I dreamed a troubled dream last night of a language that consisted entirely of words. No constituent phrases, no sentences, no compounds, no derivational morphology of any kind: just words. In fact, there were no paragraphs or chapters or books: just words. The works of Shakespeare would be translated into this language as a single word. No homonyms, no synonyms, no metanyms: each word was unique. In fact the dictionary consisted of a single word. (No, it was not aum.) No libraries: just a word. I awoke and shook off the silly notion of finding just one word per concept, and in the light of the breaking dawn, I accepted that some things need more than one word to express. The freedom was invigorating.
In a recent popular Hindi film,
ॐ is transliterated simply as Om.
Yes, the same thing. It used to be my mantra in the mantra days.
No, it wasn't aum. Sjeereem (phonetically)and I never knew what it meant.
But I still try to imagine what that language from the dream would be like and I can't.
simply as Om
Force of habit on my part. I prefer the alternate transliteration of ॐ (called in Sanskrit प्रणव pranava for those who like names for sounds) that emphasizes the three sounds (akāra, ukāra, and makāra) which constitute the syllable.
I've had some pretty weird dreams, but I dunno.
My mantra was oon jellimon.
Oh, oops, I wasn't supposed to let anyone know. Y'all just forget I said that.
But if we were all happy to use lowly descriptive phrases to describe things, there wouldn't be much to do here, would there? Your "person who is an adept conversationalist at table" would be just as good as my "one who cultivates learned conversation at meals" and there'd be no deipnosophists to speak of.
You're right though; there is a mentality that it takes a word (especially a fancy-pants word) to legitimize a thing, but at the end of the day, finding some of those words is just fun and doesn't necessarily lead to logocentrism.
It's just a curious trend I'd noticed that folks are usually grailling after the single lexeme for a concept when two or more may be necessary or preferable.
>grailling
today we examine the whole question of grasping and grailling, frothing and flailing, nattering and nailing, jeering and jailing, screaming and wailing, brawling and mauling, falling and hauling, trawling and squalling, and zalling.
-joe (what do I mean by the word sorry*) friday
*as in, apologies to MP
IMO what you are really complaining about zmjezhd is an enthusiasm for words.
I just read "How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life" by Thomas Gilovich. One chapter concerns the face on Mars and other related phenomena. The author describes the causes, the implications, and the research literature. He does not use the word pareidolia once. It's absence is not even noticed.
The fact is, any "special" word can be described by means of other, more pedestrian words. Not only are the special words not necessary, it is often best to avoid using them. People will not understand them, and you may even look like a blowhard or a wiseacre or worse for taking the trouble to introduce them.
That is why people like us—who feel that words are interesting in themselves—come to places like this. And if our unflappable insistence on finding a word for a thing is sometimes a little overarching, that is hardly our fault. The poster, by asking a question, announces his ignorance respecting it, and therefore cannot be expected to know when his question is pointless and when it is going to be validated by an answer. The language is too vast and too complex to make reliable presuppositions about what is and what is not a stupid question.
A lot of the words I collect are as dead as a lepidopterist's butterflies—I will never use them in speech or writing. But I like them, and so I'll keep on looking for them in strange places, even at the expense of coming off however it is I come off by wanting to know words for sounds or by grailling after the single lexeme.
A lot of the words I collect are as dead as a lepidopterist's butterflies—I will never use them in speech or writing. But I like them, and so I'll keep on looking for them in strange places, even at the expense of coming off however it is I come off by wanting to know words for sounds or by grailling after the single lexeme.
I'm glad that you do. What a wonderful collection it is.
what you are really complaining about zmjezhd is an enthusiasm for words
No, you're wrong. That is not what I was complaining about, and I am just as enthusiastic as the next member of this board (or any other) about language as a whole. Not just words, mind you, but collocations, phrases, clauses, phonology, morphology, compounds, syntax, pragmatics, semantics, etymology, lexicography, prosody, literature, et bloody cetera. When asked, I even play along and suggest words which may or may not fit the bill. I'd think that if you'd read just a small bit of any of my posts, you'd realize that. My little rant in this thread was not directed at a poster, past or present, asking after a putative word, but rather at those who would dismiss a two or three word offering as, a priori, unworthy of consideration. I did not mean to single any one person out, and if you felt I meant you, then I most heartily apologize. I do think this board is big enough to accommodate both our enthusiasms.
My little rant in this thread was [...] directed at [...] those who would dismiss a two or three word offering as, a priori, unworthy of consideration.
There is some truth to what you say; but there is also a difference between a nominal phrase and a descriptive phrase. For someone seeking to know if a particular word exists, the former is definitely worthy of consideration.
