The Innovative Usage Thread

Discussion of natural languages, or language in general.
sirdanilot
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: Leiden, the Netherlands

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by sirdanilot »

Historically this was indeed the thinking, yes.

The idiea of certain more 'logical' languages being more elegant should not be alien to you as a linguist. Think of the enormous prestige of Classical Arabic, which is deemed more 'logical' than the Arabic dialects.

User avatar
jal
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2633
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:03 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by jal »

sirdanilot wrote:Historically this was indeed the thinking, yes.
Case to the point. But since this kind of thinking was abandoned quite a while ago (although some prescriptivists still hold on to some outdated ideas), there's no reason to apply such reasoning now.


JAL

User avatar
Grunnen
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 1:01 pm
Location: Ultra Traiectum

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Grunnen »

sirdanilot wrote:Of course no language is better than any other. But using a plural pronoun for plural things, and a singular pronoun for singular things seems much more logical and easy to learn (for L2 learners) to me than using a plural pronoun (their) for something singular.
Who says the pronoun is a plural pronoun. It clearly often fullfills the function of referring to plural entities, but then again, it also refers to singular ones.
sirdanilot wrote:They don't have to be, but throughout history languages that seem more logical have been regarded more. Latin and Sanskrit as the ultimate, elegant, sophisticated languages.
Or is it that languages with a certain prestige have been claimed to be more logical, and have people been willing to accept those claims because of the pre-existing prestige and fimiliarity of these languages?

So essentially you don't have any rational, fact based reasons for your original statement I understand?

Anyway, as pointed out before, the use of this pronoun for singular referents is hardly 'innovative'.
χʁɵn̩
gʁonɛ̃g
gɾɪ̃slɑ̃

User avatar
linguoboy
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3681
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:00 am
Location: Rogers Park/Evanston

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by linguoboy »

sirdanilot wrote:Of course no language is better than any other. But using a plural pronoun for plural things, and a singular pronoun for singular things seems much more logical and easy to learn (for L2 learners) to me than using a plural pronoun (their) for something singular.
Question-begging 101. If it's commonly used to refer to singular entities (which it is), then it's by definition not "a plural pronoun".

You could make the exact same argument about "jij" and you'd be just as wrong.

User avatar
jal
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2633
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:03 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by jal »

linguoboy wrote:You could make the exact same argument about "jij" and you'd be just as wrong.
Not really, as "jij" is singular only. Sir D's pitfall is that somehow he seems to argue from familiarity: "I'm used to strictly singular or plural pronouns, so everything else is false".


JAL

User avatar
linguoboy
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3681
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:00 am
Location: Rogers Park/Evanston

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by linguoboy »

jal wrote:
linguoboy wrote:You could make the exact same argument about "jij" and you'd be just as wrong.
Not really, as "jij" is singular only. Sir D's pitfall is that somehow he seems to argue from familiarity: "I'm used to strictly singular or plural pronouns, so everything else is false".
My bad, I was thinking of je. (Dutch pronouns are so illogical; how do any of you manage to speak the language?)

User avatar
jal
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2633
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:03 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by jal »

linguoboy wrote:My bad, I was thinking of je. (Dutch pronouns are so illogical; how do any of you manage to speak the language?)
No, even "je" is strictly singular. Dutch pronouns are quite logical, really :).


JAL

Dē Graut Bʉr
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 593
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 3:03 pm
Location: Nijmegen, Netherlands

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Dē Graut Bʉr »

No, "je" is also used as a plural reflexive pronoun, as in "jullie hebben je vergist".

User avatar
Pole, the
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1606
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:50 am

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Pole, the »

> logical and easy
> Latin and Sanskrit

Ha ha ha…

*becomes aware that's what sirdanilot actually believes*

Oh shit.
Shit.
Shit! Shit! Shit! SHIT!
The conlanger formerly known as “the conlanger formerly known as Pole, the”.

If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.

User avatar
jal
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2633
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:03 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by jal »

Dē Graut Bʉr wrote:No, "je" is also used as a plural reflexive pronoun, as in "jullie hebben je vergist".
Right, I forgot about the reflexive use. Mea culpa.


JAL

sirdanilot
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: Leiden, the Netherlands

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by sirdanilot »

Dē Graut Bʉr wrote:No, "je" is also used as a plural reflexive pronoun, as in "jullie hebben je vergist".
Yeah exactly that, reflexive. So not normally a singular pronoun.

