Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
How sad am I?
22 Answers
On a scale of 1 to 10, how sad am I?
Whilst watching the celebrities climb Kilamanjaro on TV last night, I got riled when the narrator turned a noun into a nonsensical verb.
As opposed reaching the summit, they were "summiting".
Mind you, I also got annoyed during the Olympics last year when commentators kept on referring to Team GB as "medaling".
Surely I can't be the only one that finds this annoying, can I?
Whilst watching the celebrities climb Kilamanjaro on TV last night, I got riled when the narrator turned a noun into a nonsensical verb.
As opposed reaching the summit, they were "summiting".
Mind you, I also got annoyed during the Olympics last year when commentators kept on referring to Team GB as "medaling".
Surely I can't be the only one that finds this annoying, can I?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip_flop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
The verb, to summit - albeit in the sense of participate in a political summit conference - has been in use for over a generation, so why not on a mountain?
And the verb, to medal - albeit in the sense of confer a medal on - has been in use for the best part of two centuries, so why not in the passive sense, too?
English is awash with such noun > verb usages by virtue of the constant evolution of the language mentioned by Zacsmaster. Best just to get used to them.
And the verb, to medal - albeit in the sense of confer a medal on - has been in use for the best part of two centuries, so why not in the passive sense, too?
English is awash with such noun > verb usages by virtue of the constant evolution of the language mentioned by Zacsmaster. Best just to get used to them.
-- answer removed --
For goodness' sake, Vulcan, it's not so very long ago that there were modes of speech called 'received' pronunciation and 'Oxford' English. Unless you spoke these, you hadn't a snowball's chance in hell of working a microphone at the BBC.
Now listen to that broadcaster's announcers...Scottish, Geordie, Welsh...even Brummie! Does that represent a "lowering of standards"? Of course it doesn't! What it represents is an acknowledgement of the vast breadth of linguistic variety in the UK. And a good thing, too.
I've never actually heard any of them say aks, but I can see no earthly reason why they shouldn't, if that is a natural element of their speech.
Yes, evolution is change, and you have about as much chance of altering the course of language change as you have of stopping species change. If you would like to achieve something in this field, concentrate on true barbarisms such as could of for could've in writing just because they sound alike.
My name, by the way, is Quizmon ster. I mention it only because there is and AnswerBanker called Quizma ster.
Now listen to that broadcaster's announcers...Scottish, Geordie, Welsh...even Brummie! Does that represent a "lowering of standards"? Of course it doesn't! What it represents is an acknowledgement of the vast breadth of linguistic variety in the UK. And a good thing, too.
I've never actually heard any of them say aks, but I can see no earthly reason why they shouldn't, if that is a natural element of their speech.
Yes, evolution is change, and you have about as much chance of altering the course of language change as you have of stopping species change. If you would like to achieve something in this field, concentrate on true barbarisms such as could of for could've in writing just because they sound alike.
My name, by the way, is Quizmon ster. I mention it only because there is and AnswerBanker called Quizma ster.
My apologies to all - especially Vulcan - for the answer above. I've only put it in the wrong blessed thread! My excuse is that the two threads were virtually side by side and both dealt with the acceptability of certain forms of language use, so they were very similar.
Having said that, what I wrote - and posted here in error - does to a large extent apply; namely, that language will change and one's chances of stopping that are nil. So, though I was writing about ask/aks, it applies equally to summiting and medaling. These will either catch on or they won't and there's nothing - other than whinge - any of us can do about that.
Having said that, what I wrote - and posted here in error - does to a large extent apply; namely, that language will change and one's chances of stopping that are nil. So, though I was writing about ask/aks, it applies equally to summiting and medaling. These will either catch on or they won't and there's nothing - other than whinge - any of us can do about that.
RoaldoM,
I don't agree that all changes in the English language are the result of evolution. Most I think are just plain laziness, both in the written and spoken word. It has already evolved into a language that can avert ambiguity by proper word and punctuation selection, I hope that there will never be a time when the language "evolves" enough to re-introduce that.
I don't agree that all changes in the English language are the result of evolution. Most I think are just plain laziness, both in the written and spoken word. It has already evolved into a language that can avert ambiguity by proper word and punctuation selection, I hope that there will never be a time when the language "evolves" enough to re-introduce that.
Mr Chipps, nadder was, until about 1400, a name given to a poisonpus British snake. Thus, prior to that time, a single one of them would be referred to as 'a nadder'. However, people mistakenly removed the initial n and tacked it onto the a, giving 'an adder'...and that mistake is how we still say it to this day! Much the same applies to 'an orange'.
Errors, laziness and just about any other human characteristic you care to think of are what shapes the evolution of language - and evolution it surely is - whether we like it or not.
Not all branches of the evolutionary tree thrive, either in nature or language. Thus, we have to wait and see if summiting or medaling make it. If people find them useful, they will.
Errors, laziness and just about any other human characteristic you care to think of are what shapes the evolution of language - and evolution it surely is - whether we like it or not.
Not all branches of the evolutionary tree thrive, either in nature or language. Thus, we have to wait and see if summiting or medaling make it. If people find them useful, they will.
