New Words That I Am Promoting
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Is it? Making a most local is not really different from long having one for most close.
Yes, it is.
Local refers to area/neighbourhood.
Close refers to distance.
One is general, the other is specific. -
Regarding your acceptance of the word attritioning/the origin to you, who said it?
Was it someone that you hold in high regard (or someones) or something that you have just picked up from around the place?
Why do I ask? Well, if it's someone that you hold in high regard, then I don't think that I'll be able to convince you. -
@nadnerB said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Is it? Making a most local is not really different from long having one for most close.
Yes, it is.
Local refers to area/neighbourhood.
Close refers to distance.
One is general, the other is specific.Sure, but why should one have one form and the other not be given the same form? Why does the factor that you mention have an impact on the formation of the superlative?
-
@nadnerB said:
Hmmm, no. Attrition is a noun. ing CAN be used to turn nouns into adjectives but in this case, it doesn't make sense.
It what way does it not make sense? I understand that not all nouns can simply become verbs, but when one has entered common usage with a clear meaning - what makes it not make sense?
-
@nadnerB said:
It sounds more like attributing the way it's written.
Does attrition sound like attribute? If those two are not a problem, why do their verb forms become a problem? I don't see how they are even close.
-
@nadnerB said:
No. My example is correct use of the word.
No, because you can't make someone attrition. You could say "We are winning the war by means of the attritioning of the enemy's troops."
-
@nadnerB said:
ing
Definition of -ING
......1: action or process <running> <sleeping> : instance of an action or process <a meeting>
.......
Honestly, I don't think that the word has been understood by those business bods.But you provided the information as to why it makes sense. I'm unclear why you dislike the word or feel that it does not make sense. It makes sense when used correctly and the dictionary definitions of the formative noun and the -ing ending both fit correctly with the usage.
-
I managed to find scientific usage of the word, along with the specific definition as regards teeth, from a journal in 1955 and the usage suggests that it is the correct technical verb that was already established and accepted at the time. And the usage specific to teeth clearly supports the general usage as no specific definition is needed based on the general.
So while not a common word, it meets the criteria for the Oxford English Dictionary, should anyone have access to a full OED to see if it is in there and, if so, how long.
-
Given that the root of attrition comes from the Latin "to rub" and rubbing is not disputed, attritioning makes perfect sense from that traditional formation as well.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@nadnerB said:
No. My example is correct use of the word.
No, because you can't make someone attrition. You could say "We are winning the war by means of the attritioning of the enemy's troops."
Scott, you're usually an advocate of clear communication. This is not it.
Which is clearer?
"We are winning the war by attrition."
or
"We are winning the war by means of the attritioning of the enemy's troops."
-
@Kelly that's because that was used specifically as an example of using a verb where a noun was better to make it sound bad.
When a verb is more appropriate using the noun is just as convoluted. Use the right word at the right time. If we don't have the verb, we are stuck using the noun in all circumstances rather than only when it is the best choice.
Picking out an example of the most common use of the noun is, of course, going to be unnecessarily complex to use the verb form instead. This would be true of noun/verb pair.
"I am here to fix the vacuum."
"I am here to fix the device used for vacuuming."
Yet we would not feel that vacuuming should not be a verb, right? This is just a place where the noun form is better.
"She is vacuuming the house."
"She is using the vacuum in the house."
-
@scottalanmiller said:
"She is vacuuming the house."
"She is using the vacuum in the house."
What's worse, those two sentences can have different meetings.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
"She is vacuuming the house."
"She is using the vacuum in the house."
What's worse, those two sentences different meetings.
Very true, all the more reason to have all of the words at our disposal to make meanings are clear as possible.
-
I'm open to being wrong here, but I'm unclear why people feel that having a verb for attrition is bad but verbs for other nouns is good. What is it about attrition that makes the verb uniquely bad in this case? I realize not every noun can have a verb, but attrition is actionable. You can be attritioning in the current sense.
You can say "How quickly are we attritioning right now?"
There is a reason why the scientific community uses it heavily for loss of tooth enamel. It's pretty clear, IMHO.
-
I should be clear too, this is a word that is used in scientific and business communities already. I'm just promoting its use. Sometimes I make up words that I like, this is not one of them. Just one that I'm shocked the main dictionaries have not included as it has over 60 years of documented use that I know of and is one that many businesses use commonly.
-
Common use doesn't make it a good use of the English language. "Cloud" is one of the more common of the most egregious offenders in this regard. I don't object to making attrition a verb in specific, but in principle. The English language, and its American derivative have been much abused by sales and advertising over the last few decades, and that makes me very resistant to alterations that serve little to no purpose in my opinion.
-
@Kelly said:
The English language, and its American derivative have been much abused by sales and advertising over the last few decades, and that makes me very resistant to alterations that serve little to no purpose in my opinion.
Verbification is primarily driven by Eastern influences as the use of English has altered heavily as India is a primary English speaking zone now. In some cases that means incorrect usages are occurring but in others it is new word forms or approaches to speech and, in some cases, preservation of older forms.
This isn't a case of alteration but of recognition, though.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Kelly said:
The English language, and its American derivative have been much abused by sales and advertising over the last few decades, and that makes me very resistant to alterations that serve little to no purpose in my opinion.
Verbification is primarily driven by Eastern influences as the use of English has altered heavily as India is a primary English speaking zone now. In some cases that means incorrect usages are occurring but in others it is new word forms or approaches to speech and, in some cases, preservation of older forms.
This isn't a case of alteration but of recognition, though.
I'm speaking more generically than with attritioning. Try inserting Cloud into your statements and see how that rubs you
-
And letting English growth be driven by Indian influences will not end well for the language. I have been there, and heard what they speak and teach in several regions.
-
@Kelly said:
And letting English growth be driven by Indian influences will not end well for the language. I have been there, and heard what they speak and teach in several regions.
I agree whole heartedly, but I'm curious how that's any different than, say, Australia or North America?
Regional dialects are nothing new.
