Conference thebay::joyoflex

!

I believe that .0 is a fine, formal statement of something many of us can
only say informally -- that there are factors that ought to influence
our judgment of good or bad usage:

	*	context
	*	priority on some list of goals
	*	clarity
	*	purpose of a correction, if any
	*	rhythm
	*	estimated effect of an uncorrected usage on general usage

I think there's a nice example of good usage by somebody with good judgment
in today's New York Times.  It's a headline which says

	muscling in in style

But what you see (it's a one column headline) is

	Muscling In
	In Style

and the article which follows is about IBM and AT&T trying to penetrate
each other's market.

Re .0:

> When is it acceptable to change usage? Always? Never? Sometimes? I think
> that the answer is sometimes, but closer to always than never.

It is necessary to specify the context before such statements can be made.  For
example, who is proposing the change?

> "I am hopefully awaiting your reply."

Shouldn't that be "I am awaiting hopefully your reply."?

> Now how about this one: "Hopefully, he'll be home by six."

It should be noted that the problem here is not simply "hopefully", but the
concept of "sentence adverbs".  "Hopefully" is just the most commonly used
example.  The idea is that the adverb is not in the expected role of modifying
a verb (hopefully is not the way in which he will be home) or an adjective or
adjective phrase but is modifying an entire sentence.

Re .1:

>	*	context
>	*	priority on some list of goals
>	*	clarity
>	*	purpose of a correction, if any
>	*	rhythm
>	*	estimated effect of an uncorrected usage on general usage

I think rhythm should be expanded to cover the entire aesthetic effect.  Also,
I would like to add consideration of the way in which the change "fits" into
the existing rules.

>	Muscling In
>	In Style

I do not understand what the point is.  This is a perfectly normal usage,
except for the fact that it is not a sentence, which headlines should be (by
Associated Press style).  The first "in" is an adverb, modifying "muscling".


				-- edp

re .0 - a lovely piece of writing; an impressive piece of work.

Jim Fraser

Hey, look at what I found:

	general semantics.  A doctrine proposed by Alfred
		Korzybski (1879-1950) that presents a method of
		improving human behavior through a more
		critical use of words and symbols.

This is in Houghton Mifflin Company's _The American Heritage Dictionary_,
Second College Edition, 1982.  I guess it means all of those who support
changing the language are uncivilized clods, unfit to coexist with us improved
humans!  :-) 


				-- edp 

re .4:

Thanks for bringing this up. You got me intrigued enough to go reseach the
issue at the Nashua library. I was amazed to find that I am actually familiar
with it from linguistics when I was in college, but I didn't realize that it
was a school of thought. It's probably one of those things that has fallen
behind the countertops of my mind.

I'm not sure what you'd think of general semantics. Your hypothesis above is a
bit out of synch with it. As you stated, its founder was Korzybski, whose most
famous work is "Science and Sanity." It's most famous practitioner is S. I.
Hayakawa, who is most famous for his "Language in Thought and Action" (available
from the Spit Brook library), and "Symbol, Status, and Personality" (which I
found in the Nashua library). Hayakawa also edited two compilations of essays
from "ETC: a Review of General Semantics" (I found the later of these at the
NPL). Psychologists of this bent include Carl Rogers and Maslow. 

General semantics is (in my opinion) more concerned with using language to bring
about a desired social change, and so are more inclined to change the language
to achieve the desired goal than to deride change to prevent backsliding. Thus,
they are concerned with studying things like the subtle shades of meaning
between languages in order to help international negotiators negotiate more
effectively. Ultimately, they are concerned with applications of the Whorf-Sapir
hypothesis, that language affects or controls in some degree the thoughts of the
people who speak the language. 

Hayakawa says of general semantics: "General semantics, then, is the study of
what makes human beings human. Moreover, in its inquiry into the disorders of
symbolism, whether these take the form of nationalistic madness, footless
political and religious controversy, superstition, or mental illness, general
semantics is the study of what makes human beings sometimes less than human." He
also says that "[s]emantics is sometimes defined in dictionaries as 'the science
of the meaning of words' -- which would not be a bad idea if people didn't
assume that the search for the meanings of words begins and ends with looking
them up in a dictionary."

I should probably stop here. If I were to mention that Korzybski described an
unsane [sic] person to be one who was "concerned with words rather than facts"
or that Hayakawa said that "...training in linguistic observations produces
students who, instead of being petrified into inarticulateness by stilted
notions of 'correctness,' take delight in the variety and richness of the
English language, and seek to cultivate that flexibility of linguistic resources
that will enable them to take in stride whatever problems of communication they
may encounter" you would probably think that I am picking on you, which I would
never even dream of ;-). General semantics is a delightfully infuriating school,
and I think you would enjoy it. Another of its most important precepts is that
when people read something, they then to like (and thus to quote ;-) those
things that they agree with.

	Jon

Re .5:

> General semantics is (in my opinion) more concerned with using language to
> bring about a desired social change, and so are more inclined to change the
> language to achieve the desired goal than to deride change to prevent
> backsliding.

And now, the sixty-four dollar question:  Which changes society for the
better, "counterphrase" or "counter phrase"?

Seriously, what makes one usage better than another in bringing about social
change?

> If I were to mention that Korzybski described an unsane [sic] person . . . .

You do not have to spell it out for me, I know "unsane" means "sic", except
the proper spelling is "sick".


				-- edp

My answer to the sizty-four question is "counterphrase." (I have a question : is
the consolation prize seventy-five cents (six bits)?)

Here's an example of language change for social change: the evolution of
the word "Negro" to "Black" to "black" in the past thirty years.

	Jon

Re .7:

> Here's an example of language change for social change: the evolution of
> the word "Negro" to "Black" to "black" in the past thirty years.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?


				-- edp