But it's also a fact that people come to Wordsmith Talk looking for
the mot juste. Very often, they find it, and that can lead to a flurry of other questions. It's exciting. What word will they discover next?
When asked, I even play along and suggest words...
How gracious!
I do think this board is big enough to accommodate both our enthusiasms.
I'm not sure if your wording implies an ungrounded assumption that my enthusiasm stands in direct contrast to yours (just the words please, as opposed to a holistic appreciation for the many aspects of language). Just to be clear, I am also interested in all of the things you mentioned (collocations, phrases, etc.), even the one's I don't really understand.
But what is the focus of these boards? Words or language? Is the distinction even clear cut? I'm not sure.
As often happens, a misunderstanding has arisen because the subject of dispute has not been clearly defined. I thought you were ranting against those who expect to discover that for every thing there's a single word and who believe that somehow the word is always superior to the description; when in fact (as you
now make clear) you are ranting against a tendency not to accept a nominal phrase instead of a single word—something quite different, and something I have not actually noticed. Perhaps I am not very observant.
I did not mean to single any one person out, and if you felt I meant you, then I most heartily apologize.
There's no need to apologize. I think open-minded debate is mutually beneficial: What can be triangulated from two oppositional standpoints is very often closer to the truth.
I thought you were ranting against those who expect to discover that for every thing there's a single word and who believe that somehow the word is always superior to the description; when in fact (as you now make clear) you are ranting against a tendency not to accept a nominal phrase instead of a single word—something quite different, and something I have not actually noticed. Perhaps I am not very observant.
and I'm not seeing a difference between those two. isn't the tendency not to accept the phrase what drives the need for a single word?
Holy Grail! Are the board's features under attack again or is it this weird dream thread that makes me see doubles under the posts, a changed "Active Topics" page and little ghostlike
unsmilies beside our avatars?
Or is just my Old-Betsy Computer going down?
We're in the middle of some changes.
Holy Grail! Are the board's features under attack again or is it this weird dream thread that makes me see doubles under the posts, a changed "Active Topics" page and little ghostlike
unsmilies beside our avatars?
Or is just my Old-Betsy Computer going down?
We're in the middle of some changes.
I'm getting it, too.
I hadn't noticed the smilies, but that's an indicator for online status. yellow for online, gray for offline.
and further, re the smilies, you can now change yours, to indicate your mood! (thought the choices are lacking...)
Oh, allright then. Thanks.
Or is just my Old-Betsy Computer going down?
ahem.
I think open-minded debate is mutually beneficial: What can be triangulated from two oppositional standpoints is very often closer to the truth.
Seems OK to me.
Or is just my Old-Betsy Computer going down?
ahem.
this has nothing to do with the University of Kentucky.
Ah, English
names, sorry. Wasn't aware of the Betsy-Elisabeth connection. We call all our long time faithful material 'Old Betsy'- (cars, blenders, computers , bikes).
(
doesn't make it sound any better I suppose)
Sorry, can't change the habit, but will not mention it any more.
Hmm... Yours, nice new avatar?
I thought you were ranting against those who expect to discover that for every thing there's a single word and who believe that somehow the word is always superior to the description; when in fact (as you now make clear) you are ranting against a tendency not to accept a nominal phrase instead of a single word—something quite different, and something I have not actually noticed. Perhaps I am not very observant.
and I'm not seeing a difference between those two. isn't the tendency not to accept the phrase what drives the need for a single word?
I'm referring to the difference between a nominal and descriptive phrase.
Take
outgroup homogeneity bias. Clearly, it is a phrase. It is nominal because it can be found in reference works. A descriptive phrase would be its definition: "a tendency for individuals to see members of their own group as being relatively more varied than members of other groups."
There are better examples.
You know, I'm still a little astonished by this thread. Is zmjezhd, with the bootlicking approval of tsuwm, really surprised that people come to a forum called Wordsmith, ancillary to an A-Word-A-Day email service, and want to ask about words? Not simply advocating that we enlarge the scope of discussion to include other areas of language, mind you, but actually "ranting" against people for using the board for the very purpose it was designed for.
I think some of the old timers are getting disgruntled.
Woohah! Have you ever seen more helpful people than them? Did you read their posts?
I think some of the old timers are getting disgruntled.
As a newcomer I'd have to say that most of you crusty old posters seem perfectly gruntled to me!
