Conference thebay::joyoflex

Re .81:

> Despite of this, or perhaps because of it, there are those who want to freeze
> the language. To me, these are people who learned grammar as a child and
> resent having to learn something new.

Considering the number of books I read (over 100/year), I do not think it can
be said fairly that I resent having to learn something new.  I recently ordered
the University of Chicago's _A Manual of Style_, which certainly displays not
only a willingness but an eagerness to learn.  Currently, I am reading Bertrand
Russell's _The Principles of Mathematics_.  Take a look at that and tell me I
resent learning something new.

The reason I support using English as it is currently is because it is usually
more than sufficient for the necessary purposes.  Creating new usages without
good cause only detracts from the language.  You give, as an example, the
recent usage of "counterphrase".  This invention is totally unnecessary.  The
phrase "counter phrase" will do quite nicely.

> I think that these people do not love their language the way that the more
> adaptable of us do, but I am probably showing my prejudice.

You certainly are.  I was not Executive Editor of my college magazine because
I hated English.

> Where they see the woad-clad barbarians pillaging the lexicon, I see a new
> thought to play with, a new tool, a new toy.  For words are ideas.

Words are not ideas.  Play with the ideas, not the words.  Words are tools.  Use
your tools to play with the ideas.  Do not abuse your tools.  When you need a
new tool, create it.  When you have a task for which your current tools are
designed, use them as they are.

> Thoughts are more important than words.  A clear thought that never crossed
> a lexicographer's mind is better than cliche.  While substance without style
> is arguably better than style without substance, this often blinds us to
> the fact that new ideas require new words, or at the very least, old words
> with a new set of duds.

The purpose of style is to sharpen the meaning of words.  If words can be used
in a variety of ways without proper structure, they become ambiguous.


				-- edp

re. .0

Bravo.  

re. .1 

Who is showing whose prejudices?  This sounds like the great
Inkhorn debate all over again.  

People use words to represent their ideas.  They are tools;
you're right about that.  But not all people have all the tools
they need, and without a toolbox at hand they have to improvise
with the tools they have.  Moreover, some people have ideas that
are not suited to the tools that appear to exist.  Shakespeare
contributed some 2,000 never-before-used words to the English
language.  Was he wrong to do that?  The high tech industry
itself is is tribute to new ideas, too -- consider just one
example: "to boot up" a system.  I defy you to find that verb in
the lexicon that existed even forty years ago. 

The question is really one of intelligibility.  Are the words you
use to convey your ideas understood by the person trying to
listen to you?  If a newly-coined word works, why question its
legitimacy?  If a newly-coined word doesn't work, then toss it
out and find a word that does work.  The measure of success 
should be whether or not the word works, not whether or not it
exists already. 

Mark

Jon, I agree with you completely, with one reservation.  New thoughts may
require new words, but these new words must increase communication, and never
cause ambiguity.

Eric, I must disagree. Words ARE ideas.  If the word doesn't exist, the idea
cannot be expressed. A case in point -- the French language does not have
a word for "warm"; "hot", "cold", and "tepid", yes, but not "warm".  Now,
how would a French-speaking person convey the idea *without* a word to express
it? Words ARE ideas, and if existing words cannot express an idea, then new
words must be invented, or old words must be given new meanings.

					andrew

Re .2:

You missed the point.  It is perfectly proper to create new tools when the
current ones are inadequate.  This was not the case with "counterphrase".
English provides a very reasonable phrase to use, "counter phrase".

> People use words to represent their ideas.  They are tools;
> you're right about that.  But not all people have all the tools
> they need, and without a toolbox at hand they have to improvise
> with the tools they have.

By "without a toolbox at hand", do you mean "without reference books nearby"?
If you use this analogy, I would agree that a person may have to say whatever
he/she can think of at the moment.  That is not what is being discussed; we are
discussing adding new things to the language, permanently, not on a just-this-
once basis.  Inadequate resources are no excuse.  Simply adding a word every
time it is more convenient than thinking or researching will affect the
language adversely.

> Shakespeare contributed some 2,000 never-before-used words to the English
> language.  Was he wrong to do that?

I don't know.  Tell me what words were added, why they were added, and why
existing words would not have sufficed and I will tell you whether or not he
was wrong.

> The high tech industry itself is is tribute to new ideas, too -- consider just
> one example: "to boot up" a system.  I defy you to find that verb in the
> lexicon that existed even forty years ago.

"To boot" is sufficient.  Very few people "boot down" a system.  As I have
said, I am not complaining about creating new words when they are needed.  It
is creating new words when they are not needed that is detrimental.

> The question is really one of intelligibility.

There is more to intelligibility than "Is the person to whom I am speaking
going to understand me?"  How quickly will that person understand?  If that
person wants to determine precisely what I am saying, can he/she get the
necessary information from a reference book?  Will other people understand
if this word is used in other situations?  Will this new use affect other parts
of the language in detrimental ways?  Will relaxing the rules cause ambiguity?

What is wrong with "counter phrase"?


				-- edp

De gustibus, they say, non disputandum, but I have to agree with .0
that "counterphrase" conjures images of verbal fencing and so adds
something to the discourse that would be absent if the words had been
"counter phrase". The space in the middle of "counter phrase" brings me
up short.

Some common counter phrases: "Waddlyahave?" "Gimmeacupacoffeeanadanish."

I can hardly wait to see the discussion of Shakespeare's mistakes. I
have always felt that he would have made his meaning a lot clearer if
he had simply come out and said "Who would burdens bear, when he might
his peace make with a bare knife?" instead of using all those
unnecessary words like "fardels" and "quietus" and "bodkin". 

-John

Re .3:

> Eric, I must disagree.  Words ARE ideas.

Words are most certainly not ideas.  Words can represent ideas.  Words can
communicate ideas.  Words are not ideas.

"Warm" is not the concept of warm any more than "tree" is a tree.

A word is a pattern of letters or sounds.  An idea is:

	1)	a transcendent entity that is a real pattern of which
		existing things are imperfect representations or

	2)	a formulated thought or opinion.

(This was taken from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1976.)

> If the word doesn't exist, the idea cannot be expressed.

Exactly (assuming the idea cannot be expressed with several words used in
combination).  The idea cannot be expressed -- but it exists, nevertheless.
Otherwise French people would not understand the concept of "warm" without
learning another language.

Similarly, a program may be a combination of characters, but an algorithm is
a method for doing something.  They are distinct entities.


				-- edp

Re .5:

> De gustibus, they say, non disputandum, but I have to agree with .0
> that "counterphrase" conjures images of verbal fencing and so adds
> something to the discourse that would be absent if the words had been
> "counter phrase". The space in the middle of "counter phrase" brings me
> up short.

Your feeling that the space affects the phrase may be due to the fact that

Re .5:

> De gustibus, they say, non disputandum, but I have to agree with .0
> that "counterphrase" conjures images of verbal fencing and so adds
> something to the discourse that would be absent if the words had been
> "counter phrase". The space in the middle of "counter phrase" brings me
> up short.

Your feeling that the space affects the phrase may be due to the fact that
we are analyzing this phrase much more closely than we would if it simply
occurred normally.  I suspect the difference would not be noticeable.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1976, defines "counter", as an adjective,
as:

	1)	in an opposite or wrong direction or

	2)	to or toward a different or opposite direction, result, or
		effect.

I find no definition for "counter-thrust" or "counterthrust".  Thus, this
should also be written as "counter thrust".  Further, the only definition
of "counterpoint" that seems appropriate is:

	2 a)	a complementing or contrasting item : OPPOSITE.

Because this is paired with:

	2 b)	use of contrast or interplay of elements in a work of art,

I suspect "counterpoint" is not appropriate to use when referring to the
asserting of statements, as in "point, counterpoint".  This, too, would be
better rendered as "point, counter point".  It appears that it is proper for
"counter" to be a separate word in all of these contexts, whether the fencing
is verbal or physical.

