Tower Of Babble: Non-Native Speakers Navigate The World Of 'Good' And 'Bad' English

General discussion about learning languages
Cainntear
Black Belt - 1st Dan
Posts: 1961
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:04 am
Location: Scotland
Languages: English(N)
Advanced: French,Spanish, Scottish Gaelic
Intermediate: Italian, Catalan, Corsican
Basic: Welsh
Dabbling: Polish, Russian etc
x 5046
Contact:

Re: Tower Of Babble: Non-Native Speakers Navigate The World Of 'Good' And 'Bad' English

Postby Cainntear » Tue May 11, 2021 5:04 pm

rdearman wrote:Le Baron & Cainntear aren't you basically just agreeing with each other?

No, I'm satirising the idea that something that a lot of native speakers say isn't a "real" word. Quite the opposite of agreeing
2 x

User avatar
Le Baron
Green Belt
Posts: 360
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2021 5:14 pm
Location: The scullery
Languages: English (N), Nederlands, Français, Deutsch, Esperanto (a very worthy language). Studying: Castellano, Swahili, rather slowly, but surely. Also Sranantongo in the past with my wife, but it has lapsed. Dabbled in: Cantonese, Russian, Norwegian. Finished the Hawaiian course on Duolingo, but can barely remember a thing!
x 686

Re: Tower Of Babble: Non-Native Speakers Navigate The World Of 'Good' And 'Bad' English

Postby Le Baron » Wed May 12, 2021 1:39 am

Cainntear wrote:
Le Baron wrote:I compare it to the similar form of a word like: Deride > Derision > Derisory. 'Derisionary' is not a known word.

Is there a verb "illude"? No? To most English speakers, "illusion" is the known form and has therefore been reanalysed as the root.

I don't think it is a legitimate word. It's one of those popular forms that wheedles its way into a dictionary.

"It's" is not a legitimate word; tis merely one of those popular forms that struts and frets its hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. </sarcasm>

That strikes me as a fairly irrelevant reply. I made the comparison to how 'deride' forms its noun and adjective. I didn't say illusion therefore adopts all the same forms.

Since there are many incomplete series of words adopted into English there indeed isn't a verb 'illude' (as there isn't a 'couth' to match 'uncouth'), but in fact illusion does stem from Latin Illudure. Illusory is directly from French illusoire. Your bio reports 'Advanced: French'...so why are you not aware of this?
0 x

Cainntear
Black Belt - 1st Dan
Posts: 1961
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:04 am
Location: Scotland
Languages: English(N)
Advanced: French,Spanish, Scottish Gaelic
Intermediate: Italian, Catalan, Corsican
Basic: Welsh
Dabbling: Polish, Russian etc
x 5046
Contact:

Re: Tower Of Babble: Non-Native Speakers Navigate The World Of 'Good' And 'Bad' English

Postby Cainntear » Wed May 12, 2021 12:29 pm

Le Baron wrote:
Cainntear wrote:
Le Baron wrote:I compare it to the similar form of a word like: Deride > Derision > Derisory. 'Derisionary' is not a known word.

Is there a verb "illude"? No? To most English speakers, "illusion" is the known form and has therefore been reanalysed as the root.

I don't think it is a legitimate word. It's one of those popular forms that wheedles its way into a dictionary.

"It's" is not a legitimate word; tis merely one of those popular forms that struts and frets its hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. </sarcasm>

That strikes me as a fairly irrelevant reply. I made the comparison to how 'deride' forms its noun and adjective. I didn't say illusion therefore adopts all the same forms.

Why was your original point any more relevant? I mean, I could point to "confuse"/"confusion" and say there's neither such a thing as "confusory" or "confusionary". Not relevant -- different word.
[edit: also, both forms do seem to exist in the real world after all!]

Since there are many incomplete series of words adopted into English there indeed isn't a verb 'illude' (as there isn't a 'couth' to match 'uncouth'), but in fact illusion does stem from Latin Illudure. Illusory is directly from French illusoire. Your bio reports 'Advanced: French'...so why are you not aware of this?

I am aware of that.
My point is that English is what English does.
Your average speaker doesn't head to the library to research the etymology of every word they use, and misunderstandings, misinterpretations and mispronunciations eventually become correct.
1 x

User avatar
Le Baron
Green Belt
Posts: 360
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2021 5:14 pm
Location: The scullery
Languages: English (N), Nederlands, Français, Deutsch, Esperanto (a very worthy language). Studying: Castellano, Swahili, rather slowly, but surely. Also Sranantongo in the past with my wife, but it has lapsed. Dabbled in: Cantonese, Russian, Norwegian. Finished the Hawaiian course on Duolingo, but can barely remember a thing!
x 686

Re: Tower Of Babble: Non-Native Speakers Navigate The World Of 'Good' And 'Bad' English

Postby Le Baron » Wed May 12, 2021 3:22 pm

Cainntear wrote:Why was your original point any more relevant? I mean, I could point to "confuse"/"confusion" and say there's neither such a thing as "confusory" or "confusionary". Not relevant -- different word.
[edit: also, both forms do seem to exist in the real world after all!]

