Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by spuriousmonkey, Sep 15, 2006.
meh, i have her on ignore
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
eh? You talking to me?
Gandhi is a phonetic transcription into the Latin alphabet. It's gand-hi. Like budd-ha.
no, i was just trying to inject a bit of duendy into the thread
I actually have a thing going with the english language, and after I fooled around with her a bit she said we could go all the way, so, for me, fucking with the language is consentual. (and yes, I can spell it that way - by consent rather than by consensus = makes more sense.)
Doesn't language always change anyway? People listening to us 100 years ago would probably wonder why we are talking such appaling English!
English is a consensus language, not an Academy language like French and Spanish. The majority rules. Once technical terms like "online," slang like "humongous," irregular grammar like "dove," foreign words like "karma," and even trademarks like "aspirin" become widely used, the dictionaries have to include them or the lexicographers feel that they would be derelict in their duty.
The colloquial language we use today would probably not shock my great-great grandmother, who was probably around my age in 1906 if she was alive, any more than the street language of her own day did. "Ain't" for "isn't," "who" for "whom," "If I was" for "if I were"... we still argue over this "appalling" language even though it serves its purpose of communicating clearly.
She would probably be more bothered by the same thing that bothers me more, which is the sheer dumbing-down of the language in popular culture. Rappers in particular use woefully small vocabularies. A phenomenon derived from this that I notice as a linguist and a musician is that rappers have to speak or sing much more quickly than the rest of us, because it takes them more words to express themselves.
With its many one-syllable words and it's stripped-down grammar, the cadence of English is rather leisurely, like French and Chinese, compared to languages with complex inflections and polysyllabic words for common things like Spanish, Japanese and Russian. Compare the wordflow in a typical English song to a typical Spanish song--which mirrors the cadence of speech--and you'll realize why Spanish is so much harder for even an advanced student to actually understand. You have to be able to parse faster.
The cadence of rap lyrics, on the other hand, is almost as fast as Spanish. It's full of one-syllable words, but just the same ones over and over.
BTW, "consent" and "consensus" are derived from the same Latin root. It's just Latin grammar and phonetics that interchange the T and S depending on the surrounding phonemes. A consensus is merely the consent of a whole group.
"Group" and "consensus" just feel like words used to describe more than two people.
A group of two people in this context would better be described as a pair, or a couple, and a consensus between two people sounds better as an "agreement" - these are just my personal feelings for usage and are obviously not valid as rules.
Well okay. We have traces of the old Indo-European dual in our language--in the syntax and vocabulary if not the actual grammar. "Consensus" is not a word whose use is valid for only two people. Its primary meaning is not unanimity but near unanimity, a concept that doesn't mean anything if the choices are total agreement or complete disagreement. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Still, "consensual" is derived from "consent," not from "consensus." If we're going to keep using and coining Latin words in English the least we can do is use them right. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ah I see. Sorry. I just thought if you were talking to me I'd have to tell you off about calling me a young child Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
While I agree that "consensual" means by "consent", the american heritage dictionary does not agree. But then if we are speaking of legal terms, which we may or may not be speaking of, it does.
However, if the primary meaning of consensus is not unanimity but is "near unanimity", then applying it to two people is impossible because you must either have unanimity or no unanimity. You have to have a group of at least three people for "near unanimity" to have any valid meaning. Therefore, if we are to use the "main" definition of "consensus", anything that may be related to both "consensus" and "consent" as the american heritage points out "consensual" is , may be seen as slightly out of place when talking about two people.
Interesting, but of course, who cares, really?
EDIT - dikshunery.com sez that the word "consensual" in derived from the latin "consensus", perhaps you should admonish them, maybe you are right.
me like big words. hee!
Regarding the difference between native speakers and those to whom English is a second or third language --
Many foreigners learn English primarily in the written form, from texts, not from listening. Hence the focus on the spelling, and the relatively good spelling of foreigners in comparison to the native speakers.
See, as a foreigner who has learnt English primarily in the written form, I have troubles with such words -- because they don't *look* right to me, so I have to think again, to listen to them or recognize them otherwise.
Me like big big words. Like 'really'. Krug like really big words!
Then you should learn it the proper way.....recognise.
c'est la vie
Don't confuze the poor guy.
Hey. The word can be spelled recogniZe or recogniSe.
Unless you call your mom mum.
Separate names with a comma.