What is "Smart"

[Solistra]

The thing of it is, why should a handful of men, largely in oxford england, dictate the meaning of every single word we use? This has irked me ever since I really started thinking how limiting that is.

Dictionaries do not define words. The people who speak the language define words and how they are used -- all the dictionary does is keep track of the general consensus of the meanings we have supplied ourselves, so there's really no point in being irked about it. If you're going to be bothered by anything, be annoyed at the fact that people keep using stupid words like "orientate."

 

[Taien]

Dictionaries do not define words. The people who speak the language define words and how they are used -- all the dictionary does is keep track of the general consensus of the meanings we have supplied ourselves, so there's really no point in being irked about it. If you're going to be bothered by anything, be annoyed at the fact that people keep using stupid words like "orientate."

Very little bothers me beyond getting an irking (making up my own word in rebellion) , but actually we are both saying the same thing.

There is some give and take granted but all words are approved first before they are added. Everything is filtered and language decided by the people writing the dictionaries, which is done in one country for the English language, and it won't be most of your cultural capitals. It is what is then taught in schools and put into the language so the cycle then repeats. If I was educated into a certain word syntax being incorrect and what a 'word' is supposed to contain, then I will repeat that training when I come to decide what a word is. - This is just logical.

Certainly popular phrases sometimes break out of the mold, and certainly some structure is useful. Though I feel it's far too restricted on the structure side, as to how language, and indeed thus culture develops and much of communication is done. Communication is based largely on language, and culture is based largely on communication.

However in the interest of not taking this any further off topic, we'd need our own thread for that discussion and it'd probably stray into areas the forum doesn't cover.

 

[Solistra]

I don't think we're saying the same thing at all. The extent of deciding whether or not a word is added to the dictionary comes from its general usage by the population before anything else -- neologisms don't make it in, but previously undefined words which are observed in common usage amongst a substantial number of people are eventually recorded and defined based on how they are used. If you think they're selectively deciding which words are considered an "official" part of the English language, I'd greatly question their sanity for approving "hoover" as a verb derived from "Hoover" with the meaning "to vacuum." Likewise with "google."


Really, though, this conversation is much more interesting to me than the rest of this topic. I'll take it to PMs to keep the topic from going completely off-track (even though I'd prefer it if it did).

 

[Tsukihime]

Certainly popular phrases sometimes break out of the mold, and certainly some structure is useful. Though I feel it's far too restricted on the structure side, as to how language, and indeed thus culture develops and much of communication is done. Communication is based largely on language, and culture is based largely on communication.

I treat natural language the same way I treat programming language: if you do not specify that you are defining your own local definitions of certain terms, I will revert to definitions defined in some dictionary under the assumption that we all agree to use the dictionary as the basis of communication.


If people like to use their own words/phrases and their own definitions for these words/phrases, they need to first realize that most people tend to default to the dictionary if they have seen the word before. And if they haven't seen the word before, they may just default to the dictionary as well.


Regardless whether these words are defined by a group of people or a community or whomever.


Maybe in certain communities, there are certain phrases that they use and all agree on their usage, and as an outsider I may not be familiar with them, but the same rules apply: if they don't clarify that they have their own agreed usages, I will just default to the dictionary.


Unfortunately, some people don't like to clarify that they've got their own definitions and even get all defensive and start verbally attacking you.

 

[Taien]

I don't think we're saying the same thing at all. The extent of deciding whether or not a word is added to the dictionary comes from its general usage by the population before anything else -- neologisms don't make it in, but previously undefined words which are observed in common usage amongst a substantial number of people are eventually recorded and defined based on how they are used. If you think they're selectively deciding which words are considered an "official" part of the English language, I'd greatly question their sanity for approving "hoover" as a verb derived from "Hoover" with the meaning "to vacuum." Likewise with "google."

Really, though, this conversation is much more interesting to me than the rest of this topic. I'll take it to PMs to keep the topic from going completely off-track (even though I'd prefer it if it did).

Can't stray into too many areas here. I will respond to your PM instead. I'll be general instead in my analogy, and make this my last post.

Child is taught A. Child grows up using A. Child is asked to judge not B but %42¬124 - this isn't something the child can understand because its nothing like the education the child's had, and has no hope whatsoever of being usable to them in their daily life.

See its the judgment itself of a small group of people that is the flawed approach. If it truly were as open as you were surmising we'd have all kinds of helpful and unhelpful terms in the language (helpful or unhelpful according to my limited judgment).

10101 - Binary would be in the dictionary if it were truly based on usability, as that is in use all over the world, all the time. You may response with well that isn't a word <---- this is exactly my point. It could be a word tomorrow, with a click of your fingers, but only if the person reading the submission gives it a thumbs up.

I treat natural language the same way I treat programming language: if you do not specify that you are defining your own local definitions of certain terms, I will revert to definitions defined in some dictionary under the assumption that we all agree to use the dictionary as the basis of communication.

If people like to use their own words/phrases and their own definitions for these words/phrases, they need to first realize that most people tend to default to the dictionary if they have seen the word before. And if they haven't seen the word before, they may just default to the dictionary as well.

Regardless whether these words are defined by a group of people or a community or whomever.

Maybe in certain communities, there are certain phrases that they use and all agree on their usage, and as an outsider I may not be familiar with them, but the same rules apply: if they don't clarify that they have their own agreed usages, I will just default to the dictionary.

Unfortunately, some people don't like to clarify that they've got their own definitions and even get all defensive and start verbally attacking you.

Most people being who? Not those in my social spheres. Most people you know and interact with, sure. Perhaps the next person has the same experience, but equally as many people have never even picked up a dictionary in their life outside of school i'd wager. (If they were even lucky enough in many countries to have one)

There is an absurd amount of slang that is not in the dictionary. Not just certain communities in the UK, in almost all major cities and areas there is a wealth of words in circulation, that the average educated person has no hope of understanding unless its explained to them.

-edit

I would add you hit the nail on the head - but the reason for the hostility is, the reliance on a limited central source for structuring what is and what isn't language.

To end I advise everyone have a read of 

One Language - Source of All Tongues

By Arnold D Wadler.

Outstanding book that will show you what language used to be and the potential it had,

http://www.amazon.co.uk/One-Language-Source-All-Tongues/dp/1584200464

 

[Tsukihime]

Yes, as I have been educated in an academic environment where we are encouraged to look up a dictionary if we're unfamiliar with a term (or a textbook if we are unfamiliar with a concept for that matter), my views on language is likely very narrow.

 

[Taien]

Yes, as I have been educated in an academic environment where we are encouraged to look up a dictionary if we're unfamiliar with a term (or a textbook if we are unfamiliar with a concept for that matter), my views on language is likely very narrow.

You are a well educated individual, whom's scripts I find invaluable . Its not that your views are narrow - any single person or small group of people have narrow views when contrasted to the entire english speaking world. - I wanted to add that because your work and intelligence has been of extreme value to me personally and I wanted to thank you for it.

 

[Tsukihime]

I think in general, most people can accept that words are simply labels that are assigned to specific ideas that allow us to convey our thoughts without having to spend 3 hours explaining every single word that we're trying to use.


In that sense, I believe having a central, possibly restrictive source of language and structure is more efficient than otherwise, even at the cost of developing intangible things like community or culture.


At least, I often make up labels for various terms when I am scripting for RM.


But I guess even within the RM community, we can see that certain terms are commonly used over others and only really make sense within the scope of RM.

 

[Chrome]

Body language and tone makes up over 90% of communication. Thats why in the forums is very easy to misread a post if the writer write the way he talks. I use the words "bad" and "nasty" to replace words like "good" "cool" and "awesome" etc. Funny how the words are complete opposites. But I never had a person not understand what I meant regardless of what kind of person they are. 

 

[IncredibleJourney]

 

[zacheatscrackers]

I think we all know one thing for sure;

Life is like a box a' choc-o-letz.