Language Trainers Blog

Source: ted.com

When MIT cognitive scientist Deb Roy decided that he wanted to know how his infant son picked up language day-to-day as he developed, he went a little further than most. Rather than observe what he could, he decided that the best course of action would be to observe everything, and so he set up fish-eye cameras in every room of his house in order to document how his son dealt with and learned language.

For five years, starting from the very day the newborn baby was brought home from the hospital, the activity in each room was recorded and logged, and over 200 terabytes (200,000 gigabytes) of data subsequently parsed in order to understand how words developed from incoherent gagas and coos to concrete words like “water” and “ball”.

The talk, entitled “Birth of a Word”, is well worth watching for anybody interesting in linguistic development. Some of the technology used is unbelievably impressive.

Source: oed.com

Well, it had to happen sooner or later.

The Oxford English Dictionary has added the popular internet acronyms LOL (laughing out loud) and OMG (oh my God) to the latest edition of OED Online, the online form of the dictionary. They are not the only acronyms to make the cut:

They join other entries of this sort: IMHO (‘in my humble opinion’) [IMHO at I n./1], TMI (‘too much information’) [TMI at T n.], and BFF (‘best friends forever’) [BFF at B n.], among others.

Of course in such a context initialisms are quicker to type than the full forms, and (in the case of text messages, or Twitter, for example) they help to say more in media where there is a limit to a number of characters one may use in a single message. OMG and LOL are found outside of electronic contexts, however; in print, and even in spoken use (see, for example, the 2003 quotation for LOL int.), where there often seems to be a bit more than simple abbreviation going on. The intention is usually to signal an informal, gossipy mode of expression, and perhaps parody the level of unreflective enthusiasm or overstatement that can sometimes appear in online discourse, while at the same time marking oneself as an ‘insider’ au fait with the forms of expression associated with the latest technology.

Technically, in fact, LOL and OMG are not acronyms but initialisms. The difference is that initialisms are spelled out when spoken (ell-oh-ell and oh-em-gee), rather than pronounced as a word (e.g. RADAR).

English is a constantly evolving language, and with no official governing body any phrase that enters general usage can be added to the dictionary. As such, it cannot be argued that LOL and OMG have not become so popular in daily use, especially in email, instant messages and text messages that they deserve their place alongside “regular” English words.

How long, then, before we see less common initialisms and acronyms entering the dictionary? Terms such as FTFY (fixed that for you), YMMV (your mileage may vary) and AFAIK (as far as I know) are perhaps not as widely used as LOL or OMG, though if you spend enough time on socially-powered websites such as Reddit, you will certainly come across them on a daily basis.

So then, has the addition of LOL and OMG to an official dictionary opened the floodgates? Perhaps all these acronyms will soon need a dictionary of their own…

Source: theonion.com

Ah, I do love me some good satire. Using the red (spelling) and green (grammar) underlining in Microsoft Word as the basis of the joke, The Onion have come up with a new way the popular word processor can help you reach your audience: “Microsoft Word now includes squiggly blue line to alert writer when word is too advanced for mainstream audience”.

Sadly, as with all good satire, there is a firm basis in truth to this gag. In order to pander to as wide an audience as possible, all formats of media often reduce themselves to the lowest common denominator. Reality TV is a great example of this, with shows like Jersey Shore, where you effectively have to shut down all brain activity in order to enjoy it.

Novels like Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight saga – and I hope I won’t be burned at the stake for saying this, I am certainly not the first to point it out – are, despite their critical acclaim, exceptionally poorly written. True, it’s literature aimed primarily at children, but works like J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series and Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy have proven that books need not be reduced to pithy sentences from a vocabulary pool of 100 words in order to be popular with younger readers.

For anybody who is curious, the word underlined in The Onion’s accompanying image, Sisyphean, refers to the ancient myth of Sisyphus, who was given an eternal punishment in the Underworld for deceiving the Gods. His famous punishment was to roll a huge boulder up a hill, but just before he could reach the summit the rock would always become too heavy, and would roll back to the bottom. This gave rise to the English phrase Sisyphean task, which describes a task that is inherently pointless or without end.

