{"id":42465,"date":"2014-06-09T22:34:06","date_gmt":"2014-06-10T04:34:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2014\/06\/09\/our-livingish-language.html"},"modified":"2014-06-10T16:10:06","modified_gmt":"2014-06-10T22:10:06","slug":"our-livingish-language","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2014\/06\/09\/our-livingish-language.html","title":{"rendered":"Our living(ish) language"},"content":{"rendered":"
I find, as I grow older, that rather than being more curmudgeonly about the changes (temporary or long-term) in English, I become more fascinated. It's not just a matter of slang, but of actual, lasting tweaks to how we use words (and the words involved) that are so intensely interesting. \u00a0I retain the right to use or shun them, as feels comfortable for the context, and to appreciate\u00a0them or disdain them, but there's no use ignoring them.<\/p>\n

(h\/t +<\/span>Kee Hinckley<\/a><\/span>)<\/p>\n

Reshared post from +Yonatan Zunger<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Here's something interesting. Syntactic particles like "the" and suffixes like "-s" often form by a process called grammaticalization, where a content word gradually acquires a purely grammatical meaning. For example, "the" was originally the demonstrative "that."* Or for those of you who speak French, you may note that verbs are negated with "ne [verb] pas," or simply "[verb] pas" in spoken French. Originally, it was "ne [verb]," similar to how negation works in other Romance languages; in the 16th century or so, it became common to add emphatics to it — "je ne mange gout,"<\/i> "I won't eat a bite,"<\/i> "je ne prends rien,<\/i>" "I'm not taking anything,"<\/i> and "je ne marche pas,"<\/i> "I'm not going a step."<\/i> First it became common (and much-derided by the older generation) speech to always put in these emphatics; then "pas" ("a step") started to be more commonly used as the default one, when it wasn't obvious which one to use; then it became used almost universally, when people weren't feeling creative about what to say; and ultimately, "ne… pas" became the standard way to negate something, with "ne [verb]" becoming seen as outright incorrect French. (And now the "ne" is gradually being dropped in speech!)<\/p>\n

"Ish," however, is one of the few words which has moved in the opposite direction: it's moving from being a piece of grammar (a suffix, in this case) to being a word in its own right. "Ish" is what's called a productive<\/i> suffix: you can append it to a wide range of words and people will know what it means. (Other productive suffixes in English are "-ed" (past tense), "-s" (plural), or "-ist" (adherent of). Contrast this with "-red" (the condition of, as in "hatred"): you can't append this to a general word and have people have any idea of what you're talking about, but there are still various words which were kept using it from back in the day when it was a productive suffix)\u00a0<\/p>\n

In fact, "ish" was so productive that it started to decouple from the word. First, it could apply to not just a single word, but to a phrase ("Give me something rum-and-cokeish"), which slowly turned it from a suffix into a small grammatical word of its own. And then, you started to see that in some circumstances it became possible to eliminate the content word altogether: for example, if someone asks "Did the movie have a happy ending?," you could say "Yeah, happy-ish," but increasingly you could just drop the repeated content word (which English likes to do: if someone asks "Did you walk there?" you're much more likely to say "I did" than "I walked") and say "Yeah, -ish."<\/p>\n

"Ish" slowly becomes an independent word, roughly equivalent to the phrase "more or less." Unlike the few other words which have been pulled off from grammar in this way (the crossword puzzle builder's perennial favorite "ism," "a system of beliefs," being a classical example) this one isn't a noun: you can't have an ish, happyish and saddish are not ishes. This one seems to have the structure of an adverb, all the more interesting because most new adverbs in English are formed via the (productive!) suffix "-ly" attached to an adjective. Adverbs which are also used as adjectives on their own, without suffixes, are more often holdovers from older words in English, like "quick."<\/p>\n

So here's an interesting new formation in our language.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Or at least, interesting-ish.<\/p>\n

h\/t +<\/span>Laura Gibbs<\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

* Yes, historical linguists: I am oversimplifying here. I know.\ufeff<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\n \n <\/div>\n

Ish: How A Suffix Became A Word<\/a>
\n The canonical use of -ish is as a suffix meaning “approximately,” as in bluish, tallish, sixish, or even hungry-ish. This is the definition\u2014the only definition\u2014that you’ll find in\u00a0Merriam-Webster, which notes that -ish derives from the Old English -isc, of Germanic origin, which in turn is related to similar such suffixes…\n <\/p>\n

