guilty of overusing in speech.

But then everything went downhill from the first time I heard my voice on tape. Let alone when video cameras became commonplace.

In reply to:

---

Nothing Styx to you like a bad rep...

---

Except plaster of Paris, maybe?

Bingley

These slings and arrows (all well aimed - way below the belt, and the thigh, and the knee, and the shin...) have left me oedipus.

What'djuh cast a stone for, anyway?
Bingley

If you've read the thread in Info and Announcements in which I proudly proclaim my philistinism, then perhaps the stone-throwing should be reversed...

of Gath

I just finished reading Stranger in a Strange Land. Heinlein certainly believes in the use of meaningless words. I can't count the number of times that dialogue began with "Uh" or included words such as "huh?" or "eh?"

In the same book we are introduced to a word that has more meaning than most. Grok is a beautiful and extremely useful word. We should have included it in our discussion about words for knowledge (or was it there and I have forgotten?). I'd heard people use grok before, but I didn't grok grok fully until I read the book.

A more personal meaningless word that I find myself using is Neh. I can (and do) say neh and express anything from extreme pleasure to utter bafflement to acute dislike simply by changing my inflection, but the word itself is meaningless.

The problem with a word like "grok" is that it is so tied to one novel, and the moment in culture when it was read, that its modern uses seems dated -- already. To say "grok" is to sew psychedlic daisies on one's blue jeans, to wear a roach clip in one's hair, to flip the peace sign and to listen to Jefferson Airplane. Peace and love, baby.

Grok may have cultural implications, but not only the ones you suggest. My husband's computer-geek friends are extremely fond of the word. My first contact with it was on one of his daily websites (slashdot) where the word is used and understood by most of the users. I believe that I would be correct to say that most (but not all) of the slashdot readers are approximately my age (20-30ish) and were not available to read it during your flower power revolution. (i'm not a regular reader of slashdot, correct me if I have the demographic wrong.) Perhaps the word isn't quite as dated as you say, though still only used by a select cultural group.

Driving around doing errands today. Radio on Maine Public Radio broadcast of address to National Press Club. I just caught a bit of it. Who was speaking heaven knows but he sounded authoritative. Anyway he was saying that words we take for granted as being around since time began are not really that old. He cited "Hello." According to speaker the word "hello" was made up as a telephone greeting that would be non-specific and neutral....after all what if a gentleman called on the phone and a lady answered ! Heavens! Remember that was the 1890s. The alternate proposed was "Ahoy!" The two men involved were Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison. I am unclear on exactly which man proposed which word but I think it was Bell for Hello and Edison for Ahoy!
Anyone have more? WOW

Ou resident etymythologist, Jazzoctopus, came up with a very good story regarding the origin of "hello." Here are a few relevant urls you might bee interested in: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?ahoy
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?hollo
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?hello
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=hello

Try doing a search for "hello" on the Board to find Jazz's masterful treatise.

Ou resident etymythologist, Jazzoctopus, came up with a very good story regarding the origin of "hello."

I think I have to add that title to by profile.

I liked my more recent essay on the origin of "point blank" more, but no one seemed to have anything to say about it.

Got it, xara. The dictionary entry should read "Grok, v., (colloq. use limited to geeks and aged freaks)."

coined by Heinlein in 1961, grok actually found its way into the 2nd edition of the OED, marked as U.S. slang:

a. trans. (also with obj. clause) To understand intuitively or by empathy; to establish rapport with. b. intr. To empathize or communicate sympathetically (with); also, to experience enjoyment.

therein are some fine citations, but I really enjoyed the last: 1984 InfoWorld 21 May 32 "There isn't any software! Only different internal states of hardware. It's all hardware! It's a shame programmers don't grok that better."

the word "hello" was made up as a telephone greeting

I am totally gobsmacked by this, and am going for a little lie down.

Maybe one of my wife's favorites comes into this category. If I'm going to bed before her, she will say, "Pull out the clock for (time)." This means, of course, pull out the little doohickey which turns on the alarm.

To get back to the original subject of this thread, I propose a 4th category for what might be called "temporizing" words; i.e., some sound, if not a real word, which allows the speaker to gather his wits. Some illustrations:
1. Major Hoople, in the immortal comic "our Boarding House", was fond of "Fap!"
2. In a Dorothy Sayers novel set in Scotland, there is a Scottish policeman who is fond of "Aye, imphm."
3. In a detective novel, I forget which one, there is a character whose use of "Mmmf" constitutes half his dialog.

In reply to:

---

If I'm going to bed before her, she will say, "Pull out the clock for (time)." This means, of course, pull out the little doohickey which turns on the alarm.

---

I think this is an example of synecdoche (using the part to refer to the whole or vice versa) than ellipsis.

Bingley

In reply to:

---

some sound, if not a real word, which allows the speaker to gather his wits

---

Um, I think they're called, errr, fillers or filled pauses.

Bingley

the word "hello" was made up as a telephone greeting

I am totally gobsmacked by this, and am going for a little lie down.

Me too. But I'm a bit suspicious as well. It sounds a lot like urban mythology. Does anyone have sources?

Also leads to words that are, technically, meaningless:

Goodbye - does anyone actually use it in the sense of 'god be with ye'?

Heck, darn...

Also, my two favourite invented names:

Wendy (J M Barrie - Peter Pan)

Lorna (Stephenson - Lorna Doone)

Does anyone have sources?

Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: hel·lo
Pronunciation: h&-'lO, he-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural hellos
Etymology: alteration of hollo
Date: 1889
: an expression or gesture of greeting -- used interjectionally in greeting, in answering the telephone, or to express surprise

and

Main Entry: hol·lo
Pronunciation: hä-'lO, h&-; 'hä-(")
Variant(s): also hol·loa /hä-'lO, h&-/; or hol·la /h&-'lä, 'hä-(")/
Function: interjection
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: 1588
1 -- used to attract attention (as when a fox is spied during a fox hunt)
2 -- used as a call of encouragement or jubilation

I think the latter derives from "holler".

Mind you, no telephone reference. And it begs the question, where did Bell get the word from if he did invent it? "Ahoy" is clear enough, but why change the first vowel in "hollo"?

Incidentally, I'd forgotten that Wendy was an invented name.
Certainly popular enough since, at least in England.

Um, I think they're called, errr, fillers or filled pauses

Well, indeed so, Bingley.

But meaningful phrases can become fillers, as is the case with "Y'know?" and even "Yessss (but).."

I think this is an example of synecdoche

Bingley, sir, you are absolutely priceless.

How much more lacking in clarity we would all be without your presence!

Incidentally, I'd forgotten that Wendy was an invented name.

Aren't they all?

Does anyone have sources?

Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: hel·lo
Pronunciation: h&-'lO, he-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural hellos
Etymology: alteration of hollo
Date: 1889
: an expression or gesture of greeting -- used interjectionally in greeting, in answering the telephone, or to express surprise

and

Main Entry: hol·lo
Pronunciation: hä-'lO, h&-; 'hä-(")
Variant(s): also hol·loa /hä-'lO, h&-/; or hol·la /h&-'lä, 'hä-(")/
Function: interjection
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: 1588
1 -- used to attract attention (as when a fox is spied during a fox hunt)
2 -- used as a call of encouragement or jubilation

Are you trying to discredit me?

Are you trying to discredit me?

Well JazzO, I think I'm used to the Merriam-Webster layout enough to wrap it around a mythical definition if you want!


One for April 1st, perhaps

One for April 1st, perhaps

Good idea, let's get Jazz to ome up with an explanation for "hunting the gowk."

There was a time when most all names had a meaning. For example, if one traces my own name, Geoffrey, one goes back to the Germanic Gottfried, or "God's peace." Nowadays, how many of us actually relate our names to a character trait, a place, etc?

As for Shanks' reminding us that "Goodbye" meant "God be with ye," might not "hello" be derived from "hallow?" Some languages do invoke a diety, or a supposedly deific trait, in greeting. Conjecture, of course, but why not?

