"Technically, that's not true"
Sep. 14th, 2010 12:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackValid normal English usage that differs from technical vocabulary, a higher form of pedentry
Often the same normal English word has one (or more) specific technical uses. Either because the technical term came first, and was adopted for analogous (but not necessarily identical) lay uses. Or, at least as commonly, because the English (or other vernacular) word came first, and it was adopted for technical use (for instance, in maths the meaning of "circle" is more specific than the English use, but no adult, not even the most proprietary maladjusted mathematician objects to the normal English use).
In the rare specific case where previously the technical term was the only usage, and it had a specific meaning, which is distorted by how some people use it, then I think people used to the technical term are correct to request it be used correctly. Obviously language evolves naturally, and it's normally best to accept how it does so, but it's also correct to participate in the change, and sometimes to make value judgements. For instance, "light-year" means "the distance light travels in a year in a vacuum[1]". Some people use it to mean "a really long time". Even if this is understandable and comprehensible, I think it's fair to say that it's wrong, and language is more useful and more clear if we DON'T do this.
However, in most of the other cases, when the lay use is a normal part of English, and especially where the lay use of the word came first, I don't think people have any justification whatsoever for insisting only the technical definition is correct.
Some people are surprised that I think this. "You're pedantic" they say, "surely you approve of all strict rules[2], correct or not?" Well, no. I don't. Firstly, pedantry is not, actually, the highest calling in my life :) Secondly, denying that circle does (and should) have a normal English usage is incorrect -- and the one thing that death to successful pedantry is being incorrect. Appreciating a complex, intricate and subtle interaction of different and sometimes implicit rules of different meanings, and applying them ALL correctly is a HIGHER form of pedantry.
[1] Although the official definition may vary depending which of the units we have defined fundamentally, I think this is the _core_ meaning, and people care correct to use it that way whichever of time, distance, and speed units are not fundamental.
[2] The lust for rules
I was somewhat glib about people always wanting to find underlying rules. In fact, it's a very human tendency. People -- from all walks of life -- are prone to seizing on some distinction and assuming it's "correct".
This urge is very natural, and very healthy insofar as it lets us form useful generalisations.
However, it has the unfortunate side-effect of making us insist there are rules where there aren't.
People insist that momentous happenings (eg. assassinations) must have complicated causes, not just chance.
People want to believe that there is an international committee that decides how the number of horse's legs touching the ground in a statue relates to the manner of death of the rider. They believe it so strongly they're shocked to see statues that don't follow it.
People want to assume that "E. E. Cummings" should be lowercased because he lowercased many other things but (if I recall my information correctly) he didn't lowercase his name.
People want to assume that you should not split an infinitive. People can become very hostile on this point, because they feel it's the primary bastion in the skirmish for correctness. People have been very very hostile to startrek for saying "to boldly go". I'm sure startrek didn't think it through very far. But as it happens, there is no benefit to society to avoiding splitting infinitives (except a very crude sort of exclusionary test to give people arbitrary hoops to see who learns them best), and while some educated people say not to, the people who know the most about it (copyeditors and linguists) approve it.
I do it myself. When I first learnt that a fox was a "vulpes" and a cube was a "cuboid", I insisted on the technical meaning so hard I effectively denied that "fox" and "cube" were equally correct descriptions. However, in my defence, I was about eight. It's good insofar as it represents learning, but bad insofar as it's taken as a universal truth.
So inferring rules is natural. It's just that sometimes it's wrong even though it's natural.
"Technically, that's not true"
But what really gets me is when someone applies "technically" to a sentence which contains no technical definitions of words. If I use "A or B" in the normal English meaning[1], and someone says "technically that means only A or B, but not both", then they're WRONG because they incorrectly assumed people use logical-or when actually they use normal-English-or. But at least their sentence has specific (even if false) meaning.
But sometimes people prepend "technical" to a sentence to make a distinction that is -- as far as I can tell -- completely non-existent. And it annoys me because I can't see how it can EVER be correct.
[1] which is inclusive or exclusive depending on context
Often the same normal English word has one (or more) specific technical uses. Either because the technical term came first, and was adopted for analogous (but not necessarily identical) lay uses. Or, at least as commonly, because the English (or other vernacular) word came first, and it was adopted for technical use (for instance, in maths the meaning of "circle" is more specific than the English use, but no adult, not even the most proprietary maladjusted mathematician objects to the normal English use).
In the rare specific case where previously the technical term was the only usage, and it had a specific meaning, which is distorted by how some people use it, then I think people used to the technical term are correct to request it be used correctly. Obviously language evolves naturally, and it's normally best to accept how it does so, but it's also correct to participate in the change, and sometimes to make value judgements. For instance, "light-year" means "the distance light travels in a year in a vacuum[1]". Some people use it to mean "a really long time". Even if this is understandable and comprehensible, I think it's fair to say that it's wrong, and language is more useful and more clear if we DON'T do this.
However, in most of the other cases, when the lay use is a normal part of English, and especially where the lay use of the word came first, I don't think people have any justification whatsoever for insisting only the technical definition is correct.
