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
rdearman wrote:Le Baron & Cainntear aren't you basically just agreeing with each other?
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>
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.
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?
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!]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Let's stop this ridiculous tennis.
Cainntear wrote:-- as you say, it irons itself out*. [...]
* One of those idioms we're supposed to be avoiding.
Return to “General Language Discussion”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests