Amazon.com Widgets

Should people use words for their intended meanings

Asked by: MasturDbtor
  • Keep Language Simple and Consistent

    People unnecessarily complicate language all the time. Using the word "capable" as in "if you're not capable of..." when really a person means the person is completely capable but won't then requires people to say "physically capable" when they want to literally talk about capability. Using "fail" when you are talking about someone who didn't even try to do something such as "failure to comply" is also unnecessary complexity. Granted that one is common, but still why not say "refusal to comply" when that's really what you mean. "Failure to comply" should specifically mean when a person attempts to comply but something happens that prevents them in spite of their efforts, because situations like that do happen and then people have to pause and awkwardly think of words to say to describe the situation because "failure to comply" was misappropriated.

    There is no reason to screw up language the way people do. I try to put up with it but in my own life I try to avoid speaking in such a ridiculous manner.

  • The intention of the word hardly matters if the people don't know it.

    Language is an ever changing phenomenon. For example the usage of words such as "thou" and "thee" died out years ago, and very few people argue that they should be brought back. If our language evolves to include words such as "to google" or "lol" then I accept that. Thinking that language should stay constant is both ridiculous and impossible.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.