Re: passives, etc.

Subject: Re: passives, etc.
From: Kelly Hoffman <kelly -at- NASHUA -dot- HP -dot- COM>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 12:44:03 EST

Michael Spooner <MSPOONER -at- CC -dot- USU -dot- EDU> wrote:

> It is simply dumb, I think, to go to the wall "defending"
> the language against variations like "impact" or "interface" used as verbs,
> neologisms like "prioritize," and so forth. This stuff happens because people
> are creative; maybe language itself is creative.

While I don't disagree that sometimes "this stuff happens because people
are creative," I think that the vast majority of changes are attributable
to laziness and ignorance. But perhaps I'm feeling more cynical than
usual today :-).

Michael also wrote:

> Personally, I'd be loathe to lose the passive--or any other linguistic
> nuance--for fear I might need it later, maybe to cover my tracks.

I'm loathe to lose the distinction between pairs like "uninterested"/
"disinterested" and "anxious"/"eager" for similar reasons.

Kelly K. Hoffman kelly -at- nashua -dot- hp -dot- com
Learning Products Engineer
Hewlett-Packard, Network Test Division "Reading the manual is
One Tara Blvd., Nashua, NH USA 03062 admitting defeat."

Previous by Author: Markety Markety
Next by Author: Re: While we're on the topic of words . . .
Previous by Thread: passives, etc.
Next by Thread: Re: passives, etc.

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads