English Language - words, meanings and context

[Intoscience]

Have you ever had a situation where you find yourself trying to explain that some words in the English language are spelt the same but mean totally different things depending on the context.

For example the word - wind

This can mean a feature of the weather, e.g. air movement. Or to rotate something, e.g. a reel of hose. 

My question is, would it not make more sense to either change the spelling slightly, or create a new word?

What are your experiences and opinions on the subject and also please offer other examples!

 

[iNow]

Unsure how changing the spelling of homonyms would help enhance understanding and comprehension of spoken language. Changing the word entirely makes more sense, but language itself evolves with usage and local choices so executing such a change would need to be grassroots rather than top down. 

[geordief]

15 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Have you ever had a situation where you find yourself trying to explain that some words in the English language are spelt the same but mean totally different things depending on the context.

For example the word - wind

This can mean a feature of the weather, e.g. air movement. Or to rotate something, e.g. a reel of hose. 

My question is, would it not make more sense to either change the spelling slightly, or create a new word?

What are your experiences and opinions on the subject and also please offer other examples!

 

Perhaps they could create such a language merely for the purposes of computers to use,so that ambiguity  could be kept to a minimum.

Say for programs that  are very sensitive to  bad consequences  in the event of misinterpretation  such as nuclear firing or dating apps( a wind up might imply  light ribbing or a case of flatulence)

For the general public ,no but maybe just possibly for real time translation   between Trump and Zelensky?

[dimreepr]

It's all relative...

[StringJunky]

16 minutes ago, geordief said:

Perhaps they could create such a language merely for the purposes of computers to use,so that ambiguity  could be kept to a minimum.

Say for programs that  are very sensitive to  bad consequences  in the event of misinterpretation  such as nuclear firing or dating apps( a wind up might imply  light ribbing or a case of flatulence)

For the general public ,no but maybe just possibly for real time translation   between Trump and Zelensky?

I think potential ambiguities are well scrutinzed for before standardizing mission-critical parlance in the armed forces and other safety-sensitive bodies.

e2a. modified for clarity

Edited July 5, 2022 by StringJunky

[geordief]

Just now, StringJunky said:

I think ambiguities are considered before standardizing mission-critical parlance in the armed forces and other safety-sensitive bodies.

Good

[Externet]

There is no institution that regulates, controls or rules the english language.  So any effort hits a brick wall of public used to say whatever with nothing to obey.

Everyone forgot to say 'gasoline'  or 'laboratory' and a thousand more; mail and male pronounced equal; being laziness and lacking care or respect for the language main causes.

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, geordief said:

Good

Think of the police using "zero, alpha, tango" and all that jargon... for the same reason.

Edited July 5, 2022 by StringJunky

[exchemist]

56 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Have you ever had a situation where you find yourself trying to explain that some words in the English language are spelt the same but mean totally different things depending on the context.

For example the word - wind

This can mean a feature of the weather, e.g. air movement. Or to rotate something, e.g. a reel of hose. 

My question is, would it not make more sense to either change the spelling slightly, or create a new word?

What are your experiences and opinions on the subject and also please offer other examples!

 

I don't think it makes any sense to tinker with language in this way. All languages have strange things in them. It's part of their charm and reflects their convoluted history. To try to remove them all would be to lose all that richness - and deprive writers and poets of the opportunity for puns and deliberate ambiguities.

Take a word like "mine". That can mean either an excavation in the earth for minerals or a static explosive armament. But in fact they have a common origin. The original explosive mine was gunpowder placed at the end of an excavated shaft, dug to blow up (undermine) the walls of a castle. Hamlet speaks of "the engineer hoist with his own petard" (a synonym for mine) and goes on to say "but I shall delve one yard below their mine and blow them at the moon".*  I think discovering the common root of these things is fun. 

And then we have different spellings and meanings for the same sounding word: rite, write, right, wright. English has more of this sort of thing than most languages, because it draws on both Germanic and Latin roots, forming in effect two vocabularies. Historically the upper classes spoke (Norman) French and used Latin-derived words, while the peasants used an Anglo-Saxon vocabulary. To this day the Germanic words sound more "earthy" and less refined than the Latin-based equivalents.  This was brought home to me in the Netherlands, when I was sent for a blood test, at the "prikpost". I understood what it meant, but it sounded a bit, well, blunt. 

