-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Use of words
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
Verbal laziness that just became accepted and then used over time?
PureX
Veteran Member
We are lazy and biased. So we tend to leave off the qualifying information when it suits our bias.
Validity is in some circunstances an implied default and therefore omitted in more casual language.
So, yeah, verbal laziness. But also a part of natural evolution of languages.
So, yeah, verbal laziness. But also a part of natural evolution of languages.
One issue I note, though, is that it is on products for sale. It seems to me like a get-out card; if you just write 'quality' and the product is shoddy the company lawyers can say 'well it didn't say good quality'.
This bothers me.
By in large, I think it gives people piece of mind to use them in correctly. For all intensive purposes, it's probably just deep-seeded habit, but it's our do diligence to correct them.
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
Language simplifies over time, generally. People don't like spending extra time on agreed upon concepts. Nobody says "addresses" anymore; they say "you." No reason to say "combat environment" when everyone is aware of the situation given the context of warfare. "Combat" suffices
Language always changes, and with simplification will come newly introduced concepts as well. I think that's pretty cool, even if one hundred years ago no one would describe an idea they like as "pretty" or "cool." Times change
Language always changes, and with simplification will come newly introduced concepts as well. I think that's pretty cool, even if one hundred years ago no one would describe an idea they like as "pretty" or "cool." Times change
Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
Everyone was so busy just trying to be as gay as possible or at least hoping for gayer days ahead.
Why would those be incorrect?
"Quality" and "moral" have been used that way as long as I can remember (and according to the online etymology dictionary, those usages go back to the ~14th century for both words).
"Aesthetic" is newer, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong. Correctness of language is determined by usage.
That's fine, but then that would make 'bad quality' nonsensical, for instance.
Six examples so close together! Well done.
Secret Chief
Very strong language
Dunno.
Secret Chief
Very strong language
Gerrof.
Are we talking about (for instance) advertisement of some item as a "quality product"?
In certain contexts it is safe to assume that the quality being lampshaded is positive.
You're on a roll, aren't you? I hope it brings you a laugh.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Language evolves
It is, but see my comment on that.
Again: language is determined by usage. Many words have two senses.
In the case of the word "quality," my take on it is that when used as an adjective, it means something like "excellent" and when used as a noun, it means something like "character."
... but English is weird and lets us use nouns in place of adjectives (this use is called an "attributive noun" or "noun adjunct"), allowing constructions like "bad quality" to be used in place of an adjective.
... so in, say, "bad quality cake" or "vintage car model," there's a noun adjunct ("quality" or "car") that modifies the main noun ("cake" or "model"), and that noun adjunct is itself modified by an adjective ("bad" or "vintage").
That's my interpretation as a non-linguist, so maybe take it with a grain of salt.
Post #5, yeah.
Fair point. Or should I just say: "That is indeed a fair point".
At the end of the day, it takes more effort (and often also more expense) to use more words, and sometimes that is not deemed necessary for reasons both fair and suspect.
In English when you say 'Quality' it can be inferred that the opposite would be the absence of quality. If you think in terms of opposites then you can infer that 'Quality' might mean a good thing; but you can also deny that it means anything at all. It is analogous to a problem that appears in programming languages.
Every programming language must have representations for 'true' and 'false' as well as for 'zero' 'success' 'failure' and 'nothing'. Some languages implement a value named 'Null' in an attempt to avoid using zero to represent no result. 'Null' is the opposite of a quality, the opposite of a value, the opposite of something. Confusingly, some languages represent null with a zero, and this can cause many problems. The world's most important programming language ( c language ) does this. The problem in this case is that you can multiply by zero, add to zero; but you shouldn't be able to add to or multiply by null. Null should not be something you can add to, multiply by, treat as zero or as any value at all. Your program should immediately fail if you try to. Null should always mean 'Nothing'. In other words if you accidentally try to multiply by null your program should fail at that point, but instead your process might continue. This is one of many flaws in programming language design which causes programmer mistakes to go undetected, sometimes for many years and leads to hacker exploits that could be avoided.