Mark J. Bradakis wrote:
> Ah, the wonders of written communication using a living language. I am
> NOT
> fond of those who think 'lite' and 'nite' are real words, but I have
> no qualms
> adding the verb 'google' to my vocabulary, even if they did turn me
> down for
> that job in Phoenix. That may be a feature, though, and not a bug.
>
> Back at the U of U, I cringed when someone would claim that some machine
> 'servered' some service. Those folks probably couldn't explain the
> difference
> among ( or is that between? ) site, sight and cite.
>
> Enough whining for now, my next message will actually be about Triunphs.
> But still whining, of sorts.
>
>
My favorite little story about "living language" is that slang comes and
goes in most languages, in unpredictable ways. Today, "lounge lizard" is
a bad Vegas lounge act. Eighty years ago, a "lounge lizard" was a man
who loitered in the lobbies of women's apartment hotels, looking to get
lucky.
However, there are neologisms which do damage to understanding. Using
"architect" as a verb is one of those usages which, ultimately, is an
impediment to clear communication, as is the use of "impact" as a verb.
Those of us from another cultural time don't understand that usage well,
as it brings up mental images of aching teeth, due to its normal
adjectival use. "Proactive" is another personal pet peeve. It's a
neologism that is probably here to stay, but its longevity will never
alter its utter emptiness of intrinsic meaning.
Cheers.
--
Michael D. Porter
Roswell, NM
Never let anyone drive you crazy when you know it's within walking distance....
|