Is "Justiciar" the new "Rogue?"

[Cam Banks]

The only flaw in your logic is that if a word appears a few times with the wrong spelling, that's a typographical error. If it appears consistently, in many books, across companies, across platforms, across editions, that's no longer a mistake, that's intentional by a whole lot of really smart people.

Plenty of really smart people have done really dumb things before.

At that point it does become either a new word or an alternate spelling to the original. The alternate spelling is more widespread (from the numbers and the two overlapping discussions here); it really was a shock to a lot of people that the longer spelling even existed.

I think your statistical jiggery-pokery is flawed.

What determines correct use? The dictionary. What determines what's in the dictionary? Common usage. The longer spelling has historic roots, so it's in the dictionary. The shorter is more widely used, but by a traditionally ignored subculture. They're both equally valid. Where/when/why it originated is irrelevant. It's still just as common if not more so than the older spelling.

The shorter word isn't more widely used for the correct use of the real word. As you say, somebody made up a new word, and that's the one that's been bandied about in Vampire and WoW and some Greyhawk novels. I posit that it was misspelled originally, some really smart people kept using it. Probably referring to it on page XX.

And this still has nothing to do with the correct use of the word in 4e, for which I am thankful that some attentive soul at WotC made sure to spell and use correctly in the face of apparently overwhelming opposition by Blizzard story editors and aspiring English teachers.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Wayside]

Weeeell, looking at your examples:
...
Congratulations, you have just proven that old books can contain misspellings and typos...

Weeeell, looking at your logic:

1. Cam said that 'justicar' is a misspelling, not a word.
2. I said that English speakers have been using 'justicar' for years, and did a simple google books search giving usage evidence.
3. You assumed that every instance of 'justicar' yielded by my 60 seconds of rigorous research was a misspelling and/or a typo.

Congratulations, you have just proven that no matter how simply a point is stated, there will always be someone willing to miss it. By assuming that every instance of 'justicar' is a misspelling in an argument about whether or not 'justicar' is a misspelling, you've done nothing more than beg the question. (That's the correct usage of "beg the question," mind you, not the journalistic misuse, which is badwrongawful.)

I have no doubt that some uses of 'justicar' are accidental, but the fact that they occur alongside 'justiciar' is not evidence of this. I see spelling variants used alongside one another in older texts all the time and, believe it or not, often in modern texts as well. If you want to be sure you'll have to commit to more than a search on google books, but I can already tell you what the result will be (and since my last post several other people have pointed it out, notably breschau). Of course you can choose to take the position that any use of 'justicar' is a misspelling of 'justiciar' rather than a variant or, potentially, a different word (differing in this case, literally, by an iota). If that's your position then there's no point arguing.

In any case my point remains the same: if people use it, it's a word; if people use it with a meaning that isn't in the dictionary, they aren't wrong. I'm talking people here, not one person. Humpty-dumptying is a whole nother issue. (Don't worry, that's tmesis, not bad grammar.)

I have to believe that on some level, people who are supporting the misuse or misspelling of words are doing so because A) they don't want to admit they've been saying/spelling it incorrectly, B) think the proper way to say/pronounce it is silly, or C) just like to argue.

I'm arguing specifically because of your posts and the assumptions you're making about English (and, at this point, the assumptions you're making about why I'm arguing in the first place).

Yeah. It's one of the problems of having so much information available online—you can get the mistakes lumped in with the rest. My wife, who teaches at middle school and high school level, is getting really tired of kids using Wikipedia articles that haven't been properly vetted, or who use a Google search result as a reference for something.

I'm glad your wife teaches English at the secondary school level and you have the benefit of her experience, but I teach English at the university level, where among other things I have to get students to unlearn quite a bit of what they learned at schools like the ones your wife teaches at. It may be as simple as giving them a new word for something they've previously been taught to call a mistake ("Comma splice?" No, let's call it "asyndeton," or "parataxis," or a variety thereof), but usually things aren't so simple.

Are you kidding? That's been the biggest line of defense of letting people spell Justiciar without the I in both these threads. It's the "you can't stop the evolution of language" BS defense. It drives English teachers mad.

So no, as an English teacher I can confidently say that in fact it doesn't drive English teachers mad. The ravings and air of authority put on by language mavens are actually far more likely to do that for many of us. But hey, far be it from me to get in your way if you want to call the intellectually rigorous position lazy or equate it with a lowest common denominator. This is ENWorld, after all.

 

[ArmoredSaint]

I don't see the defense of a demonstrably incorrect term as "intellectually rigorous" at all.

