The @ sign - my symbolic resistance

By guest explorer: Fred Shivvin

Language is dynamic and constantly changing, that is what makes it powerful.

 

But when our language changes - the word meaning, the punctuation, grammar, usage rules, spelling, and more - we often don't like it. Many of us resist many of these changes, and some sticklers never give in.

But for most of us, slowly, gradually, insidiously, the unwelcome changes slip into how we talk and write. The shift happens without our awareness, until one day we find ourselves using the word form, sentence structure, punctuation, etc., that we had resisted in the past.

We don't often recognise our shift to acceptance, we don't remember how long we resisted, we don't often even notice we've stopped fighting language change. And if we do, we might shrug an acknowledgment, and then get on with life and language.

But there's one change I resisted for exactly 27 years and 9 months. Until last week, to be precise.

Tenniser - a summer research project

By guest explorer: Fred Shivvin

It's summer. Holidays at the beach: hassled driving, then relaxed dining, drinking, reading, sleeping, swimming, watching the cricket and playing it on the beach. (Or, for some, fighting bush fires).

The holiday beach game. Source

When you do any of these you become: a (hassled) driver, diner, drinker, reader, sleeper, swimmer, watcher (or viewer), player and cricketer. ''I'll be the bowler first. You go fielder, Fred.' (Or, for some, a fire-fighter).

I'm also watching and playing that other summer sport - tennis. And it occurs to me: why is there no word tenniser?

Rules in English almost always have exceptions. But the word tenniser doesn't break any English rules or conventions, so why don't we use it?

Over my summer holiday, I decided to find out why.

Better - according to my circle

By guest explorer: Fred Shivvin

The series about the adjective Equal made me think about circular logic. 

I pointed out the argument used by those who set out to oppress others that they are somehow ‘better’ than them, and this justifies both their oppressive actions and their continued status as oppressors.

  

Circular logic (or circular reasoning) is used by people in ‘arguments’ to justify something they believe. 

The 'argument' starts with a point (the premise) that the person assumes is true: in this case 'I am better (superior) than you'. It assumes you already agree that this premise is true, and then no new information is provided to support that premise. You can tell it's circular logic because you can start at either word 'I' in the image and read what seems like a justification. But it's just a circle.

Some circular logic can even sound convincing, but it only convinces people who already agree with the assumed premise. For the rest of us who don’t accept the premise to start with, the argument gives us no reason to change our thinking. 

I don't happen to agree with the premise that any people are 'better' than others, so I don't agree this is the reason that some people dominate others. 

It's not logic at all. It’s a self-reinforcing circle of belief. 

This is why circular 'logic' features so often in 'arguments' about religion.

Circles of justification are extremely common. Spotting a circular argument gives me a sense of accomplishment. They are also sometimes quite alarming. 

Alternate - a small grief

Source: Know your meme

By guest explorer: Fred Shivvin

Have you ever corrected someone's dreadful grammar, fixed their awful punctuation, or pointed out that they used the wrong word?

I get it - those errors can be very irritating. They distract from the meaning. And certain errors are particularly 'triggering' for some of us. A whole online army seem fully occupied waging war against you're errors.

But have you ever considered that in your battle against errors, you might be fighting against the natural process of language change?

I'm starting to think I might be doing just that when I react to one of my 'trigger' words errors - alternate, the adjective form. I consider it an error to use alternate when the meaning is alternative.

I frequently notice alternate used wrongly in both formal and informal contexts, and I always correct it (at least to myself!) However, deep in my word nerd heart, I am starting to feel I might have to accept the word alternate is just changing its meaning, like so many have before.

But I'm not ready to accept it just yet.

Gruntled - dichotomy humour

Snipped from the socials

By guest explorer: Fred Shivvin

A meme on social media about gruntled being the long-lost opposite of disgrunted caused me to stop scrolling. Haha emoji.

But really? I googled for a while. Heaps of hits resulted - even t-shirts and gruntled websites. The re-discovery of this word seems to have made a lot of people gruntled and amused.

Part of the humour lies in the way the unearthing of gruntled seemed to right a wrong, an unknown sense of something lacking, providing something that should have been there but was not.

Where had the opposite of disgruntled been all this time?