I get perplexed by words that have evolved from nouns to verbs.
While I sympathize with Calvin’s observation that “evening weirds language,” it’s hardly a new phenomenon; it seems to have been baked into English from the start. And I think if one is going to complain about it, then to be consistent one probably must forego buttering bread, lacing shoes, saddling horses, ringing church bells or circling grammatical errors.
I wonder if it's partly baked into modern English because of its generally isolating nature. Because we don't have declensions and conjugations, there's nothing in the form of a word to mark it as a verb or noun. Compare French. For a noun to become a verb in French there has to be a consensus in the speech community as to which class of verbs it belongs to - -er, -re or -ir which shows things down. In English it's easy - take the word, add es/s to 3rd singular present, add -ed for preterite, job done.
An aside. In my newspaper today, a review of the Windsor Horse Show tells us that the Queen "arrived in a Range Rover wearing a glittering cardie". One has to wonder how they got the sleeves to fit over the wheels.
An aside. In my newspaper today, a review of the Windsor Horse Show tells us that the Queen "arrived in a Range Rover wearing a glittering cardie". One has to wonder how they got the sleeves to fit over the wheels.
I visited a small café yesterday and was overcome with mirth at the large poster which advertised GRILLED KIDS MEALS. Mmmm tasty little kids!
I was reminded of a sign outside a butcher's shop which advertised BEEF MINCE, LAMB MINCE, PET MINCE. I wonder which pets would be minced up.
'Family Butcher' always has a faintly ominous ring.
And then there are the commonly met with oils - sunflower, olive and baby.
Back to sanity. Or perhaps not. Today I read, in a scientific book of all places, 'miniscule'.
Aagh!!!!!
Oh dear. Having been an science editor, this really hurts. Ho did this get through?
Aren't books edited and corrected these days?
Back to sanity. Or perhaps not. Today I read, in a scientific book of all places, 'miniscule'.
Aagh!!!!!
Oh dear. Having been an science editor, this really hurts. Ho did this get through?
Aren't books edited and corrected these days?
I gather that some dictionaries have picked up "miniscule" as a variant spelling.
I've always spelled it like that (and my spelling is usually very good)! I think it's natural, actually, since "mini" equates to "tiny" in popular parlance.
I've always spelled it like that (and my spelling is usually very good)! I think it's natural, actually, since "mini" equates to "tiny" in popular parlance.
Place your bets now on the first appearance
a) at all
b) in formal writing
I accept the use of 'miniscule' in non academic literature. But using it in formal writing you risk coming across as careless and or ignorant. Your scientific credentials might be questioned: "If you can't be bothered with looking up the meaning and spelling of this word how can I trust the rest of your paper on a subject I'm not expert in?".
Bill Bryson's book 'Bryson's Dictionary of Troublesome Words' is splendid and a sure guide here.
I accept the use of 'miniscule' in non academic literature. But using it in formal writing you risk coming across as careless and or ignorant. Your scientific credentials might be questioned:
Much of the academic literature I read is written by scientists for whom English is their second or third language. You can usually tell the origins of the primary author by the way that they get the use of definite and indefinite articles wrong, or their choice of very slightly not idiomatic language.
If the worst "English language error" that they made in a paper was to write 'miniscule' in place of 'minuscule', then they'd be well above average - and neither their vowel choice in this word, nor whether they understand idiomatic English perfectly, would persuade me that their scientific credentials might be lacking.
Usage commentators generally consider the miniscule spelling an error, but it is widely used in reputable and carefully edited publications and is accepted as a legitimate variant in some dictionaries.
Of course, -culus is a Latin diminuitive suffix.
Interesting to note, isn't it, that some folks who tolerate split infinitives, objective case used with the verb "to be", prepositions at the end of phrases, and the like, on the basis that they are Latin grammatical usage, not English, are the same folks who insist that strict Latin etymology govern English spelling.
Shakespeare is credited with inventing several hundred words. A lot of them are verbs he used as nouns or vice versa, as in "the hearts that spanielled me at heels".
