| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 216.1 | or both | RAJA::MERRILL | Win one for the Glypher. | Mon Jul 07 1986 10:01 | 5 |
| - Unless of course she had to be there within 10 minutes in order
to collect! In which case one would be both eager AND anxious.
RMM
|
| 216.2 | It has two definitions. So what? | APTECH::RSTONE | | Mon Jul 07 1986 11:43 | 9 |
| I have two dictionaries which define "anxious" as:
....2. Eagerly or earnestly desirous.
....2. Earnestly wishing: eager.
It would appear that it is a sufficiently common usage and that
it has become accepted as such.
|
| 216.3 | | SSDEVO::GOLDSTEIN | | Mon Jul 07 1986 19:15 | 12 |
| Unfortunately, common usage is not always good usage. Dictionaries
do indeed record common usage and thereby perform only an historical
function; they do not tell us how words ought to be used. The point
made in .0 is very well taken. If two perfectly good words with
distinct meanings are to be used as if they mean the same thing,
then the language has lost some of its precision and it becomes
that much more difficult to communicate our ideas with clarity and
precision.
Keep usage examples coming in!
Bernie
|
| 216.4 | | VIA::BINNS | | Wed Dec 10 1986 17:00 | 20 |
| The point made in .3 (" If two perfectly good words with
distinct meanings are to be used as if they mean the same thing,
then the language has lost some of its precision and it becomes
that much more difficult to communicate our ideas with clarity and
precision.") is one of my pet peeves.
A prime example is the use of "verbal" as synonymous with "oral",
dropping its "written" meaning. The careful user of English could
get into trouble with this one.
How about the restriction of the meaning of "attorney" to
"lawyer"? I can authorize anyone to act on my behalf as my attorney,
though in legal matters I would be wise to use a lawyer
(an attorney-at-law). And "lawyer" is such a sensible and handsome
word.
Although not as perverse as the transformation of reputable nouns
(access, reference, etc) into ear-grating "verbs", this homogenization
of words by stripping them of some of their meanings is unfortunate,
if not downright tragic.
|
| 216.5 | Another Example | SSDEVO::GOLDSTEIN | | Wed Dec 10 1986 19:24 | 11 |
| Another example of the confusion of the meanings of distinct terms
can be seen in the use of 'continual' and 'continuous'; to quote
Bernstein in "The Careful Writer":
"Continual" means over and over again. "Continuous" means
unbroken. The following is a misuse: "When McSorley's finally
closes its swinging doors, the oldest place in town that has
reportedly been continually in business will be Pete's Tavern."
The meaning here is obviously not again and again. Mnemonic
device: "Continuous" ends in o u s, which stands for One
Uninterrupted Sequence.
|
| 216.6 | Is there a flaw here somewhere? | 4GL::LASHER | Working... | Fri Dec 12 1986 11:36 | 8 |
| Re: .4
"Although not as perverse as the transformation of reputable nouns
(access, reference, etc) into ear-grating "verbs", this homogenization
of words by stripping them of some of their meanings is unfortunate,
if not downright tragic."
"Tragic", huh?
|