When people mis-use literally it bugs me, Anyone else?

[negitron]

Evolution is not arbitrary.

Uh, yeah, it is. It is literally arbitrary, by definition. I'm beginning to think you don't know what arbitrary actually means.

 

[Sorry!]

Uh, yeah, it is. It is literally arbitrary, by definition. I'm beginning to think you don't know what arbitrary actually means.

No events leading to evolution may be arbitrary but evolution itself is not arbitrary. It is literally Natural Selection, selection vs arbitrary non-selective.

And yes @maverick. I already conceited that some words in english may have been arbitrarily given definition but we're talking abuot the entire language being arbitrarily constructive and having arbitrary rules are we not?

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Are you suggesting that the phonetics of "water" were evolutionarily selected for? What about "agua"? In japanese the "respect level" is very important to the structure of a sentence. In some languages objects have gender, in others, like ours, they don't. In some languages all proper nouns are preceded by a definite article, in ours they aren't. If french youth started stripping le,la,l',les from their sentences then I'm sure there would be those who called it a corruption of french but it would not really effect their ability to communicate at all. It would just make french more like english.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

No events leading to evolution may be arbitrary but evolution itself is not arbitrary. It is literally Natural Selection, selection vs arbitrary non-selective.

And yes @maverick. I already conceited that some words in english may have been arbitrarily given definition but we're talking abuot the entire language being arbitrarily constructive and having arbitrary rules are we not?

Well no, the structure or a language can't be entirely arbitrary, Logically one needs a certain minimalist system to convey information (and often languages don't actually follow this, leading to ambiguous sentences). However, above the bare skeleton there's a whole lot of arbitrariness in the structure of language. For example, the direct example given to spark this conversation was the insertion of "like" in sentences. This does not break the ability to communicate ideas in any way. It is simply a manner of arbitrary taste whether one sees it as "acceptable English"

 

[maverick_starstrider]

No events leading to evolution may be arbitrary but evolution itself is not arbitrary. It is literally Natural Selection, selection vs arbitrary non-selective.

And yes @maverick. I already conceited that some words in english may have been arbitrarily given definition but we're talking abuot the entire language being arbitrarily constructive and having arbitrary rules are we not?

P.S. evolution is not just "selection". It also includes random mutation, migration and genetic drift which are random occurances.

 

[negitron]

No events leading to evolution may be arbitrary but evolution itself is not arbitrary. It is literally Natural Selection, selection vs arbitrary non-selective.

Unless you're suggesting there is reason behind evolution, you are incorrect. Please look up the word "arbitrary" lest you embarrass yourself further.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Unless you're suggesting there is reason behind evolution, you are incorrect. Please look up the word "arbitrary" lest you embarrass yourself further.

Ouch.

 

[BobG]

If you honestly think that words in the English language (or any language for that matter) were "chosen" then I don't think you understand what language is. As you previously pointed out, language grows and transforms without any particularly deliberate action by the speakers and our language, like all the others, grew out of people arbitrarily applying sounds to ideas. They had no reason to associate a certain sound with a particular idea, it was a random choice. Perhaps a really popular cro-magnon started pointing at a cave and made a certain sound (although he could have easily made any other sound) and he was a popular cave man and well liked amonst his nomadic tribesman so they started immitating him and now, hundreds of thousands of years later, (maybe less than that) english speakers use the word "cave" other languages use other sounds. It was all arbitrary.

So you believe that in the first languages, simple command verbs were as likely to have 2 syllables as 1? Or 5 syllables as 1?

You believe that the first nouns created were as likely as verbs to be single syllable words? Or that nouns and verbs sprang up simultaneously, sometimes with a verb being invented and sometimes with a noun being invented?

 

[maverick_starstrider]

So you believe that in the first languages, simple command verbs were as likely to have 2 syllables as 1? Or 5 syllables as 1?

You believe that the first nouns created were as likely as verbs to be single syllable words? Or that nouns and verbs sprang up simultaneously, sometimes with a verb being invented and sometimes with a noun being invented?

I find it hard to believe that all primitive languages were dominated by single syllable words because they are easy to say. It wouldn't even take a generation before someone decided to give themselves a longer name or lash together single syllabled words to make new nouns and such. However, all of this has gotten so far from the point. Lamenting the insertion of "like" into a sentence, as is commonly done in slang, as a corruption of the enligh language is sheer nonsense. Languages are fluid and change with culture. There is no absolute criteria by which one can evaluate the "correctness" of one language over another or devalue the use of slang vocabulary and grammar.

 

[BobG]

I find it hard to believe that all primitive languages were dominated by single syllable words because they are easy to say. It wouldn't even take a generation before someone decided to give themselves a longer name or lash together single syllabled words to make new nouns and such. However, all of this has gotten so far from the point. Lamenting the insertion of "like" into a sentence, as is commonly done in slang, as a corruption of the enligh language is sheer nonsense. Languages are fluid and change with culture. There is no absolute criteria by which one can evaluate the "correctness" of one language over another or devalue the use of slang vocabulary and grammar.

I'm not going to go so far as to say it's a fact, since there are few or zero very primitive languages around today that haven't interacted with other languages, but I would guess that most languages, including primitive languages, have more nouns than command verbs and would hence be dominated by multi-syllable words (especially if having a longer name somehow carried prestige). Whether that's actually true or not is irrelevant.

It is relevant that nouns and verbs are processed differently by different parts of the brain. (Verb and Verb-Derived Noun Production: Hemifield Similarities and Differences is one example, chosen only because you can view at least some substance without having to pay a fee).

There is some range of randomness in actual sounds for a given word ("give" vs "sit" for example), but the development of language has some serious constraints that keep the language from straying off "randomly". The same type of patterns keep popping up over and over (even the "so bad it's good", "so pleasurable it hurts", "laugh so hard I cried" pattern).

 

[negitron]

Look up "identical twin languages" for some idea of how language arose spontaneously.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

I'm not going to go so far as to say it's a fact, since there are few or zero very primitive languages around today that haven't interacted with other languages, but I would guess that most languages, including primitive languages, have more nouns than command verbs and would hence be dominated by multi-syllable words (especially if having a longer name somehow carried prestige). Whether that's actually true or not is irrelevant.

It is relevant that nouns and verbs are processed differently by different parts of the brain. (Verb and Verb-Derived Noun Production: Hemifield Similarities and Differences is one example, chosen only because you can view at least some substance without having to pay a fee).

There is some range of randomness in actual sounds for a given word ("give" vs "sit" for example), but the development of language has some serious constraints that keep the language from straying off "randomly". The same type of patterns keep popping up over and over (even the "so bad it's good", "so pleasurable it hurts", "laugh so hard I cried" pattern).

Yeesh, I've already explained what I meant by arbitrary, and what by Zeus' great ghost does this have to do with whether the incorrect usage of "literally" is irritating or the phrase "That movie was like the worst movie I've ever seen" is poor english. It is interesting to know but I guess I don't see the relevance to the discussion.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

I'm not going to go so far as to say it's a fact, since there are few or zero very primitive languages around today that haven't interacted with other languages, but I would guess that most languages, including primitive languages, have more nouns than command verbs and would hence be dominated by multi-syllable words (especially if having a longer name somehow carried prestige). Whether that's actually true or not is irrelevant.

It is relevant that nouns and verbs are processed differently by different parts of the brain. (Verb and Verb-Derived Noun Production: Hemifield Similarities and Differences is one example, chosen only because you can view at least some substance without having to pay a fee).

There is some range of randomness in actual sounds for a given word ("give" vs "sit" for example), but the development of language has some serious constraints that keep the language from straying off "randomly". The same type of patterns keep popping up over and over (even the "so bad it's good", "so pleasurable it hurts", "laugh so hard I cried" pattern).

Are you in any way denying or providing counter evidence to the claim that language is fluid and a reflection of culture and that there exists no absolute criteria through which one can evaluate the "correctness" of a language or slang?

 

[BobG]

Are you in any way denying or providing counter evidence to the claim that language is fluid and a reflection of culture and that there exists no absolute criteria through which one can evaluate the "correctness" of a language or slang?

No.

In fact, going back through the thread, I'm surprised so much of the thread wound up being devoted to discussing an arbitrary decision to include one specific word in one specific post. I "conceit" that language is in a constant state of evolution and there is no "correct" language. (But the lasting changes to a language aren't just random diversions.)

 

[Danger]

This thread is literally driving me nuts.

Well, that would be a long trip...
Half a teaspoon of gas, and you wouldn't have time to put on your seatbelt.

The one linguistic no-no, which is not arbitrary, that irritates the hell out of me is when someone says "That's pretty unique", or "quite unique". 'Unique' literally () means that it's the only one of its kind. Something either is or is not unique; there's no middle ground.

 

[Sorry!]

No.

In fact, going back through the thread, I'm surprised so much of the thread wound up being devoted to discussing an arbitrary decision to include one specific word in one specific post. I "conceit" that language is in a constant state of evolution and there is no "correct" language. (But the lasting changes to a language aren't just random diversions.)

Thats my mistake as I was reading thru this thread i forgot completely about the OP. I guess when I read that 'language is arbitrary' I took it as the language itself and not the layman use of terms.

@negiton. I'm pretty sure Evolution is the change in genetic make up from one generation to the next of a given organism. Ergo, genetic mutations isn't evolution, they are genetic mutations. Some DO lead to evolution to a next generation of organism but that is through a selective process of which benefit the organism whether its efficiency, mating, catching prey, avoiding predators etc. At least this is MY take on it if you have some other definition of evolution by all means go for it.

Arbitrarily is an adverb. Synonyms include: randomly, indiscriminately, haphazardly, willy-nilly, arbitrarily, at random, every which way
From http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=arbitrarily

'Arbitrary' means a claim put forth in the absence of evidence of any sort, perceptual or conceptual; its basis is neither direct observation nor any kind of theoretical argument. [An arbitrary idea is] a sheer assertion with no attempt to validate it or connect it to reality." [32] The notion of a universe-creating, reality-ruling consciousness (i.e., "God") is an arbitrary idea; it is an idea which has no legitimate supporting evidence. However, with the rise of the western mind's dependence on reason, theistic philosophers and apologists can no longer find their recourses to "sheer assertion" persuasive to many of the minds which they hope to convince. Consequently, such philosophers and apologists have attempted various avenues of constructing arguments in order to provide the pretense that this notorious, arbitrary idea has a credible perceptual and/or conceptual basis, thus removing it from the purely arbitrary status it originally had.

From: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/AFE/Definitions.htm

If you would like to continue to 'embarrass' me some more then by all means begin a new post or send me a pm. I'm bored anyways.

 

[negitron]

You're still doing just fine all on your own.

 

[Sorry!]

You're still doing just fine all on your own.

Awesome.

 

[FredGarvin]

I don't know if anyone else saw this, but a sportscaster on ESPN was talking about Tiger Woods and the Buick Open...He said that "Tiger Woods was literally on fire on the back nine."

I laughed. I detest the misuse as well.

 

[Redbelly98]

The one linguistic no-no, which is not arbitrary, that irritates the hell out of me is when someone says "That's pretty unique", or "quite unique". 'Unique' literally () means that it's the only one of its kind. Something either is or is not unique; there's no middle ground.

For me, it's "I could care less."

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

But when such dialects evolve, they aren't done by individuals sitting on their own. There are still rules, whether written down or not. My point is that this is not arbitrary; if it were arbitrary, then everyone would be speaking a different language. Regardless of what you call something, there must be rules which evolve the language, otherwise no one would understand what anyone else would be talking about.

I see. So when people decide to not use the strict rules of the language this is based on some strict rule of their new language because, of course, language always follows strict rules otherwise no one would understand the slang. Make sense?

Arbitrariness in language doesn't necessarily mean that each and every individual simply decides to spout out what ever random noises and consider it language. At some point some individuals will speak the language differently for any number of reasons. There is no means of determining why they would make one change over another exactly. Eventually we see seemingly random permutations based on multiple individual choices. Because we have studied language and brain function we can see that these choices are not made completely at random, that there are various cultural and linguistic forces at play. This by no means takes away from it being an arbitrary phenomenon. Arbitrary means seemingly random decision or action. Humans are far from random in their decisions and their actions so if you want to consider arbitrary to mean actual mathematical randomness then obviously the word will apply to virtually nothing and should probably be discarded from the english language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrariness

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary




Oh... and my pet peeve is actually people who say "literately" instead of "literally" among other less ironic mispronunciations.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

For me, it's "I could care less."

Ooooh. Another good one.

 

[j93]

I hate the british use of the word "brilliant".

 

[cristo]

I hate the british use of the word "brilliant".

How do Brits use the word "brilliant" differently than others?

 

[maverick_starstrider]

How do Brits use the word "brilliant" differently than others?

They use it pretty much where we might say good or cool. I would never say it bothers me but they do use it far more frequently and in different contexts than north america. Although we say "awesome" a lot more. Both are words that would normally be reserved for very high exultation but have become very commmon descripters.

 

[Redbelly98]

I hate the british use of the word "brilliant".

I love the british use of the word "brilliant". Ever since I saw it used in a Guiness ad. Brilliant!

 

[rolerbe]

For me, it's the incorrect use of 'then' and 'than' in writing. Particularly that this mistake is so often seen. Takes me to 'eleven'.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

For me, it's the incorrect use of 'then' and 'than' in writing. Particularly that this mistake is so often seen. Takes me to 'eleven'.

I'd say that is much more likely due to rushed typing without proof reading then an actual misunderstanding of the use of the words. I often type things that rhyme with what I mean to type and that's definitely the case with then/than.

 

[negitron]

I'd say that is much more likely due to rushed typing without proof reading then an actual misunderstanding of the use of the words.

I've spent enough time on various internet forums over the years to be able to tell you for certain that you're wrong there. While the occasional mistype does occur, for sure, I've seen enough people who type "then" when they mean "than" with rock-solid consistency to say the latter is much more common than the former.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

I've spent enough time on various internet forums over the years to be able to tell you for certain that you're wrong there. While the occasional mistype does occur, for sure, I've seen enough people who type "then" when they mean "than" with rock-solid consistency to say the latter is much more common than the former.

Yes but does that mean they're make that mistake if they were actually writing something of value? Is their resume filled with these errors?