| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
amyasleigh Great Old One Joined: 03 Nov 2009 Total posts: 381 Gender: Unknown |
 Posted: 29-08-2013 14:34 Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| Spookdaddy wrote: | I assume the commentators are referring to the appearance of the act, rather than it's speed - which, unless you're being absolutely literal, makes a little more sense to me. In fact, in that context, I think it's quite a nice image.
A few things:
English is a language which lends itself to metaphor, and that ability has been exploited with relish since it's very beginnings. (It strikes me - ironically, given the bone of contention here - that the sea and seafaring matters seem over the centuries to have attracted an especially rich library of technically inaccurate metaphorical usage.)
If we were to edit this thread based on the literal meaning of the words used it would be a whole lot shorter.
Sports commentators would not necessarily be my stop of first choice when assessing the health of the English language. |
Coming in rather late on the "unfurling" issue: it occurs to me to wonder whether this word is quite prominently around in the "subconscious-es" of many people -- including writers of the less perfectionist kind. Versifiers in English have long been frustrated by the fact that one of the language's words with not many rhymes for it, is "world". One of the few words which do go with "world" rhyme-wise is -- alongside "hurled" and "curled" -- "[un]furled". For centuries, poets and lesser rhymesters have thus been making rather heavy use of "[un]furled", without worrying too much about its strict appropriateness, as in the speed at which one furls or unfurls something. Could it be that prose writers too, often have this word not very far to the back of their minds, and thus tend to seize on it when looking for a supposedly-fresh figure of speech? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| liveinabin1 Great Old One Joined: 19 Oct 2001 Total posts: 2140 Location: insert witty comment here Gender: Female |
| Posted: 30-08-2013 16:39 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Can you chaps help me out here?
I've recently noticed the phrases 'based off' and 'modelled after' being used. For example 'the painting is based off the Shakespeare play of the same name'.
Modelled after is used here: http://www.bubblews.com/news/998598-paisley-abbey-gargoyle-looks-like-movie-alien | Quote: | | The creature itself is modeled after some deep-sea monsters only re-discovered by modern scientists exploring the oceans with submersibles capable of diving to great depths. |
I personally would have used 'based on' or 'modelled on'.
Which is correct? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Fluttermoth Mrs Treguard
Great Old One Joined: 05 Feb 2008 Total posts: 398 Location: Cornwall, GB Age: 43 Gender: Female |
| Posted: 30-08-2013 16:48 Post subject: |
|
|
|
'Based off' is horrible, urghh.
'After', in that context, I'm happy with. It's like in the art world; a copy that's a 'proper' copy (so, not a forgery; perhaps the same compostion in a different medium) has often been referred to as 'after such-and-such an artist', especially if the actual artist isn't known. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ronson8 Things can only get better.
Great Old One Joined: 31 Jul 2001 Total posts: 6061 Location: MK Gender: Male |
| Posted: 30-08-2013 17:54 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| You can base something on or in, definitely not off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| HenryFort Bad Craziness - Wide Asleep at the Wheel
Joined: 23 Oct 2005 Total posts: 927 Location: UK Again Age: 43 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 30-08-2013 23:37 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| for completeness sake wouldnt it be based off of ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Mythopoeika Boring petty conservative
Joined: 18 Sep 2001 Total posts: 9109 Location: Not far from Bedford Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 30-08-2013 23:57 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| No, that would be completely off-base. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Spookdaddy Cuckoo Joined: 24 May 2006 Total posts: 3924 Location: Midwich Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 04-10-2013 14:20 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| rynner2 wrote: | A real WTF! of a story here:
Men can be 'wives' and women 'husbands' as Government overrules the dictionary
The word “husband” will in future be applied to women and the word “wife” will refer to men, the Government has decided... |
I expect we’ll get used to it.
Personally, like gay marriage itself (and, I can't help having the tiniest suspicion that this is more about having a sly sideways dig at same sex marriage than it is about abuses of the English language) it doesn't bother me the slightest. Indeed, I can't help thinking that, as marriage is an institution which has been dying on its arse for decades, lovers of tradition would welcome any boost in the numbers of those calling themselves husband or wife.
Interestingly, no alternative is proposed. Strikes me that almost anything would seem a bit odd - at least until everyone's got used to the idea.
And as a point of order (this thread is supposed to be about the English language after all) technically, outside the terms of marriage, 'husband' has been gender neutral for quite a long time ('wife', on the other hand, is maybe more of a problem). Even when it was not, that specification was effectively a consequence of the fact that in patriarchal societies it tended to be men who incurred the rights and duties involved with the house (hus) upon which the term rested. As the 'house' qualification implied in the word 'husband' is no longer considered relevant, and hasn't been for an awful long time, then - if you really want to get anal about language - its current use is also inaccurate and is itself the result of a break with tradition and not the self-evident historical default some commentators imply.
And that's the problem with applying the 'tradition' argument - most people who use it are being pretty selective about which particular period of a constantly evolving process actually represents a tradition. One of the English language's overwhelming strengths has been its pragmatic adaptability in the face of circumstance - change is much more of a tradition of the English language than stasis.
(I also have to say that for something that's supposed to be about the loss of clarity in language that Telegraph article seems to me to be a particularly clunky and awkward effort. Within the context of a same sex marriage the proposal is that one partner will be defined as 'husband', the other 'wife': a pretty simple core statement of a not an overly complex idea - so simple that I'd suggest most people would only be able to string out into anything like that pigs ear of an article if they'd drunk a couple of litres of Thunderbird after being kicked in the head by a donkey.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rjmrjmrjm Professional Surrealist
Constipated-Philosopher Joined: 25 Feb 2004 Total posts: 1465 Location: Behind your eyes... Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 04-10-2013 15:16 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| wusband and hife. Simples. Next. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| theyithian Keeping the British end up
Joined: 29 Oct 2002 Total posts: 11704 Location: Vermilion Sands Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 04-10-2013 15:18 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Great but already taken: a henpecked husband. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Anome_ Faceless Man
Great Old One Joined: 23 May 2002 Total posts: 5377 Location: Left, and to the back. Age: 45 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 05-10-2013 04:28 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Spouse, perhaps? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 05-10-2013 10:18 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Anome_ wrote: | | Spouse, perhaps? |
Far too sensible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Spookdaddy Cuckoo Joined: 24 May 2006 Total posts: 3924 Location: Midwich Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 05-10-2013 10:32 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios wrote: | | Anome_ wrote: | | Spouse, perhaps? |
Far too sensible. |
Oh, there are plenty of words available to describe a partner - the problem is being able to differentiate between two partners, spouses or whatever in a same sex marriage for administration purposes. And, to be honest, although I have absolutely no problem with same sex marriage - and this is clearly just a bit of a distraction - I can see how it might be a bit of a head scratcher. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Anome_ Faceless Man
Great Old One Joined: 23 May 2002 Total posts: 5377 Location: Left, and to the back. Age: 45 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 05-10-2013 11:48 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Spookdaddy wrote: | | Oh, there are plenty of words available to describe a partner - the problem is being able to differentiate between two partners, spouses or whatever in a same sex marriage for administration purposes. |
Why?
I mean, isn't this kind of like asking which one plays the lady, and which one the man? In other words trying to force other people to relate to an outdated idea of gender and/or sex?
I really don't see why you'd have to administratively denote one "husband" or "wife" or "silly made up term for a same sex marriage partner which is different from the equivalent term for a heterosexual marriage partner so you can tell". After all, the "husband" isn't always the breadwinner and head of household these days, and the "wife" isn't always the one who stays home with the kids and does the cooking and cleaning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 05-10-2013 11:58 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Exactly. What is this weird need to differentiate between two supposedly equal partners? Male, or female. Why do the arbiters of language correctness need to know who's driving stick (to paraphrase Faith as Buffy)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Spookdaddy Cuckoo Joined: 24 May 2006 Total posts: 3924 Location: Midwich Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 05-10-2013 13:16 Post subject: |
|
|
|
As I said, I think it's purely an administrative issue - potentially connected to areas like immigration, benefits and tax. I really don't think it has to be turned into a particularly big thing by either side of the argument.
The subject actually surfaced long before the Telegraph article suggested, in typically armageddonesque terms, that same-sex marriage was going to somehow destroy the English language. Interestingly, and somewhat ironically, the earlier version of the story was about getting rid of the terms 'husband' and 'wife' entirely.
See here - from the Huff in March 2012:
| Quote: | | Gay Marriage: Reforms Will Remove Words 'Husband' And 'Wife' From Official Documents |
To my mind that's probably the most sensible option - although, of course that will not stop exactly the same people from getting their knickers in a twist about traditional values and the alleged undermining of the English language.
| Pietro_Mercurios wrote: | | Exactly. What is this weird need to differentiate between two supposedly equal partners? Male, or female. Why do the arbiters of language correctness need to know who's driving stick... |
Yes, in principle I don't disagree - however, you have to tread a little carefully with this as some gay couples actually use those definitions by choice. In fact Steven Petrow, the US pundit and expert on all things to do with gay etiquette (at least that side of the pond) has suggested that it is in fact younger same sex couples who are more likely to use the terms 'husband' and 'wife'. It's certainly not universal - but I think you have to be careful assuming that those definitions are necessarily being forced on people. In fact, it's worth remembering that this is not about blanket definitions at all, but about definitions within a very particular institution - one which entails it's own specific benefits and responsibilities.
Edit:
| Anome_ wrote: | | ...In other words trying to force other people to relate to an outdated idea of gender and/or sex?... |
Actually, it strikes me that applying outdated terms in a radically changed situation may be exactly the way to stop them being outdated.* If 'gay' has a meaning now which it did not a few decades ago - why should the same not be true of 'husband' or 'wife'? This kind of goes way back to my original point - which is that the English language is not, and never has been, static.
*(Widen the focus a little and you could also argue that this is precisely the contribution that the introduction of same-sex marriage is making to the long outdated institution of marriage itself.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