The Merriam brothers just aren't resourceful enough to find out the rest of the story. I have connections. Hammurabi, Ramses II, Socrates, Pompey, Hadrian, Chaucer, King James, Ben Franklin, Brahms and Churchill were all good friends of mine.

The Merriam brothers just aren't resourceful enough to find out the rest of the story. I have connections.

Jazz, as a favour to Geoff, would you mind posting the etymythology behind my surname? I'm sure your connexions will be happy to help.

Nowadays, how many of us actually relate our names to a character trait, a place, etc?

Since I deem myself the resident Indo-anglophone, let me once again pull out the ol' Indian examples.

Virtually all Indian names have meanings - either related directly to a deity, or to some attribute. As I told Fisk (in an aside) "Shona" would mean 'golden'.

My own name translates as the Sun (the deity of, also often called Surya), and my surname is a signifier of the baronial caste (the traditional kshatriya or 'warrior' caste), hence my nom de plume.

As you rightly point out, even in English, most first names have some sort of significance. That's why I find Wendy and Lorna fascinating - they literally have no meaning.

cheer

the sunshine warrior

I seem to recall, much of Mr. Bell's research started with a means to communicate with the hard of hearing.

I may be getting my historical figures maligned but I seem to remember that his mother was deaf or had hearing loss and amongst his other accomplishments was the development of a type of sign language that used gestures to simulate phonetic pronunciations.

This may account for his changing Hollo or Ahoy to Hello. Somewhat more distinctive.

perhaps

Jazz, as a favour to Geoff, would you mind posting the etymythology behind my surname? I'm sure your connexions will be happy to help.

Certainly.

Perhaps they were ambitious; perhaps they were just exceedingly curious, but it is undeniable that they were ahead of their time. One wouldn't expect the 5th century shores of northern Sweden to be the site of an attempt at utopia, but it was indeed. A team of precocious inventors from Scotland made an exodus to Scandinavia in order to escape persecution for advancing science. The men, four of them, all suffered from acute manic depression and were detirminded to rid themselves of their affliction. They sought refuge in a small cave on the lee side of a fjord and began their work. They intended to create the perfect environment to escape their ailments.

After much debate as to how to go about their task, they began constructing a large, oblong, hollow sphere. It was carved out of rock and thoroughly covered with mud and moss. The end product, resembling something of a pumpkin or squash, was then lowered to the bottom of the Arctic Ocean. Apparati were made for the passage of air and other necessities to the sphere and the four made the submerged compartment their experimental home. In this state they claimed to be cured of their emotional distresses and thus named their spherical sanitorium "Gourd de la Spleen".

After a few years, the place became dilapidated and smelly. The inventors moved out and abandoned their work, but the memory of their grand, quixotic experiment will always live on because of a pact the four made to use the experiment's name as theirs.

Historical records show that in the late 1700s a family by the name of Mr. and Mrs. Edmund Quordlepleen set off from Southampton on a voyage to Captain Cook's glorious new land.

Capricious Piffle was brought to you today by strawberry cream cheese and smoked cod.

"Gourd de la Spleen".

Magnifique! In the words of the Bond theme song - Nobody does it better! Muito obrigado.

Magnifique! In the words of the Bond theme song - Nobody does it better! Muito obrigado.

I'm pleased that you approve. But now everyone's going to want one.

>Magnifique!
But now everyone's going to want one

Ah yes, truly the Prince of Etymythology!

Nah, JazzO, not everybody could have one, because in at least some cases (mine for instance) there would be no challenge.

Thinks: was that a subconscious 'bet you can't do me!' ??

>The inventors moved out and abandoned their work,

But even fewer people know what happened to the structure. Torn apart, its pieces drifted around. One of them ended up in the Thames estuary, where a near-sighted otter thought it was a potential mate. The otter followed it out to sea and was run down by a hovercraft. The conclusion? One gourd, torn, deceives an otter.

But Jazz, your history of Quordlepleen deserves a kudos. Magnificent!!!!

May I assume that once your relatives vacated their submarine structure, they coined the term, "out of your gourd?"

May I further asume that because exiting the gourd was extremely difficult, it was referred to as the gourdian knot?

May I further asume that because exiting the gourd was extremely difficult, it was referred to as the gourdian knot?

Since you mention it, King Gordius actually stole the knot from a Persian Boy Scout troop that went on a camping trip to Phrigia.

Monarchs, what can you do?

Monarchs? Oh. Hmmmm.... If a king has a unilateral orchidotomy is he a monorch?

...bilateral = queen?

Historical records show that in the late 1700s a family by the name of Mr. and Mrs. Edmund Quordlepleen set off from Southampton on a voyage to Captain Cook's glorious new land.

Well, then. That explains how the name came into being and arrived on our formerly fair shores. A very detailed and quite plausible explanation. Who do I sue?

But since Max's nominal progenitor was/is/will be found at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe for some of the day, and at the Big Bang Burger Bar for the rest of it, those damned Swedo/Scottish inventors must have done better than they thought. They either discovered new laws of Einsteinian physics to ignore, or they genetically engineered Douglas Adams. The former is more plausible than the latter, because no amount of halfway believable genetic tinkering could ever come up with a Douglas Adams.

But since Max's nominal progenitor was/is/will be found at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe for some of the day, and at the Big Bang Burger Bar for the rest of it

From another left-hander and Arsenal fan (breedng will out):

The Restaurant at the End of the Universe is one of the most
extraordinary ventures in the entire history of catering. It has
been built on the fragmented remains of ... it will be built on
the fragmented ... that is to say it will have been built by this
time, and indeed has been -

One of the major problems encountered in time travel is not that
of accidentally becoming your own father or mother. There is no
problem involved in becoming your own father or mother that a
broadminded and well-adjusted family can't cope with. There is
also no problem about changing the course of history - the course
of history does not change because it all fits together like a
jigsaw. All the important changes have happened before the things
they were supposed to change and it all sorts itself out in the
end.

The major problem is quite simply one of grammar, and the main
work to consult in this matter is Dr Dan Streetmentioner's Time
Traveller's Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations. It will tell you
for instance how to describe something that was about to happen
to you in the past before you avoided it by time-jumping forward
two days in order to avoid it. The event will be described
differently according to whether you are talking about it from
the standpoint of your own natural time, from a time in the
further future, or a time in the further past and is further
complicated by the possibility of conducting conversations whilst
you are actually travelling from one time to another with the
intention of becoming your own father or mother.

Most readers get as far as the Future Semi-Conditionally Modified
Subinverted Plagal Past Subjunctive Intentional before giving up:
and in fact in later editions of the book all the pages beyond
this point have been left blank to save on printing costs.

The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy skips lightly over this
tangle of academic abstraction, pausing only to note that the
term "Future Perfect" has been abandoned since it was discovered
not to be.

QuiteEnoughDone

From another left-hander and Arsenal fan (breedng will out):

And what was I saying about improbable advances in genetic engineering?

..it all fits together like a jigsaw
A jigsaw with an infinite number of identically shaped square pieces that fit together in (infinite squared) ways..

In some cases, yes, but not the sort of queen who would have penned The Hitch Hiker's Guide to The Galactopoietic.

Strange

From a logical point of view what the barber does to men who do not shave themselves has no bearing on what he does to those who do shave themselves.

Sample syllogism:

  All crows are black. (All men who do not shave themselves are shaved by the barber)

  My black cat is not a crow. (The barber is not a man who does not shave himself)

  Therefore my black cat is not black. (Therefore the barber does not shave himself)

which we can see is invalid.

to all newbies/strangers whom it may concern:

by jumping into long threads and replying without providing some context (via 'quote', cut/paste, etc.), you tend to confuse us poor folk who read this stuff in flat mode. thank you for your kind attention.