I question the notion that language has a need to evolve as it has evolved in the past. Ever-increasing standardization and the need for a consistent medium for the communication of verbal ideas indicate that we will be better-served by a more static language.

Am I saying that language will or should stop evolving altogether? No. I think language will continue to evolve, but the nature of its evolution will change. Linguistic evolution won't be dictated by common misuse anymore. Instead, I think we're more likely to see more and more loanwords from other tongues, and more genuine neologisms as it becomes necessary to describe new technologies and perspectives.

But, QED, no "Just-ih-car"

 

[Cam Banks]

I'm glad your wife teaches English at the secondary school level and you have the benefit of her experience, but I teach English at the university level, where among other things I have to get students to unlearn quite a bit of what they learned at schools like the ones your wife teaches at. It may be as simple as giving them a new word for something they've previously been taught to call a mistake ("Comma splice?" No, let's call it "asyndeton," or "parataxis," or a variety thereof), but usually things aren't so simple.

I cleverly did not mention that she used to teach at the university level until we moved last year. She did that for eight years. But that's OK, you had no way of knowing that before you launched into your damning counter-anecdote.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Thyrwyn]

Maybe it would be better to say that it drives Editors mad - as my wife (and apparently, Cam) would heartily attest.

 

[Lacyon]

Am I saying that language will or should stop evolving altogether? No. I think language will continue to evolve, but the nature of its evolution will change. Linguistic evolution won't be dictated by common misuse anymore. Instead, I think we're more likely to see more and more loanwords from other tongues, and more genuine neologisms as it becomes necessary to describe new technologies and perspectives.

u rilly th1nk s0?

 

[breschau]

I think your statistical jiggery-pokery is flawed.

I so want to see that in your next book.

And this still has nothing to do with the correct use of the word in 4e, for which I am thankful that some attentive soul at WotC made sure to spell and use correctly in the face of apparently overwhelming opposition by Blizzard story editors and aspiring English teachers.

English teacher in college. Teacher of grad students. Like him...

In any case my point remains the same: if people use it, it's a word; if people use it with a meaning that isn't in the dictionary, they aren't wrong. I'm talking people here, not one person. Humpty-dumptying is a whole nother issue. (Don't worry, that's tmesis, not bad grammar.)

I'm arguing specifically because of your posts and the assumptions you're making about English (and, at this point, the assumptions you're making about why I'm arguing in the first place).

I'm glad your wife teaches English at the secondary school level and you have the benefit of her experience, but I teach English at the university level, where among other things I have to get students to unlearn quite a bit of what they learned at schools like the ones your wife teaches at. It may be as simple as giving them a new word for something they've previously been taught to call a mistake ("Comma splice?" No, let's call it "asyndeton," or "parataxis," or a variety thereof), but usually things aren't so simple.

So no, as an English teacher I can confidently say that in fact it doesn't drive English teachers mad. The ravings and air of authority put on by language mavens are actually far more likely to do that for many of us. But hey, far be it from me to get in your way if you want to call the intellectually rigorous position lazy or equate it with a lowest common denominator. This is ENWorld, after all.

 

[Urbannen]

I learned "justicar" from playing the Vampire:tES collectible card game. Later I read Rob Kidd's books with the Justicar, his ranger/cleric character. "Justicar" sounds good to me. "Justiciar" sounds bad. I never understood where it came from until reading the references in this thread.

To me, "justicar" is definitely a word. I'll admit it may be made up, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a word. There is "prescriptive" and "descriptive" language use, and both have their place. I'm disappointed that they're not using the word I know. BTW, I'm known for having an excellent vocabulary (a date once told me he was "intimidated" by it, I got mid-700's in my SAT verbal, etc.), but of course I'm always expanding my knowledge. I'm reading the Wheel of Time series right now and need a dictionary for all the archaic terms the author uses.

I wonder where the people who defend "justiciar" learned the word from? Is there any noteworthy literature that uses the term? Some of the people on this thread are pretty haughty in their defense of this word. Was it something you knew before coming to D&D?

 

[breschau]

Maybe it would be better to say that it drives Editors mad - as my wife (and apparently, Cam) would heartily attest.

I am an editor too. It doesn't drive me mad.

 

[ArmoredSaint]

I wonder where the people who defend "justiciar" learned the word from? Is there any noteworthy literature that uses the term? Some of the people on this thread are pretty haughty in their defense of this word. Was it something you knew before coming to D&D?

I knew the word before I saw it in the new PHB. I count medieval re-enactment among my other hobbies, and long ago came across the term in that context.