Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Did you know....(random odd fact)

revelated said:
That "conversate" got added to the dictionary as an actual word?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conversate

Such is the world that we live in. For years I've been correcting people to use converse, only to have the powers that be give in to this.
Click to expand...

No Webster and the power that be are right.

New words are added all the time as a language grows and evolves. Just because you say so or the power at be says so does not make it any less than of a word.

An example of words that have been added in our life time
"google"
"google" verb, use web search to look something up on the internect.

"Go google it"
Very difference than Google.com or go to Google.

Remember English is always changing adding new words and changing meanings.
 
I think company or product names should not be allowed as official words.

I'm wondering when they'll add "refudiate"...
 
rprebel said:
While I understand that our language is constantly evolving, I refuse to stop yelling at people who say "irregardless."
Click to expand...

That's my point. I mean "conversate" had never been a word, even Firefox still flags it as a misspell. Evolution is one thing, catering is another. I wouldn't want a situation where we just add stuff to dictionaries because certain people don't understand proper Latin or prefixes/suffixes.

FireStar said:
Yes. It would have the same definition as regardless.
Click to expand...

But it's not the same definition.

"ir" = not
"regard"
"less" = without

Not without regard =/= regardless.
 
revelated said:
That's my point. I mean "conversate" had never been a word, even Firefox still flags it as a misspell. Evolution is one thing, catering is another. I wouldn't want a situation where we just add stuff to dictionaries because certain people don't understand proper Latin or prefixes/suffixes.



But it's not the same definition.

"ir" = not
"regard"
"less" = without

Not without regard =/= regardless.
Click to expand...

is there really a difference? the first instance of an evolved word is a mispronunciation/mispelling. it remains a 'mistake' until it becomes common or someone uses it in some 'serious' writing
 
revelated said:
That's my point. I mean "conversate" had never been a word, even Firefox still flags it as a misspell. Evolution is one thing, catering is another. I wouldn't want a situation where we just add stuff to dictionaries because certain people don't understand proper Latin or prefixes/suffixes.
Click to expand...

Umm hate to tell you this but evolution of a word and new words includes misspelling.

So it is still a word and correct. What is defined as a new word I believe has a new word being added officially to our language about ever 20-30 mins.
 
It's not in the OED, it's not a word. :D

I don't mind dictionaries attempting to keep up with contemporary usage -- that's what they do -- but 'conversate'? I've never heard it used and I don't see the utility of including it in the lexicon.
 
yojitani said:
I don't see the utility of including it in the lexicon.
Click to expand...

Neither do I.

It seems that this is a catering to the lowest common denominator. There is a perfectly valid word still in use.

If converse is phased out of our lexicon for "conversate" it would actually destroy some of etymological clues we have for the meaning of that word and its origins.

I'm all for an adaptive lexicon (eg "googling" should be in the dictionary because it describes a particular type of activity that transcends a traditional search), but new words have to offer some advantage. Contractions, clarifications, expansions, etc, are valuable. "Conversate" adds nothing.
 
Interesting. Until this thread, I have never heard or seen the word 'conversate' before. Of course, now I'll begin seeing/hearing it all the time. :p
 
Rodimus Prime said:
Umm hate to tell you this but evolution of a word and new words includes misspelling.
Click to expand...

So if frequent misspelling means a word becomes correct, does this mean I have to give up my my crusade to get people to use the correct versions of the following:
- your, you're
- to, too
- there, their, they're
- accept, except
- then, than

Because the misuse of those words has become so frequent, I'm almost beginning to think that I am wrong. They are actually misused more than they are used correctly in my experiences. In fact, I haven't seen someone use the correct "you're" in ages...it's almost as if it has disappeared from language.

Sorry, that does not make it correct.

And does this mean that to "axe" a question will now become correct? Because I'm not ready for that.
 
samiwas said:
So if frequent misspelling means a word becomes correct, does this mean I have to give up my my crusade to get people to use the correct versions of the following:
- your, you're
- to, too
- there, their, they're
- accept, except
- then, than

Because the misuse of those words has become so frequent, I'm almost beginning to think that I am wrong. They are actually misused more than they are used correctly in my experiences. In fact, I haven't seen someone use the correct "you're" in ages...it's almost as if it has disappeared from language.

Sorry, that does not make it correct.

And does this mean that to "axe" a question will now become correct? Because I'm not ready for that.
Click to expand...

I agree. Simply because a word is common and ubiquitous doesn't mean it's correct.
 
samiwas said:
So if frequent misspelling means a word becomes correct, does this mean I have to give up my my crusade to get people to use the correct versions of the following:
- your, you're
- to, too
- there, their, they're
- accept, except
- then, than

Because the misuse of those words has become so frequent, I'm almost beginning to think that I am wrong. They are actually misused more than they are used correctly in my experiences. In fact, I haven't seen someone use the correct "you're" in ages...it's almost as if it has disappeared from language.

Sorry, that does not make it correct.

And does this mean that to "axe" a question will now become correct? Because I'm not ready for that.
Click to expand...

pretty much the case. Words get phased out over time. As the English language evolves some of those will be combined in multiple meaning.

Take for example the word you. It used to have 3 different words

You used to have
you -formal some one higher than you in terms of respect
you - informal friend (thee)
you - for group kind of like ya'll

All those have been reduced down to just you. Now I do not know all of the older types of you but it shows the point. Words change over time.
 
Rodimus Prime said:
You used to have
you -formal some one higher than you in terms of respect
you - informal friend (thee)
you - for group kind of like ya'll
Click to expand...
Actually, thou was the singular form (nominative) and thee was the singular form (accusative). Ye was the plural (both nominative and accusative). The transition to you for all forms was originally from a misreading of the Anglo-Saxon thorn character, representing 'th'.
 
CalBoy said:
If converse is phased out of our lexicon for "conversate" it would actually destroy some of etymological clues we have for the meaning of that word and its origins.
Click to expand...

So the etymology is:

to converse is to have a conversion.

to conversate is to have a conversation.

I personally think people from Canada should call themselves Canadans. They're not from Canadia like I'm from Australia.

skunk said:
Actually, thou was the singular form (nominative) and thee was the singular form (accusative). Ye was the plural (both nominative and accusative). The transition to you for all forms was originally from a misreading of the Anglo-Saxon thorn character, representing 'th'.
Click to expand...

Only written though? I heard spake once that 'th' is/was pronounced 'y', so thou and you were pronounced the same but written differently. And thee was said yee. Which is still in use actually, as in "what're ye lookin' at?" or "does ye mother sow?" in various parts of the UK.

Basically, all yee and yoo, so it's always been us making the mistake of saying thou as thow instead of yoo in movies and suchlike.
 
samiwas said:
So if frequent misspelling means a word becomes correct, does this mean I have to give up my my crusade to get people to use the correct versions of the following:
- your, you're
- to, too
- there, their, they're
- accept, except
- then, than

Because the misuse of those words has become so frequent, I'm almost beginning to think that I am wrong. They are actually misused more than they are used correctly in my experiences. In fact, I haven't seen someone use the correct "you're" in ages...it's almost as if it has disappeared from language.

Sorry, that does not make it correct.

And does this mean that to "axe" a question will now become correct? Because I'm not ready for that.
Click to expand...

A manager at my workplace has an EXTREMELY difficult time with derivations of "since". He has sported the following in emails:

- "Been a long time sense you and I..."
- "That just does not make since to me..."
- "I think it's about $50 and some cense" (Seriously)


I'm surprised some of you never heard people say "conversate". Must be my age. When I was in my 20's every other female I came across used that improper word and I would correct them - they'd get heated.
 
Possibly the one that is most difficult to keep straight is the difference between "effect" and "affect".

But I will not be happy until a dictionary contains the word I came up with, "eschereal" - or did it come up with me?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back