Semantics

[Mahlerei]

Concerned/worried is indeed a useful distinction, but what I'm worried about is something along the lines of 'The situation in Sirte is concerning'. Why not worrying or even a matter of concern?

[Lateralthinking1]

I think it is big brother for "you have to be interested in this" or "our bigwigs will need to intervene". "Worrying" has a hint of standing on the outside. "A matter of concern" doesn't quite lure us in. It is a bit more distant and could imply that it is principally of concern to those directly involved.

There might also be a domino effect. The more they use "regarding" rather than "concerning" in another context, "concerning" has to be used in a slightly different way, hence the above.

On my previous points, I found vinteuil's post entertaining. I am not though a misogynist. It is a very modern distortion that gives labels to facts simply because the facts apply mostly to one group. I might be wrong about "Friends". It could be "Sex in the City".

There is a male version of knitting. It is fishing.

A lot of men say "bruv" or "brother" now when thanking the bus driver. It is the language of an American ghetto and it levels, not that those who use it realise. It says "I don't find it comfortable to say thank you and this is the only way I can do it." It also says "You might be a bus driver but I don't see you as my servant". It tackles both sides of the scales.

"Chief" is more peculiar. I always feel that it implies sarcasm but it isn't wholly bad in meaning. Ditto "Captain", "Guv" and "Boss". I am not so sure about the less fake-subservient sounding "Pal". It has the tinge of red rose about it and may have originated during the post Gallagherian period. It is nearly always men who say "Pal". In the current era, I blame "Shameless".

There is no doubt at all that "Sir" is used far more than at any time since the 1970s. A consequence of all the customer training. McDonalds had a huge role in making politeness a feature of "brand" - "Have a nice day". Now it is less American and is widespread. "Sir" can even be heard on the railway.

[Chris Newman]

The more I read of earlier English literature (mainly 17th, 18th, 19th century) - the more forgiving I have become of what are seen as infringements of the current 'rules'. Coleridge notoriously always used the apostrophe in the possessive it's - and Wordsworth was so uncertain about punctuation he preferred to ask the printer to do it for him.
As Pabmusic indicates in #33 above, Fowler tried to breathe some sanity into this back in 1906, but various mythic shibboleths persist, providing small pleasures for the sad 'I know I'm right' correcting brigade. And yet surely - stubborn and ill-founded pedanticisms are a greater offence than unthinking error. I relish heroic and obscure pedantry - but I hope we can avoid cavils at split infinitives and the like.

I recall reading somewhere when I was an English student that William Wordsworth and Samuel Coleridge used to get Humphrey Davy, the scientist and a close friend, to proof read their writings before they sent them to the printer.

[vinteuil]

I recall reading somewhere when I was an English student that William Wordsworth and Samuel Coleridge used to get Humphrey Davy, the scientist and a close friend, to proof read their writings before they sent them to the printer.

Yes - WW's letter to Humphry Davy of 29 July 1800:

address: Mr Davy / Superintendent of the Pneumatic Institution / Bristol
/in case of Mr D's absence/ to Messrs Biggs and Cottle, Printers

Grasmere, near Ambleside
Tuesday [29] July [1800]

"Dear Sir,
So I venture to address you though I have not the happiness of being personally known to you. You would greatly oblige me by looking over the enclosed poems and correcting any thing you find amiss in the punctuation a business at which I am ashamed to say I am no adept. ... "

[Ferretfancy]

My current hate is the use of the word 'Like' as in 'Like you have never been there before", when "As if you had never been there before' would be much less clumsy.

[tony yyy]

A thread where discussion can take place regarding correct spelling, grammar, pronounciation and word usage; together with the history of language development.

This thread is called 'Semantics', but can someone explain what semantics actually is? As a non-linguist, I've only ever had a vague idea of what it covers and I don't think I would have included many of the topics discussed so far as the meaning of the expressions discussed is rarely in doubt. Here's Wikipedia's view.

[vinteuil]

This thread is called 'Semantics', but can someone explain what semantics actually is? As a non-linguist, I've only ever had a vague idea of what it covers and I don't think I would have included many of the topics discussed so far as the meaning of the expressions discussed is rarely in doubt. Here's Wikipedia's view.

... well, I tried back at #8...

[tony yyy]

... well, I tried back at #8...

Ah! I obviously haven't read the thread as thoroughly as it deserves.

[Ventilhorn]

This thread is called 'Semantics', but can someone explain what semantics actually is? As a non-linguist, I've only ever had a vague idea of what it covers and I don't think I would have included many of the topics discussed so far as the meaning of the expressions discussed is rarely in doubt. Here's Wikipedia's view.

Yes, the title is misleading, Tony, but it was difficult to find a better one which might attract attention.

Vintieuil pointed this out, but his suggestion is really no more helpful. I quote from his message:

... well, for a start, you might wish to change the title of this thread, perhaps to 'Language' - because 'semantics' is restricted to that particular domain of linguistics concerned with meaning (as opposed to other grammatical issues such as syntax, stylistics, register, sociolinguistics, pronunciation, spelling, etymology &c)

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

I suppose we are really discussing the way that our mother tongue is changing but also the fact that it is being contaminated by careless speech and inappropriate clichés; such as "the bottom line is" and "in the fullness of time"
Even the highly (over?)educated Prince William is heard to say "you know" and "We are going ter..." every few minutes (albeit with a plummy Eton accent!)

VH

[Nick Armstrong]

I suppose we are really discussing the way that our mother tongue is changing but also the fact that it is being contaminated by careless speech and inappropriate clichés

VH

But then I'm not sure we want the ultra-conservative approach of our French cousins who have (as seen on the most recent episode of Stephen Fry's series on words) the Academie, a collection of somewhat dessicated old birds who meet in secret and try and repel the vile and vulgar onslaughts of non-French by inventing French sounding words for new anglophone concepts like 'email' and so forth. Charming but absurd.

[Dave2002]

"The yellow unmemorable imagination chased the heartrending frog". Syntactically correct, semantically - for most purposes, meaningless.

"drink want beer man" - syntactically very poor, but most of us can figure out what it means. Syntax is to do with structure, semantics about meaning.

Just don't get me onto recursively enumerable languages!

Reponse to post 51.

[Nick Armstrong]

Just don't get me onto recursively enumerable languages!

Kinky devil, David !

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

is this thread about Usages? the stumbling block appears with the notion that Usages may be Correct or Not .... who is to say and why would they? ...

it is impossible for there now to be One English .... the Americans have their version, and all the second language people probably have several or more on the go ..... whereas the French have an Academie to settle such matters do we use status ... use the language as you will but beware it will place you?

[tony yyy]

Dave2002 & vinteuil: thanks for the explanations. That's roughly what I thought.

I'm not particularly bothered by changing usage and rather like American, Australian, etc. expressions. Some of them seem very expressive and inventive to me. I don't use them much myself, mainly because I'm not very good at them.

[vinteuil]

Yes, the title is misleading, Tony, but it was difficult to find a better one which might attract attention.

Vintieuil pointed this out, but his suggestion is really no more helpful.
VH

why thank you...

If this thread is to be about the correct use of language the very least it can do is have a title that is not an incorrect use of language!

Aka Calum da Jazbo has it right in his #58 - we are talking about usage.
If the manes of Eric Partridge permit - perhaps an appropriate title might be Usage and Abusage.