View this post on Google+<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I find, as I grow older, that rather than being more curmudgeonly about the changes (temporary or long-term) in English, I become more fascinated. It's not just a matter of slang, but of actual, lasting tweaks to how we use words (and the words involved) that are so intensely interesting. \u00a0I retain the right to … Continue reading “Our living(ish) language”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_seopress_robots_follow":"","_seopress_robots_imageindex":"","_seopress_robots_snippet":"","_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_robots_breadcrumbs":"","_seopress_robots_freeze_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_custom_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_canonical":"","_seopress_social_fb_title":"","_seopress_social_fb_desc":"","_seopress_social_fb_img":"","_seopress_social_fb_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_height":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_title":"","_seopress_social_twitter_desc":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_height":0,"_seopress_redirections_value":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled_regex":"","_seopress_redirections_logged_status":"","_seopress_redirections_param":"","_seopress_redirections_type":0,"_seopress_analysis_target_kw":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[106,24],"tags":[586],"class_list":["post-42465","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-plusposts","category-writing-and-language","tag-pluspost"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":129405,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2016\/01\/08\/new-words-for-old.html","url_meta":{"origin":42465,"position":0},"title":"New words for old","author":"***Dave","date":"Fri 8-Jan-16 7:09am","format":false,"excerpt":"I'm not sure that the examples given represent evolution, or even growth, but they show how language churns and words develop. Of the ones mentioned, I would expect only a handful to really last more than a few years -- they are more witticisms about a current social trend than\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":128232,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2015\/10\/05\/of-the-f-bomb-and-personal-vocabulary-kinks.html","url_meta":{"origin":42465,"position":1},"title":"Of the F-Bomb and Personal Vocabulary Kinks","author":"***Dave","date":"Mon 5-Oct-15 2:06pm","format":false,"excerpt":"It is perhaps a sign of my long years that I do not comfortably use that particular four-letter word. Growing up, that was the nuclear option of vocabulary, the worst possible word one could use. The \"F\" word trumped even the \"S\" word, being not only an obscenity but related\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/0671dfcb75f05e1fcbbb9a14543592bc5B15D.jpgimgmax%3D660.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":129649,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2016\/02\/05\/when-you-have-official-language-police-things-can-get-ugly.html","url_meta":{"origin":42465,"position":2},"title":"When you have Official Language Police, things can get ugly","author":"***Dave","date":"Fri 5-Feb-16 11:48pm","format":false,"excerpt":"The French are known for being ... um ... determined to intentionally maintain the purity of their tongue, to officially deprecate word imports in favor of their own native words, etc.But that sort of sentiment can draw flak when the government officially makes changes to the language.'French linguistic purists have\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":128453,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2015\/10\/28\/words-mean-things-civil-war-edition.html","url_meta":{"origin":42465,"position":3},"title":"Words Mean Things (Civil War Edition)","author":"***Dave","date":"Wed 28-Oct-15 5:02am","format":false,"excerpt":"Language evolves and changes. Words get worn down over time, or drift and find new meanings. Old word stop meaning what they used to. Or sometimes our understanding of words changes, and what was acceptable becomes fraught, for reasons serious or silly.That said, I'm always a bit leery of intentional\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":127891,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2015\/09\/05\/the-campaign-against-midget.html","url_meta":{"origin":42465,"position":4},"title":"The campaign against "midget"","author":"***Dave","date":"Sat 5-Sep-15 1:26am","format":false,"excerpt":"So this was an interesting article about an effort by \"Little People of America\" to change the nomenclature the USDA uses about raisin classification from using the term \"midget.\" And the article notes:The term is offensive to little people, who view it as a slur. They won\u2019t even say it.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":134811,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2017\/09\/21\/untrustworthy-small-things-will-untrustworthy-great-things.html","url_meta":{"origin":42465,"position":5},"title":"Those who are untrustworthy in small things will be untrustworthy in great things","author":"***Dave","date":"Thu 21-Sep-17 2:28pm","format":false,"excerpt":"Or, in other words, if you can't trust Mike Pence to be accurate (or honest) about what Thomas Jefferson said when using a (fake) quote to support his argument, how can you trust anything he says? Quotation collection is a hobby of mine. Verifying that quote would have taken him\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Mike-Pence.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42465","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=42465"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42465\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":42492,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42465\/revisions\/42492"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42465"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42465"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42465"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}