Pedants' Paradise

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Not really, Alpie - unless one agrees with Henry Ford's idea of history. The OED is a record of the usage (including changes in spelling and pronunciation) of English vocabulary; so we can trace the changes in meaning of a word like "naughty". In Shakespeare's time, a contemptuous deliberate insult (telling someone that they are nothing, valueless) - nowadays something that gives pleasure, or an affectionate half-reprimand. The OED illustrates the history of such changes, taking this history up to current usages.

Come off it, ferny. How many people use their dictionaries to check historical usage? Very few, I suggest. Invariably it's to check a spelling or to learn the current meaning. The historical development of language is fascinating, but perhaps not the primary use of a dictionary.

[vinteuil]

How many people use their dictionaries to check historical usage? Very few, I suggest. Invariably it's to check a spelling or to learn the current meaning. .

... and the current meaning will be how the word in question is used now by native speakers. I may dislike the fact that many, perhaps most, people use the word 'disinterested' where I would use 'uninterested'. But that is the current usage; that is what current English is.

[jean]

... many, perhaps most, people use the word 'disinterested' where I would use 'uninterested'. But that is the current usage; that is what current English is.

That is a good example of a revival of an earlier usage:

1677 J. Taylor Contempl. State Man (1684) i. x 121 How dis-interested are they of all Worldly matters, since they fling their Wealth and Riches into the Sea.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

... and the current meaning will be how the word in question is used now by native speakers. I may dislike the fact that many, perhaps most, people use the word 'disinterested' where I would use 'uninterested'. But that is the current usage; that is what current English is.

In this instance, the dictionary does make it clear that using "disinterested" to mean "uninterested" is regarded as incorrect.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Come off it, ferny. How many people use their dictionaries to check historical usage? Very few, I suggest. Invariably it's to check a spelling or to learn the current meaning. The historical development of language is fascinating, but perhaps not the primary use of a dictionary.

Apologies - I was referring specifically to the OED, rather than "a(ny old) dictionary". Those "very few" who own the OED probably use it primarily as an etymological aid, rather than to check a spelling.

[vinteuil]

In this instance, the dictionary does make it clear that using "disinterested" to mean "uninterested" is regarded as incorrect.

... "is regarded as incorrect". But by whom?

If most native speakers now say 'disinterested' when previously most wd've said 'uninterested', why is it "incorrect"?

We do not, thank God, have an Académie française....

[vinteuil]

I avoid any shop/business that is deliberately careless. .

... can one be deliberately careless?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Apologies - I was referring specifically to the OED, rather than "a(ny old) dictionary". Those "very few" who own the OED probably use it primarily as an etymological aid, rather than to check a spelling.

As the OED itself describes its purpose and function:

The definitive record of the English language

600,000 words … 3 million quotations … over 1000 years of English

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is widely regarded as the accepted authority on the English language. It is an unsurpassed guide to the meaning, history, and pronunciation of 600,000 words— past and present—from across the English-speaking world.

As a historical dictionary, the OED is very different from those of current English, in which the focus is on present-day meanings. You’ll still find these in the OED, but you’ll also find the history of individual words, and of the language—traced through 3 million quotations, from classic literature and specialist periodicals to film scripts and cookery books.

The OED started life more than 150 years ago. Today, the dictionary is in the process of its first major revision. Updates revise and extend the OED at regular intervals, each time subtly adjusting our image of the English language.

[jean]

In this instance, the dictionary does make it clear that using "disinterested" to mean "uninterested" is regarded as incorrect.

What the OED actually says is Often regarded as a loose use.

Sounds like moral degeneracy to me.

And yet...see my #1533 above.

[french frank]

Ken Morrison is alive and kicking, so there is a Mr Morrison who owns a shop.

Which shop does Mr Ken Morrison own? According to Wikipedia, the Morrison family owns about 10% of the company whose legal name is Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc - Morrisons for short, I would contend. You could say that it started with one Morrison [shop] and now there are some 600 Morrisons.

Re the Tesco's/Tescos'/Tescoes quote, in some recent advertising by that company, they were comparing themselves with "Morrisons's, Asda's and Sainsbury's". They managed to get one of them right.

Arguably, Sainsbury's is wrong. Nothing now actually belongs to the original John Sainsbury. In fact the current company (Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd) does not 'belong' to one individual Sainsbury and never has, so why Sainsbury's?

I can quite accept that a very large company, with many stores, many directors, many managers, many employees should be thought of as plural, and there's certainly no compelling logic which suggests that the name should imply that there is only one person bearing the name of the store.

[Serial_Apologist]

... and the current meaning will be how the word in question is used now by native speakers. I may dislike the fact that many, perhaps most, people use the word 'disinterested' where I would use 'uninterested'. But that is the current usage; that is what current English is.

So, we can't use disinterested to mean what I was taught, but because its misuse, which I was warned against, has assumed respectability, instead we now must say impartial.

[french frank]

So, we can't use disinterested to mean what I was taught, but because its misuse, which I was warned against, has assumed respectability, instead now say impartial.

That is the problem - when a meaning is evolving by usage (call that what you will), meanings become ambigious. Understanding the changes (by consulting the OED) are exactly what enables you to avoid being misunderstood. No point in harping on praising someone for being entirely disinterested in the way they carry out their responsibilities if other people think you're criticising them for showing no interest.

[Don Petter]

This morning’s BBC News website has a headline referring to plans for the highest wind turbines in England.

Where would that be, I wondered? On top of Cross Fell perhaps.

Turns out they will be 200m devices in Hartlepool. Would not ‘tallest in England’ have been less misleading?

[Sir Velo]

This morning’s BBC News website has a headline referring to plans for the highest wind turbines in England.

Where would that be, I wondered? On top of Cross Fell perhaps.

Turns out they will be 200m devices in Hartlepool. Would not ‘tallest in England’ have been less misleading?

Reminds me of two howlers from the Wiltshire Times within the last week:

"HGV Fears Dog Solar Farm"

"Rail Barrier Anger at Studley Green" (nothing to do with railways or level crossings; apparently some railings (sic) had been erected at a recreation ground without consultation).

Does no one ever sense check these headlines? Rhetorical.

[gurnemanz]

Probably overreacting but the use of "cheap prices" continues to annoy me slightly. Surely the item for sale may be cheap or expensive and its price may be high or low.