originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese
Like wealth, you can tell someone's leaning by the way they use it. You might want to look up the word legerdemain and consider its
connotations.
What part of the phrase 'smattering of linguistic legerdemain" ' do you object to? This is a good example of how irony is often lost when a person
interprets only one word of a phrase. Because you assumed I meant to convey some kind of legitimate authority, or expertise, you tried to exploit the
lighthearted liberty I took to "put me in my place?'
Apologies, that was presumptuous of me, wasn't it? But it speaks to my point.
Meaning and use, my friend, meaning and use.
Usage doesn't change definition. Interpretation does.
If "use" changes meaning, why bother "eliminating standing definitions?" Why not just "use" them differently?
Rhetorical questions aside, I contend that these alterations are being foisted upon the 'word consuming world' simply because the 'authorities of
words' want to change "meanings" not changing "usages." They want certain meanings to disappear, because they say so... because they want their own
biases embraced with the air of long-standing legitimacy they factually lack.
Another irony is present in this exchange. How I used the word "legerdemain" caused issue... because it's "meaning" appeared to you erroneously
"used." Go figure.
Lexicography a science? Let's take that word "science" in its fuzziest sense and agree.
Perhaps I should have said "Wordology" or "Wordonomy"... yes, Lexicography is a field which uses scientific discipline in the analysis of words and
their practical applications. In any practical sense, it is a science.
... Even languages like French and Spanish that prescriptive Academies born of authoritarianism, are giving way on usage.
Academia was not borne of authoritarianism, that characteristic develops from those people in academia who associate their job with prideful vanity...
and a sense of entitlement.
The academies of language are necessary because of the importance that people understand one another, it is not a body of political convenience. It
is necessary to prevent ideas like "well, this doesn't mean that anymore" from being applied thoughtlessly, rendering the language inconsistent, weak,
and functionally illogical.
Usage has always altered the meaning of words. How do you think American English and British English went their own ways?
If you are correct, dictionaries would be pretty much useless (except as contemporary guides to contemporary speech.) Any time someone attempts to
read a book from a hundred years ago, they would need a hundred-year-old dictionary to understand it.
We could coin a word. Let's say Cheesism.
We could... let's not. I get your drift and concede that the "source" of language is the people... however, it does not rise in a spontaneous
manner... which is why we have traditionally trusted bodies of specialists, focused on keeping the very important tool of language from losing its
usefulness by becoming inconsistent and self-contradictory... (that's lexicology, by the way.)
Thank you for expanding my vocabulary... "snollygoster"... , I'll try not to internalize that word or assume you were referring to me.