Musings on Language #2

[Grinner]

It depends on how you approach the subject of language. As a system of patterns and rules, or as a social phenomenon. While there is a certain value in creating a set of standard vocabulary, ortography, and gramar, for expample to teach the language to other people, it does, and have to, ignore the evolving aspect of language as a cultural product.
Patterns in language, that arise fast often also disappear fast as well, and it would be nonsense to try updating a written set of rules all the time. Once you updated it, it's already outdated. Therefore it makes a lot more sense to limit yourself to the patterns that turn out to endure for a very long time. But you can identify these only after they have already been used for a ling time and have become so common that it's unlukely to disappear again soon.

Does that mean that all of the wildly wonderful neologisms produced by modern societies will die soon? Will I soon no longer LOL my MFAO?

[Aedilred]

Slang, being on the cutting edge of language evolution, tends to be more vulnerable to extinction. Some of it (the core group of English swear words) survives for hundreds of years. Some of it dies out functionally within a few decades (when was the last time you heard anyone say "radical" or "hip" other than to make fun of it? When was the last time you heard anyone say "beezer" at all?)

I don't know how long "lol" will survive. I think it might last the distance, although some similar abbreviations ("fmao", for instance, might not). "Rofl" could go either way.

[SaintRidley]

Speaking of slang and how easily it dies out, here's a dictionary of slang published in 1811 detailing the slang of the late 18th century.

[Ravens_cry]

Some of those are still in use. Interesting. I wish I had more time to read that.

[ForzaFiori]

In other countries the repetition of a single word in the length of a few lines (how many exactly varies) can be considered a real error.
In Italian language you are not only encouraged but forced to avoid repetition of words at all costs by using synonims, it's percieved as very simplistic and clumsy to not do so.
That is, unless you want to put an emphasis on the meaning of the repeated word, but that's used mostly on words that carry a strong meaning, obviously, so the word "said" wouldn't qualify, usually.

Actually, you can repeat ANY adjective in Italian to put emphasis on it.
IE (the "e" should have an accent. I don't know how to type them):
La macchina e veloce. -The car is fast
La macchina e veloce veloce. - The car is very fast

You can also add the suffix "-issimo/a".

In other areas of speach though, your completely right. "Ne" (also supposed to be accented) is used to avoid repition of "non", for instance, but it usually makes you then repeat ne, as it's commonly found when listing negatives.
IE
Non ho ne un aereo, ne una barca - I don't have an airplane or a boat.
instead of
Non ho un aereo. Non ho una barca. - I don't have an airplane. I don't have a boat

[Kalmageddon]

Actually, you can repeat ANY adjective in Italian to put emphasis on it.
IE (the "e" should have an accent. I don't know how to type them):
La macchina e veloce. -The car is fast
La macchina e veloce veloce. - The car is very fast

You can also add the suffix "-issimo/a".

I was talking about repeating a word in the span of a short text instead of using synonims, not using it two times in a row, which is still outdated and awful to read anyway.

Like this:

Marco entrò nella macchina e si allacciò le cinture poi mise in moto la macchina e uscì dal parcheggio,

Any decent Italian teacher would consider the above repetition as a mistake, since you can easly use another word to say "macchina", such as "veicolo" and thus avoid an unecessary repetition.

This has been hammered in my head ever since elementary school and it's pretty much a rule of decent writing. No one would publish material with these kind of repetitions.

[ForzaFiori]

I apologize, I misunderstood what you meant.

what you said is true in pretty much every language I've ever studied though, not just Italian. I've had several English teachers get onto me because I used the same words over and over again. That's why most English classes now want you to have a thesaurus.

[Weezer]

I apologize, I misunderstood what you meant.

what you said is true in pretty much every language I've ever studied though, not just Italian. I've had several English teachers get onto me because I used the same words over and over again. That's why most English classes now want you to have a thesaurus.

Really? I've always had English teachers warn me away from the thesaurus, it's really obvious when someone doesn't actually understand the word and just used a thesaurus to find it. On the other hand English teachers do try to ensure that you have a broad vocabulary, so you can avoid repeating words by virtue of knowing a lot.

[ForzaFiori]

Mine generally wanted you to have them, but also wanted you to know the words. Basically, if you find yourself using a word over and over again, look it up in the thesaurus. If you don't know what the synonyms mean, look them up. But honestly, who can remember every single synonym to a word that they know? I've found myself looking for a substitute word, then doing a headsmack when I saw the list, because there were at least 3 or 4 that I should have known off the top of my head.

[Weezer]

I think my teachers were coming at it from the position that the misuse of a thesaurus is far more common than the proper use of one, especially amongst people just learning how to write well. Of course they have a proper use, or they wouldn't exist, but I've found that the proper use is far outnumbered by improper use.

[Greenish]

The Oxford American* Dictionary & Thesaurus that came with my laptop has these sweet sections on the correct use of near synonyms. They explain the different connotations of the words.


*No, I've no idea why I got the American English edition.

[Yora]

What is the english word for eating greedily and hastly, bordering on disgusting? Eating like a pig. I think there was one, but I can't remember it.

