Re: Use v. utilize (was Re: Simple Verbiage Question)

["Higgins, Lisa" <LHiggins -at- CARRIERACCESS -dot- COM>]

> All depends on the reader's background, of course.  It's possible
> that a reader of MW's example wouldn't know that it's not
> traditional to use a bucket as a planter -- but would a reader
> who didn't know that be likely to have the kind of background
> that would make him or her attuned to that subtle distinction
> between "used" and "utilized"?

Distinctions are worth preserving just for the heck of it. Sure, they'll be
lost on some, but semantic distinctions are worth preserving simply because
they aren't lost on everyone. The way I see it, descriptive grammar and
prescriptive semantics are *additive*. They add shades of meaning that would
not exist otherwise. Prescriptive grammar and descriptive semantics are
reductive. They take valid usages and valid words to the language away. That
is bad.

And I wouldn't be surprised if readers of M-W didn't know that it's not
traditional to use a bucket as a hat.

> (I'm not trolling, here; just asking.)

Here's a perfect example of the reductive nature of 'descriptive' semantics.
REAL trolling is just good old Socratic irony. The common use of 'troll'
these days means the same thing people think 'irony' means. That is, 'Uh.
Mek me engry. Rrr. Baaaaaad.'

Descriptive semantics has all but destroyed the cruel beauty of both irony
AND trolling. Uh. Mek me engry. Rrr. Baaaaaad.

Lisa.

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=