So I'm in favour of leaving these things alone and enjoying the diversity. 

 

* If you visit St Andrew's, in Scotland, there is a ruined castle where you can see both such a mine, dug during a seige, and a "countermine", dug from inside the castle to stop it. You can go through, down a ladder, from one to the other, at the point where they meet.  

 

Edited July 5, 2022 by exchemist

[StringJunky]

11 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I don't think it makes any sense to tinker with language in this way. All languages have strange things in them. It's part of their charm and reflects their convoluted history. To try to remove them all would be to lose all that richness - and deprive writers and poets of the opportunity for puns and deliberate ambiguities.

Take a word like "mine". That can mean either an excavation in the earth for minerals or a static explosive armament. But in fact they have a common origin. The original explosive mine was gunpowder placed at the end of an excavated shaft, dug to blow up (undermine) the walls of a castle. Hamlet speaks of "the engineer hoist with his own petard" (a synonym for mine) and goes on to say "but I shall delve one yard below their mine and blow them at the moon".  I think discovering the common root of these things is fun. 

And then we have different spellings and meanings for the same sounding word: rite, write, right, wright. English has more of this sort of thing than most languages, because it draws on both Germanic and Latin roots, forming in effect two vocabularies. Historically the upper classes spoke (Norman) French and used Latin-derived words, while the peasants used an Anglo-Saxon vocabulary. To this day the Germanic words sound more "earthy" and less refined than the Latin-based equivalents.  This was brought home to me in the Netherlands, when I was sent for a blood test, at the "prikpost". I understood what it meant, but it sounded a bit, well, blunt. 

So I'm in favour of leaving these things alone and enjoying the diversity. 

 

I also noticed that what is considered slang or dialectic in the East Midlands and East  upwards are often Scandanavian in origin.

Edited July 5, 2022 by StringJunky

[exchemist]

21 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I also noticed that what is considered slang or dialectic in the East Midlands and East  upwards are often Scandanavian in origin.

I remember realising that all these places with "wick" in them are also found in the Netherlands "wijk". I think it comes from the Vikings.

I wish I knew some North East dialect. It is, or can be, a lovely accent. This YouTuber, Charlotte, for instance is someone I can listen to all day (County Durham, I think she is?):

Listening to her I suddenly recalled, from 60 years ago, a Geordie folk song my mother used to sing when we were small: "The Keel Row". Perhaps you know it.   

Edited July 5, 2022 by exchemist

[TheVat]

An extreme case are Janus words, which can mean their own opposite, or a quite contrary meaning.  E.g. oversight, sanction, fast, cleave, dust.

I find this charming (and easily dealt with by context).  

Due to good oversight, the project was a success.

Due to an unfortunate oversight, the project failed.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

An extreme case are Janus words, which can mean their own opposite, or a quite contrary meaning.  E.g. oversight, sanction, fast, cleave, dust.

I find this charming (and easily dealt with by context).  

Due to good oversight, the project was a success.

Due to an unfortunate oversight, the project failed.

Here's me looking for a post by Janus! LOL!

[Peterkin]

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Have you ever had a situation where you find yourself trying to explain that some words in the English language are spelt the same but mean totally different things depending on the context.

Yes. There is usually a quite reasonable explanation, if the interlocutor is really interested, involving the etymology and gradually changing usage of the word(s).

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

For example the word - wind

This can mean a feature of the weather, e.g. air movement. Or to rotate something, e.g. a reel of hose. 

There is already a distinction: different pronunciation. The wind (short i) is a noun meaning air movement also accounts for the fart euphemism; to wind (long i) a clockwork mechanism is a verb  which would make it unlikely for the two words, in printed form, to be mistaken one for the other. The third meaning, in the expression 'to wind up', meaning to end or finish, is derived from the clockwork winding down, at which point it must be wound up again. Wind, oth, has no tenses or alternative applications, though it has metaphorical ones, always presenting as itself: the movement of air.

For most, if not all situations of this kind, where words look the same, they do not sound same, and vice versa;  in both cases, context usually does clarify which one is intended. If not, there is usually an alternate word or expression (very often, a more precise one) for at least one of them.

 

5 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I think potential ambiguities are well scrutinzed for before standardizing mission-critical parlance in the armed forces and other safety-sensitive bodies.

I know of one airline accident that was caused by just such a misunderstanding. The copilot, whose native tongue was not English, did not perceive the subtle difference between take-off speed and take off speed. The pilot never considered an alternate meaning to his instruction.

