"my inference is", "I infer that" and substitutes for these two

[birdeen's call]

The pronunciation of the word 'zoology' is a case in point. Given the origin of the word, as well as the logic of its formation, we know (don't we?) that it should be pronounced 'zo + ology', and so says my 1974 OED. But today's edition has given in to the prevalent 'zoo + ology', a result of ignorant people assuming it must be the study of zoos. This is crass advice to give, not only because of the historical background, but also because of its complete illogicality: this mispronunciation should be spelt 'zooology'.

It is illogical, given the word's origin, to spell "another" as we do. It is illogical, given the origin, to spell "a nickname" as we do.

[The Dude]

It is illogical, given the word's origin, to spell "another" as we do. It is illogical, given the origin, to spell "a nickname" as we do.

I see no comparison, except that, like 'zoology', each of these is a word that developed, logically, through the combination of two or three others.

However, this was hardly the point of my, admittedly excessive, rant.

[birdeen's call]

My point was that logic is not the primary criterion for correctness. The primary criterion is acceptance.

"A nickname" came to life as an error, but it is not an error today. We know that it comes from "an eke name", but the letter "n" was erroneously moved from "an" to "eke". We do not care though, because it is now accepted that the word is "nickname", with the "n". The difference between this word and the case of "zoology", which you mentioned, is not that of logic. The difference lies in acceptance.

[5jj]

Fighting against ignorance and carelessness in the use of English has to be worth the effort. I feel that to establish and uphold clear guidelines is important for those of us who have to teach the language. We need to be able to say "This is right, this is wrong" and our students need this of us if they are to stand a chance of learning to use our language with clarity and conciseness.

But languages change. If that were not so, we would all be speaking as Swift did, or Shakespeare, or Chaucer, or Caedmon or ... . If we teachers try to freeze usages that are dying, or deny usages that are coming into use, we do a great disservice to our students.

'Ignorance and carelessness', along with 'dumbing down' (an expression which itself would have horrified my English teacher when I was at school) and similar expressions are frequently used by those who feel that the language they learnt as a child is somehow the perfect form.

I strongly believe that our task is to teach the language as the majority of reasonably-educated people use it, not as we think it should be used.

[Khosro]

My point was that logic is not the primary criterion for correctness. The primary criterion is acceptance.

I add that when there is no 100% acceptance then one should take sides. I learnt from Bakhtin that language is not only representative of a national unity but also the place for ideological differences (precisely speaking, and in Bakhtin terms, an ideological battlefield):

"any language, however, as it is lived, socially, over a variety of social, professional, class and so forth positions, is really an interacting and at times contesting amalgam of different language uses. Hence every language instance is marked by centrifugal (heteroglossic, socially distinguishing) as well as centripetal (monoglossic, societally unifying) forces."


If some people tend to mix up "infer" and "imply" and others tend to keep the distinction then I, as a non-native speaker, should not only have knowledge about both groups but also choose my own group. As an example, Do I want to appear as a highly literate individual or just an easy-going guy?

[The Dude]

I do regret the mention of logic now, because it seems to have been taken as my main argument, which it was not. Of course we all understand that no language is logical, neither can it be made to be so. I quoted this example merely to illustrate my frustration with dictionaries that too-readily support changes in the language that are based purely on ignorance.

I agree with fivejedjon that we should teach a language as the majority of reasonably-educated people use it. It follows that we should not teach it as the majority of ill-educated people use it. And I agree too that a language must be allowed to change, with the introduction of new uses and new vocabulary and the phasing out of those which have become redundant. But I feel it is a teacher's duty to resist change that is driven by straightforward misconception, or to put it more simply, to correct mistakes.

Which brings me back to the OP: If a student asks the difference between these two words, I tell him. And I might add: "This is the right way. The correct way. The way they should be used. The way educated people in this country use and understand them. Unfortunately, a lot of people and even, perhaps, some reference books will confuse them. But use them this way and you will always be understood." And for me, to be easily and fully understood is the whole point of language.

[5jj]

l But I feel it is a teacher's duty to resist change that is driven by straightforward misconception, or to put it more simply, to correct mistakes.

Which brings me back to the OP: If a student asks the difference between these two words, I tell him. And I might add: "This is the right way. The correct way. The way they should be used. The way educated people in this country use and understand them. Unfortunately, a lot of people and even, perhaps, some reference books will confuse them. But use them this way and you will always be understood." And for me, to be easily and fully understood is the whole point of language.

Indeed.

[BobK]

I'm glad everyone so far has kept things polite. Unfortunately, this sort of topic attracts less civilized interventions. I'm leaving it open, but keeping an eye on it.

b

PS Note that this isn't a warning addressed to anyone - more of a reassurance to people worried about where things may be heading.

[Coolfootluke]

I'm glad everyone so far has kept things polite. Unfortunately, this sort of topic attracts less civilized interventions. I'm leaving it open, but keeping an eye on it.

b

PS Note that this isn't a warning addressed to anyone - more of a reassurance to people worried about where things may be heading.

I am not a teacher, and that about says it.

Don't worry---I'm merely reading along with interest. My daughter wants to be an English teacher.