![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackThis is copied from my response to vyvan's disturbing and insightful response about language development here because I thought it was interesting enough to share.[1]
Question: Why do I object to words like 'leverage(v)'?
* 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[2]. 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] We need a system with good crossposting.
[2] I'm assured this sentence makes sense. I wanted to make it symetrical, not "with whom" or "who with me", to not imply the fault was mine or theirs.
Question: Why do I object to words like 'leverage(v)'?
* 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[2]. 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] We need a system with good crossposting.
[2] I'm assured this sentence makes sense. I wanted to make it symetrical, not "with whom" or "who with me", to not imply the fault was mine or theirs.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-29 08:37 am (UTC)Geeks do this all the time too, frequently drawing analogies from computer systems to everyday life. "I couldn't parse that", "sorry, stack overflow" &c.
I find it easy to slip into the speech patterns of whatever group I'm talking to. It's a bit disturbing when after two hours of business meetings you suddenly notice yourself talking in a very different idiom to your normal one.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-29 09:56 am (UTC)I certainly pick it up too. One difference seems to be the geek way does carry real information in some context, but that's not inherently better. Both do also convey "I've spent time with your subgroup, and hence are likely to know things you know."