For anybody who is even more curious, I explored several similar mythological eponymous words in a previous post.

My last “annoyances” post about confusing wreck and wreak made me think a little about other words that are often confused with each other in daily use.

A lot of the confusion seems to stem from the fact that one of the words is used in an English idiom – a set phrase, for example – which has old, often forgotten roots. This word may be similar to another, far more common word. If you first experience these idioms without seeing it written down, it’s easy to associate it with a more common word.

So, as I explained last time, is the case with wreck and wreak – for most of us, the English idiom “to wreak havoc” is pretty much the only time when you’ll come across the word. If you had never seen the word written down, it’s not completely outside the realms of possibility that wreck could be the spelling for wreak. Or, conversely, if you had seen it written down, it also wouldn’t be ridiculous to think that wreak was a mis-spelling of wreck, since both words are involved when talking about destruction.

So, confusion in these cases is relatively easy. Here are some other word pairs that are often confused:

“This really piqued my interest” – the word pique means to excite. Not to be confused with peaked, meaning to reach the top.

“To whet the appetite” – while the phrase might include your mouth watering (and so you could be forgiven for thinking it’s “wet the appetite”), that’s not the origin of the phrase. To whet something means to sharpen it, and so also comes to mean to make it keen or eager.

“Waiting with bated breath” – often confused for baited, which means to lure. To bate something is to moderate or to restrain: so the phrase actually means to hold your breath.

“Moot point” gives rise to a particularly common error, as it is often confused with the incorrect “mute point”. The words sound similar, but the meanings are actually almost opposites. A moot is a discussion, usually of a hypothetical point; and the adjective moot means “open to discussion”. So, a moot point means that something is debatable. Mute, meaning “silent”, has nothing to do with the phrase.

“To pore over a book” means to study it intently – “to pour over a book” would… probably ruin it.

Finally, an error that is becoming so common that some could probably argue that it is now ‘standard’ English: when somebody wants to agree with something somebody else has said, they might say “hear, hear” – NOT “here, here“. The phrase has something of an interesting history – it is actually a short form of “hear him, hear him”, and came into popular usage because it was often used as a way for politicians in one of England’s parliamentary buildings, the House of Commons, as a way for people to agree with whatever had just been said. Since traditionally you are not allowed to applaud in the chambers of the House of Commons, it became standard to shout “hear him, hear him”, or more simply, “hear, hear“.

Just a short post here about something that either I’ve been hearing more often as of late, or simply been noticing more often: the difference between the words wreck and wreak.

Wreak is almost always only heard in the popular idiom “to wreak havoc”, which means to inflict devastation or damage to something or someone. You can also say “to wreak anger”, which means to let loose your anger on somebody, e.g. “He wreaked his anger on the children”. It’s pronounced the same as the word reek (meaning to smell strongly).

Wreck is used far more often, usually related to traffic accidents, and simply means a thing that has been ruined or broken: a car wreck, building wreckage, shipwreck etc. It’s pronounced as it looks, with a silent “w”: rek.

For example, “the recent earthquake in Japan wreaked havoc and caused a great number of wrecked homes”.

In the last week I’ve heard more than one person say “wreck havoc”, which made me think that perhaps these words, though their meanings are somewhat related in meaning, are often confused with one another.

Source: vanityfair.com

I came across a very interesting (if slightly old) article on the Vanity Fair site recently on the “like” pandemic in American English. Perhaps most noticeable in female Californians’ accents, some see the over and misuse of “like” as a scourge on the English language, some simply as a harmless form of teen slang, others see it as the way the language is evolving.

Christopher Hitchens talks not only of how the word has pervaded the daily vocabulary of American teens, but also how it has near enough completely replaced the use of the word “as” when forming similes or comparisons.

Here’s a quote from the article; you can read the whole thing here.

So it can be of use to a natural raconteur. Ian McEwan rather surprised me when I asked him about “like,” telling me that “it can be used as a pause or a colon: very handy for spinning out a mere anecdote into a playlet that’s full of parody and speculation.” And also of hyperbole, as in “She’s been out with, like, a million guys.”

