RightPaddock's Comments
@Tempscire wrote - "a Victorian would be stunned at the claptrap we utter compared to his more formal style"
I doubt they would, Shakespeare wrote 300+ years ago in Elizabethan English, whereas the Victorian era was mere 110 years ago. Most people find the language of Dickens, Thackeray, Georg Eliot, the Bronte sisters and Lewis Carroll much easier going than Shakespeare.
That said, Tempscire may well be correct, Victorians might be shocked to find that we don't all write like Macaulay, but nor did they write like Bacon, Spenser, Marlow or indeed Shakespeare.
I doubt they would, Shakespeare wrote 300+ years ago in Elizabethan English, whereas the Victorian era was mere 110 years ago. Most people find the language of Dickens, Thackeray, Georg Eliot, the Bronte sisters and Lewis Carroll much easier going than Shakespeare.
That said, Tempscire may well be correct, Victorians might be shocked to find that we don't all write like Macaulay, but nor did they write like Bacon, Spenser, Marlow or indeed Shakespeare.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
@James Curran - the issue is the so called "millionth" word, not what dictionaries are, or are not.
These are the best online definitions of "word" I can find, they are from the online Macquarie Dictionary (Australia), interestingly the online Websters & Oxford dictionaries only list the first one
1. a sound or a combination of sounds, or its written or printed representation, used in any language as the sign of a concept.
2. a grammatical element which can stand alone as an utterance, not divisible into two or more parts; thus boy and boyish, but not -ish or boy scout, the former being less than a word, the latter more.
It seems to me that the first would allow for two or more elements as in Carbon Neutral, whilst the second would certainly not. Even tho' I'm an Australian I'd say that the second definition would be closer to most peoples understanding of what a "word" actually is.
Things like Web 2.0, Slow Food, Clown Computing etc might be said to be "labels" as in - a short word or phrase of description for a person, group, movement, idea etc.
These are the best online definitions of "word" I can find, they are from the online Macquarie Dictionary (Australia), interestingly the online Websters & Oxford dictionaries only list the first one
1. a sound or a combination of sounds, or its written or printed representation, used in any language as the sign of a concept.
2. a grammatical element which can stand alone as an utterance, not divisible into two or more parts; thus boy and boyish, but not -ish or boy scout, the former being less than a word, the latter more.
It seems to me that the first would allow for two or more elements as in Carbon Neutral, whilst the second would certainly not. Even tho' I'm an Australian I'd say that the second definition would be closer to most peoples understanding of what a "word" actually is.
Things like Web 2.0, Slow Food, Clown Computing etc might be said to be "labels" as in - a short word or phrase of description for a person, group, movement, idea etc.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
I've not measured the size of their brains, however my observation is that they have no greater mental faculty than any other group of similarly educated women of a similar age. As to bolstered immune systems, this particular group seems to be more prone to ailments of various kinds than the more general population. They do however make nice marmalade and cordial.