[Goosefeather]

What is the english word for eating greedily and hastly, bordering on disgusting? Eating like a pig. I think there was one, but I can't remember it.

Gobbling, guzzling, wolfing down?

[Brother Oni]

What is the english word for eating greedily and hastly, bordering on disgusting? Eating like a pig. I think there was one, but I can't remember it.

Gorge or engorge I think fits your bill.

[Yora]

Hm, non of these seem to carry the implication of disgusting glutony that the German "fressen" has.

The reason the question came up was that I tried to translate the humorous term FDH, which is often cited as an efective diet method. It's short for "Friss die Hälfte", which means "eat half as much", but has the added sting of implying "you could be thinner if you just wouldn't be such a glutton". Since studies of diet methods seem to have come to the conclusion that the only thing that really matters is eating less, I occasionally think it would be great to be able to use this sarcastic remark in english conversations.

[Brother Oni]

Binge half as much?

[Greenish]

Settle for two cheeseburgers?

Doesn't quite have the rhythm.

[Aedilred]

Well, like many idiomatic expressions it probably doesn't translate as pithily. I'd like to add the following terms to the discussion, though:

Scoff; shovel; stuff one's face/gob/cakehole with; devour; nom

The best of those for these purposes is probably "scoff" as it conveys the impression best without qualifying words or extreme informality.

[Kneenibble]

What is the english word for eating greedily and hastly, bordering on disgusting? Eating like a pig. I think there was one, but I can't remember it.

Scarf
Snorf
Gobble


An equivalently sarcastic phrase might be "put down the fork."

[razark]

What is the english word for eating greedily and hastly...

snarf

Is this long enough to actually post now?

[dehro]

Sounds like you might enjoy the baffling power of the eggcorn database.

not sure if I should laugh or weep

[Greenish]

not sure if I should laugh or weep

I did both, and have been trying not to return ever since.

[dehro]

I did both, and have been trying not to return ever since.

gotta love the feeble position though

[SaintRidley]

Scarf
Snorf
Gobble


An equivalently sarcastic phrase might be "put down the fork."

I'll second the suggestion of "Put down the fork" as the best analogue for Yora to use.

[Yora]

PDF would do the job quite well, I think.

Since we are at the topic. Why is it that there is a word for when you are no longer hungry, but no word for when you stop being thirsty? I don't know of any in English and know for sure there isn't one in German.

Fun fact: The reason that english has different names for animals and the meat of the animals dates back to the norman conquest. The nobles and rich who spoke a french language, would encounter those animals only as meat on the table, while those who tended to live animals were servants who spoke their anglo-saxon language. Because the names for meat come from french, and the names for the animal from german:
Cow = Kuh, Calf = Kalb, Sheep = Schaf, Lamb = Lamm, Swine = Schwein, Deer is related to Tier, which means "animal".

[Goosefeather]

PDF would do the job quite well, I think.

Since we are at the topic. Why is it that there is a word for when you are no longer hungry, but no word for when you stop being thirsty? I don't know of any in English and know for sure there isn't one in German.

The equivalent to 'sating/satiating/slaking one's hunger' is to 'quench one's thirst'. I don't think I've ever heard it used adjectivally (i.e. 'my quenched thirst'). I'm pretty sure there's no parallel to 'full' though, beyond 'no longer thirsty'.

[Eldan]

I think my teachers were coming at it from the position that the misuse of a thesaurus is far more common than the proper use of one, especially amongst people just learning how to write well. Of course they have a proper use, or they wouldn't exist, but I've found that the proper use is far outnumbered by improper use.

Interestingly, we were thought hte exact opposite in German class, really. From about third grade on, our teacher would grab a highlighter pen and mark ever instance of the verb "sagen" (say) we used in the same text and tell us not to use it more than once, if we could avoid it. In general, we were told to vary our words as often as possible, especially with commonly used verbs. E.g. "Sagen", "sprechen", "reden" (say, speak, talk) and two dozen more. Also, not using basic verbs with adverbs (or adjectives, in German) added to them. I.e. not using ""...", sagte er zorning" ("...", he said angrily.), but use verbs which describe the state. And then maybe add the adverbs to those for emphasis.

In general, overuse of the same word in the same text was massively discouraged and called lazy writing, as well as proof of a lack of a well-developed vocabulary.

Which is why I still have problems writing in a proper English style. My inner Student still wants to show of his Thesaurus-skills whenever the verb "say" comes up.

[dehro]

The equivalent to 'sating/satiating/slaking one's hunger' is to 'quench one's thirst'. I don't think I've ever heard it used adjectivally (i.e. 'my quenched thirst'). I'm pretty sure there's no parallel to 'full' though, beyond 'no longer thirsty'.

sure there is: drunk

[Greenish]

Since we are at the topic. Why is it that there is a word for when you are no longer hungry, but no word for when you stop being thirsty? I don't know of any in English and know for sure there isn't one in German.

…Well, that's funny. There isn't one in Finnish, either, and that's not a Germanic (or even Indo-european) language.

[Asta Kask]

We use "unthirsty" (otörstig) in Swedish, but it is a real word. It's not something thrown together in desperation.