The reason I buy only hard copy/paperback is of a paranoia that publishers will slowly change the books composition over time, although I'm coming to realize that they can simply change the definition of the words that comprise the books, either erasing the inconvenient multiple meaning, or simply removing a word from circulation.
Inb4 Schizo pills: I'm not trying to place to much emphasis on some conspiracy, rather how the media and mass culture are contributing to a dumbing down of language.
An example is the word 'Stochastic' which before yielded results of multiple meanings.
1. Of, relating to, or characterized by conjecture; conjectural.
2. Statistics Involving or containing a random variable or process: stochastic calculus; a stochastic simulation.
The former definition of the word has fallen from current use given the advent of 'Stochastic terrorism' where now people only really use the word for it's singular meaning while forgoing the connotation of 'Conjecture' which is more pejorative meaning because it would undermine the idea of stochastic terrorism as being based on conjecture and therefor subject to doubt.
This is one example of what may be a natural process of words changing over time, but I'm not fond of this trajectory as it dumbs down language to a very one-dimensional application.
Anyone else dealt with this?
Should I buy a dictionary like the Oxford expanded dictionary or a variety of dictionaries that have the words definitions written in ink?
they can't change the content of pirated ebooks
OP Update: I've also just cross checked my search of certain words through different search engines- Safari and DuckDuckGo both no longer have the additional meaning of the word Stochastic in front page, you have to search longer for the other meanings.
True, but the meaning of the words that comprise the eBook can still change.
>implying
>Inb4 Schizo
You're teetering into paranoid/delusional territory, anon. Remember such things can happen organically and possibly go see a doctor if this gets more intense.
I've already mentioned in the post I acknowledge it happening organically.
If the meaning of words has or will change so radically that the meaning of the author a hundred years ago will inevitably be lost to a present day perspective/usage of the words.
We can use the same words and mean entirely different things.
Obviously this enters into translation errors and the arguments over the bible, but if the process of understanding this difference isn't made available to the average person- aren't we creating a vacuum for authority (Malicious or not) to step in and convey meaning For Us.
Allowing it to happen organically is to say that we allow it to happen unconsciously, which I'd argue makes us dumber because we cease to command the language, the language instead commands us.
Also I prefaced it with the Schizo thing because I know it's hard for people to actually engage with a subject, but if you're going to ignore that preface and insult me then please find another board. I started a thread to hopefully have a discussion, if that doesn't interest you then please let the thread die.
>if you're going to ignore that preface and insult me
Delusions of persecution are a symptom of schizophrenia, anon.
I perceive the assessment of my psychology by somebody who knows nothing about me as an insult, but I suppose it's within your nature to define me.
In an attempt to tie this into my point, you would define me in an attempt to deny me my self definition, just as a word loses it's meaning to an 'organic process'
And maybe I am also defining you.
Where does that leave us?
>Where does that leave us?
You need to self-monitor for paranoia and delusions in order to make sure you don't go off the deep end. Being schizophrenic sucks but only an butthole would insult you with it.
Some believe mental deviation to be an exacerbation of who we are innately, I'm fully capable of self analysis, but my psychology is not the topic of this thread.
Referring to a paper mentioned by Terence McKenna, 'Shamanism v. Acute Schizophrenia' your perspective of psychology is entirely informed by whatever the contemporary psychiatric jargon it, I don't refute these definitions, they are helpful in certain contexts, but seeing as my psychology is interesting to you- maybe you'd enjoy a wider perspective.
>I'm not schizophrenic but if I am it's because I'm a shaman
Fricking kek.
I don't personally believe in that stuff, but the point of the paper is to highlight the different ways in which so called schizophrenic behavior is reacted to, the first reaction being medication and sedation, the second being sublimating psychosis into psychic functioning- and subsuming psychotic behavior into the collective rather then trying to ostracize and remove it as being a 'Disorder'.
>Publishers can change the definition of words.
Jesus c**t. No more than any other person. Buy some good "use" Dictionaries of English, such as Oxford Shorter 2r3.
Perhaps publishers is reductive, it's certainly a much wider cultural progression.
"Use" meaning everyday application?
Is that the most in depth dictionary, I've never really had to buy a dictionary before so I'm not sure of the distinctions between them.
Use dictionaries record the manner in which words have been used over time, and which uses are current for which periods. Oxford University is well known for creating *the* dictionary, which in its 2nd edition ran to 20 volumes. The *shorter* is a mere two volumes.
I've got an 89 I believe. They run about USD40.
That sounds like what I'm looking for.
As with the above mentioned word 'Stochastic'- most words have a plurality of meanings, and as mentioned- the use of these words does change over time, meaning that some of these options may fall by the way side as people don't use the full or gestalt of a words meanings. The creating of new words tend to be very simplistic and centered around meme culture (A unit of cultural information) examples being: Same, Based, Lit, so on and so fourth.
So if the new words are really reductive, and the old words lose their plurality, then over time each generation loses the power of vocabulary in place of so called 'efficacious' language.
I love what you did there, and you're totally right.
Internet, social media, and meme culture is a world of its own. Plurality still exists, puns and word play exist. Your issue seems to be stemming from the speaker
Language changes. Deal with it. Look at English in the pre-Chaucer times. It is virtually a different language
So as to better frame my argument, as my wording can sometimes be shit.
I'm not arguing against the evolution of language, rather I'm trying to be more conscious of this evolution, if every word in our language becomes to simplistic I fear we deprive ourselves of our own expression, and begin to stagnate in our ideas because we lose the words necessary to express something new.
Can you give an example of how the changing of definitions has dumbed things down and made them more simplistic?
Out of the 700 uses of c**t in London English and Australian, Americans only have two: female genitals and reviled person (dismissive, effeminising).
Regional slang isn’t exactly the evolution of language because it is very dependent on the area and culture
Is there a comparison between contemporary regional slang with some other form of language in history?
Juxtaposed to the aspect of language that is considered apart of that evolution of language.
I'm somewhat of a novice on this topic, but I always assumed that regional and meme language were apart of that evolutionary trajectory of language. Am I wrong in assuming that?
They can certainly be influential but that isn’t the norm. For every slang word that survives from a culture or era, dozens are completely forgotten
>Regional slang
I agree, Septics don't speak English.
imagine thinking in words, lmao. This comment is a poor approximation for the deep disdain I feel for you OP.
I think in images, but I need words to convey those images anon. Just as you need words to convey your disdain for me, or can you be content in silence?