Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
I have to take strong exception to Grant and Martha conferring the Good Wordkeepers' Seal of Approval on "nauseous" as an admissible use for feeling queasy. It is one thing to give someone a pass on an incorrectly constructed locution that nonetheless is clear in its conveyance of meaning. It is something else to allow the correctly constructed locution for a different meaning to be substituted for the one that conveys the intended meaning. Perhaps a short review of the use of verbal modifiers as opposed to adjectives will illustrate the principle. Consider these three locutions:
1. an exploded device
2. an exploding device
3. an explosive device
All are correctly conceived, yet all have different meanings and uses; they are not interchangeable. The first two use verbal modifiers whereas the last one uses an adjective as a modifier. Let's look at them one at a time.
1. The past participle is best used to describe:
a. the present result of a prior action or
b. a present state or effect that is the result of an influence.
2. The present participle is best used to describe an action or effect the noun is exhibiting in the current time frame.
3. An adjective is best used to describe an essential quality possessed by the noun regardless of time frame. "The car is red". "This is a mischievous cat". There are several exceptions, one of which is important here. Adjectives are typically used for mental and emotional states, even though they be transitory. "I am angry." "The boy was remorseful for his actions." Being nauseated is a physical state that is the result of an influence (being ill, or having seen or smelled something nauseous), but some might easily mistake it for a mental or emotional state, and hence the misguided instinct to use an adjective when, in fact, a past participle is called for.
"Your sister is nauseated" describes a state that is the result of an influence on your sister (your sister is receiving the action).
"Your sister is nauseating" describes an effect your sister is exhibiting in the current time frame (your sister is transmitting the action).
"Your sister is nauseous" describes an essential quality your sister possesses [all the time].
Merriam Webster defines nauseous as:
1. affected with or inclined to nausea : nauseated
2. causing or such as might be expected to cause : sickening, loathsome, disgusting
Seems like Webster knows Grant and Martha are right.
To me, words are nothing more than the Exchange Particles of human interaction. The right word is the word that has the right effect, regardless of what any authority may say.
To that end, I intentionally use bad English where it will further communication. In technical meetings, I'll often say, "that ain't gonna fly," instead of "the technical requirements render that implementation infeasible, for the following reasons…" It cuts to the point, makes an authoratitive yet disarming statement, and invites the listener to ask for more information only if he actually wants it.
Perhaps I'm so focused on the ends that I too frequently disregard the means, but that's how I sees it.
Relying on dictionaries for usage advice is like relying on Wikipedia for medical advice: you might find opinions, but it shouldn't be your first source of authority. The purpose of dictionaries is primarily descriptive. The are inventories of word uses that the compilers believe are persistent in American speech communities regardless of their propriety. One of my old college professors explained it thus:
"Lexicographers are like the sports announcers at a ball game. Their job is to sit in that box high above the bleachers, observe what is happening on the field, and report it to the rest of us. That reportage will include the calls made by referees. They might even criticize those calls. But they are not, themselves, the referees. Their opinions will not change the score."
If Merriam-Webster entries were to be used as a prescriptive usage source, we'd also have to endorse the use of "ain't," the use of "good" as an adverb, the intransitive use of "lay," and a host of other usage demons for which our junior high school English teachers sacrificed their sanity on our behalf. Dictionaries are just observing what the rest of us say, they're not instructing us in how to say it best.
telemath said:
To that end, I intentionally use bad English where it will further communication. In technical meetings, I'll often say, "that ain't gonna fly," instead of "the technical requirements render that implementation infeasible, for the following reasons…" It cuts to the point, makes an authoratitive yet disarming statement, and invites the listener to ask for more information only if he actually wants it.
This isn't an adequate illustration of the problem. "That ain't gonna fly" isn't bad English. It's a figure of speech and it's perfectly idiomatic. We talking about instances where the construction is perfectly good, but it literally means something different than what the user intends. If someone's says, "you look like nauseated," that means they think you feel ill. If they say "you look nauseous," that means they feel ill when they look at you.
Lux and I may end up disagreeing on specific applications, but I could wish I had expressed the general principle as well. Like telemath, on occasion I consciously use bad grammar or the wrong word, for humorous effect, because it's an idiom I'm fond of, to make a point, because I'm simply in the mood, for various reasons. But if I do it because I didn't know better then to that extent I was wrong, and I want at least to know better next time, whether or not I waste time feeling embarrassed about having mistaken the right usage before.
"Lux rationis"...have you always hung around here, Lux, or do I recognize that handle from the CSL forum?
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)