Its other main use is principally social, and defensive. You will have noticed the way in which “uptalk” has also been spreading among the young. “Uptalk” can be defined as an ostensibly declarative sentence that is uttered on a rising note of apology and that ends with an implied question mark. An example: the statement “I go to Columbia University?,” which seems to say, “If that’s all right with you.” Just as the humble, unassuming, assenting “O.K.” has deposed the more affirmative “Yes,” so the little cringe and hesitation and approximation of “like” are a help to young people who are struggling to negotiate the shoals and rapids of ethnic identity, the street, and general correctness. To report that “he was like, Yeah, whatever” is to struggle to say “He said” while minimizing the risk of commitment.

Having studied Latin & Greek I’m always fascinated by etymology – the study of where words originated. I seem to learn new ones every day… today’s is the origin of the word “gorgeous”.

According to etymonline.com, a great online etymology dictionary, the word comes from the Old French word gorge, which means the bosom or throat. The implication is that something is so beautiful it would be worth hanging around your neck as jewelry: thus its modern-day meaning of “very beautiful”.

I could spend many hours browsing etymology dictionaries, looking at entries for something as seemingly simple as why we pluralize words by adding an -s to the end (the answer is a little more complex!) to the origins of interesting words like “antepenultimate” (from the Latin words ante (before) + paen (almost) + ultima (last)).

Source: guardian.co.uk

In a move that simply reeks of maximizing profits in an increasingly digital age, publishers Harper Collins have decreed that their eBooks can only be borrowed 26 times before they have to be replaced. Their reason? Because apparently 26 is the magical number that represents that average number of loans before an actual book has to be replaced by the library.

Their official statement on the issue reads:

“HarperCollins is committed to the library channel. We believe this change balances the value libraries get from our titles with the need to protect our authors and ensure a presence in public libraries and the communities they serve for years to come.”

So, real reason? Money.

As a lover of eBooks (though I still believe nothing really comes close to the real thing), I see this move as pure greed on the publisher’s part. 26 also seems like a crazy number, and librarians across the US are in full agreement. In this video, 2 Oklahoma librarians put this to the test, to see exactly what toll 26 checkouts took on a book. Their findings are unsurprising.

It would be better for everyone if publishers would simply admit that they need to find a way to gain repeated revenue on a format that is essentially indestructible. As one of the comments on the YouTube video says, a tiered pricing system could work – through which the library pays a fee for every x times the book is borrowed, depending on its popularity.

If this kind of “rule of 26″ was instituted on real books (i.e. libraries would have to restock the book every 26 times it was lent out), there would be an uproar – and libraries would fade away faster than they already do. Besides which, what would they do with all the ‘spoiled’ books? As a company that prides itself on their ‘innovation’, Harper Collins really seem to be giving the finger to libraries that cater for electronic book users.

Some people are choosing to boycott Harper Collins as a measure to demonstrate their disapproval at this decision. Mike Masnik on technology blog Techdirt has said of the decision: “Yes, seriously. They think they need to protect authors from libraries. That’s – to put it frankly – insane.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Though the word seems to have been misappropriated by bloggers and quasi-journalists as meaning “a little fact”, the word factoid actually refers to something that looks like or is presented as a fact, but isn’t.

The suffix -oid means “resembles”, it is not a diminutive suffix (that is, something you add to the end of the word to mean a smaller version, like -ette, -icle, -ling etc.).

There are many words in English that have, over the years, come to have a different meaning in popular usage than their original intended definition. For example, the word nonplussed is often used to mean “unaffected” or “calm” – its actual meaning is the exact opposite. It derivees from the Latin words non (“no”) and plus (“more”), and comes to mean a state of mind so confused or bewildered that “no more can be done about it”.

Together with ironic – which you will hear used incorrectly on a daily basis – and the made up non-word irregardless, it seems that in order to learn English, students sometimes have to learn incorrect definitions for words (or non-existent words) to understand them when they’re being used!