Warning - aware of scammers!


Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Of course the meaning of words changes over time. I don't think it's always desirable, but it is inevitable. I believe the rate of change has increased enormously over the past few decades as a consequence of the web. One of the problems is that different sections of society adopt these changes at different rates, and you hear older folk complaining that "coloured", for example, was perfectly acceptable when they were young, but now it's frowned upon. Most young people adapt to these changes more quickly, in my experience.
Maybe too quickly, as today's PC term becomes tomorrow's playground taunt.
We also have to take care in areas such as the law, medicine - almost every area, to be honest. If people decide left means right, or live means neutral, we're in big trouble.
I personally deplore the fact that literally now means nothing, and people use imply and infer interchangeably. Fulsome has lost its way, and exponentially means whatever you want it to. But it's pointless to behave like the Scandinavian king with the misspelled name, trying to force back the tide(yes, I know that the story is he was trying to demonstrate the futility of such efforts, just like the cat-in-a-box guy was illustrating how quantum stuff doesn't cut it with cat sized things).
Do you think it'll start happening with spelling? I'm already at the stage where I do a double take if I see "definite" or "separate" spelt correctly. Do you think the future dictionaries will embrace these "alternative" spellings? After all, it's not that long ago that "ize" was the preferred suffix for very many words in British English, but now people react in horror at supposed American influence when "ize" is used. I suppose the ubiquitous spell checkers go some way to safeguarding the spelling, hence "definate" often being rendered as "defiant". Sadly, as far as I know, they don't query the use of literally.
A "race to the bottom" philosophy.

Given the (intent, at least) to teach everbody literacy, and the ubiquity of dictionaries, I'm not sure that an approach of "the lowest common denominator of ignorance" is the best way to organise language usage.

Consider a word defined in the dictionary, it really doesn't matter which, but to pick one as an example, let's pick "giraffe".

So, the dictionary has a definition for it. Here's one:

If one person says "this is a giraffe"

View attachment 139228
then they are wrong. They just are.

If 2 people say it's a giraffe, are they right?

20 people?

At what point do you think the world should give in and say "OK - forget what the dictionaries have said, you have suddenly become right, that is a giraffe".

And how? How does the world decide that?

And why? How does improve things?

When literacy rates were low, dictionaries effectively non-existent, people were using words inherited from "invaders" whose own culture had been subsumed, language evolved.

But today it isn't like that. There should never be a way in whiich enough ignoramuses can make this a giraffe

View attachment 139229
Don't be daft its an Elephant.
I must say I have not seen any recently but maybe a glimpse in Liz Truss and I thought they used to be burnt at the stake rather than hung. Did we not also dunk them, if they drowned they were not a witch otherwise burn them anyway.
Cant remember the series or the presenter but remember an account of a complaint by a resident in some town or another. Apparently the witch burning took place near their house, and they objected very strongly to this. Not because they had anything against burning witches, just that, presumably owing to the prevalent wind direction, the fat and other spatter spoiled their wall ! Now there is a good case for being a NIMBY