![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackThis words irks most people I know. Indeed, everyone will know that the title means I'm going to talk about the *word "leverage", instead of thinking I might have leverage on something.
First we had 'lever', a verb and noun. And then 'leverage', refering the the act of levering. And then 'leverage', the verb. When you have leverage, you're magnifying the effect of something, when used literally, your strength becoming more strength (at a cost of distance) to move something.
But it occurs to me, I think the verbs are always used
* To lever something you want to move
* To leverage something you have
Isn't it so? I lever this door open. I leverage my minute-but-real trade advantage.
So the new verb *does* have a niche outside of finance. Of course, *most* of the time it's used when 'use' would be just as well, since there isn't a clear trade off, you just mean "use most effectively", but in theory, it should have a specific meaning not covered by any other word.
First we had 'lever', a verb and noun. And then 'leverage', refering the the act of levering. And then 'leverage', the verb. When you have leverage, you're magnifying the effect of something, when used literally, your strength becoming more strength (at a cost of distance) to move something.
But it occurs to me, I think the verbs are always used
* To lever something you want to move
* To leverage something you have
Isn't it so? I lever this door open. I leverage my minute-but-real trade advantage.
So the new verb *does* have a niche outside of finance. Of course, *most* of the time it's used when 'use' would be just as well, since there isn't a clear trade off, you just mean "use most effectively", but in theory, it should have a specific meaning not covered by any other word.
Re: I like leverage, if only because it annoys so many people :-)
Date: 2006-03-28 12:12 am (UTC)* Making new useful words. No problem, I like that.
* Losing useless words. No problem, people don't have to say them if they don't want to. If I do, I will, and they'll probably understand :)
* Creating new words similar to old words. Even a slight shade of meaning *can* be useful -- think of english as a space of concepts with nodes at the words, where we normally choose the best, and it has a penumbra about it of meanings it could apply to, and gaps with no good word are filled in by imprecise description or synonyms ('no, "love" in blah and foo!'); then shades let us be more precise by choosing the right one, and if people don't notice we've only lost a bit, or by using several shades to triangulate even more precisely.
* But there are reasons I don't easily accept:
* Complete (generally longer) synonyms of existing words annoy me. Probably because it seems sloppy and I like well-defined and optimised things, and thinking there *is* a correct answer of some sort. I have no justification for this preference.
* New formations often depend on misconceptions, such as confusing singular/plural. Sometimes I don't mind, but often it riles me just because it seems to be accepting ignorance, and I (to misquote Speaker for the Dead) have an almost pathological reliance on the idea that the more people know the better. There's some truth here, but a lot of preference.
* Relating to the last-point-but-one, I (and many people I love) love playing with language, using exactly the correct word, and making up new ones in what seem to me good ways, and shoe-horning new (even useful) words interferes. Just us.
* Random annoyance at people who and I have difficulty communicating[1]. I remember extremely frusting someone who wanted to "lend" something of mine, genuinely not understanding.
* Subculture. People I know and like tend somewhat to be more pedantic about it, and people I don't less.
* Conservatism. We have a working langauge. It changes naturally, but there's no reason that should make it better, so I resist. A little objective sense here, maybe. But rather futile.
OK, that was cathartic. But as yet almost all preference, no good reasons.
[1] Did that sentence make sense? :)
Re: I like leverage, if only because it annoys so many people :-)
Date: 2006-03-28 06:54 am (UTC)[1] Did that sentence make sense? :)
After a couple of passes :-)
OK, that was cathartic. But as yet almost all preference, no good reasons.
That's OK - people not liking language change is a feature of most languages throughout history too, AFAICT!
Re: I like leverage, if only because it annoys so many people :-)
Date: 2006-03-28 07:35 am (UTC):) (I wanted to make it symetrical, not "with whom" or "who with me", to not imply the fault was mine or theirs.)
That's OK - people not liking language change is a feature of most languages throughout history too, AFAICT!
Oh my God, I'm the French! :)