Some people are surprised that I think this. "You're pedantic" they say, "surely you approve of all strict rules[2], correct or not?" Well, no. I don't. Firstly, pedantry is not, actually, the highest calling in my life :) Secondly, denying that circle does (and should) have a normal English usage is incorrect -- and the one thing that death to successful pedantry is being incorrect. Appreciating a complex, intricate and subtle interaction of different and sometimes implicit rules of different meanings, and applying them ALL correctly is a HIGHER form of pedantry.
[1] Although the official definition may vary depending which of the units we have defined fundamentally, I think this is the _core_ meaning, and people care correct to use it that way whichever of time, distance, and speed units are not fundamental.
[2] The lust for rules
I was somewhat glib about people always wanting to find underlying rules. In fact, it's a very human tendency. People -- from all walks of life -- are prone to seizing on some distinction and assuming it's "correct".
This urge is very natural, and very healthy insofar as it lets us form useful generalisations.
However, it has the unfortunate side-effect of making us insist there are rules where there aren't.
People insist that momentous happenings (eg. assassinations) must have complicated causes, not just chance.
People want to believe that there is an international committee that decides how the number of horse's legs touching the ground in a statue relates to the manner of death of the rider. They believe it so strongly they're shocked to see statues that don't follow it.
People want to assume that "E. E. Cummings" should be lowercased because he lowercased many other things but (if I recall my information correctly) he didn't lowercase his name.
People want to assume that you should not split an infinitive. People can become very hostile on this point, because they feel it's the primary bastion in the skirmish for correctness. People have been very very hostile to startrek for saying "to boldly go". I'm sure startrek didn't think it through very far. But as it happens, there is no benefit to society to avoiding splitting infinitives (except a very crude sort of exclusionary test to give people arbitrary hoops to see who learns them best), and while some educated people say not to, the people who know the most about it (copyeditors and linguists) approve it.
I do it myself. When I first learnt that a fox was a "vulpes" and a cube was a "cuboid", I insisted on the technical meaning so hard I effectively denied that "fox" and "cube" were equally correct descriptions. However, in my defence, I was about eight. It's good insofar as it represents learning, but bad insofar as it's taken as a universal truth.
So inferring rules is natural. It's just that sometimes it's wrong even though it's natural.
"Technically, that's not true"
But what really gets me is when someone applies "technically" to a sentence which contains no technical definitions of words. If I use "A or B" in the normal English meaning[1], and someone says "technically that means only A or B, but not both", then they're WRONG because they incorrectly assumed people use logical-or when actually they use normal-English-or. But at least their sentence has specific (even if false) meaning.
But sometimes people prepend "technical" to a sentence to make a distinction that is -- as far as I can tell -- completely non-existent. And it annoys me because I can't see how it can EVER be correct.
[1] which is inclusive or exclusive depending on context
no subject
Date: 2010-09-14 09:59 pm (UTC)Oh, ouch :( I'm sorry. It's definitely really awkward, I get it both ways from people who are naturally more literal than me, and people who are naturally less literal. It's awkward because I might say much the same thing to someone who I genuinely DO want to see, but aren't sufficiently a priority to find time in the next 10 days, and people who are nice enough, but are not enough of a priority to arrange anything with at any point -- but that last is very rude to SAY to most people :(
I always try and be truthful and tactful if there's any way I can find to do so: I know it's not sufficient, but I'll always try to at least indicate the direction of my preference on whatever we were talking about, even if I'm too shy to say so deliberately.
Did someone actually arrange a specific time and place when they didn't want to meet? :(
no subject
Date: 2010-09-14 10:30 pm (UTC)But in the faster pace of the 90s, the Let's Do person would say, "I'd love to get together again next week." Or say, "Next month let's get Chinese!" It would be something specific but leave room for the person to adjust to their own commitments without being rude. And that anyone who said, "Let's do" without specifying was just being polite and didn't really want to bother finding the time.
This actually jives with the original meaning, because the Let's Do person is still responsible for the initiative, they're just leaving the ball there flaccid on their side of the court.
And yes, I've been stood up by other women who have arranged a time and place and been really insistent that I make space for them in my life even when it was inconvenient. It happens a lot. And usually if I call them on it, the person will hedge for a while and then say, "It was only because you're so annoying."
It helped to have someone actually explain what the rule was, but I was the one who added the bit about keeping initiative.
Now I just politely demure when someone suggests something and the problem is solved.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-14 10:51 pm (UTC)I think I do subconsciously do the "alternating responsibility" thing, although I hadn't thought about it in those terms.
I really love one of my friends because we are on exactly the same wavelength. If we say "I'm free on wednesday, let's meet up then and email to say where" then that's what we do. There's no "oh, they've probably forgotten". But with other people there's more give-and-take in the planning. And for that matter some friends are more planny than others: sometimes I say something and mean "I'd love to see you but I don't know when I'm free, email me in a month and we'll arrange something" and sometimes I mean "I don't really want to but don't want to admit it".
no subject
Date: 2010-09-15 11:25 am (UTC)