TedTalks - "What makes a word 'REAL'"?

If my next few posts bother you, cause they will be some interesting TedTalks I listened to this weekend, blame Desolous for getting me truned onto it...

(As a matter of fact, I am blaming him for my reddit addiction too, :lol:...)

Anyway, I thought of Steamboat as I listened to this one, lol...

http://www.ted.com/talks/anne_curzan_what_makes_a_word_real

Ok, where am I screwing up?

I cant get ANY videos to post lately...

I think it is because of the way the page is set up.
Here it is on Youtube....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6NU0DMjv0Y

And there stems the common miscommunication errors we so often encounter.

Would it be too much to ask that we all try and maintain a constant standard while expanding the language by inviting new words? Yes she talks about bringing in new words, but she also talks about how the accepted definition of a word changes with the common use of it…

So, does that mean instead of holding ourselves to a higher standard that we should just give up trying and do whatever we want because if we can get enough people to do that then it will be okay? That reminds me of one of the fallacy arguments… Argumentum ad Populum.

I have a new word…
Dorglebloof
Noun, Verb

• when a society allows insanity to govern it and not only goes willingly but cheers and applauds along the way.

Dorlglebloofing

• Spreading the insanity by means of fallacy

Hahahhahahhahhahahahhaha :woohoo:



Anna Curzan be dorglebloofing maxicore!!!! :ohmy:
hahahhahahhahahhahaha :woohoo: :silly: :laugh:

lol...

Thanks Wes...

But, to respond, ...

No way Daddy-o...

Please, feel free to try to stop the change, lol....

it doesnt change so fast that we in a certain age group cant communicate...

Its trying to talk to the youths where we get into issues, lol....

Can we even call "English", the language we speak? :huh: :dry: :blink:
Lost in translation, the interpretation, of our communication, through the organization of our foundation.
Reality vs. illusion...
My opinion.... :woohoo:

I prefer knowing the root word and original meaning, than the new word and changed meaning...
If we do not know where we came from, how are we going to know where we are going?

The reality of the word, as we change it, we change. Is this good or bad?
Perhaps we will revert, and speak "goo goo gaa gaa", like we are children again.
Evolution of a word...
or de- evolution...
If I think I am an illusion, all reality of a word is also illusionary...
No? :whistle:

Just yesterday I was doing some language training.... I sort of try (badly) at discovering Mandarin by looking at the characters as ideogram's and referencing it to Chinese culture like the Tao etc. I was struck at how the character for 'word' resembled the reflection of a tree on rippled water. It made sense that the character for word in a written language would reflect a true nature of itself, and it just looked like it to me for some reason.

Looking at it now with fresh eyes makes me think I've been spending too long interpreting Chinese characters, LOL, but I think its a good one as when using a word its meaning can become more and more distorted the further it extends from its original use. I guess the analogy would be that peoples emotional 'waves' cause transformation of the meaning to reflect that emotion's influence on its originally perceived meaning.

Its like a "bird", or "flower"
Is a bird a bird, because it is a named bird with said characteristics? A flower because it is a named and said character?
A symbol. :sick:
When we call some thing, something, is it something or some thing else, entirely?
:silly:
Our perception calls some thing something. Or something, some thing.
Our palm, our fist, do they neither exist, or is it what the hand does, and both exist at the same time?
How can we use our intelligence clearly and coherently through communication if the language is constantly changing?
Only if we are consciously in tune with the objective reality may we be aware of such energy to use our intelligence clearly and coherently. A flower would name itself, A bird would tell us what it is, instead of us naming it, labeling everything, anything, and nothing... Subjective.
Thinking if we govern word, we can govern nature... :laugh:

A word is only as real as you make/create it to believe it so...

Perhaps I have thought to much on the subject, and overshot the meaning of the message entirely.
A good talk, gave me some contemplation and perspective with the words I choose to use... And to use them wisely, sparingly...

Maxim #18 I think of...

There is some need for rigidity...

But the tree that is too rigid snaps in the wind...

And our bendy places vary per person...

As difficult as this may be for many to understand, language is a form of communication. Like I said before, adding words is fine. Keeps the language growing and more robust…
Getting rid of words that are no longer relevant, fine clean up the dead weight.

But changing the meaning of words because a few “special” have not figured out how to use the correctly… that’s a no go.

I don’t think that the English language is going to change so much so fast that we won’t be able to communicate with each other right now. That would be absurd. What I do think is that future generations may look back and have no idea what we mean in the documents we have left behind.

Which I think is one reason the Bible gets such a bad rap for accuracy. It has been translated from one language to the next over centuries. How can we be certain the original meaning? How can we be sure the stories passed down before they were written into text were accurately communicated? You can’t. All we can do is trust the scholars to be as correct as possible or learn the language and all the historical changes that have occurred and do the best job we can do.

Which is where a level of continuity comes into play. That is one reason spelling rules were even invented. Not more than two hundred years ago people were allowed to spell however they wanted. There were NO spelling rules. And no one knew what the hell anyone was saying. Spelling rules and dictionaries were created to quell the chaos.

Now we have “respected” scholars telling everyone to embrace the chaos and marvel in insanity… Perhaps she should have studied history and not just enough to site a few word references.

An example of what I’m talking about…

Try to read the Fairie Queen. It’s just a few hundred years old. I posted a part of it in the prose and poetry topic.

http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Jedi-Art/53666-poetry-prose?start=30#84464

Wescli wrote: That would be absurd. What I do think is that future generations may look back and have no idea what we mean in the documents we have left behind.

Like we dont talk like the generation before us?

Bee's Knees...

Cat's Meow...

And more: http://wwwinfoworld.com/50sslang.htm

But, just like that list, some of today's words will stick, and some will fade into obscurity...

I am going to call myself a "Changoliogist" (change-ologist) I just find it fun, and fascinating, lol....

Wescli also wrote: Now we have “respected” scholars telling everyone to embrace the chaos and marvel in insanity… Perhaps she should have studied history and not just enough to site a few word references.

Yes....

To resist change period is insanity, lol....

"Acceptance"....

Im not saying that we shouldnt have the rules, ...

But, like our recent friend Analyze... By not adhering to the social norms, he stuck out like a turd in a punchbowl... :laugh: And made trying to communicate with him very difficult... :pinch:

And, everyone was complaining, lol...

Slang will come and go. That is the language of a generation and each generation has its own heartbeat. That’s fine. I do not pretend to be up to date with the euphemism of any generation. :blink: :woohoo:

That is the change we should accept and embrace; slang. But altering our understanding of established and accepted norms because writers cannot take it upon themselves to create content in the correct context should not be okay. That is effectively what the public education system is doing by setting the standard to the lowest denominator.

That is also the issue with communication. I have first-hand experience where people believe they have a veritable verbal repertoire to color their sentence structure in a literary dance of words. What they demonstrate is that they have heard a bunch of words that they do not understand the proper use of.

How many times in our own forums have peopled argued over things because of a misunderstanding of meaning, the words used or inability to express themselves accurately or convey their meaning? Without the accepted standard as a backbone for communication we reduce ourselves to not much more than Neolithic man setting around in caves grunting at each other. (That was an admitted reductio ad absurdum)