I thought you were ranting against those who expect to discover that for every thing there's a single word and who believe that somehow the word is always superior to the description; when in fact (as you now make clear) you are ranting against a tendency not to accept a nominal phrase instead of a single word—something quite different, and something I have not actually noticed. Perhaps I am not very observant.
and I'm not seeing a difference between those two. isn't the tendency not to accept the phrase what drives the need for a single word?
I'm referring to the difference between a nominal and descriptive phrase.
Take
outgroup homogeneity bias. Clearly, it is a phrase. It is nominal because it can be found in reference works. A descriptive phrase would be its definition: "a tendency for individuals to see members of their own group as being relatively more varied than members of other groups."
There are better examples.
You know, I'm still a little astonished by this thread. Is zmjezhd, with the bootlicking approval of tsuwm, really surprised that people come to a forum called Wordsmith, ancillary to an A-Word-A-Day email service, and want to ask about words? Not simply advocating that we enlarge the scope of discussion to include other areas of language, mind you, but actually "ranting" against people for using the board for the very purpose it was designed for.
I think some of the old timers are getting disgruntled.
what an absolute oyster carnival!
-
ron obvious
crusty old posters AHEM, sir! I shall presume that I am excused from this description because I still refuse to be a "poster"!
Heavens to Betsy, Anna--you didn't take offense at that reference, did you?
Speaking of offense, Hydra; confess I'm a bit surprised at your vehemence. It seems to me that it started right after zmjezhd posted
It's just a curious trend I'd noticed that folks are usually grailling after the single lexeme for a concept when two or more may be necessary or preferable, which I took simply to be a comment. Not any kind of moral stance, and certainly not a complaint. Merely an observation, and subjectively stated at that. (zmjezhd, correct me if I'm wrong, please.)
Speaking of offense, Hydra; confess I'm a bit surprised at your vehemence.
I proceeded in the spirit of the statement, to which zmjezhd cautiously agreed, that robust, energetic debate is healthy. Honest to God I didn't intend to sound "vehement". My bad. I apologize.
what an absolute oyster carnival!
Classic tsuwm. Too clever to be clear.
Have you ever seen more helpful people than them?
No. You are right. Nor have I met anyone who knows more about words and language than these two. But this point is beside the point; it is, in fact, an
ignoratio elenchi. I assume zmjezhd started this thread, not to simply to announce an opinion (that is what blogs are for), but to start a discussion. I have contributed more than anyone else to the discussion, and I am still trying to figure out what zmjezhd is
really saying.
Back on topic, zmjezhd, which of these, in plain English, is your contention:
A) People often seek a single word when sometimes a nominal phrase is necessary. For example, there is no single word for post-traumatic stress disorder.
B) People often seek words for things instead of just describing them. This is
annoying (insert alternative adjective if necessary).
C) Other. (Please explain).
I ain't zhjmejhdjjjd, but
which of these, in plain English(what's that?), is your contention
yes.
and
D) they get intense about it.
Heavens to Betsy, Anna--you didn't take offense at that reference, did you?
Heh. No more than you would to an incorrect reference to UK.
Back on topic, zmjezhd, which of these, in plain English, is your contention:
A) People often seek a single word when sometimes a nominal phrase is necessary. For example, there is no single word for post-traumatic stress disorder.
This is closest to cover part of what I was saying. It is a simple fact of the English language that there are many commonly discussed concepts which are not expressible with a single word. As in your example a compound might need to be used. There is no single word (that I know of) for a red giant variable star. Take the mock serious paraskavedekatriaphobia, please. Why would some prefer this monstrous Greek compound to plain old English fear of Friday the Thirteenth?
B) People often seek words for things instead of just describing them. This is annoying (insert alternative adjective if necessary).
No. If there is a word ask for it or look it up. I am not stating that using periphrasis is necessary. Though referring to one's manager in conversation with a colleague as the pointy-haired boss (or PHB) may be preferable in certain contexts.
C) Other. (Please explain).
Part of what I have noticed over the years is that sometimes somebody seeks the right word for a certain situation (cf. the other recent thread about a suitable translation of the German verb pendeln), and other times they just want a (possibly learnèd) word for a concept covered by a compound or otherwise descriptive phrase. In the latter case, these folks are sometimes annoyed if a single word cannot be found. I wish for neither of these activities to be proscribed.
Now for the tougher interpersonal relationship stuff. There was something obviously annoying (use another adjective if deemed preferable) about my opening this thread. That's fine with me. Over the years, I've noticed that people tend to disagree with one another. As I said, the board's big enough to accommodate us plus a host of others. If you disagree with me, tell me, but leave out the whole "I more enthusiastic about words than thou" attitude. Anybody who has a passing acquaintance with me knows I'm pretty enthusiastic about words and the rest of the language, too. It seems that something about my nonce word, grailling, set you off, and something about your sole proprietorship of word enthusiasm annoyed me, too.
Wow, thanks, guys! I'd been concerned that this could turn into something ugly, but everybody including AnnaStrophic [evil grin e] has been a gentleman: simple statements of facts, no name-calling, judgements, etc. Whew.
well, what's left for me to do other than post something "too clever".
A) People often seek a single word when sometimes a nominal phrase is necessary. a corollary to this is people often seek an English word for something usually expressed in <foreign language>. an extreme example of this is schadenfreude (much in the news what with the Spitzer affair); we see έπιχαιρεκακία anglicized and offered up as an English equivalent.
B) People often seek words for things instead of just describing them. This is annoying. I think you have to be 'trolling' to take this reading, especially considering the source.
Other..
to whom it may concern:
in eight years of posting in these forums, I've never prepensely dodged a legitimate question as to (my) meaning.
as to snide comments regarding my manner..
not so much.
-joe (tufthunter) friday
("tufthunter") word of the week to me.
(No clue what it means, but.....) it wil do miracles in these regions when someone misbehaves badly.
A) People often seek a single word when sometimes a nominal phrase is necessary. a corollary to this is people often seek an English word for something usually expressed in <foreign language>. an extreme example of this is schadenfreude (much in the news what with the Spitzer affair); we see έπιχαιρεκακία anglicized and offered up as an English equivalent.
The very word the suckered Nuncle Z into coming to this board.
In a related note, the thing that tends to bug me is when someone comes looking for, e.g., a word or phrase, the referent of which is some person who meets some criterion or set of criteria and gets as an answer some traits that might be associated with that person. For example, "What do you call someone who is always complaing about other peoples' use of words?" and rather than getting, say, 'peevologist', they get 'irritating' or 'noble' or whatever adjective the offerer thinks might be one used to describe such a person.[/harrumphation]
The very word the suckered Nuncle Z into coming to this board.Ah, yes. I remember it as though it were only four years ago (
link).
Tsuwm introduced himself with this opening salvo: "what is this, a nest of raving prescriptivists??" (
link)
There's a
Brideshead Revisited moodiness to reading something you wrote a while ago, like looking at your old college survey-course papers.
My attitude towards the e-word has changed. It is a word, though an inelegant one. I don't find it to be an inkhorn term any longer, but more of a dord word. While we're at it,
schadenfreude was coined in the 16th century to translate a concept from Seneca:
libitinariorum vota 'the prayers of undertakers' (
link).
Unius uotum deprehensum est, omnium simile est: An tu Arruntium et Aterium, et ceteros qui captandorum testamentorum artem professi sunt, non putas eadem habere, quae designatores et libitinarios, uota? illi tamen quorum mortes optent, nesciunt: hi familiarissimum quemque, ex quo propter amicitiam rei plurimum est, mori cupiunt; illorum damno nemo uiuit, hos, quisquis differt, exbaurit; optant ergo non tantum, ut accipiant, quod turpi seruitute meruerunt, sed etiam, ut tributo graui liberentur.
[Seneca
De beneficiis VI. xxxviii. 4.
link)]
One man's vow was excepted at, where all men's are alike. Thinkest thou that Arruntius and Haterius and all others that professed the art of executorship had not the same vows and wishes, as the masters of funeral ceremonies and they who were ministers in burying the dead? yet know not they whose death they wish: they desire that some one of their nearest familiars should die, in whom for friendship sake they had most hope. No man giveth by the loss of those: whosoever differreth the other undoeth them. They therefore wish, not only that they may receive that which they have deserved by base servitude, but also that they may be freed of a grievous tribute.
[Translated by Thomas Lodge 1614, (
link)]
The prayer of one man was detected, but it was just like the prayers of all other men. Do you imagine that Arruntius and Haterius, and all other professional legacy-hunters do not put up the same prayers as undertakers and grave-diggers? though the latter know not whose death it is that they wish for, while the former wish for the death of their dearest friends, from whom, on. account of their intimacy, they have most hopes of inheriting a fortune. No one's life does the undertaker any harm, whereas these men starve if their friends are long about dying; they do not, therefore, merely wish for their deaths in order that they may receive what they have earned by a disgraceful servitude, but in order that they may be set free from a heavy tax.
[Translated by Aubrey Stewart 1887, (
link)]
it seems as though old threads always have something of interest; the one from four years ago, f.e., has a typical wwh post tacked on the end.
-joe (nice touch for the Octennial) friday