In reply to:

---

by jumping into long threads and replying without providing some context (via 'quote', cut/paste, etc.), you tend to confuse us poor folk who read this stuff in flat mode. thank you for your kind attention.

---

Thanks for the heads up, tsuwm

Hi Faldage

You said:

From a logical point of view what the barber does to men who do not shave themselves has no bearing on what he does to those who do shave themselves.

This is absolutely correct, and none of us pointed it out. Yet I remember quite clearly a genuinely logical paradox in the barber scenario, and realised that Emanuela statment of the problem left unstates something that we all considered implicit in the case:

The barber not only shaves all who don't shave themselves, but also only shaves those who do not shave themselves. It's the only that makes the difference because (apart from the 'riddle' answer of the barber being a woman, or someone not needing shaving) the barber is now constrained not to shave himself... and therefore to do so... and therefore to refrain... and so on

cheer

the sunshine warrior

In reply to:

---

All rules have exceptions, including this one.

OK, please supply an example of an exception to the above stated rule.

Itself.

---

Or

  Rule 1:  The umpire is always right.

  Rule 2:  When the umpire is wrong, see Rule 1.

Thanks shanks for "The barber not only shaves all who don't shave themselves, but also only shaves those who do not shave themselves."

I agree that the inclusion of the word "only" makes a big difference, but, in a larger sense, I must protest that a paradox is more a measure of our ignorance or sloppy thinking than it is a measure of the irrationality of a situation.

but, in a larger sense, I must protest that a paradox is more a measure of our ignorance or sloppy thinking than it is a measure of the irrationality of a situation.

What about Godel's paradox, that leads to his incompleteness theorem. Nothing sloppy about his thinking. Nothing straightforward about Incompleteness.

Another great perk for Cadillac owners, I assume.

But my real question is:

What do you have when you have the barber running around screaming, "Shave yourselves! Shave yourselves!"?

Answer:

The Saracens are at the gate.

Ted adroitly wraps two disparate threads together. If he does that enough he'll have enough rope to hang himself!

>Ted adroitly wraps two disparate threads together. If he does that enough he'll have enough rope to hang himself!

but let's hope it doesn't all come unravelled on you in January... you'd feaze to death!

In reply to:

---

What about Godel's paradox...

---

I have on order at my local bookstore a copy of a book that is supposed to be an exceptionally clear exposition of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, Godel's Proof by Ernest Nagel. Perhaps after I have read it we can start a whole new thread. My present understanding of the incompleteness theorem does not interfere with my present beliefs on paradoxes.

>
but let's hope it doesn't all come unravelled on you in January... you'd feaze to death!

Now would that be malfeazance or misfeazance?

an exceptionally clear exposition of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, Godel's Proof by Ernest Nagel


I gave this a try. Never finished it though.

an exceptionally clear exposition of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, Godel's Proof by Ernest Nagel

I gave this a try. Never finished it though.

Penrose, in The Emperor's new mind does a good job of explaining the incompleteness theorem (in my opinion), though he is a bit unsound when it comes to his theory of mind (again my opinion). And Douglas Hofstader does brilliantly in Godel, Escher, Bach: An eternal golden braid, though again, some of what he says about the mind is a bit dated (yes, the field has moved on considerably in twenty or so years).

an exceptionally clear exposition of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, Godel's Proof by Ernest Nagel

I gave this a try. Never finished it though.

Penrose: The Emperor's new mind... Douglas Hofstader: Godel, Escher, Bach: An eternal golden braid

I have the Hofstader tucked away somewhere in my efficient filing system. It is the source of my present incomplete understanding. I shall endeavour to find it and I will scope out the Penrose.

My present understanding is basically that any system of thought can produce statements like "this statement is a lie" and that, while these statements can be resolved by building some metasystem that includes the offending system as a subset, that metasystem will also be capable of generating similar statements. I take this to mean that we are not infinitely intelligent.

PS
According to Ænigma the book is Douglas Hog: Godfather, Escherichia, Bach: An eternal golden braid

PPS
I love Ænigma's correction of her own name.