Linguistic Miscellany Thread

[Raphael]

Today I learned the actual meaning of the English expression "red letter day" - that is, an important day that's marked in red in the calendar. Until today, I thought it meant a day when you get an alarming letter informing you that you're financially in the red.

[Pabappa]

If only it were so, it would make blackmail such a pleasant surprise.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

The first time I encountered the idea, I misheard it as black-nail, as in, threatening somebody with something that will pierce them like a black nail (I was picturing something big and scary and made of wrought iron).

[Linguoboy]

There's a word peeve thread going on in one of my groups and it's the usual grab-bag of words and pronunciations associated with unprestigious varieties, words perceived as corporate jargon, and random things your grammar teacher told you were not correct, but one recurring term stands out: "gift" used as a verb (e.g. "He gifted it to me"). I'm frankly baffled. I don't recall ever seeing this on a list of peeves before and I can't understand why someone would object to it: it's not jargon, it's not specific to lower-class speech, it's not (AFAIK) a word like "irregardless" or "normalcy" that teachers typically rant about. Anyone have any ideas?

[Raphael]

Some people might be generally peeved by the verbing of nouns?

[Travis B.]

To "gift" seems quite normal English to me.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

To "gift" seems quite normal English to me.

i have long disliked this. It sounds very Karen-y, for lack of a better word, probably because "regift" (a tacky thing to do when you can't be bothered to buy something for somebody) was the form I first encounter, and it feels like a back-formation from it, or "gifted" (talented); I'm just in the wrong generation and geography enough, I suppose, for gift as a verb to come off as wrong, and think it will likely pass without comment after a generation. It's one of those things like verse for "fight" (appears to be a back-formation from versus) that just feel... weird or wrong, despite being common, and easily understood.

[Travis B.]

To "gift" seems quite normal English to me.

i have long disliked this. It sounds very Karen-y, for lack of a better word, probably because "regift" (a tacky thing to do when you can't be bothered to buy something for somebody) was the form I first encounter, and it feels like a back-formation from it, or "gifted" (talented); I'm just in the wrong generation and geography enough, I suppose, for gift as a verb to come off as wrong, and think it will likely pass without comment after a generation. It's one of those things like verse for "fight" (appears to be a back-formation from versus) that just feel... weird or wrong, despite being common, and easily understood.

I don't like "to gift", and likewise I don't like "regift" either, TBH, but it does not sound like ungrammatical or inappropriate register-wise English to me.

[Linguoboy]

To "gift" seems quite normal English to me.

i have long disliked this. It sounds very Karen-y, for lack of a better word, probably because "regift" (a tacky thing to do when you can't be bothered to buy something for somebody) was the form I first encounter, and it feels like a back-formation from it, or "gifted" (talented); I'm just in the wrong generation and geography enough, I suppose, for gift as a verb to come off as wrong, and think it will likely pass without comment after a generation. It's one of those things like verse for "fight" (appears to be a back-formation from versus) that just feel... weird or wrong, despite being common, and easily understood.

I was wondering if, for some people, it might have associations with overly precious ad copy or something, because "gifting" does for me (e.g. "Ultimate Guide to Holiday Gifting").

[Rounin Ryuuji]

To "gift" seems quite normal English to me.

i have long disliked this. It sounds very Karen-y, for lack of a better word, probably because "regift" (a tacky thing to do when you can't be bothered to buy something for somebody) was the form I first encounter, and it feels like a back-formation from it, or "gifted" (talented); I'm just in the wrong generation and geography enough, I suppose, for gift as a verb to come off as wrong, and think it will likely pass without comment after a generation. It's one of those things like verse for "fight" (appears to be a back-formation from versus) that just feel... weird or wrong, despite being common, and easily understood.

I was wondering if, for some people, it might have associations with overly precious ad copy or something, because "gifting" does for me (e.g. "Ultimate Guide to Holiday Gifting").

That gives roughly the same impression, actually. I understand what it means, but I was actually just returning to the thread because I'd had the fridge realisation that it sounds like something I would correct a child for saying, and consequently... not uneducated as in "low-register", but more... perhaps pre-educated? Then reinforced by advertising (I find most holiday advertising, and the modern practice of Christmas in the United States, overmaterialistic and extremely tacky).

Testing other verbs hypothetically derived from give or gift — begive, begift both trigger no particular response; given sounds wrong. but that's probably because it's already the past participle of give; egift (from a hypothetical Middle English y-giften) also produces no strong response. I think this may suggest socially-conditioned dislike, possibly coupled with a subconscious assumption that gift, apparently etymologically give-th, but looking as if it were a past tense or participle of give, were already etymologically a verb, making double-verbing it a little perverse? There are some limited uses of gift as a verb (usually impersonal expressions rather flamboyantly expressing somebody has a certain attribute, as "He was gifted with an enormous aptitude for mathematics", implying no actual giver).

I think also some people simply don't like linguistic innovation very much, perhaps similarly to how some people don't like adaptations changing their favourite stories. You get used to and attached to a thing being a certain way, and you enjoy the quirks it already has, but you're getting older and set in your ways. A thing you've always loved being different when you look to it for whatever feeling probably just... irks some people.

[Linguoboy]

I think also some people simply don't like linguistic innovation very much, perhaps similarly to how some people don't like adaptations changing their favourite stories. You get used to and attached to a thing being a certain way, and you enjoy the quirks it already has, but you're getting older and set in your ways. A thing you've always loved being different when you look to it for whatever feeling probably just... irks some people.

IME, folks are so selective about what innovations they object to that I don't think this is an important factor. In this case, there were some who objected to "gift" (attested as a verb since the 14th century) and not "regift" (first attested 1837). A lot of folks mentioned "signage" as one of their peeves even though it's hardly more recent a coinage than "spoilage", which I've never heard anyone object to.

In fact, the "objective" justifications people give when pressed are so inconsistent and arbitrary that I've come to reflexively distrust them as post-hoc rationalisations. When you drill down, you almost always find that (as in this case), the real objection people have is to the kind of person they imagine using these words (or, relatedly, the kinds of contexts they think of them as being used in). But that can make you sound irrational and bigoted in a way that "I don't it when verbs are formed from nouns" does not.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I think also some people simply don't like linguistic innovation very much, perhaps similarly to how some people don't like adaptations changing their favourite stories. You get used to and attached to a thing being a certain way, and you enjoy the quirks it already has, but you're getting older and set in your ways. A thing you've always loved being different when you look to it for whatever feeling probably just... irks some people.

IME, folks are so selective about what innovations they object to that I don't think this is an important factor. In this case, there were some who objected to "gift" (attested as a verb since the 14th century) and not "regift" (first attested 1837).

They probably weren't aware of this, and thought it was an innovation; I also hadn't encountered "gift" as a synonym of "give" till fairly recently (before, it meant, in my mind, (of abstract entity) "to endow (usually a human) with some sort of (usually positive) attribute"); of course, "literally" as an intensifier appears, I think, in an Austen novel (though in the mouth of a character who is supposed to be both pretentious and uneducated), suggested it's a long-disparaged use. I more meant overall that people don't like encountering uses they think are new or innovative. The fact that Chaucer wrote I guess, or that Austen used literally as an intensifier (though in the mouth of a character we're supposed to see as pretentious, uneducated, and generally irritating, suggesting it is a long-disparaged usage), would not be likely to move them since it isn't the thing that's comfortable to them.

A lot of folks mentioned "signage" as one of their peeves even though it's hardly more recent a coinage than "spoilage", which I've never heard anyone object to.

The first one sounds like advertising jargon (this is probably likely to provoke backlash from anybody who thinks this causes some sort of language degradation) and the second doesn't, so I could see why; I don't think I use either word personally.

In fact, the "objective" justifications people give when pressed are so inconsistent and arbitrary that I've come to reflexively distrust them as post-hoc rationalisations. When you drill down, you almost always find that (as in this case), the real objection people have is to the kind of person they imagine using these words (or, relatedly, the kinds of contexts they think of them as being used in). But that can make you sound irrational and bigoted in a way that "I don't it when verbs are formed from nouns" does not.

I don't doubt there's also some element of this. I don't personally tend to like the language of advertising copy, and so tend to dislike anything resembling it (I'm aware of its being irrational and usually don't mention it, however, as I don't think there's much point to expressing it), or certain slang related to (or seeming related to) drug use (the words "herb" (not helped by pseudoscience), "based" (originally mistook it for a video game reference — amazing how etymology can change your view of a word), and "lit" all irk me on some level now). Mildly annoying other people seems to be inevitable when one uses language, however, and I'm sure I must do it, too.

[zompist]

Hmm, I'll be mildly contrarian and defend the word. It's not simply a synonym of "give", because "gift" isn't just the nominalization of "give". A gift is something of value freely bestowed, and "give" doesn't convey all of that.

It's long been used as a participle ("a gifted child"), and surely people don't object to sentences like "The gods gifted Achilles with courage above all other warriors."

Googling some sample phrases, this is typical: "Last year I gifted Brad with a Burger of the Month Club subscription." Admittedly this seems equivalent to "I gave Brad a Burger...". But not quite. Searching for "I gave", I found a nice example: "Last year I gave a man on the phone money, like a warranty to keep my computer updated." "Gift" is always clear that we're talking about a present rather than any other sort of exchange.

Also, "regift" is quite useful! You can't really get the same idea across as succinctly. (And what's wrong with regifting? Better that someone gets the thing who might like it. It's rather close to Tolkien's "mathom".)

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Perhaps this ought to be properly called the, "Mild feelings about language and their dissection" thread.

[quinterbeck]

Perhaps this ought to be properly called the, "Mild feelings about language and their dissection" thread.

Well here's something that's not that.

A friend of mine asked me to recommend intro resources for him to get a good grounding in linguistics. Now most of my linguistic knowledge has been gained through the usual conlanging pursuits - reading grammars or linguistics wikipedia articles, and general osmosis online - and so I don't really have any solid recommendations to make!

Do you guys have any suggestions??

For background, he's a student of biblical languages (mainly hebrew and syriac it sounds like) and has realised that new advances in the field rely on modern linguistic approaches, rather than those of traditional classical language studies. He's also appreciative of the teachers and textbooks which have taught in way that has been linguistically informed.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Perhaps this ought to be properly called the, "Mild feelings about language and their dissection" thread.

Well here's something that's not that.

A friend of mine asked me to recommend intro resources for him to get a good grounding in linguistics. Now most of my linguistic knowledge has been gained through the usual conlanging pursuits - reading grammars or linguistics wikipedia articles, and general osmosis online - and so I don't really have any solid recommendations to make!

Do you guys have any suggestions??

Have you tried passing what you used to learn on to him? Maybe introductory materials for language construction, to help him get a grasp on how languages are "put together", so to speak? Even if they aren't considered "credible", Wikipedia articles are often excellent places to begin. I wish I knew of some specific authors on the subject of...

For background, he's a student of biblical languages (mainly hebrew and syriac it sounds like) and has realised that new advances in the field rely on modern linguistic approaches, rather than those of traditional classical language studies. He's also appreciative of the teachers and textbooks which have taught in way that has been linguistically informed.

...these languages, specifically.

Your friend sounds very cool.

My journey actually began with IPA symbols in a French textbook. If he isn't familiar with phonetic scripts, I bet that would be a good place to start. Also with explanations of the linguistics of his native language.

[bradrn]

Perhaps this ought to be properly called the, "Mild feelings about language and their dissection" thread.

Well here's something that's not that.

A friend of mine asked me to recommend intro resources for him to get a good grounding in linguistics. Now most of my linguistic knowledge has been gained through the usual conlanging pursuits - reading grammars or linguistics wikipedia articles, and general osmosis online - and so I don't really have any solid recommendations to make!

Do you guys have any suggestions??

The LCK could well work as a pretty good introduction even to non-conlangers. Certainly, that’s what I learned linguistics from. (I should note that the only formal ‘textbook on linguistics’ I’ve read are zompist’s: everything else I know on the subject comes from reading other books and papers on more specialised topics.)

My journey actually began with IPA symbols in a French textbook. If he isn't familiar with phonetic scripts, I bet that would be a good place to start. Also with explanations of the linguistics of his native language.

I began with IPA as well — though I still can’t quite remember where I first encountered it — and soon became obsessed with articulatory phonetics. (Even today, I can still pronounce at least a very good approximation to almost every symbol in the IPA.) This naturally lead to conscripts: my first conlangs were just phonetic inventories and a script. As for books, I learnt this stuff mostly from Wikipedia and an old copy of Ladefoged’s A Course in Phonetics: the former is still available, but the latter is a bit outdated now (though still a good introduction).

[Richard W]

To "gift" seems quite normal English to me.

It feels like a Scotticism to me - possibly because I first heard it in Scotland. Gifted is for me normally an adjective meaning 'possessed of a gift', usually metaphorical.

[Linguoboy]

I may have come up with a parallel: dine. It’s shorter than saying “have dinner”, it’s not an innovation, it’s a simple and straightforward word, but it’s so often used in ad copy and similar contexts that a sentence like “I dine at at 8 o’clock” rubs some people the wrong way.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I may have come up with a parallel: dine. It’s shorter than saying “have dinner”, it’s not an innovation, it’s a simple and straightforward word, but it’s so often used in ad copy and similar contexts that a sentence like “I dine at at 8 o’clock” rubs some people the wrong way.

That's probably far too Jane Austen or Period Drama to ever trouble me personally.