It is relevant for a reason you're not acknowledging or recognising. You seem to think I'm saying the formations of one word follow those of another word I identified, in an identical pattern; therefore it is what I say it is. I'm not saying that at all. I'm taking all these sorts of words, some of which are similar, some which are irregular or have missing verb forms; many of which are words from French or elsewhere and have known formations. All of which have been printed in dictionaries for decades. Which people don't learn then make up their own versions. Popularly called 'being creative'.

Confusory is a nonsense word. The state of being confused is already called 'confusion'. Things are done in a confused way, or confusedly as an adverb. People are thrown into confusion (and often confounded) There's no 'confusory', no 'confusional' or 'confusionary' or 'confusedness', because what they aim to convey is already covered by existing words people can just look up and learn the meanings of. Which doesn't mean I'm plotting to go about policing people for using them, but they are not official English. We make up words all the time, especially when unsure, but if that's the legit criterium now a lot of people really are going to be confused.

Cainntear wrote:My point is that English is what English does. Your average speaker doesn't head to the library to research the etymology of every word they use, and misunderstandings, misinterpretations and mispronunciations eventually become correct.

That's my point too. Where I differ is that many 'misunderstandings, misinterpretations and mispronunciations' don't ever become "correct". Some do as memory fades. Some may gain traction and common usage, but that's an entirely different thing. It's popular these days to portray English as being so wild and undisciplined that making stuff up is written off as a 'poet's licence'. Well no, sometimes people are just wrong.
0 x

Cainntear
Black Belt - 1st Dan
Posts: 1961
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:04 am
Location: Scotland
Languages: English(N)
Advanced: French,Spanish, Scottish Gaelic
Intermediate: Italian, Catalan, Corsican
Basic: Welsh
Dabbling: Polish, Russian etc
x 5046
Contact:

Re: Tower Of Babble: Non-Native Speakers Navigate The World Of 'Good' And 'Bad' English

Postby Cainntear » Thu May 13, 2021 2:03 pm

Le Baron wrote:That's my point too. Where I differ is that many 'misunderstandings, misinterpretations and mispronunciations' don't ever become "correct". Some do as memory fades. Some may gain traction and common usage, but that's an entirely different thing. It's popular these days to portray English as being so wild and undisciplined that making stuff up is written off as a 'poet's licence'. Well no, sometimes people are just wrong.

I refer you to my earlier point "it's" vs "tis". There are many things in your speech that "gained traction and common usage" and are now indeed considered correct -- loss of thou/you distinction, loss of you/ye distinction, etc etc ad nauseam. The language that you speak today only exists because of misunderstanding, misinterpretations and mispronunciations becoming correct.
2 x

User avatar
Le Baron
Green Belt
Posts: 360
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2021 5:14 pm
Location: The scullery
Languages: English (N), Nederlands, Français, Deutsch, Esperanto (a very worthy language). Studying: Castellano, Swahili, rather slowly, but surely. Also Sranantongo in the past with my wife, but it has lapsed. Dabbled in: Cantonese, Russian, Norwegian. Finished the Hawaiian course on Duolingo, but can barely remember a thing!
x 686

Re: Tower Of Babble: Non-Native Speakers Navigate The World Of 'Good' And 'Bad' English

Postby Le Baron » Thu May 13, 2021 2:25 pm

Cainntear wrote:I refer you to my earlier point "it's" vs "tis". There are many things in your speech that "gained traction and common usage" and are now indeed considered correct -- loss of thou/you distinction, loss of you/ye distinction, etc etc ad nauseam. The language that you speak today only exists because of misunderstanding, misinterpretations and mispronunciations becoming correct.


Tis has not disappeared entirely, it has just been deprecated as standard written. Just like owt/nowt, which is standard in speech in some places (like where I'm from), and still exists. And yet the majority of usage remains intact and largely unchanged, which is why we can still read Shakespeare. It's not language evolution, fashions, or piecemeal change I'm addressing, but the dubious suggestions of words which are pure mistakes as a result of poor literacy as 'equally legitimate' when the already-known common words exist.

If we didn't have a working conception of how the standard language worked for shared understanding we wouldn't correct children saying: 'I eated it', rather than 'I ate it'. This usually irons itself out as people encounter repetition of the shared standard.
0 x

Cainntear
Black Belt - 1st Dan
Posts: 1961
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:04 am
Location: Scotland
Languages: English(N)
Advanced: French,Spanish, Scottish Gaelic
Intermediate: Italian, Catalan, Corsican
Basic: Welsh
Dabbling: Polish, Russian etc
x 5046
Contact:

Re: Tower Of Babble: Non-Native Speakers Navigate The World Of 'Good' And 'Bad' English

Postby Cainntear » Thu May 13, 2021 5:10 pm

Le Baron wrote:Tis has not disappeared entirely, it has just been deprecated as standard written. Just like owt/nowt, which is standard in speech in some places (like where I'm from), and still exists. And yet the majority of usage remains intact and largely unchanged, which is why we can still read Shakespeare. It's not language evolution, fashions, or piecemeal change I'm addressing, but the dubious suggestions of words which are pure mistakes as a result of poor literacy as 'equally legitimate' when the already-known common words exist.

A language is first and foremost a spoken phenomenon. If you need to be "literate" to know a word, there's a problem.

If we didn't have a working conception of how the standard language worked for shared understanding we wouldn't correct children saying: 'I eated it', rather than 'I ate it'. This usually irons itself out as people encounter repetition of the shared standard.

But we don't have to correct "eated" in children without significant disabilities -- as you say, it irons itself out*. And it's exactly the converse of the situation we were talking about -- ate exists and survives in its idiosyncratic, irregular form because it is such a common word.

Illusory, on the other hand, is a word that is simply too rare to be stably irregular. It's the sort of word that will be subject to regularisation, meaning either the form changes to match productive rules in English, or the rule becomes productive and starts being applied to other roots (eg. confusory).
And illusionary has existed since 1811 at the latest, according to etymonline.com .

* One of those idioms we're supposed to be avoiding.
2 x

User avatar
Le Baron
Green Belt
Posts: 360
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2021 5:14 pm
Location: The scullery
Languages: English (N), Nederlands, Français, Deutsch, Esperanto (a very worthy language). Studying: Castellano, Swahili, rather slowly, but surely. Also Sranantongo in the past with my wife, but it has lapsed. Dabbled in: Cantonese, Russian, Norwegian. Finished the Hawaiian course on Duolingo, but can barely remember a thing!
x 686

Re: Tower Of Babble: Non-Native Speakers Navigate The World Of 'Good' And 'Bad' English

Postby Le Baron » Thu May 13, 2021 5:14 pm

It's not a real word. No matter how many nicely-worded illusions are pulled out a hat to try and make it so. It happens, but it's wrong and that's really the end of it until so many people start saying it that it's beyond containment. Somewhat like 'I could care less' in the US, which I'm sure you're completely happy with.

Let's stop this ridiculous tennis.
0 x

Cainntear
Black Belt - 1st Dan
Posts: 1961
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:04 am
Location: Scotland
Languages: English(N)
Advanced: French,Spanish, Scottish Gaelic
Intermediate: Italian, Catalan, Corsican
Basic: Welsh
Dabbling: Polish, Russian etc
x 5046
Contact:

Re: Tower Of Babble: Non-Native Speakers Navigate The World Of 'Good' And 'Bad' English

Postby Cainntear » Fri May 14, 2021 8:41 am

Le Baron wrote:It's not a real word. No matter how many nicely-worded illusions are pulled out a hat to try and make it so. It happens, but it's wrong and that's really the end of it until so many people start saying it that it's beyond containment.

It's in dictionaries, it's been in documented usage since 1811 (according to etymonline) or 1866 (according to Merriam Webster), it appears in popular publications like the Verge and Popular Science. It has indeed escaped containment, and long since*.
* deliberate anachronism
Let's stop this ridiculous tennis.

It is ridiculous, isn't it?
2 x

User avatar
tiia
Blue Belt
Posts: 555
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2016 11:52 pm
Location: Finland
Languages: German (N), English (?), Finnish (~B2), Spanish (B1), Swedish (A2?)
Language Log: viewtopic.php?t=2374
x 998

Re: Tower Of Babble: Non-Native Speakers Navigate The World Of 'Good' And 'Bad' English

Postby tiia » Sat May 15, 2021 5:50 am

Cainntear wrote:-- as you say, it irons itself out*. [...]
* One of those idioms we're supposed to be avoiding.

You may be surprised, but this idiom actually exists in German, too. I guess because the process of ironing clothes is known in more than just a single culture.
At least for me it's perfectly understandable, even though I had no idea the idiom existed in English (and therefore would not have used it).
4 x
Corrections for entries written in Finnish, Spanish or Swedish are welcome.
Project 30+X: 22 / 30


Return to “General Language Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests