World of Weird Al Yankovic

You guys are going well beyond grammatical pedantry at this point. Hyperbole and metaphor are bad things now? Should all informal language be as devoid of idiom, wordplay, color, and character as a graduate thesis? Why are you guys fans of Al's lyrics again?

There's a difference between meaning and usage. Dictionaries these days are lists of usages, which is fine, except most people still think of them as lists of meanings, as a guide to what is "correct." That's why people are surprised or taken aback when they find out that informal usages and slang are included in the dictionary, because that's not what they think dictionaries are supposed to be for.

And, honestly, if the dictionary includes every usage of every word, then how useful is it, really? If someone says, "That movie was sick!" is the dictionary going to help me figure out what they meant when it tells me "sick" can mean "great," "gross" or thirty other things?

Different dictionaries have different rules for how common a usage has to be to be included. I think I heard somewhere that Oxford's rule used to be that a new word or usage had to be published in a book or periodical at least five times by five different authors over the course of five years to be considered for inclusion. Here's what they have to say about their process today. Here's what M-W says.

The fact of the matter is that meaning is indistinguishable from usage; usage is what gives meaning to the arbitrary collection of phonetic sounds we call words. Words themselves have no real, objective, inherent, or divinely ordained meaning. We only know what they're meant to represent because of how people use them. A dictionary that lists all possible common uses of an ambiguous word like "sick" is more useful than a dictionary that lists a single definition that happens to be different from the one a person meant. At least a comprehensive list narrows down the possibilities in a useful way. One might argue that people should only ever use a word according to the first couple of definitions listed for it in a particular dictionary in order to avoid ambiguity, but where did those definitions come from? The words came first. Their definitions could only be written by people carefully studying the way(s) in which they're used. People have been speaking for tens of thousands of years, perhaps even longer. The first known dictionaries were compiled only 4,000 years ago.

If you trace any English word back to its earliest reconstructable Proto-Indo-European roots, it's likely its original meaning had something to do with harvesting crops, tending animals, or building wagons. If you want to talk about anything else, you'll have to resort to the myriad novel and figurative meanings those roots have acquired in the last several millennia.

The Sporkman wrote: The fact of the matter is that meaning is indistinguishable from usage; usage is what gives meaning to the arbitrary collection of phonetic sounds we call words.

They connected, but not indistinguishable. If 90% of people use "literally" to describe only things that are actual, and 10% use also use it for emphasis, then both of those usages are not equal. The word means what the majority of people use it to mean. Can that change? Obviously it can. And that's okay. I am not getting into the discussion over the value of communicative standards again, especially since you've already conceded that they are necessary.

Words themselves have no real, objective, inherent, or divinely ordained meaning.

Nonsense. We can often infer meaning from the construction of the word, based on its roots and language of origin. For example, if you didn't know what I meant by "nonsense," you could figure it out without ever having to see or hear it used. Its parts have meaning. Yes, eventually you will get to a point where someone invented a sound and decided what it meant. But we're not at that point, so that argument is purely academic.

A dictionary that lists all possible common uses of an ambiguous word like "sick" is more useful than a dictionary that lists a single definition that happens to be different from the one a person meant.

Nope. They're both useless. You need more context whether you know that he might have meant "great" or "gross" or you only know he didn't mean "ill."

Skippy wrote:Nonsense. We can often infer meaning from the construction of the word, based on its roots and language of origin. For example, if you didn't know what I meant by "nonsense," you could figure it out without ever having to see or hear it used. Its parts have meaning. Yes, eventually you will get to a point where someone invented a sound and decided what it meant. But we're not at that point, so that argument is purely academic.

"Nice" comes from the Latin "nescius." "Ne-" means "not," and "scius" means "aware." What does "nice" mean?

Nope. They're both useless. You need more context whether you know that he might have meant "great" or "gross" or you only know he didn't mean "ill."

So, if the only way to know what he meant is get more context about how he was using it, what is the inherent meaning of "sick"?

The Sporkman wrote: "Nice" comes from the Latin "nescius." "Ne-" means "not," and "scius" means "aware." What does "nice" mean?

I said often, not always. But maybe those words don't mean what I think they do.

So, if the only way to know what he meant is get more context about how he was using it, what is the inherent meaning of "sick"?

I wouldn't use the word "inherent," but the word comes from other words meaning "affected by illness," which is still the most popular usage, so that would be the primary meaning. If that was the only meaning someone knew (and it's almost certainly the first one a person learns,) then he would be confused by someone calling a movie sick. If he turned to a dictionary to figure it out, neither the limited nor the comprehensive version would be of much help without additional context.

With that context, then the comprehensive dictionary is more helpful. But the comprehensive dictionary is less helpful in other cases. If our person wants to write about his great dog, and he finds that "sick" can mean "great" in the dictionary, he's going to confuse a lot of people who will immediately interpret the word by its most primary meaning and assume that his dog is ill.

I should just stop reading this topic; I skip everything you guys say as it is.

As you know, I'm really really diggin' it.

Grom wrote:I should just stop reading this topic; I skip everything you guys say as it is.

Me too.

Let's stop the grammar and usage "discussions" to watch the a capella version of Word Crimes you didn't know you might need:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf3SuGCbeVk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;