Dare I....

[Richard Barrett]

Indeed, those who posingly use "curate" end up with egg on their faces.

Indeed eggs have been the elephant in the room of this thread.

[ardcarp]

I'm almost sorry I started this thread, but has anyone quoted he obvious yet?

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

[Pulcinella]

Indeed eggs have been the elephant in the room of this thread.

I'm almost sorry I started this thread, but has anyone quoted he obvious yet?

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

[cloughie]

I would take issue with the word 'meaning' in that article too.

We all know what curate means; what we (well, lots of us) don't like is a new (and unnecessary) use of it to give a false sense of importance to a fairly mundane task.

Spot on Pulc, not only do these ‘modernisers’ misappropriate words but also mix and mess up music.
Yes, ff, we have had so much American stuff dumped on us. Years ago films became movies, LPs became albums, Groups became bands, railway stations became train stations....

[Ein Heldenleben]

Spot on Pulc, not only do these ‘modernisers’ misappropriate words but also mix and mess up music.
Yes, ff, we have had so much American stuff dumped on us. Years ago films became movies, LPs became albums, Groups became bands, railway stations became train stations....

Mind you some Americanisms are 17th century Englishisms....I have absolutely no problem with neologisms, loan words etc that’s why English is such a vibrant language. I just think when there’s simple word around ..use it . Though I have just used neologism in an effort to sound like I know what I’m talking about.

[cloughie]

I'm almost sorry I started this thread, but has anyone quoted he obvious yet?

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

Didn’t do Humpty Dumpty any good though - he should have done a risk assessment before he sat on that wall.

[cloughie]

Mind you some Americanisms are 17th century Englishisms....

Yes but they’ve messed up big time since then!

[Ein Heldenleben]

Yes but they’ve messed up big time since then!

I lived in the US once . If a smoker you have to be very careful with the word “fag” and as for the English expression” keep your pecker up” ...

[french frank]

Yes, ff, we have had so much American stuff dumped on us.

Well, I don't quite agree with them being 'dumped on us'. People choose to use them, and that reflects their own sensitivity to language. They may use them because they're Americanisms, they may use them without much thought because they hear them so frequently through watching films and television. Some people are quick to adopt any neologism because it supports a self-image of 'knowing what's going on', being up to date with modern life, having a 'young' outlook on life. Some people ignore them because they see no use for them, others resist them strongly because they go against the 'rules'. But does anyone deliberately 'dump' them? They do reflect something which is happening which is interesting to try to understand.

Wood and trees Some things can't be said succinctly

[Frances_iom]

Y... But in the end I’m nothing like as annoyed about it as Chartered Engineers get when every spanner wielder describes themselves as an engineer.

Maybe we should have lobbied for the title of Ing .. but the use of engineer long pre-dates the rise of the Chartered Institutions - however I get some pleasure as an oldie, assumed by many to be losing my marbles and thus addressed in a patronising manner, to remind them that I am still registered as a C.Eng!

[cloughie]

Well, I don't quite agree with them being 'dumped on us'. People choose to use them, and that reflects their own sensitivity to language. They may use them because they're Americanisms, they may use them without much thought because they hear them so frequently through watching films and television. Some people are quick to adopt any neologism because it supports a self-image of 'knowing what's going on', being up to date with modern life, having a 'young' outlook on life. Some people ignore them because they see no use for them, others resist them strongly because they go against the 'rules'. But does anyone deliberately 'dump' them? They do reflect something which is happening which is interesting to try to understand.

Wood and trees Some things can't be said succinctly

Maybe ‘dumped on us’ is too strong but for me too many are ‘overused and over here!’

[gurnemanz]

Linguistic evolution has always been driven by the less well educated (misconceptions, misunderstandings, mishearings, imperfect articulation &c), and so, no doubt, it will continue to be.

I've never really thought about this and would be interested in investigating. It made me think of Basil Bernstein and his elaborate and restricted code which they told us us about on my PGCE course years ago. I also thought about one of best educated and most literate people I know, my wife's German brother-in-law, who once came out with the claim "Ich spreche druckreif", only half jokingly, but suggesting that all his utterances are so eloquent and well-formed that they are "print-ready".

It seems to me that the above statement can only be partly true:

Much language development must have taken place among relatively primitive pre-literate human beings when no one was "well educated". So not "always".

I would have thought that well-educated humans, being human, are also not immune to "misconceptions, misunderstandings, mishearings, imperfect articulation etc".

