In Defense of English

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

actually i like "nother" used tongue in cheek as well. and it reminds me of a story i read somewhere explaining that for instance the english word "apron" used to be "napron" (from french "napperon", small table cloth), and somehow "a napron" became "an apron" (sorry, i don't remember the exact details). perhaps the same thing happened to "nother". (my tongue is in my cheek for the last bit.)

Originally Posted by krisk

well I guess that's where nappies come from!

And napkins as well

[slayda]

Originally Posted by kazbates

It actually makes more sense! I often wondered why the word was "butter"fly! I have always preferred the Spanish word, "Mariposa". It just seems prettier to describe something so lovely!!

I think a lot of words that have changed over time has to do with the laziness we use when speaking. We (I know I am lumping everyone together, it is just to make a general point and not intended to be offensive in any way to those of you who are much more eloquent speakers than I am ) slur words together or shorten them to say what we have to say. Growing up in Chicago I never noticed that we all spoke so quickly. Whenever I visited my relatives in southern Illinois, though, they would repeatedly ask my to slow down when I was talking. It drove me crazy, because I always thought they were talking too slowly and just wanted them to get to the point! I still get the occasional requests to slow down from sales clerks, particularly when I am placing a phone orders.

Kaz

As a Southerner I've realized over the year that I listen slowly. I assume it's because many Southerners speak slowly.

[krisk]

the place I work at has many foreign language speakers. they take a great deal of umbrage when I ask them to slow down when I am trying to figure out what their phone issues are. *THEY* may know what they are saying, I sure as hell don't!

[pdurrant]

I hate to spoil it for you, but that's not how the butterfly got its name. It's always been butterfly in English.

http://www.takeourword.com/arc_logi.html#butterfl

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think my all time favourite "word change" has to be the word "butterfly", which was originally "flutterby". Isn't that just a beautifully descriptive word for what a butterfly does?

[Tinwolf]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I hate to spoil it for you, but that's not how the butterfly got its name. It's always been butterfly in English.

That`s certainly what I thought, flutterby was just a fun swap round to make another name (I`m sure there`s a correct term for that but I don`t know it, sorry)

It annoys me when I hear people using "non-standard" English particularly when people adopt slang terms because they want to be "with it" such as using the word "aks" instead of "ask" as in "I want to aks you something" (in frequent use in Futurama which I love ).
And yet I can see how a language will change and has changed over time it`s just a shame to me when a change used in another country becomes used by the original speakers of the language and I`m thinking here of the words "disorientate" and "disorientated" which are becoming "disorient" and "disoriented". I`m sorry but I just think it`s lazy.

Why do such things annoy me? I don`t know, I guess I`m just an old chuffa

("I guess"? is that correct English? I guess not )

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I hate to spoil it for you, but that's not how the butterfly got its name. It's always been butterfly in English.

http://www.takeourword.com/arc_logi.html#butterfl

Drat! You've shattered one of my long-held illusions .

[CathalMagus]

Tinwolf, the reverse-ordering of phonemes that occurs is called metathesis. The nicest example I know is in the Irish language (Gaelic): leprechaun was originally luchorpán (meaning small-bodied), or at least that's what my brother learned studying Old Irish. Try saying luchorpán over and over, and it naturally ends up as leipreachán.

(Just to show what a linguistic nerd I am, I always say methatesis instead of metathesis as an etymological joke!)

And yes, "I guess" is correct English, going back as far as Chaucer's Canterbury Tales (circa 1380s). Although, back then it was formulated like this "Four of the clock it was, so as I guesse". But I understand that the American usage of "I guess" (meaning "I think", "I believe", "I suppose", "I reckon") has a different etymology (according to Fowler & Fowler anyway).

[6charlong]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think my all time favourite "word change" has to be the word "butterfly", which was originally "flutterby". Isn't that just a beautifully descriptive word for what a butterfly does?

This reminded me of an important childhood epiphany. I was about eight years old and had given up on ever learning English. It seemed to me that every time I thought I understood the language some new complication arose.

I remember seeing some butterflies doing an acrobatic dance in the sunshine and I accidentally called them “flutterbys” before correcting myself. It was then that I realized that I had been approaching English all wrong. “Flutterbys” works very well in English. And why not! Why not use the language as a plaything? It doesn’t have to be mechanical (everyway but this is wrong) or a work of art never to be tampered with. I decided to stop fussing and use English as the delightful toy it can be.

I don’t know if nonsense literature exists in all languages, but in English, moments like Lewis Carrol’s strange and wonderful “frumious Bandersnatch” are pure language play. I don’t know if every language exists as a toy for everyone to play with or if only the poets play with them, but ever since I was eight I have always thought of English as a delightful, free toy available to us all.

[ffred]

I can't sympathize with the argument over UK vs. US English when there are so many really gross errors in the eBooks I've downloaded lately. Maybe I should stay away from Smashwords and Feedbooks. But even supposedly main-market eBooks are full of errors, most of them the author's. What are the editors doing for their pay? Sample: A myriad of: myriad is an adjective, not a noun. Almost no-one (even writers in England) gets it right, or how about try and instead of try to. The list goes on and on.
Doesn't anyone keep a Strunk and White at his or her elbow when composing? I see absolute ignorance of how to form plurals and even books dictated into Dragon Speak with howlingly funny homonyms -- try a book by E. R. Mason -- sorry, E. R., but there it is. I couldn't finish the last one even though the plot was sustainable.
I might start transcribing them to post them here.
I don't mind UK English at all. I even had to write a paper in it for acceptance by an English journal.
As far as I'm concerned, write in UK or US, it doesn't matter, but whatever you choose, get it right!
ffred

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by ffred

Sample: A myriad of: myriad is an adjective, not a noun. Almost no-one (even writers in England) gets it right

Myriad is both a noun and an adjective. The noun form is older than the adjectival form, but still perfectly acceptable in modern English.

[ffred]

Re: Myriad.
Well, that's not the first time I've had pie on my face, nor will it be my last, I'm sure. My high school English teacher (ca. 1949-50) gets a lot of credit for making so deep an impression for it to remain embedded in my mind for a half-century. I still favor the adjectival form and will retain it in anything I write. In future, I will check a reference or two before charging forward. The principal point I made, however, remains: too many books are full of egregious (OED definition 3) errors that a good editor should spot and correct before the story sees the light of day.
ffred

[Tinwolf]

I`ve got to agree with ffred.
I come across many books with errors, not so much in spelling (spell checking is easy for a word processor) but in wrong words (there, their, they`re), missing words, sentences where the author obviously decided to phrase something differently but parts of different versions are still present, e.g. "he decided to climb up go to the top of the hill".

I would love to get a job as a proof reader because whoever is supposed to be proofreading some of these books is just glancing through and not actually reading the book. If I come across an error it just stops me in my tracks no matter how gripping the story, and if there are too many errors I often just give up on the book altogether.

As far as US vs GB English, I can live with aluminum or disoriented because they aren`t mistakes and they aren`t lazy, it just depends who`s reading the book.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Tinwolf

I would love to get a job as a proof reader because whoever is supposed to be proofreading some ...

Why "proof reader" but "proofreading"?

[carld]

Originally Posted by 6charlong

" But when you write or say: "That is a whole nother story," you torture the syntax of the language.

I used that phrase when writing to a friend and she wrote back it was an example of a legitimate English construct whereby one word is inserted into another to modify the meaning. Sadly, I don't remember what she called it, but it wasn't torturing the language as such.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by carld

I used that phrase when writing to a friend and she wrote back it was an example of a legitimate English construct whereby one word is inserted into another to modify the meaning. Sadly, I don't remember what she called it, but it wasn't torturing the language as such.

It's called infixation or tmesis and is not uncommon - quite often it's a swear word that is inserted to emphasise the base word - "absofu**inglutely" - expressing strong agreement or assent for example. So "a whole nother story", could be an example of that. Alternatively it could be "a whole other story" gone wrong.