It's not just great... it's PENULTIMATE!

[reanjr]

Sometimes you can tell from context.

And in the spectrum of male bahavior, rape, the perfect combination of sex and violence, is the penultimate act.

Or perhaps it is leaving room for another act which could possibly be "more" ultimate, even though under the presumed concepts of male behavior consisting entirely of sex and violence, rape would be the ultimate.

Review: February 1981 saw the release of the penultimate Metal album. It’s the line-up on this record that I have always considered to be the greatest Metal band that ever took the stage. No matter how you look at it, which criteria you judge upon; songs, band, artwork, ‘Killers’ comes out on top in the world of Metal.

Again, easy to interpret as the greatest that ever existed, but not necessarily the greatest that will ever be.

Obviously, the writer isn't that effective at communicating. But the best way to respond to the writer is to ask something like: "by penultimate, did you mean second-to-last or are you leaving room for something greater to come at a later time?" Or something like: "I don't think that word means what you think it means." But at that point, you know the answer, so why bother bothering?

 

[reanjr]

The gold medal went to Monaco. The Lichtenstein team, in second place, took home the gold, and the bronze was taken by dark horse team Srpska.

If the vast majority of the audience understands that the announcer meant 'silver' for Lichtenstein, does that mean he used the word 'gold' correctly in the second sentence?

"I is sorry to the things what I done."

The meaning is conveyed, but do you consider the language to be used correctly in this example?

-Hyp.

In the sense that he has communicated his ideas effectively, it is not as bad as it could be, but still bad. The problem is that in the context of an announcer it is likely that a listener only heard part of announcement, or briefly skimmed written text and got confused and went back to reparse the statement, or worse, was misinformed. The statement is actually not as effective at communicating as you are implying. In this case, alot of the audience may be taking cues from what actually happened and their knowledge of how medals are awarded.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In the sense that he has communicated his ideas effectively, it is not as bad as it could be, but still bad.

Indeed.

As in the case of using 'penultimate' for anything other than 'next-to-last' - you might have communicated your idea effectively, but it doesn't make you correct!

Or something like: "I don't think that word means what you think it means."

But isn't your position that a word means anything its audience can understand it to mean? That use determines definition, and not vice versa?

Surely, then, any time anyone thinks a word to mean something, they're correct?

-Hyp.

 

[reanjr]

Surely, then, any time anyone thinks a word to mean something, they're correct?

-Hyp.

Only if it is unambiguous.

 

[Richards]

Don't you think that's totally spam? It's lubricated! Well, I'm phasing.

Johnathan

 

[LightPhoenix]

It's lubricated! Well, I'm phasing.

Hey baby, I'm gonna give you the penultimate phase, know what I mean?

 

[bodhi]

Don't you think that's totally spam? It's lubricated! Well, I'm phasing.

This is why I love English. And Calvin & Hobbes.

 

[glass]

That definition of horrid has been in use for at least the last 150 years or so...

I never said it was a new trend...

Really, that example was hyperbole, but the general point still stands. The development of language is the ultimate democracy, and democracy is absolutely the worst system (apart from all the others).



glass.

 

[glass]

That's called language. Or dost thou deem confab be perforce doomed to eschew vicissitude?

The changing meanings, pronunciations, etc. of words are something to be embraced by those who love language.

I have no problem with changing meanings in the general sense; the only languages that don't evolve are dead ones, after all. But, that doesn't mean I have to like every last example.

But, like Lynn Truss on punctuation, I think there is a middle way between fully-prescriptive and fully-descriptive approaches to language.


glass.

 

[Pbartender]

Really, that example was hyperbole, but the general point still stands.

Now you're using words incorrectly.

An hyperbole is a ludicrously extravagant exagerration... "That definition had been in use since the dawn of time!" would be a better example. My example was simple concrete literary proof that "nasty" has been used as a definition of horrid for nearly two centuries.

The use of horrid in the poem isn't even hyperbole... as anyone with a daughter knows for fact.