"To release" is a prepositional phrase, "release" is the verb.
The verb "to release" used improperly by gaming editors
But if everyone understands it, and everyone says it, and everyone writes it, is it wrong?
Doesn't the meaning of words change over time through misuse or a change in context. If enough people can understand what you're saying and it isn't a blatant misspelling why should it matter? Gramatical prowess isn't a sign of intelligence. Engineers who have an almost perfect GPA have spelling and gramatical issues sometimes. So fucking what. You shouldn't look down on people for something as trivial as that. It just makes you seem like the asshole and a less valuable person since you seem to spend all your time trying to prove that people who aren't as grammatically inclined are dumber and/or lazier than you.
@mrpandaman said:
@AuthenticM said:
@mrpandaman said:
Wait... wouldn't it be the same problem as movie people saying, " the movie will be coming out this summer" or "the movie will be out this summer" or "the movie is out this summer?"
No. In your example, the movie is the thing that will come out, as it should be. The movie is not making something coming out. It's not the same thing as what I'm talking about.
Okay. So that's the thing, releases/ is out, will release/ will be out, will be releasing/ will be coming out, they all mean the same thing. You can argue that they don't and you will be right, but at the same time I am right as well. It is the same the thing and it's not at the same time. We don't make that distinction, not because as English speakers we're dumb (well not all of us are dumb), but because we don't care, it gets the point across, and it means pretty much the same thing.
None of those mean the same thing. You're using 'release' incorrectly in all of those examples. That's the OP's whole point.
It's like saying 'the prisoner frees at the end of his sentence' instead of 'the prisoner will be freed at the end of his sentence'. The prisoner frees what at the end of his sentence? The game releases what in August?
Since this is a proper writing thread I desided to drive you all insaine...
Heres some of what I know about plombing : a bathub needs a 1"1/2 drain pipe to drain properly, it must be adequately ventilated and have a U shape trap to prevent gasses from the sours to comme out. On a toilet on the other hand you need a 3" pipe and the trap is part of the actual toilet so its not necesary to instal one.If the bilding has a flat roof than proper drainage will be needed for that roof, the drain in question must be hooked up to the pluvial sours, not the domestic waiste sours, that way the filtration plant as less waist to treat.
Now how about some toughts on ... babies: I am sory to say but to me all babies kind of look the same except for the trully ugly ones and the ridiculusly fat ones. not mutch else to say about babies i gess; they poop, they eat, they cry and they sleep...oh! some smell like a shaved dog for some reason.
Now turtles, the nobless of animals: I am sad to report that the last giant galapagos turtle has died recently at the young age of around 100 years old, witch is about halve the age that that kind of turtle can live. Some say that turtles are slow animals, but I disagree; when I was young I had 4 turtles (ya like the nunja turtles) and my mom and I use to race them on the coutch, those things can run and bite.
So in conclusionn yes I do think that the video gaming sites are bad at conjugaging verbs.
@Jimbo said:
@mrpandaman said:
@AuthenticM said:
@mrpandaman said:
Wait... wouldn't it be the same problem as movie people saying, " the movie will be coming out this summer" or "the movie will be out this summer" or "the movie is out this summer?"
No. In your example, the movie is the thing that will come out, as it should be. The movie is not making something coming out. It's not the same thing as what I'm talking about.
Okay. So that's the thing, releases/ is out, will release/ will be out, will be releasing/ will be coming out, they all mean the same thing. You can argue that they don't and you will be right, but at the same time I am right as well. It is the same the thing and it's not at the same time. We don't make that distinction, not because as English speakers we're dumb (well not all of us are dumb), but because we don't care, it gets the point across, and it means pretty much the same thing.
None of those mean the same thing. You're using 'release' incorrectly in all of those examples. That's the OP's whole point.
It's like saying 'the prisoner frees at the end of his sentence' instead of 'the prisoner will be freed at the end of his sentence'. The prisoner frees what at the end of his sentence? The game releases what in August?
The difference is that 'the prisoner frees at the end of his sentence' feels wrong. 'The game releases / will release in August' doesn't feel wrong. At least to me, as a native English speaker, it doesn't feel wrong. I can see it is objectively wrong, but it doesn't immediately stand out like your first example. Maybe to other native speakers it will sound immediately wrong, but for the majority it's fine.
@CaLe said:
@Jimbo said:
@mrpandaman said:
@AuthenticM said:
@mrpandaman said:
Wait... wouldn't it be the same problem as movie people saying, " the movie will be coming out this summer" or "the movie will be out this summer" or "the movie is out this summer?"
No. In your example, the movie is the thing that will come out, as it should be. The movie is not making something coming out. It's not the same thing as what I'm talking about.
Okay. So that's the thing, releases/ is out, will release/ will be out, will be releasing/ will be coming out, they all mean the same thing. You can argue that they don't and you will be right, but at the same time I am right as well. It is the same the thing and it's not at the same time. We don't make that distinction, not because as English speakers we're dumb (well not all of us are dumb), but because we don't care, it gets the point across, and it means pretty much the same thing.
None of those mean the same thing. You're using 'release' incorrectly in all of those examples. That's the OP's whole point.
It's like saying 'the prisoner frees at the end of his sentence' instead of 'the prisoner will be freed at the end of his sentence'. The prisoner frees what at the end of his sentence? The game releases what in August?
The difference is that 'the prisoner frees at the end of his sentence' feels wrong. 'The game releases / will release in August' doesn't feel wrong. At least to me, as a native English speaker, it doesn't feel wrong. I can see it is objectively wrong, but it doesn't immediately stand out like your first example. Maybe to other native speakers it will sound immediately wrong, but for the majority it's fine.
Yes, it feels fine because people have become used to it being used incorrectly. A lot of people are apparently fine with they're / their / there being used interchangeably too. There are, however, usually good reasons for why 'the correct way' is what it is. It's fine not caring about the difference until you get to a situation where the correct and incorrect way would each give a sentence a different meaning.
Language does evolve, but that doesn't mean we should also encourage it to devolve just because some people can't be bothered to learn how to use it.
@Jimbo said:
Yes, it feels fine because people have become used to it being used incorrectly. A lot of people are apparently fine with they're / their / there being used interchangeably too. There are, however, usually good reasons for why 'the correct way' is what it is. It's fine not caring about the difference until you get to a situation where the correct and incorrect way would each give a sentence a different meaning.
Language does evolve, but that doesn't mean we should also encourage it to devolve just because some people can't be bothered to learn how to use it.
Have people really just gotten used to this incorrect usage and that's why it feels fine? I don't think that's the case. I think it has probably felt fine from the first time it was 'mistakenly' used, which is exactly why it continues to be used. This doesn't falls into the same category as getting basic punctuation or spelling wrong in my opinion.
@CaLe said:
@Jimbo said:
@mrpandaman said:
@AuthenticM said:
@mrpandaman said:
Wait... wouldn't it be the same problem as movie people saying, " the movie will be coming out this summer" or "the movie will be out this summer" or "the movie is out this summer?"
No. In your example, the movie is the thing that will come out, as it should be. The movie is not making something coming out. It's not the same thing as what I'm talking about.
Okay. So that's the thing, releases/ is out, will release/ will be out, will be releasing/ will be coming out, they all mean the same thing. You can argue that they don't and you will be right, but at the same time I am right as well. It is the same the thing and it's not at the same time. We don't make that distinction, not because as English speakers we're dumb (well not all of us are dumb), but because we don't care, it gets the point across, and it means pretty much the same thing.
None of those mean the same thing. You're using 'release' incorrectly in all of those examples. That's the OP's whole point.
It's like saying 'the prisoner frees at the end of his sentence' instead of 'the prisoner will be freed at the end of his sentence'. The prisoner frees what at the end of his sentence? The game releases what in August?
The difference is that 'the prisoner frees at the end of his sentence' feels wrong. 'The game releases / will release in August' doesn't feel wrong. At least to me, as a native English speaker, it doesn't feel wrong. I can see it is objectively wrong, but it doesn't immediately stand out like your first example. Maybe to other native speakers it will sound immediately wrong, but for the majority it's fine.