If the reader/listener does not perceive the entire meaning, including the
fencing aspects, this is a failure on the part of the reader/listener, not
the English language.  "Counter" means the same thing in "counter thrust"
as it does in "counter phrase", so one should perceive analogous meanings
from both phrases.


				-- edp

Eric -- Does Webster's New Collegiate also list the prefix "counter-"?

I realize that some readers of this file do not accept the American Heritage
Dictionary as an authority. If you're interested in what the American Heritage
has to say about "counter-", read on.


	Many compounds other than those entered here may be formed with
	counter-. In forming compounds, counter- is normally joined with
	the following element without space or hyphen: counterrevolution.
	The adjective counter is written as a separate word: Counter
	Reformation, but except for that example, it is hardly ever used
	in attributive* position. Rather the preference is for forming a
	compound with counter-, as evidenced by the entries that follow.

40 words beginning with counter- follow, from "counteract" to "counterweight."
One entry to note is "counterculture," a relatively recent addition to the
language. 

					Val

* attributive: a word or word group, such as an adjective or the equivalent
of an adjective, that is placed adjacent to the noun it modifies without
a linking verb.

Re .9:

Oops, I missed that (the shame of it).

>	Many compounds other than those entered here may be formed with
>	counter-.

I hate to complain (not really), but how are we supposed to determine if
"counterphrase" is one of the "many compounds"?  Does anybody want to check
the OED?


				-- edp

 Besides, my dictionary (The New Century) lists "counterthrust". In
fencing (I used to fence in high school) it's a common word.
 "Counterpoint" most properly is the style of music in which
(more-or-less) independent melodies play against each other. The
Medieval music theorists called it "punctus contra punctum",
"note against note", and it differs from simple harmony in the
independence of the lines and the fact that they often move in
contrary directions.
 Both these words vibrate sympathetically in my imagination when I
see "counterphrase", but not when I see "counter phrase".
 Actually, I don't dispute your premise that creating new words
where old ones will do only adds static. I've said the same thing
myself many times. But for me, "counterphrase" draws a new picture
for my mind's eye, and that gives it the right to survive in my book.

-John

Re 41.14:

> I'm sorry, are we picking on you?

> You took offense at my last essay where none was intended. When I wrote it, I
> was not thinking of you in particular (actually, I was thinking of William
> Safire).

I'm not sure why you put this in 41, because the original essay was in 81,
where you said:

> Despite of this, or perhaps because of it, there are those who want to freeze
> the language. To me, these are people who learned grammar as a child and
> resent having to learn something new. I think that these people do not love
> their language the way that the more adaptable of us do, but I am probably
> showing my prejudice.

Even if this is not aimed at me, it certainly covers a number of people.  It
seems to be a rash conclusion.  People who wish to preserve our language are
more likely to be people who do enjoy learning -- how else could they come to
have a good enough understanding of language to want to defend it?


				-- edp

Re. .3

> That is not what is being discussed; we are discussing adding new
> things to the language, permanently, not on a just-this- once
> basis.  Inadequate resources are no excuse.  Simply adding a word
> every time it is more convenient than thinking or researching
> will affect the language adversely. 

You seem to think that language is a static thing.  It isn't.
Language exists in a state of flux.  It always has, and it always
will -- in spite of our efforts to codify its rules (as in the
Chicago Manual, Fowler, Strunk and White, and whomever else you
care to name) or otherwise regulate its growth.  You wrote in .1
that you had "recently ordered the University of Chicago's _A
Manual of Style_, which certainly displays not only a willingness
but an eagerness to learn."  I contend that that merely
reinforces your belief that language is a static thing, subject
to rules and regulations.  None of the people who wrote these
books had any clearer hold on "the rules" than you or I have.
These rule books and style manuals are rooted in the conventions
of the day, not in anything absolute. They are useful if you want
a group of people to hold one "style" in common (for consistency
throughout a newspaper or throughout a scholarly group) but they
are not the ten commandments, and for as many rules as they hold,
there are thousands of historical exceptions. 

There is a point to rules and structures.  I grant that, for
without some rule and structure we would describe a common ground
for communication.  However, the rules and the structures change,
and they must always be looked at as suggestions rather than
commandments.  Even the words we use change.  How can you not
look back over the history of the English language and not
recognize this?  It has never been a stable environment. 

You said in .1 that "If words can be used in a variety of ways
without proper structure, they become ambiguous."  Yet, if a
word, used in a new way, conveys an idea, I contend that it is
not ambiguous.  "Couterphrase," to rope this unsuspecting word
back into the discussion, is not ambiguous in the least; indeed,
with precedents like counterpoint and counterthrust it is
perfectly comprehensible.  Nothing is wrong, to answer your other
question, with "counter phrase;" but that's not the real issue
here. 

You said in .3 that "we are discussing adding new things to the
language, permanently, not on a just-this-once basis . . . Simply
adding a word every time it is more convenient than thinking or
researching will affect the language adversely."  Later, you said
"It is creating new words when they are not needed that is
detrimental."  If "couterphrase" is not ambiguous, I see no way
that it can affect the language adversely. I see no way in which
it can be detrimental.  It simply reflects a type of change that
has been going on throughout history.  If it were ambiguous, it
wouldn't last.  And if it doesn't last, it can't affect anything.

Your concern seems to be that something terrible will happen if
we let change work on our language.  You fear ambiguity, loss of
meaning.  You may say that today's language is rich and that you
foresee linguistic decadence encroaching, but people were saying
that 300 years ago.  I wonder what they would think of the
language we use today? 

The argument spins inexorably back again to meaning.  As long as
meaning is there, a word is useful.  As long as the word is
useful, it serves a purpose.  If it is useful, if it serves a
purpose, who is to say that it should not be used?  The word may
duplicate another words meaning, but so what?  At some point its
synonym may disappear because the new word has overwhelmed it by
sheer dint of popularity.  Ambiguity should be quashed, I agree
wholeheartedly.  But not change, not just because something is
new. 

Mark 

Re .13:

> You seem to think that language is a static thing.

I most certainly do not.  I have said, several times, that I support changing
the language, when it is advantageous.

> You wrote in .1 that you had "recently ordered the University of Chicago's _A
> Manual of Style_, which certainly displays not only a willingness but an
> eagerness to learn."  I contend that that merely reinforces your belief that
> language is a static thing, subject to rules and regulations.

If I believed language were static, I would not order a _new_ manual of style,
would I?

> You said in .1 that "If words can be used in a variety of ways
> without proper structure, they become ambiguous."  Yet, if a
> word, used in a new way, conveys an idea, I contend that it is
> not ambiguous.  "Counterphrase," to rope this unsuspecting word
> back into the discussion, is not ambiguous in the least; indeed,
> with precedents like counterpoint and counterthrust it is
> perfectly comprehensible.  Nothing is wrong, to answer your other
> question, with "counter phrase;" but that's not the real issue
> here.

"Counterphrase" is no longer a good example, since its non-Englishness (!) is
in question. 

In "counterpoint", "counter" has a different meaning from its meaning in
"counterphrase" or "counterthrust".  The former meaning expresses contrast,
the latter expresses opposition.

Still, if other situations were to be considered, I would oppose adding a
word to the language simply because it conveys an idea.  It should also convey
a new idea or convey an idea in a new way.  Otherwise, adding it to the
language serves no useful purpose.  (Remember, I am not speaking of
"counterphrase" here.)

Let's consider adding a word to which I am almost certain you will object.
The word is "frtn".  It is pronounced as if it were spelled "gurf".  It means
"landed on the moon and turned purple", as in "The blue spaceship frtned.".
Since I have defined this, it is not ambiguous.

