Don't worry, Dan, we already have the "pour" and the "ask" and countless other cute short zingy terms which transform verbs into nouns to sound "in" (we used to say "with it") and somehow it doesn't offend in context. We need to choose our appropriate jargon for the scene we're in, beginning with whether it's spoken or written.
Where the hell did "woke" come from?
Being "of the now" - topical? - is a short-lived gut-boost anyway.
Hebrew has made acronyms into words (of which few people even know the origin) and French has long compressed its many 4-syllable words into two. I guess devotees of "compute" get a buzz every time - for as long as that one lasts. Compared to other things, not particularly scourgifying...
You're certainly right about the 'pour' and the 'ask.' But we we really embrace those? It would be a bleak. In the name of Samuel Johnson, be reasonable, people!
As a marketing professional, recent years have seen the word "motion" insinuate itself as an alternative for "activity" or other better words - sales motions, go to market motions, growth motions. better words are always strategy, activity, plan, program, etc. Someone horrible decided that a "motion" is now a broad term that includes strategy, activity and planning, or something like that, and now we have to see it everywhere. I have refused to include it on my CV, probably excluding me from jobs with very interesting motions!
As an engineer, I'm increasingly worried about loosely applied technical terms, beyond just poor grammatical usage. For example, you can't use energy! (But you can use free energy, exergy, or availability.) And without better public understanding, supported by precise explanation, I'm not sure how we solve increasingly pressing civilization-level problems. (Exergy being one of them.)
I disagree with the TedX speaker about vocal fry -- he should not have included that as an example of different ways of speaking. It IS used mostly by young (under age 50) white or whitish women, and it IS incredibly obnoxious and annoying. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
I have some linguistic training (not my specialty, I’m a biologist, but rather something I took some classes and a PhD seminar in); professionally I think one would reasonably call me a descriptivist, all for letting language evolve as it will. Personally though, I draw a hard line against some perversions that essentially eliminate a term of precision from a language entirely. I won’t stand for “reticent” coming to just mean “reluctant”, or “literally” coming to just mean “very”, because there’s nothing to replace their critical original function. I’m willing to draw this new usage of “compute” outside the fence of acceptability too!
According to John McWorter, a linguist at Columbia University, writes a lot on language. He says that the beauty and sustainability of language is to change. If I called you silly today, it would be a different definition to you than to Shakespeare. Nice has had at least three incarnations that I know of.
Stop with the language police. Words come and go in meaning. I used to cringe when I read or heard irregardless, or monies. Fewer and fewer people use them today. Language straightens itself out. New words or definitions get in, old ones leave. That is what it should be.
Don't worry, Dan, we already have the "pour" and the "ask" and countless other cute short zingy terms which transform verbs into nouns to sound "in" (we used to say "with it") and somehow it doesn't offend in context. We need to choose our appropriate jargon for the scene we're in, beginning with whether it's spoken or written.
Where the hell did "woke" come from?
Being "of the now" - topical? - is a short-lived gut-boost anyway.
Hebrew has made acronyms into words (of which few people even know the origin) and French has long compressed its many 4-syllable words into two. I guess devotees of "compute" get a buzz every time - for as long as that one lasts. Compared to other things, not particularly scourgifying...
You're certainly right about the 'pour' and the 'ask.' But we we really embrace those? It would be a bleak. In the name of Samuel Johnson, be reasonable, people!
damn right! It makes no sense. It's confusing as shit.
As a marketing professional, recent years have seen the word "motion" insinuate itself as an alternative for "activity" or other better words - sales motions, go to market motions, growth motions. better words are always strategy, activity, plan, program, etc. Someone horrible decided that a "motion" is now a broad term that includes strategy, activity and planning, or something like that, and now we have to see it everywhere. I have refused to include it on my CV, probably excluding me from jobs with very interesting motions!
It is by far my most hated jargon word.
As an engineer, I'm increasingly worried about loosely applied technical terms, beyond just poor grammatical usage. For example, you can't use energy! (But you can use free energy, exergy, or availability.) And without better public understanding, supported by precise explanation, I'm not sure how we solve increasingly pressing civilization-level problems. (Exergy being one of them.)
I disagree with the TedX speaker about vocal fry -- he should not have included that as an example of different ways of speaking. It IS used mostly by young (under age 50) white or whitish women, and it IS incredibly obnoxious and annoying. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
I have some linguistic training (not my specialty, I’m a biologist, but rather something I took some classes and a PhD seminar in); professionally I think one would reasonably call me a descriptivist, all for letting language evolve as it will. Personally though, I draw a hard line against some perversions that essentially eliminate a term of precision from a language entirely. I won’t stand for “reticent” coming to just mean “reluctant”, or “literally” coming to just mean “very”, because there’s nothing to replace their critical original function. I’m willing to draw this new usage of “compute” outside the fence of acceptability too!
According to John McWorter, a linguist at Columbia University, writes a lot on language. He says that the beauty and sustainability of language is to change. If I called you silly today, it would be a different definition to you than to Shakespeare. Nice has had at least three incarnations that I know of.
Stop with the language police. Words come and go in meaning. I used to cringe when I read or heard irregardless, or monies. Fewer and fewer people use them today. Language straightens itself out. New words or definitions get in, old ones leave. That is what it should be.