I agree that modern usage does, indeed, cause a language to evolve. In many cases, this is a good thing. I become nervous, however, when modern usage diminishes the language, making it less expressive. Consider the word "Christian" as an example. Waaaay back, this was a term of derision, if I recall the origin correctly. It became a term of honor after a while. Then, as the modern era approached, the word fragmented. It came to mean, not "one who follows Christ", but rather "a good person". This is not to suggest that it is necessarily incorrect to call a Christian a good person, or vice versa, but to make the terms interchangeable diminished the language. Two words that were before unambiguous were no longer so. Now, the word has been hijacked, much like this thread. Consider the question, "Are Mormons Christians?" By the original, correct meaning of the word, there is no doubt of the affirmative. But one may create so specialized a definition of the word as to exclude any group. The causes a further diminution of usefulness of the word. That is what I dislike-- accepting modern usages that reduce the language. Other than that, though, I'm OK... in case anyone was seeking my approval...
Andrew -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Jorgensen Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 10:30 PM To: BYU Unix Users Group Subject: Re: [uug] Threadjack: "Myriad" Hmm, I like hearkening to the old OED once in a while myself, but I have to agree that contemporary usage is probably more important than etymology. Except, of course that if we let our language change our children won't understand the scriptures. Heck, we have a hard enough time as it is. Interesting sidenote: The thee thou, etc. form is the personal form, not the formal form. It should make your prayers more personal, not more formal. Don't get me started on "wherefor." If I hear one more reference to /Romeo and Juliet/ that implies that she didn't know where Romeo was I'm going to scream. It's hard to imagine that someone who's actually read or seen the play could possibly think that's what she meant. I guess you're right then, mostly. Where it becomes important to understand how a word is used colloquially is when you're listening to someone talk to you, or reading something. It's totally irrelevant to go into what a word _really_ means unless you're the one who's going to use it. When you want to understand what someone is saying it only matters what they thought the word meant. In this situation we're talking about how it _should_ be used so the OED does matter. It's also important to note, however, that the OED is a dictionary from Oxford about the King's English, not American English. The digital version has got to be way easier on your shelf (or your eyes, depending on the format). It's too bad it's so dang expensive. They oughta make data files for a dictd server and open it up. Dang, I don't have enough time on my hands, I should be in bed. Good night. ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