Usage commentators generally consider the miniscule spelling an error, but it is widely used in reputable and carefully edited publications and is accepted as a legitimate variant in some dictionaries.
Of course, -culus is a Latin diminuitive suffix.
Interesting to note, isn't it, that some folks who tolerate split infinitives, objective case used with the verb "to be", prepositions at the end of phrases, and the like, on the basis that they are Latin grammatical usage, not English, are the same folks who insist that strict Latin etymology govern English spelling.
I haven't noticed that. Quite the opposite.
We don't merely tolerate the things you decry there. Me and other descriptivists prefer to joyously revel in them as part of the language we were brought up in. That's just me of course. (Wonders how many more "rules" he can break while still using perfectly idiomatic English before the editing time finishes)
I still think any editor worth his (or her) salt should (for the reasons I gave have picked up on 'minscule'. It's their job
On a diferent note, Mrs RR received a lovely cushion from the grandrockies. In large letters it stated (and those of a nervous disposition should look away now), "Grandma's like you are special" [sic]
Now this was bought, not hand made. Presumably this product had been designed, discussed,approved by the boss, machinery for printing set up. Made, packed, distributed. And no one, bobody, picked up on the error.
I was there when the gift was opened. "grandma", said the middle GR, why has Grandad turned all red?".
Yes, I know all the arguments about prescription vs description, and I myself am very much for 'description' in dictionaries.
But really, this is an illiteracy beyond the pale up with which I find it hard to put.
KarlB,
pedants escew split infinitives because they are NOT allowed in Latin.
But as you so rightly point out, we speak English.
The funny thing is, many linguists consider that the infinitive in English is identical with the stem; if you take that view then the infinitive is not split by 'to boldly go' type constructions, as the infinitive is 'go', not 'to go'. In this view, 'to' is an isolated preposition which has become attached to, and reanalysed as part of, the infinitive because of its requirement by some verbs, although it isn't required by others. Hence "I like to drink", but "I can drink" (not *"I can to drink"). In both cases, "(to) drink" is in an infinitive state inasmuch as it is tenseless, personless and aspectless, all of those pieces of information being carried by and marked on the auxiliary verb.
KarlB,
pedants escew split infinitives because they are NOT allowed in Latin.
But as you so rightly point out, we speak English.
The funny thing is, many linguists consider that the infinitive in English is identical with the stem; if you take that view then the infinitive is not split by 'to boldly go' type constructions, as the infinitive is 'go', not 'to go'. In this view, 'to' is an isolated preposition which has become attached to, and reanalysed as part of, the infinitive because of its requirement by some verbs, although it isn't required by others. Hence "I like to drink", but "I can drink" (not *"I can to drink"). In both cases, "(to) drink" is in an infinitive state inasmuch as it is tenseless, personless and aspectless, all of those pieces of information being carried by and marked on the auxiliary verb.
Say not "preposition" but "particle" and I can go there. But it's not acting as a preposition because it's not attached to a noun.
Am somewhat bemused by all this. I am usually fussy about spelling - I was always top of the class in primary school, far back in another century - but have to wonder about miniscule/minuscule. It seems to me that the mini version was commonplace until quite recently. Another of the kind is artifact/artefact. 'Artifact' had always been familiar, as also found in artifice/artificial/artificer, but now is rarely seen. If you have a bad reaction to this, I hope you don't experience an artichoke.
Place your bets now on the first appearance
a) at all
b) in formal writing
of the antonym 'maxiscule'.
What's wrong with majuscule?
It may seem to break the -culus = diminutive rule, but letters in a manuscript written in majuscule may still be diminutive.
There's nothing at all wrong with majuscule - it's a perfectly good word that probably none of the people who habitually write miniscule have heard of.
And there's nothing wrong with the -ulus diminutive applied to maior either.
Me and other descriptivists prefer to joyously revel in them as part of the language we were brought up in.
If you're joyously revelling in them you're not a descriptivist. You're a prescriptivist in the opposite direction.
Only if I was insisting other people use them.
A prescriptivist who just silently tuts at people who use language in a way that they don't is still a prescriptivist.
The use of language in a received register to signal superior status, including metalinguistic strictures about correctness, is just as much a part of the rich play that descriptivists describe as every other use.
Me and other descriptivists prefer to joyously revel in them as part of the language we were brought up in.
If you're joyously revelling in them you're not a descriptivist. You're a prescriptivist in the opposite direction.
Only if I was insisting other people use them.
A prescriptivist who just silently tuts at people who use language in a way that they don't is still a prescriptivist.
The use of language in a received register to signal superior status, including metalinguistic strictures about correctness, is just as much a part of the rich play that descriptivists describe as every other use.
Can I not enjoy something without clucking my tongue at those who don't? This says more about you than KarlLB.
Besides, majuscule is a perfectly good French word, meaning "uppercase", and, predictably, minuscule means lowercase......
My pet peeve is the now common practice of leaving out "of" after "couple", so somebody writes "I went to Toronto a couple weeks ago". Is this just a North American custom?
Besides, majuscule is a perfectly good French word, meaning "uppercase", and, predictably, minuscule means lowercase......
My pet peeve is the now common practice of leaving out "of" after "couple", so somebody writes "I went to Toronto a couple weeks ago". Is this just a North American custom?
I'm sure you can get a couple of thousand people to agree with you.
Me and other descriptivists prefer to joyously revel in them as part of the language we were brought up in.
If you're joyously revelling in them you're not a descriptivist. You're a prescriptivist in the opposite direction.
Only if I was insisting other people use them.
A prescriptivist who just silently tuts at people who use language in a way that they don't is still a prescriptivist.
The use of language in a received register to signal superior status, including metalinguistic strictures about correctness, is just as much a part of the rich play that descriptivists describe as every other use.
The only tutting I do, silent or otherwise, is at people mistakingly thinking non-prestige registers are wrong. Where required, I use those prestige registers myself.
Can I not enjoy something without clucking my tongue at those who don't? This says more about you than KarlLB.
Maybe. But if I say that the art that I like is art that scandalises the bourgeois it's something of a coincidence if my disapproval of bourgeois morality or aesthetics isn't part of my enjoyment.
My pet peeve is the now common practice of leaving out "of" after "couple", so somebody writes "I went to Toronto a couple weeks ago". Is this just a North American custom?
I think this may be a result of usage following pronunciation:
couple of weeks —> couple o’ weeks —> coupla weeks —> couple weeks.
“Could of” and “would of” happen the same way, by hearing (and misunderstanding) the common pronunciations “could’ve” and “would’ve.”
I find it delightful that some posts on this thread are stellar examples of Muphry's [sic] Law: "Any writing which criticizes the spelling or grammar of others will itself contain errors of spelling or grammar." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law
Can I not enjoy something without clucking my tongue at those who don't? This says more about you than KarlLB.
Maybe. But if I say that the art that I like is art that scandalises the bourgeois it's something of a coincidence if my disapproval of bourgeois morality or aesthetics isn't part of my enjoyment.
I find it delightful that some posts on this thread are stellar examples of Muphry's [sic] Law: "Any writing which criticizes the spelling or grammar of others will itself contain errors of spelling or grammar." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law
Of course. But different ones to those we are referring to!
Indeed. And "different from," as we say over here. We seldom if ever hear "different to" except from our British friends. However, we hear "different than" all too often.
Comments
In the evening, cocktailing a bit, my language gets weirded.
It's years since I last read that, but may dig it out. Probably well and truly out-of-date by now.
'Family Butcher' always has a faintly ominous ring.
And then there are the commonly met with oils - sunflower, olive and baby.
Aagh!!!!!
Oh dear. Having been an science editor, this really hurts. Ho did this get through?
Aren't books edited and corrected these days?
I gather that some dictionaries have picked up "miniscule" as a variant spelling.
See here, for example.
Place your bets now on the first appearance
a) at all
b) in formal writing
of the antonym 'maxiscule'.
Bill Bryson's book 'Bryson's Dictionary of Troublesome Words' is splendid and a sure guide here.
Much of the academic literature I read is written by scientists for whom English is their second or third language. You can usually tell the origins of the primary author by the way that they get the use of definite and indefinite articles wrong, or their choice of very slightly not idiomatic language.
If the worst "English language error" that they made in a paper was to write 'miniscule' in place of 'minuscule', then they'd be well above average - and neither their vowel choice in this word, nor whether they understand idiomatic English perfectly, would persuade me that their scientific credentials might be lacking.
Of course, -culus is a Latin diminuitive suffix.
Interesting to note, isn't it, that some folks who tolerate split infinitives, objective case used with the verb "to be", prepositions at the end of phrases, and the like, on the basis that they are Latin grammatical usage, not English, are the same folks who insist that strict Latin etymology govern English spelling.
I haven't noticed that. Quite the opposite.
We don't merely tolerate the things you decry there. Me and other descriptivists prefer to joyously revel in them as part of the language we were brought up in. That's just me of course. (Wonders how many more "rules" he can break while still using perfectly idiomatic English before the editing time finishes)
On a diferent note, Mrs RR received a lovely cushion from the grandrockies. In large letters it stated (and those of a nervous disposition should look away now), "Grandma's like you are special" [sic]
Now this was bought, not hand made. Presumably this product had been designed, discussed,approved by the boss, machinery for printing set up. Made, packed, distributed. And no one, bobody, picked up on the error.
I was there when the gift was opened. "grandma", said the middle GR, why has Grandad turned all red?".
Yes, I know all the arguments about prescription vs description, and I myself am very much for 'description' in dictionaries.
But really, this is an illiteracy beyond the pale up with which I find it hard to put.
And Grandma was like "How was your day, dear?" and I was like "Nobody likes me" and Grandma's like "you are special!".
pedants escew split infinitives because they are NOT allowed in Latin.
But as you so rightly point out, we speak English.
And I think the word you’re looking for is eschew.
The funny thing is, many linguists consider that the infinitive in English is identical with the stem; if you take that view then the infinitive is not split by 'to boldly go' type constructions, as the infinitive is 'go', not 'to go'. In this view, 'to' is an isolated preposition which has become attached to, and reanalysed as part of, the infinitive because of its requirement by some verbs, although it isn't required by others. Hence "I like to drink", but "I can drink" (not *"I can to drink"). In both cases, "(to) drink" is in an infinitive state inasmuch as it is tenseless, personless and aspectless, all of those pieces of information being carried by and marked on the auxiliary verb.
Say not "preposition" but "particle" and I can go there. But it's not acting as a preposition because it's not attached to a noun.
What's wrong with majuscule?
It may seem to break the -culus = diminutive rule, but letters in a manuscript written in majuscule may still be diminutive.
Only if I was insisting other people use them.
There's nothing at all wrong with majuscule - it's a perfectly good word that probably none of the people who habitually write miniscule have heard of.
And there's nothing wrong with the -ulus diminutive applied to maior either.
It's not massive - it's just a bit big.
Or worse still an artitack!
The use of language in a received register to signal superior status, including metalinguistic strictures about correctness, is just as much a part of the rich play that descriptivists describe as every other use.
Can I not enjoy something without clucking my tongue at those who don't? This says more about you than KarlLB.
My pet peeve is the now common practice of leaving out "of" after "couple", so somebody writes "I went to Toronto a couple weeks ago". Is this just a North American custom?
I'm sure you can get a couple of thousand people to agree with you.
The only tutting I do, silent or otherwise, is at people mistakingly thinking non-prestige registers are wrong. Where required, I use those prestige registers myself.
(This tangent really belongs in Purgatory.)
couple of weeks —> couple o’ weeks —> coupla weeks —> couple weeks.
“Could of” and “would of” happen the same way, by hearing (and misunderstanding) the common pronunciations “could’ve” and “would’ve.”
Wow. You're really overthinking this.
Of course. But different ones to those we are referring to!
Or should that be, 'to those we are referring?'