Incidentally in my dialect you could say 'jullie eigen' instead of 'je' here. But j'n is also possible: 'judder èn j'n eihe verhist'.

@ Pole: I will admit that I know not so much about Sanskrit, but I have experienced Latin as quite logical yes. A neat case system, yes with some quirks but overall quite okay.

It is also so that inflectional languages were in the past regarded more, and agglutinative or isolate regarded lower than inflectional languges. I remember reading this somewhere but I am sorry I cannot remember the reference.

User avatar
linguoboy
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3681
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:00 am
Location: Rogers Park/Evanston

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by linguoboy »

sirdanilot wrote:
Dē Graut Bʉr wrote:No, "je" is also used as a plural reflexive pronoun, as in "jullie hebben je vergist".
Yeah exactly that, reflexive. So not normally a singular pronoun.
What's that supposed to mean? Being reflexive is a totally normal use for a pronoun. I daresay they get used by you this way every day.

User avatar
Zaarin
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:00 pm

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Zaarin »

sirdanilot wrote:It is also so that inflectional languages were in the past regarded more, and agglutinative or isolate regarded lower than inflectional languges. I remember reading this somewhere but I am sorry I cannot remember the reference.
That's because awesome Europeans spoke fusional languages (because no one cares about the Finns or the Hungarians or the Saami or the Basque or the Etruscans or...), and then there were those inferior people who spoke agglutinative and isolating languages, like the Native Americans and the Chinese. Special dispensation was made for the Sumerians, because apparently Sumerians are awesome despite speaking an agglutinative language in Asia. I don't think anyone wants to maintain that line of thought anymore.
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”

User avatar
Matrix
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 722
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Matrix »

sirdanilot wrote:They don't have to be, but throughout history languages that seem more logical have been regarded more. Latin and Sanskrit as the ultimate, elegant, sophisticated languages.
This is ridiculous. I don't think Sanskrit looks very elegant or "logical" when like half or more of the conjugations of a single verb look the same. And then, of course, Latin having like five or whatever different declensions and conjugations isn't very "logical" either. Natlangs are hardly logical, no matter where you look.

And they only look sophisticated to us because they're languages that were spoken by people who conquered a lot of things and practiced religions that are today rather major. If Carthage won the Punic Wars and thus took over Europe, we would all be fawning over the Carthaginian dialect of Phoenician or whatever as the ultimate language, instead of Latin.

In fact, if you want to talk about elegance, I think English is rather elegant. We don't have all those baroque and confusing conjugations and inflections. We mostly just string words together, nice and simple, with only minimal affixing.
Image

Adúljôžal ônal kol ví éža únah kex yaxlr gmlĥ hôga jô ônal kru ansu frú.
Ansu frú ônal savel zaš gmlĥ a vek Adúljôžal vé jaga čaþ kex.
Ônal zeh. Ônal zeh. Ônal zeh. Ônal zeh. Ônal zeh. Ônal zeh. Ônal zeh.

jmcd
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1034
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:46 am
Location: Réunion
Contact:

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by jmcd »

In a certain sense, I find Malagasy logical, with its agglutinative morphology for example, but I realise that this is a subjective opinion.

User avatar
jal
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2633
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:03 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by jal »

Matrix wrote:I think English is rather elegant. We don't have all those baroque and confusing conjugations and inflections. We mostly just string words together, nice and simple, with only minimal affixing.
In that case, creoles with English as lexifier should be even more elegant! Jamaican Patois, or Tok Pisin ftw!


JAL

gestaltist
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 125
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 5:21 am

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by gestaltist »

jal wrote:
Matrix wrote:I think English is rather elegant. We don't have all those baroque and confusing conjugations and inflections. We mostly just string words together, nice and simple, with only minimal affixing.
In that case, creoles with English as lexifier should be even more elegant! Jamaican Patois, or Tok Pisin ftw!


JAL
That made me laugh harder than it should have.

When it comes to logic and elegance, nothing can beat the English spelling.

User avatar
jal
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2633
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:03 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by jal »

gestaltist wrote:When it comes to logic and elegance, nothing can beat the English spelling.
Yeah, I've eaten my bread, and thought it through, although I'm tough I cough!


JAL

User avatar
L'alphabētarium
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:30 pm

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by L'alphabētarium »

jal wrote:
gestaltist wrote:When it comes to logic and elegance, nothing can beat the English spelling.
Yeah, I've eaten my bread, and thought it through, although I'm tough I cough!


JAL
Well, elegant doesn't necessarily mean logical as well. English spelling is anything but logical, as we all know too well I'm sure...
Phonologically it's quite elegant - at least to my ear, but english can use nouns as verbs or adjectives and the lack of conjugation and declension, extensive borrowed lexicon, etc make it a bit too simplistic and rather lazy.
I occasionally find it easier to think in English than my own mother tongue even though about 99% of all my interactions are not in English.

User avatar
Viktor77
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2635
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:27 pm
Location: Memphis, Tennessee

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Viktor77 »

I know this isn't an innovative usage, but this is bothering me. I often use the word 'veritable' in either speech or writing. I use it a lot because it is a useful and obvious word to me since I know French and Spanish. But I often encounter people who don't know this word, and dictionary.com says "Few English speakers likely know this word" using their who-knows-how-truly-valid-it-is methodology. Is this word truly that obscure? It does not strike me at all as obscure.
Falgwian and Falgwia!!

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

User avatar
jal
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2633
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:03 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by jal »

Viktor77 wrote:I know this isn't an innovative usage, but this is bothering me. I often use the word 'veritable' in either speech or writing. I use it a lot because it is a useful and obvious word to me since I know French and Spanish.
I knew it, but I wouldn't have been able to give you a definition (just looked it up though). Why do you need to use it often?


JAL

Shm Jay
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 823
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 11:29 pm

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Shm Jay »

Yes, why not use "truly" or "true"? Unless you are trying to communicate a shade of meaning which will be obvious to the listener, the Anglo-Saxon words always have more force than the Anglo-French or Greco-Latin ones.

User avatar
finlay
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 3600
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:35 pm
Location: Tokyo

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by finlay »

Because that's not a synonym. Veritable is used for something which is not literal.

Sumelic
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 385
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 7:05 pm

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Sumelic »

finlay wrote:Because that's not a synonym. Veritable is used for something which is not literal.
Wait, what? I know that "veritable" is most often used for metaphorical emphasis, but I don't think that's part of the definition, just the pragmatics.
"True", "real", etc are quite often used non-literally as well. If I call someone "a real pig", it's unlikely to be understood that I mean they have a curly tail and walk on all fours.

Here's some OED examples of the use in question:
1862 "I tell you that Charley is a veritable eel." -not literal. But you could also use "real" or "true" or even "literally" and still have a metaphorical interpretation
1869 "They had a succession of governors who were veritable brigands." -same thing, you could call them "real brigands" and people would understand it as a metaphor

But the OED also lists multiple cases where it is used literally:
1830 "Few persons..form anything like just estimates of the veritable size of trees."
1831 "A cast of the skull of Raphael—the veritable skull dug up at Rome."

Yeah, these are from the 19th century and the OED tends to list old-fashioned meanings of words.

But looking through the Google ngram viewer and Google Books, I find:
  • basically no new uses from 1971-2000 (most of the hits are in quotations or citations of older works) with a few examples that are mostly non-literal, or modifying inherently abstract words: "A veritable dynamo", "A veritable gold-mine"
  • from 1926-1970, English non-specialist usage seems to mainly be modifying inherently abstract words with a meaning of "true" or "reliable": a "veritable record", a "veritable history" (there might be some influence from French here).
It seems to be pretty much archaic in English. While it does seem to be the case that contemporary usage is usually in a non-literal or abstract context, "real" or "true" also often have a non-literal meaning, so I would say they are indeed synonyms to all these uses of "veritable".

User avatar
ol bofosh
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1169
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:30 pm
Location: tʰæ.ɹʷˠə.ˈgɜʉ̯.nɜ kʰæ.tə.ˈlɜʉ̯.nʲɜ spɛ̝ɪ̯n ˈjʏː.ɹəʔp

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by ol bofosh »

I know veritable, but I always thought it was a synonym of true or truly (or real/ly).

I think I've only ever used it in the phrase "a veritable feast", exaggerating a posh accent so it's never part of my normal/serious speech. Possibly from a half-remembered reference to a film or something, but dunno what.
It was about time I changed this.

Post Reply