In message <3.0.6.32.20001011164525.00889b00@m...>, John
In message <3.0.6.32.20001011164525.00889b00@m...>, John
Alexander Blyth <BLYTHE@B...> writes
Alexander Blyth <BLYTHE@B...> writes
> Perhaps what you really protest is the educational milieu which
>allows the unthinking absorption of inaccuracies, and their further
>transmission in a game of oneupmanship. On the other hand much of western
>Europe would still know and speak the language of Cicero without such
>faulty transmission. And we wouldn't have such wonderful baroque neologisms
>as 'oneupmanship'. On yet another hand Latin itself shows traces of having
>made all sorts of odd, probably innacurate borrowings from Greek and
>(probably) Etruscan. Plus a language that can get 'anthem' out of
>'antiphon' and then keep both words is a precious wonder! john
>
I don't want to perpetuate a not-very-useful topic, but, yes, I agree
with you, John. I love language and the way in which it evolves, and
there is no way I would want to see that rather anarchic process
suppressed - not that it could be suppressed, anyway.
It's just when there is an inaccurate factual statement as to the origin
of a word that the nitpicker (much too vigorous a word to have a Latin
derivation: it's Old English) in me wants to correct it; it doesn't
matter if that word has evolved, or then evolves, to mean something
completely different. In fact, the more the meaning changes, the more
interesting the word becomes to sad anoraks like me. (Anorak: now
there's a word - originally Inuit!)
To bring all this back to having some relevance to singing - in putting
across the meaning of a song, the words that are difficult are the ones
which have changed in meaning since the song was written. The word
'gentle' comes to mind: originally it was a description of class,
meaning well-born, from a good family; now it's a description of
character, meaning mild, amiable.
Can anyone think of any other examples?
--
Sheila Graham
www.sheilagraham.demon.co.uk
|
