|
I'm fairly sure that nearly everyone who uses the word "manner" in this slang sense understands it as slang, so there's no need for a blog to educate them, but since you apparently care for things like this, you might like to know that you were wrong about this part:On September 16 2010 21:52 chrisSquire wrote:
Manner simply refers to "a way of doing something".
"The manner in which he controls his Colossus is far superior to all others."
By qualifying with "well" or "bad" we can transform the noun "manner" into a descriptive adjective" thusly:
"The well-mannered host made sure to abide each and everyone of his guests' wishes.
N.B.
The word itself does not carry any qualities of its own (e.g. well mannered or bad mannered).
Even in a sentence such as "He is a mannered player" (where the word is used correctly in a grammatical sense) you still have not actually told us anything about his manner but just that he has a "way of doing things" which ought to be quite obvious in the first place.
The Oxford English Dictionary says:
mannered, adj.
2. Having good manners; well-behaved, polite; refined, gracious, sophisticated. Now chiefly regional. If you think about phrases like, "Where are your manners?", you see that "manners" can be used in the sense of "good manners". That's not in the least unusual for English, either: for another example, think of the word "principled" or the phrase "a man of principles".
edit: just noticed that Nony already made this point on the previous page. Oh well, at least I added chapter and verse.
|
i agree completely with the OP. it drives me nuts how the term manner is thrown around in ways that don't make sense
|
This just in. Language changes in new and exciting ways due to cultural influences.
More news at eleven!
|
On September 17 2010 03:08 Daigomi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 02:47 mucker wrote:On September 17 2010 01:48 Daigomi wrote:On September 17 2010 01:06 mucker wrote:On September 17 2010 01:01 Daigomi wrote:On September 17 2010 00:42 Nokarot wrote:Its a phrase. If you know what it means, then it's doing its job. If someone is saying "this is getting out of hand" they don't mean "i dropped something", they mean that the situation is escalating beyond control. Which reminds me... amazing flash. http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/529003 It's not a phrase, it's a word: "Manner/Mannered." Just like phrases however, there are correct and incorrect uses. A better example would be like saying "this is getting out to hand," with the intended meaning being it is escalating beyond control. On September 17 2010 00:43 Gene wrote:
next he's going to tell us Google isnt a verb It's more a case of the word already existing in the proper form, and then an incorrect form being used. People create new meanings and uses for words all the time, and that's fine. In this case though, the word already has the correct forms and tenses, and people are incorrectly using one form in place of another. It's like deciding that from now on the word "kick" will be past tense as well, when the form "kicked" already exists. "Yesterday I kick the ball," and then when someone points out the mistake you say that language is evolving. So you don't think using words in new ways constitutes language change? I'm not quite sure what you are asking. If you are referring to my last sentence, then it is language change of course, but if you look at my previous comment I pointed out that not all language change is good change. It's just difficult to believe that people would actively want to change one completely reasonable word "mannered" to one that's outside of the normal rules of grammar "manner" for no reason. That's why I dislike this change, because it changes the rules of grammar (to directly contradict the previous rules of grammar regarding the word) for no benefit, while increasing the complexity. It really is like deciding that the past tense word "kicked" will now be "kick" for no reason, even though using kick as past tense is clearly incorrect according to the current rules of grammar. It can be done, but when the word already has a past tense form that is commonly used ("kicked"), why change it to make it more complex? . So language change has to be "good change"? You know that languages can undergo incredibly drastic changes with regards to syntax and morphology, right? What do you think those changes look like while they are happening? Do you think language change happens with no overlap between old and new? Your kick example doesn't hold up anyways. That is a tense marking on a verb, conveying information and reducing ambiguity. When you're using "mannered" as an adjective it isn't strictly past tense, as in the sentence Nony is such a manner player. Isn't dropping the -ed a reduction in complexity there? What additional necessary information does the -ed contain in Nony is such a mannered player? That doesn't even sound right to me, needs well before mannered. If Nony is such a well mannered player can be reduced to Nony is such a manner player with no loss of meaning and no introduction of ambiguity is that not a "good change"? Language change doesn't have to be good change (although obviously it's better if changes in language simplify the language), but if we're actively choosing to change the language, then it's retarded to make the language more complex for no actual gain. Not quite sure what your point is with sentences 2-4, and how it relates to the current situation. It seems like you are arguing for language evolution as a whole, which isn't really relevant here. We're not making an argument against some large scale trend which leads to overlap, this is a single case where the incorrect word was actively chosen. Rather than leading to a new set of rules which simplify language, this change will lead to an exception that needs to be made. The kick example didn't have to do with the specific morphology, it had to do with the fact that a form of the word already exists, and that an incorrect form of the word is then used to replace the correct form. So, with regards to my example, the ed doesn't indicate tense, but it is part of a specific language rule which governs that situation: "Nony is such an educated/prepared/disciplined/mannered player." Someone specialising in linguistics can point out exactly what the rule is. The reason this is not a good is because, as I mentioned earlier, this is not some large scale simplification of the language but rather an exception completely unrelated to the current state of the language. Notice that I do not mind the change from well mannered to mannered (I mention this in my first post on the topic). Omission is fine if the omission is generally understood. The problem is with the change in the grammar of this specific word, when established grammar rules for this class of word (and this word itself) already exists.
The point of those sentences 2-4 were to see if you actually understand the mechanics of language change, which clearly you do not. Entire syntactic or morphological rules do not change all at once. The usage of single words and phrases will change and it becomes a feedback loop with additional words in that class or syntactic structure undergoing the change until it has been reinforced to point where it becomes the default. Often times words will change even if it creates a redundant form, creates ambiguities or (apparently) unnecessary complexity. It starts with exceptions, in small communities or isolated groups. The usage of manner in gamer speak is exactly what language change looks like.
|
People freak out when "metagame" is used incorrectly but incorrect usage of "manner" is a sign of evolving languages?
Personally I agree with the view that we don't need to be particularly strict about word definitions, of course, I also extend this to "metagame" and so find that argument rather unreasonable as well.
|
It's slang that's developed within gaming. Get over it.
|
South Africa4316 Posts
On September 17 2010 03:43 mucker wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 03:08 Daigomi wrote:On September 17 2010 02:47 mucker wrote:On September 17 2010 01:48 Daigomi wrote:On September 17 2010 01:06 mucker wrote:On September 17 2010 01:01 Daigomi wrote:On September 17 2010 00:42 Nokarot wrote:Its a phrase. If you know what it means, then it's doing its job. If someone is saying "this is getting out of hand" they don't mean "i dropped something", they mean that the situation is escalating beyond control. Which reminds me... amazing flash. http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/529003 It's not a phrase, it's a word: "Manner/Mannered." Just like phrases however, there are correct and incorrect uses. A better example would be like saying "this is getting out to hand," with the intended meaning being it is escalating beyond control. On September 17 2010 00:43 Gene wrote:
next he's going to tell us Google isnt a verb It's more a case of the word already existing in the proper form, and then an incorrect form being used. People create new meanings and uses for words all the time, and that's fine. In this case though, the word already has the correct forms and tenses, and people are incorrectly using one form in place of another. It's like deciding that from now on the word "kick" will be past tense as well, when the form "kicked" already exists. "Yesterday I kick the ball," and then when someone points out the mistake you say that language is evolving. So you don't think using words in new ways constitutes language change? I'm not quite sure what you are asking. If you are referring to my last sentence, then it is language change of course, but if you look at my previous comment I pointed out that not all language change is good change. It's just difficult to believe that people would actively want to change one completely reasonable word "mannered" to one that's outside of the normal rules of grammar "manner" for no reason. That's why I dislike this change, because it changes the rules of grammar (to directly contradict the previous rules of grammar regarding the word) for no benefit, while increasing the complexity. It really is like deciding that the past tense word "kicked" will now be "kick" for no reason, even though using kick as past tense is clearly incorrect according to the current rules of grammar. It can be done, but when the word already has a past tense form that is commonly used ("kicked"), why change it to make it more complex? . So language change has to be "good change"? You know that languages can undergo incredibly drastic changes with regards to syntax and morphology, right? What do you think those changes look like while they are happening? Do you think language change happens with no overlap between old and new? Your kick example doesn't hold up anyways. That is a tense marking on a verb, conveying information and reducing ambiguity. When you're using "mannered" as an adjective it isn't strictly past tense, as in the sentence Nony is such a manner player. Isn't dropping the -ed a reduction in complexity there? What additional necessary information does the -ed contain in Nony is such a mannered player? That doesn't even sound right to me, needs well before mannered. If Nony is such a well mannered player can be reduced to Nony is such a manner player with no loss of meaning and no introduction of ambiguity is that not a "good change"? Language change doesn't have to be good change (although obviously it's better if changes in language simplify the language), but if we're actively choosing to change the language, then it's retarded to make the language more complex for no actual gain. Not quite sure what your point is with sentences 2-4, and how it relates to the current situation. It seems like you are arguing for language evolution as a whole, which isn't really relevant here. We're not making an argument against some large scale trend which leads to overlap, this is a single case where the incorrect word was actively chosen. Rather than leading to a new set of rules which simplify language, this change will lead to an exception that needs to be made. The kick example didn't have to do with the specific morphology, it had to do with the fact that a form of the word already exists, and that an incorrect form of the word is then used to replace the correct form. So, with regards to my example, the ed doesn't indicate tense, but it is part of a specific language rule which governs that situation: "Nony is such an educated/prepared/disciplined/mannered player." Someone specialising in linguistics can point out exactly what the rule is. The reason this is not a good is because, as I mentioned earlier, this is not some large scale simplification of the language but rather an exception completely unrelated to the current state of the language. Notice that I do not mind the change from well mannered to mannered (I mention this in my first post on the topic). Omission is fine if the omission is generally understood. The problem is with the change in the grammar of this specific word, when established grammar rules for this class of word (and this word itself) already exists. The point of those sentences 2-4 were to see if you actually understand the mechanics of language change, which clearly you do not. Entire syntactic or morphological rules do not change all at once. The usage of single words and phrases will change and it becomes a feedback loop with additional words in that class or syntactic structure undergoing the change until it has been reinforced to point where it becomes the default. Often times words will change even if it creates a redundant form, creates ambiguities or (apparently) unnecessary complexity. It starts with exceptions, in small communities or isolated groups. The usage of manner in gamer speak is exactly what language change looks like.
It's not that I don't understand how language changes. I just find the idea that the incorrect use of "manner" on a SC forum will lead to large scale syntactic and morphological changes absurd and didn't really consider it. Is that what you are arguing? That if we start using "manner" here it is more likely to lead to a large scale change than it is to becoming an exception? To take this further, are you arguing that we should all be consciously using incorrect forms of words which complexify the language at the time because they might lead to large scale simplifications later? Because that is the situation here.
Even if you were to assume that this change could lead to large scale changes. There is no way you could promote making conscious changes like these when you consider firstly how minute the chance of it leading to a substantive change is, and secondly the uncontrolled nature of the change. Even if it leads to a change, the chance that it's a simplifying change is not that great. All in all, the chance that this change will improve the language is tiny compared to the immediate effects of it being wrong right now, and the long term chance that it simply becomes a complex exception.
|
you can't take this away from us!
manner pylons!
manner players!
manner plays!
|
So, you are saying the community completely raped the meaning of the word?
|
Better question: Who gives a shit?
QQ more dude
|
Why do people act as if language is set in stone -_-?
|
On September 17 2010 04:22 Saturnize wrote:
Why do people act as if language is set in stone -_-?
This is basically the heart of the issue.
There's two schools of thought: either you believe that there is an unwavering standard of how language should be used (prescriptive grammarian) or you believe that this standard is set by how language is actually used (descriptive grammarian). You can't point to one of these and say "that's the right way", and there's no use arguing it because there are pros and cons of both views.
|
Bacesue we as hamnus hvae the tncendey to foamlzrie tinhgs to a pniot werhe erveobydy has to flloow a gevin satdrand. Tihs is psoilbsy due to the need of hvanig acrutcae, picerse ifnramioton (think eninengrieg), or as a maens to vliatade the sohcol sesytm.
Heovwer, I sppourt crrecot gramamr to aiovd tihs secainro.
|
On September 17 2010 04:26 FiBsTeR wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 04:22 Saturnize wrote:
Why do people act as if language is set in stone -_-? This is basically the heart of the issue. There's two schools of thought: either you believe that there is an unwavering standard of how language should be used (prescriptive grammarian) or you believe that this standard is set by how language is actually used (descriptive grammarian). You can't point to one of these and say "that's the right way", and there's no use arguing it because there are pros and cons of both views.
There are two prevailing views on continents. One says that they always looked the way they do now and the other says "that the continents had once formed a single landmass before breaking apart and drifting to their present locations". There are pros and cons to both views: one of them is considerably simpler and has the pedigree of thousands of years of tradition, while the other is supported by evidence and explains a number of other observations. You can't just point to one of them and say "that's the right way".
|
Although silly to misuse words like this, this particular word has taken on a new meaning which is referred to exclusively when it's used as another part of speach. The alternative, to say that someone is "well-mannered" or "has good manners" sort of sounds like you're a stereotypical old lady talking about someone's gentlemenliness, as opposed to one's good sportsmanship or e-ettiquete, which i think most people agree sounds rather lame. The ungrammatical mutation of the word indicates more clearly that it's some accepted form of internet speak with which you should already be familiar, thus allowing people to feel cooler when talking about someone's manners, even to a less savvy audience.
|
whoa manner~! This thread be very gm.
|
Ok, let's all stop using colloquialisms forever!
|
grammar pylon!
Message board = informal writing setting.(See I just used an equal sign!) Clarity and readability is more important than form. We can use whatever variations, especially one as commonly known and 'harmless' as manner. (ie it is intuitive and obvious, and not totally ugly.. for example "leet speak" is commonly known, but ugly so I would discourage using it more hehe)
I actually prefer this way of English. If you hear a new term, you often can figure out the meaning by context and logic. That is the only way shakespeare plays will make any sense lol.
|
On September 16 2010 22:18 LuckyFool wrote:
If language never evolved we'd all be speaking some sort of ancient prehistoric grunting language from the early years of B.C.E.
that being said I wouldn't want to have to learn english through the teamliquid forums. (news articles are well written but the overall TL poster is quite a grammatical noob or does not take the time/effort to post in good english, I know I don't)
oh and it's quite fun when you meetup with TL users or other people from the community to use these words in these ways. :D
This. Language is all about change... do you think all the words in the English language were invented at once?
|
I actually agree with the OP. I don't really mind THAT much, but it is a bit annoying. I know that most of the TL community disagrees... oh well, it's just preference.
I don't really feel that using words incorrectly is a form of evolution. In fact, I think it's the opposite...but once again that's just my opinion. I also don't claim that my grammar is perfect either, in fact it's far from it. I, for one, can't stand that things like "bling bling" are being added as a normal part of the language. Like I said, I don't think it's "evolving". Just my thoughts -- to each his own.
edit: I am also guilty of using phrases like "manner pylon"  I guess I'm just a hypocrite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
