From Phil Runkel on 19 March 98:
Wm. Powers wrote longingly on 18 March
about vanishing usages in the language. Me too, Bill. I bewail the
examples you gave. I come across others almost every day, it seems. It
used to be, for example, that pilots _flew_ airplanes, and the passengers
flew _on_ them. It used to be that we departed _from_ Chicago. But the
airlines seem to have persuaded most of us that we can depart Chicago and
fly United.
Sometimes people argue about whether changes in usage impoverish or enrich
the language. In the long run, of course, we needn't worry. The
language, just as it has always done, will change, and it will serve. The
pains of change are those of the short run -- the usages by others to
which you and we must adapt. If the oldest of us complain the most, it is
because we have had to adapt the most. So there.
--Phil R.
[From Bill Powers (980320.0314 MST)]
From Phil Runkel on 19 March 98:
Wm. Powers wrote longingly on 18 March
about vanishing usages in the language. Me too, Bill.
I think what bothers me the most is the loss of clarity and precision that
goes with eliminating distinctions. I wouldn't mind if the language changed
in a way that maintained such things: that would not only be copacetic, it
would be cool, and in the right hands, even awesome. But a lot of what
we're observing now is just a reflection of a general dumbing down. When
you aren't learning much, you don't see any fine distinctions to be made,
so you don't need all them fancy words. If you're basically a naive
realist, there's no difference between "imply" and "infer."
It's not the language drift that bothers me, but what it implies about
meanings.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bruce Gregory (980320.0643 EST)]
Bill Powers (980320.0314 MST)
It's not the language drift that bothers me, but what it implies about
meanings.
The problem seems to well illustrated in the teenage phrase of dismissal:
"whatever..."
Bruce