Linguistic development driven by the common folk is familiar to me from the term "Volksetymologie" which I remember learning about umpteen years ago when studying German philology. On the other hand, much new vocabulary in English (eg "curate") has surely mainly tended to be introduced from Latin and Greek, ie by well-educated people with access to classical studies. Only relatively recently have we had a lot of new words, mostly from across the Atlantic, where they have tended to to form compounds (like German has done) from within the existing vernacular language, eg blast-off, sit-in, download etc

[french frank]

Yes, a couple of things: of course you're right on one point - my special subject was historical linguistics when, almost of necessity, linguistic change was driven by the uneducated (classical Latin v vulgar Latin), but

my wife's German brother-in-law, who once came out with the claim "Ich spreche druckreif", only half jokingly, but suggesting that all his utterances are so eloquent and well-formed that they are "print-ready".

but we like to think so!

I would have thought that well-educated humans, being human, are also not immune to "misconceptions, misunderstandings, mishearings, imperfect articulation etc".

Yes, but perhaps on an individual, rather than the mass basis which results in general change?

On the other hand, much new vocabulary in English (eg "curate") has surely mainly tended to be introduced from Latin and Greek, ie by well-educated people with access to classical studies.

But 'curate' itself was used in a particular way with the implication of the professional expertise of a 'curator'. How it came to mean what - no two ways - it tends to mean now (that somebody or other chose some items to put together for a particular purpose) I'm not sure. Some sort of 'care' may be inevitable, though it doesn't necessarily make for the coherent whole which one might hope for. One is free to pronounce: "I didn't think much of that curation!"

[jayne lee wilson]

Interesting that all these examples are American as are all (?) those given in the OED's draft article from 2011. For the linguist, the interesting point is the 'why?'. Why do all these Americanisms get taken up by British English? What is in play here?

I take it the 'Only do it to annoy because [they know] it teases' aspect appeals to you? What I think is being questioned - as I think RB and others have pointed out - is a 'misuse' in applying a perfectly acceptable new use to an activity which doesn't even fit the new definition - as in when 'celebs' with no particular qualifications 'curate' classical concerts. The problem is that the criteria for such curations are seldom explained, possibly because there are none. However, it's only a question of plus ça change. Linguistic evolution has always been driven by the less well educated (misconceptions, misunderstandings, mishearings, imperfect articulation &c), and so, no doubt, it will continue to be.

I've been happily influenced by "Americanisms" since a childhood spent watching TV Series like The Monkees, Mr Ed, Bewitched, Man from UNCLE etc at around 1730 after school in the 1960s. They catch on because humans enjoy words, playfulness, variety and aptness of expression. Uptight or Upset? Both have pleasurable nuances.

And it is the playfulness, the enjoyment of language, that the Merriam-Webster article both celebrates and appeals to (with some generosity of human spirit). It traces the origin to see where we all come from here, but recognises that it isn't just "necessity" that rules usage. I don't often have much cause to use "curate" myself, but I like the current usages, and wouldn't judge anyone for so employing the word in a given artistic or fashion context.

Why should "linguistic evolution" be driven by "the less well-educated" (how would you define this category anyway?) It can also be "driven" by - pleasure and play, fashion, imitative behaviour within any social or ethnic group.

Include the observer in the picture; consider the evolution of your own attitudes: imagine telling someone, face to face, who uses "curate" in a way that has you, well, gnashing your verbal teeth, exactly what you think - that it is "pretentious" or "unnecessary". How would you imagine their response? D'you think you could persuade them to apologise or stop? To use which words instead?

[french frank]

I've been happily influenced by "Americanisms" since a childhood spent watching TV Series like The Monkees, Bewitched, Man from UNCLE etc at around 1730 after school in the 1960s. They catch on because humans enjoy words, playfulness, variety and aptness of expression.

I'm not sure that that gets to the base of it. When my university-educated (Media Studies) cousin refers routinely to a 'cook book' rather than a 'cookery book', i don't think it even enters her head that she has replaced a normal British English term with an American one. And it seems to me that the evolution of language is not often to do with conscious choices but is almost entirely subconscious.

Your personal feelings are valid in as far as they affect your choices and your reasons for them. They can't be taken to apply more generally.

As I explained to gurnemanz, in using the term 'less well-educated' I was thinking historically. There was not much argument as to who was educated and who wasn't. In general, though, I would suggest that linguistic change is more closely related to what children experience: people copy what they hear without thinking too much about it.

imagine telling someone, face to face, who uses "curate" in a way that has you, well, gnashing your verbal teeth, exactly what you think - that it is "pretentious" or "unnecessary". How would you imagine their response? D'you think you could persuade them to apologise or stop? To use which words instead?

Ask someone who gnashes their teeth over it! I merely comment on what's happening.