It is indeed important to establish a specialized, distinct vocabulary for critical communications. 

[studiot]

45 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

There is already a distinction: different pronunciation. The wind (short i) is a noun meaning air movement also accounts for the fart euphemism; to wind (long i) a clockwork mechanism is a verb  which would make it unlikely for the two words, in printed form, to be mistaken one for the other. The third meaning, in the expression 'to wind up', meaning to end or finish, is derived from the clockwork winding down, at which point it must be wound up again. Wind, oth, has no tenses or alternative applications, though it has metaphorical ones, always presenting as itself: the movement of air.

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that there is at least one further meaning and parts of speech for 'wind', after all it's what roads in Somerset do.

Edited July 5, 2022 by studiot

[CharonY]

 

6 hours ago, exchemist said:

I don't think it makes any sense to tinker with language in this way. All languages have strange things in them. It's part of their charm and reflects their convoluted history. To try to remove them all would be to lose all that richness - and deprive writers and poets of the opportunity for puns and deliberate ambiguities.

Agreed, a very defined and rigid use of language works well for science, where we want to minimize ambiguity. However, for poetry or even ordinary prose it takes the life out of it. One of the reasons perhaps why Asimov had wonderful ideas for his works but the prose he is using is incredibly dull. 

[mistermack]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

This can mean a feature of the weather, e.g. air movement. Or to rotate something, e.g. a reel of hose. 

My question is, would it not make more sense to either change the spelling slightly, or create a new word?

What are your experiences and opinions on the subject and also please offer other examples!

Words and spellings evolve, they don't get handed down. But I agree it would make more sense. 

Take the word "ass". It can mean a donkey, a pair of buttocks with an anus, an attractive young woman, and a very silly person. 

But slightly different spellings and variations are evolving on their own, such as asshole, arsehole, arse and piece-of-ass. 

Once that's sorted out, we can start on "pass". 

[Peterkin]

20 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Take the word "ass". It can mean a donkey, a pair of buttocks with an anus, an attractive young woman, and a very silly person. 

That's only two meanings: donkey, in fact, was slang (through a complicated process of illogic) for the animal called an ass, of Latin derivation. The silly person is a metaphorical donkey.

Ars is Old English for buttocks and the association comes about through similarity of sound.; the anus is 20th century addition, because ass wasn't crude enough.  An 'attractive young woman" is a euphemism for tits&ass, which refers directly to the only female body parts in which the speaker is interested.  

Pass is French from Latin, meaning 'walk by' or 'go by'; all other uses I know are derived from that meaning: passage, passport, pass-through, passive, give a pass to, pass the ball, pass over,  pass the time.

[Phi for All]

For a perfumer, making cents by making scents make sense.

[mistermack]

English gets abused everywhere. Like the use of "cool" in america, now spread everywhere. 

In the west of Ireland, my uncles and aunts never used the word "hot". 

When talking about the weather, it went from warm, to very warm, then awful warm, (warrum) , and then "shockin warrum".  

But never hot. 

[mistermack]

The most abominable use of English by Americans is their use of the word "energy".

[geordief]

28 minutes ago, mistermack said:

The most abominable use of English by Americans is their use of the word "energy".

Can you explain?(Would  you be so kind?😉 )

Edited July 6, 2022 by geordief

[Peterkin]

32 minutes ago, mistermack said:

The most abominable use of English by Americans is their use of the word "energy".

I'd choose 'right', but 'energy' is close.

For multitudes of disparate and sometimes antithetical meaning.

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

Words and spellings evolve, they don't get handed down.

Some do.

Quote

In the late 1700s, Webster took issue with some of the inconsistencies of British spelling and the troubles they posed for American students learning the language. "Jail," for example, was a much easier word for an English learner to pronounce than "gaol," which was the more popular spelling of the word for almost a century. 

Although Webster didn't invent most of the reforms he proposed — many of them had already existed as alternative spellings — it was Webster's seal of approval that allowed them to gradually catch on in the United States. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/spelling-american-vs-british-noah-webster-2018-3

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, geordief said:

Can you explain?(Would  you be so kind?😉 )

It really makes me wince when people misuse energy, I'm pretty sure it originated in the US. Probably in the hippy era. Here's what I mean : 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_PDcsh3gzk