The purpose of this example is to show that there is more to deciding whether
or not a new word should be admitted to the language than simple ambiguity.
How many reasons can you find for not adding this word to the English
language?  Especially, in what ways would adding this word to our language
affect it adversely?

> If "counterphrase" is not ambiguous, I see no way that it can affect the
> language adversely.

It is redundant.  Our language is too complex to be adding more to it without
good reason.

Redundancy will develop into ambiguity as people start using the old and new
words in different ways.

Even if adding a word does not, in itself, harm the language, it causes the
rules to be relaxed.  Eventually, this causes ambiguity.

You may argue that such a slight effect is negligible.  How much damage is
caused to the scenery/environment when one person litters?  How much damage
is caused when everyone litters?

> If it were ambiguous, it wouldn't last.

I see no evidence of that.

> And if it doesn't last, it can't affect anything. 

I see no evidence of that.  The Roman Empire did not last.  Neither did
cannons.  Nor wars fought with swords.  But they all affected the world in
ways that are important today.

> Your concern seems to be that something terrible will happen if
> we let change work on our language.

Well, the world is not going to be destroyed as a result (probably), but that
does not mean we should permit the language to wander aimlessly.

> You fear ambiguity, loss of meaning.  You may say that today's language is
> rich and that you foresee linguistic decadence encroaching, but people were
> saying that 300 years ago.  I wonder what they would think of the language we
> use today?

I don't suppose they would say "See, we worked to keep language in line, and
the current result is terrific."?  Seriously, was the thesaurus invented
by then?  If not, I think they would be startled by the accuracy with which
it describes language.

Rules are much more coherent and complete today than they used to be.

> The argument spins inexorably back again to meaning.  As long as
> meaning is there, a word is useful.

Again, making good changes will not hamper meaning.  Making random changes
will.  See the notes in TRIVIA""::SYS$NOTES:LIFE.NOT.  Look for the note
entitled "Ramblings of a Maniac".


				-- edp

Re .14:

> Still, if other situations were to be considered, I would oppose adding a
> word to the language simply because it conveys an idea.  It should also convey
> a new idea or convey an idea in a new way.  Otherwise, adding it to the
> language serves no useful purpose.  

The existence of a word shouldn't preclude the invention of another word meaning
the same thing. Suppose there already were an English word meaning "counter
phrase," spelled "frtn," pronounced "gurf," and not in most people's vocabulary.
Wouldn't one be justified in coining "counterphrase" on the grounds that "I
reply with a meaningless frtn" is unintelligible to many, but "I reply with a
meaningless counterphrase" is self-explanatory? 

(This may not be the right example, again because "counter phrase" is perfectly
good.) 

Also re .14:

> Redundancy will develop into ambiguity as people start using the old and new
> words in different ways.

I'd like to see an example in which this has happened and is a problem.

					Val

P. S. Actually, what I'd like to see is a new note on ambiguity. Jon happens to
think ambiguity is a good thing. Someone start another argument...

Re .15:

>> It should also convey a new idea or convey an idea in a new way.

> The existence of a word shouldn't preclude the invention of another word
> meaning the same thing. Suppose there already were an English word meaning
> "counter phrase," spelled "frtn," pronounced "gurf," and not in most people's
> vocabulary. Wouldn't one be justified in coining "counterphrase" on the
> grounds that "I reply with a meaningless frtn" is unintelligible to many, but
> "I reply with a meaningless counterphrase" is self-explanatory?

In this example, an idea is being conveyed in a new way, which is one of my
criteria.  Of course, in reality, it is likely that people would already be
thinking "counterphrase" when they hear "frtn", so your example would not hold.

>> Redundancy will develop into ambiguity as people start using the old and new
>> words in different ways.

> I'd like to see an example in which this has happened and is a problem.

Under what circumstances do you use:

	"special" or "especial",
	"-er" (as in "killer") or "-or" (as in "terminator"),
	"non-" or "un-",
	"-ible" or "-able",
	"flammable" or "inflammable", and
	"farther" or "further".

Note that the ambiguity is not always in the words; often the rules are
ambiguous. 


				-- edp

Good Heavens! I only turned my back for a week or so, and look what lively
discussion I've missed!

I do feel that the quibbling (lovely word, "quibble") about "counterphrase"
is a bit overdone. There is a significant difference in the coining of
compound words and the creation of a new root word such as "frtn"; with
a compound, there is a likelihood that the hearer will be able to deduce
the meaning by a knowledge of the root words. "But," you may ask, "if the
root words, used individually, would have conveyed the same meaning, why
issue the compound at all?"

Good question. Some might say that there is no reason for compound words.
My feeling is that the act of combining the roots adds meaning to the result,
meaning that would not be present to the same degree if the roots were used
as a phrase.

The advantage of compounds is that they may be used as needed without
necessarily gaining the weight of common usage, and still be understood.
The now-infamous "counterphrase" may never be used again, yet was quite
easily understood by all who read it in the first place. If I were to
speak of "counter-elbowing" my neighbor in an airplane seat, I don't think
people would expect that term to appear in the next edition of the OED,
or even the LRD (Little Red Dictionary), but they would know what I meant
and, I would hope, find it somewhat amusing.

The German language, of course, consists to a large degree of compound words.
In fact, my impression is that they never invent a new root at all, no matter
how many words they have to string together to define a new object.

One additional point. Think of the difference between "counterphrase" and
"counter phrase" as it applies to physical resources - the former represents
a savings of 1 character in storage! In the interest of conserving disk
space, shouldn't we give preference to the form that's the most economical?

-b (tongue firmly in cheek)

Re .18:

I do not object to people using non-words, except in the JOYOFLEX file.

> One additional point. Think of the difference between "counterphrase" and
> "counter phrase" as it applies to physical resources - the former represents
> a savings of 1 character in storage!  In the interest of conserving disk
> space, shouldn't we give preference to the form that's the most economical?

You are not looking at this properly.  Instead of considering the savings as
merely one byte, consider it as 1/14 of the text, or about 7%.  Let's suppose
an average disk holds 100,000,000 bytes and that, conservatively, there are
50 disks at each of 20 Digital facilities.  Then proper use of efficient
techniques such as using "counterphrase" instead of "counter phrase" will
save Digital over 7,000,000,000 bytes.  This is not trivial by any standard.
I understand SOAPBOX is 60,000 blocks and resides on a VAX dedicated to
serving requests to SOAPBOX.  There are 512 bytes in a block, so SOAPBOX has
less than 30,000,000 bytes.  Thus, the savings from "counterphrase" would
amount to the equivalent of more than 200 SOAPBOX files.  This means Digital
requires 200 less VAX computers when efficient techniques are used. 
Another conservative estimate is that a VAX costs 100,000 dollars.  Thus,
good techniques will save Digital 20,000,000 dollars.  It is obvious that the
use of "counterphrase" should be made mandatory.  Any employee caught using the
longer version should be terminated. 


				-- edp

Sure, I agree.  I'm all for saving disk space, but I'm concerned that we may 
invent another DECism (DEC-ism?) which will completely supplant proper usage
of the phrase formed by the constituent words; viz., 'counter phrase.'

A counter phrase is a group of words which imply or describe a counting 
operation.  Scrooge used lots of counter phrases.  (He also had catchy sayings 
by which he described the large flat surface on which Cratchitt worked--these, 
too, were counter phrases--and, in the context of this dissertation, are
counter-counter-phrases.)  Len Barry had a hit in 1965 whose title was a
counter phrase ("1 2 3").  And, probably the most famous counter phrase
of them all (though I think it's a countING phrase) is the unforgettable
Extraterrestrial Denary Esarhp Retnuoc:  "Ten, Nine, Eight, Seven, Six, Five,
Four, Three, Two, One, ..."


"Good grief, it's Daddy."


Dave C.  (waiting for the return of Soapbox)