Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> But it raises a question. Do words evolve by mistake, or do they evolve because we need to say something and we don't have the right word for it?

Mostly the former, from what I can tell. People hear a “fancy” word, misunderstand it based on limited context, begin to use it where a less-fancy word would do (for whatever reason), and before long one cannot use the word in the original sense without being misunderstood by most audiences.

This typically results in reduced space for expression, as a distinct word with its own shades of meaning is turned into just “fancy [other word or phrase]”.



This is what militant descriptivists (and some prescriptivists) miss.

"Correct" and "incorrect" language is not the importsmant distinction.

What's important is whether a novelty of language increases or decreases expressive power. New words are better than corrupting old words, unles the old meaning is so low importance that it doesn't deserve to keep its place in the "Huffman" encoding of the language (which is, high frequency words/structures should be smaller).


Except nonplussed isn't a fancy word with pedigree, it's something that you would assume originated in 1984 as one of the words in the simplified language for proles.


It looks and sounds vaguely French-derived (even if it isn’t) but doesn’t end in -ment. That puts it in the “fancy” category for a lot of folks.


Why do you say that?


Not the GP, but imagine it has to do with "Newspeak" using the prefixes "plus" and "doubleplus" for emphasis. Nonplussed may have had a similar ring to "plusungood".


Actually, the proles in 1984 used normal English (as we read in the scene where Winston goes drinking in the proletarian sector and chats with the old man about life before Ingsoc). Newspeak was for the Party members.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: