NationStates Jolt Archive

What the hell is wrong with "Preventive", anyway?

And while I'm at it, when did "Utilize" become more useful than "Use"?

Is this just the entropy of language as it heads towards it's maximum disorder?

Damn, my spelling checker likes all those words.

You should be grateful/thankful.
The more words you have, the more likely you are to express particular thoughts in your head to others.

It's like Newspeak in 1984 - if you kill enough words, concepts, whole ways of thinking can potentially be destroyed.

You should be grateful/thankful.
The more words you have, the more likely you are to express particular thoughts in your head to others.

It's like Newspeak in 1984 - if you kill enough words, concepts, whole ways of thinking can potentially be destroyed.
Okay, what's the difference between preventative and preventive, or utilize and use, for that matter?

How does making up a new word that exactly describes the same thing as an existing work make expression any more clear?

Does the use of preventative make it more clear that I'm a pompous windbag, where the use of preventive makes it more clear that I'm interested in clarity and brevity?

I think George Carlin has already addressed language abuse, specifically use of the prefix "pre-" and "situation".

How does making up a new word that exactly describes the same thing as an existing work make expression any more clear?
Well I would assume that they do convey something different (and even if it only is your windbaggyness), otherwise no one would bother using them.

And I find it difficult enough to properly translate things from German to English. I'm not a linguist, but I suspect English has a lot fewer words (or modifications that more accurately reflect your state of mind)

I think George Carlin has already addressed language abuse, specifically use of the prefix "pre-" and "situation".
I wish you'd said William Safire. Carlin is funny, but that doesn't make him a linguist.

Utilize, like mosturize, are frowned upon by style manuals; specifically Strunk and White.

Okay, what's the difference between preventative and preventive, or utilize and use, for that matter?

How does making up a new word that exactly describes the same thing as an existing work make expression any more clear?

Does the use of preventative make it more clear that I'm a pompous windbag, where the use of preventive makes it more clear that I'm interested in clarity and brevity?

Oh, dear, I think you're under the impression that the English language makes sense. I assure you, it does not.

On the other hand, I revel in that it has such a duplicated vocabulary. It can make jeux de mots so much more facile for me to construct, enhance my schadenfreude at those it consternates, not to mention offer me a method in which to avoid reiterating myself in the most languid fashion.

Well I would assume that they do convey something different (and even if it only is your windbaggyness), otherwise no one would bother using them.

And I find it difficult enough to properly translate things from German to English. I'm not a linguist, but I suspect English has a lot fewer words (or modifications that more accurately reflect your state of mind)
In good faith with the English language, one would assume there is some nuance that separates the two words. That nuance seems to be their placement on the page in a dictionary.
From the online Websters:

One entry found for preventative.
Main Entry: pre·ven·ta·tive
Pronunciation: -'ven-t&-tiv
Function: adjective or noun
: PREVENTIVE

The Orvis tent sale is in town and I need some new fishing gear. See you all later.

Someone knows the answer to this -- there are enough of you twentysomethings out there that live for trivia to know the etymology of "preventative".

Oh, dear, I think you're under the impression that the English language makes sense. I assure you, it does not.

On the other hand, I revel in that it has such a duplicated vocabulary. It can make jeux de mots so much more facile for me to construct, enhance my schadenfreude at those it consternates, not to mention offer me a method in which to avoid reiterating myself in what would be a most languid fashion.
*Chuckling* So you belong to the windbag school of the English language, huh?

...enhance my schadenfreude at those it consternates...
Strange that the English didn't have a word for that...or for Zeitgeist for that matter.

Oh, dear, I think you're under the impression that the English language makes sense. I assure you, it does not.

On the other hand, I revel in that it has such a duplicated vocabulary. It can make jeux de mots so much more facile for me to construct, enhance my schadenfreude at those it consternates, not to mention offer me a method in which to avoid reiterating myself in the most languid fashion.

:D Good on you, I just about pissed myself with that one! :D

In Aus you'd be called a wanker, but in the best possible way.

*Chuckling* So you belong to the windbag school of the English language, huh?

Swedish has an expression for this: "ordbög." It means "word fag" and describes those who like words. I like words.

Interestingly, Swedish does this with other interests, for instance "prylbög," meaning "gadget fag" for someone who likes gadgets and so on. That was your complimentary Swedish lesson if you tire of English some day and contemplate changing to some other language.

Swedish has an expression for this: "ordbög." It means "word fag" and describes those who like words. I like words.

Interestingly, Swedish does this with other interests, for instance "prylbög," meaning "gadget fag" for someone who likes gadgets and so on. That was your complimentary Swedish lesson if you tire of English some day and contemplate changing to some other language.

I'm curious, does it actually mean fag (ie homosexual) in Swedish, or is that your translation into English? Is it used as a derogatory term, or just a description? I think the closest word in English would be "pedant", but I don't think it's exactly the same.

I'm curious, does it actually mean fag (ie homosexual) in Swedish, or is that your translation into English? Is it used as a derogatory term, or just a description? I think the closest word in English would be "pedant", but I don't think it's exactly the same.
It's a direct translation, and ''bög'' is a derogatory term for male homosexuals.

I'm curious, does it actually mean fag (ie homosexual) in Swedish, or is that your translation into English? Is it used as a derogatory term, or just a description? I think the closest word in English would be "pedant", but I don't think it's exactly the same.

It's just a translation. "Bög" is used by gay men to refer to themselves, so, no, it's not derogatory, and is used in print and broadcast media when talking about gay men...

It's a direct translation, and ''bög'' is a derogatory term for male homosexuals.

... which does not mean it can't be used in a derogatory fashion, usually by homophobes. But the word in itself is not derogatory and is usually used just as "gay man" is used in English and it is equally inoffensive. So, Relative Liberty, you are mistaken. Apart from school yards and right-wing extremist circles, the word is not derogatory.

If it is used by the majority as derogatory term, then it is. I can agree with that it can be used in a civil manor, but I think that it is main use is as a pejorative noun.

Oh, dear, I think you're under the impression that the English language makes sense. I assure you, it does not.

On the other hand, I revel in that it has such a duplicated vocabulary. It can make jeux de mots so much more facile for me to construct, enhance my schadenfreude at those it consternates, not to mention offer me a method in which to avoid reiterating myself in the most languid fashion.

applauds!

Oh, dear, I think you're under the impression that the English language makes sense. I assure you, it does not.

On the other hand, I revel in that it has such a duplicated vocabulary. It can make jeux de mots so much more facile for me to construct, enhance my schadenfreude at those it consternates, not to mention offer me a method in which to avoid reiterating myself in the most languid fashion.

How dismally predictable that a foreigner should have a greater command of the English language than myself. *shoots himself ensuring shrapnel hits "submit reply" button*

By the way, Fass, thanks for the tome on purpura. I was able to ask some intelligent questions and get some good answers. Turns out the blood tests were all normal -- if I only had test results that normal. So we're still trying to figure it out. Another day, another doctor.

Strange that the English didn't have a word for that[schadenfreude]...or for Zeitgeist for that matter.
It does. They are "Schadenfreude" and "Zeitgeist".
How much English has been borrowed from other languages, or vice-versa?

It does. They are "Schadenfreude" and "Zeitgeist".
How much English has been borrowed from other languages, or vice-versa?
Almost everything. English is a Frankenstein language (and what we don't copy we make up by twisting usages, like using "Frankenstein" as an adjective). Months ago I read an article in Newsweek about how this improvisational habit of English is spreading globally along the use of English as an international language, so that people are freely mixing their own language with ours, or using English words but with their native grammar, or even just speaking their own language but with an American or British accent. Somehow, it seems to be working -- at least, stuff is getting done -- but it's creating a trend in which it's getting hard to define what is English and what isn't. If I can find the article, I'll post a link, but it was a long time ago. It may be lost in the magazine's morgue.

Almost everything. English is a Frankenstein language (and what we don't copy we make up by twisting usages, like using "Frankenstein" as an adjective). Months ago I read an article in Newsweek about how this improvisational habit of English is spreading globally along the use of English as an international language<snip>
Found it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7038031/site/newsweek/

I think that the main reason for different words with no nuances is so that a hack slogan writer can say:
"Weed should be utilized, not criminalized!"

And how is "ordbög" pronounced? My usless vocabulary needs to corpulate further, and I think that branching out into another languages idioms is probably the best methodology to pursue.

Strange that the English didn't have a word for that...or for Zeitgeist for that matter.
Why make up a word when you can steal one?

If it is used by the majority as derogatory term, then it is. I can agree with that it can be used in a civil manor, but I think that it is main use is as a pejorative noun.

But that's it - it's not used by a majority as a pejorative noun.

There's an answer to my question, much to my surprise. It was on a fun sort of page, called Take Our Word (http://www.takeourword.com/TOW162/page4.html).

In times like these we turn to the excellent H.W. Fowler's The New Fowler's Modern English Usage (third edition, edited by R. W. Burchfield) for a decision. He examines the words' etymologies (they both derive from the French desorienter, as Will Wagner points out). They both followed the same path to their present-day meanings, which are identical. In the end, Fowler says that the two words are equally interchangeable. One may find that orient is more common in the U.S., while orientate appears more frequently in the U.K., but they are still equal in meaning and correctness.

Fowler says the same about preventive and preventative, though he does say that preventive is the more common of the two; however, that has no bearing on the fact that he feels both forms are correct.

<snip>

The Orvis tent sale is in town and I need some new fishing gear. See you all later.

<snip>



If I may interrupt the conversation about etymology for a moment...

You're a flyfisherman! As the ex-slayer of many trout, may I suggest an alternative? Consider presenting a common garden hackle, fastened to a #10 hook, on very light line and weighted as needed to keep just off the bottom.

Alternately, when the fish are shy or not feeding readily, consider a #0 Mepps tipped with a bit of aforementioned worm. Unfortunately there is no replacement for the Mepps, one of the few outstanding products to come from our neighbors in France.

There is a catch, though... in order for the above technique to work you must chew tobacco, wear bib overalls and sneakers, and carry your tackle in a rusty tin can!

Sorry for the interruption... carry on.

If I may interrupt the conversation about etymology for a moment...

You're a flyfisherman! As the ex-slayer of many trout, may I suggest an alternative? Consider presenting a common garden hackle, fastened to a #10 hook, on very light line and weighted as needed to keep just off the bottom.

Alternately, when the fish are shy or not feeding readily, consider a #0 Mepps tipped with a bit of aforementioned worm. Unfortunately there is no replacement for the Mepps, one of the few outstanding products to come from our neighbors in France.

There is a catch, though... in order for the above technique to work you must chew tobacco, wear bib overalls and sneakers, and carry your tackle in a rusty tin can!

Sorry for the interruption... carry on.
Man, I've got the overalls and I use sneakers over my waders. I probably can still keep a chaw in my cheek. But the TU guys would laugh me off the Hooch if I showed up with a rusty coffee can.

So close.

When did "Preventative" Become a Word?
The earliest known usage of the word 'preventative' is from the middle 17th century (that's about 1650, for those of you that get confused about centuries...).

'Utilise'/'utilize' is more recent - the earliest known usage dates from the early 19th century (about 1800).

Well I would assume that they do convey something different (and even if it only is your windbaggyness), otherwise no one would bother using them.

And I find it difficult enough to properly translate things from German to English. I'm not a linguist, but I suspect English has a lot fewer words (or modifications that more accurately reflect your state of mind)

Actually, in bulk word count, english has more words the either of it's two root families... Germantic, and Latin.

Out of curiousity, I wonder why words are lengthened. It seems counterintuitive. Shorter is easier and faster to speak or type, so it would seem logical to use 'preventive' rather than 'prevenative'.

Since the change in the words doesn't modify the definition, there must be some unknown reason for its partial adoption by the public. Maybe they roll off the tongue a little better? Any theories?

What the hell is wrong with "Preventive", anyway?

And while I'm at it, when did "Utilize" become more useful than "Use"?

Is this just the entropy of language as it heads towards it's maximum disorder?

Damn, my spelling checker likes all those words.

It's easy. It started with mispronunciations and spread into industry-specific jargon until it became so common in various industries that it became more popular that the originally word. Imagine prolly becoming about ten times more popular as a replacement for probably. Preventive maintenance modules in software are actually frequently named Preventative Maintenance modules. It's easy to see how quickly that can mutate a word.

Why add an extra syllable when the original word is easy to say? No idea. Perhaps someone can explain nuculer and relator as well.

And how is "ordbög" pronounced? My usless vocabulary needs to corpulate further, and I think that branching out into another languages idioms is probably the best methodology to pursue.
"Oordberg" would be a spelling especially for the Americans. I don't know Swedish to any degree of utilizability, though. Notice that the term "bög" means "man" and "gay", which are more or less the same thing in Sweden.

Btw, a similar word for an grammar enthusiast in Finnish is "pilkunnussija", "comma fucker".

"Oordberg" would be a spelling especially for the Americans. I don't know Swedish to any degree of utilizability, though. Notice that the term "bög" means "man" and "gay", which are more or less the same thing in Sweden.
*Tries word out a few times*
Yes, I think I like that word. In thanks for this word, I will let Sweden continue to not cease existing for another 5 months after I have destroyed the rest of the world.
Btw, a similar word for an grammar enthusiast in Finnish is "pilkunnussija", "comma fucker".
"Pilkunnussija" just doesn't have the same feel (though the literal translation is much more satisfying), and I think I already have to much French in my vocabulary already.

What the hell is wrong with "Preventive", anyway?

And while I'm at it, when did "Utilize" become more useful than "Use"?

Is this just the entropy of language as it heads towards it's maximum disorder?

Damn, my spelling checker likes all those words.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "preventative" has been in constant use since 1654.

Gee how the language has declined in the last 400 years! :eek: ;)

Why make up a word when you can steal one?
The strange thing is that before the two (earlier English and earlier German) were really getting a lot of contact, the English seemed to have no need for a word that denotes taking pleasure in someone else's misfortune...

Actually, in bulk word count, english has more words the either of it's two root families... Germantic, and Latin.
Really? Wow...I guess it's the quality rather than the quantity then :D

Notice that the term "bög" means "man" and "gay", which are more or less the same thing in Sweden.

Haha, if only this were true and not the banter of a typically bitter Finn.

If you really don't like new words or new ways of using words, the first person to blame is Shakespeare. He invented more new works than anyone else. And if you really have to have everything spelt the same way every time, you need to argue with Shakespeare. (He even spelt his own name several ways.)

Or you could blame the Americans after the revolution. They thought every nation needed it's own language as was the case in Europe (although linguists don't recognize all European languages as separate languages because people speaking different "languages" can still understand each other.) Anyway, that is why the Americans spell different than the English. Americans purposly changed spelling to develop a separate language.

Actually spelling wasn't standardized until Webster wrote the dictionary. Not long ago in the scheme of history.

And new words? Try to read Beowolf in original English. The beauty of English is it's ability to adapt and change. English has vastly more words than any other major language. Because of that it has the ability to shade meaning more than any other language. It makes the language hard to learn, but once lernt it becomes extremely adaptable to any environment.

Sometimes, usage can mutate for the most absurd of reasons. The best example I can think of is "nimrod". At the beginning of the 20th century, the word was a reference to a great hunter king mentioned in the Bible. Then Buggs Bunny came along to torment Elmer Fudd and said "Eh, I wouldn't do that to the little nimrod..." People being stupid completely missed the biblical reference and decided that "nimrod" must mean a person of little brains, and the meaning has stuck ever since.