The question I would then ask is whether there's anything wrong with the hypothetical author articulating the sentence conventionally? Certainly, most readers will understand it if he uses the more colloquial rendering, but its utilization still carries with it an inherent and utterly unnecessary potential to be misunderstood, and the effort involved in correcting it would be nothing short of completely trivial.
Its not like this phrase is on some giant billboard aside a highway, or a brand a company has been using for decades; if "correcting" it is truly no big deal on the part of its author, what's the issue with pointing the error out?
@Jimbo said:
@CaLe said:
@Jimbo said:
@mrpandaman said:
@AuthenticM said:
@mrpandaman said:
Wait... wouldn't it be the same problem as movie people saying, " the movie will be coming out this summer" or "the movie will be out this summer" or "the movie is out this summer?"
No. In your example, the movie is the thing that will come out, as it should be. The movie is not making something coming out. It's not the same thing as what I'm talking about.
Okay. So that's the thing, releases/ is out, will release/ will be out, will be releasing/ will be coming out, they all mean the same thing. You can argue that they don't and you will be right, but at the same time I am right as well. It is the same the thing and it's not at the same time. We don't make that distinction, not because as English speakers we're dumb (well not all of us are dumb), but because we don't care, it gets the point across, and it means pretty much the same thing.
None of those mean the same thing. You're using 'release' incorrectly in all of those examples. That's the OP's whole point.
It's like saying 'the prisoner frees at the end of his sentence' instead of 'the prisoner will be freed at the end of his sentence'. The prisoner frees what at the end of his sentence? The game releases what in August?
The difference is that 'the prisoner frees at the end of his sentence' feels wrong. 'The game releases / will release in August' doesn't feel wrong. At least to me, as a native English speaker, it doesn't feel wrong. I can see it is objectively wrong, but it doesn't immediately stand out like your first example. Maybe to other native speakers it will sound immediately wrong, but for the majority it's fine.
Yes, it feels fine because people have become used to it being used incorrectly. A lot of people are apparently fine with they're / their / there being used interchangeably too. There are, however, usually good reasons for why 'the correct way' is what it is. It's fine not caring about the difference until you get to a situation where the correct and incorrect way would each give a sentence a different meaning.
Language does evolve, but that doesn't mean we should also encourage it to devolve just because some people can't be bothered to learn how to use it.
How can language "devolve" if it is being used in such a way that may not be the originally "correct" use of the word(s) but is still understandable to most people that speak and write in that language. Why should it matter when it looks and sounds right or that it doesn't look/sound wrong? If it is definitely unclear what the speaker or writer is trying to say then it becomes a major issue. To say that "The game will release in august" is one of those major issues is insane since most people look at that sentence and know that it will be released in August without any major confusion. That is unless you try your damnedest to find something wrong in everything, then you get hung up on something trivial. In the same way people understand 12 items or less to mean 12 items or fewer. It doesn't matter.
@theManUnknown said:
The question I would then ask is whether there's anything wrong with the hypothetical author articulating the sentence conventionally? Certainly, most readers will understand it if he uses the more colloquial rendering, but its utilization still carries with it an inherent and utterly unnecessary potential to be misunderstood, and the effort involved in correcting it would be nothing short of completely trivial.
Its not like this phrase is on some giant billboard aside a highway, or a brand a company has been using for decades; if "correcting" it is truly no big deal on the part of its author, what's the issue with pointing the error out?
It should be pointed out and corrected. I'm not advocating that this should be the new standard. It just doesn't immediately feel wrong like 'the prisoner frees at the end of his sentence' does.
@theManUnknown said:
The question I would then ask is whether there's anything wrong with the hypothetical author articulating the sentence conventionally? Certainly, most readers will understand it if he uses the more colloquial rendering, but its utilization still carries with it an inherent and utterly unnecessary potential to be misunderstood, and the effort involved in correcting it would be nothing short of completely trivial.
Its not like this phrase is on some giant billboard aside a highway, or a brand a company has been using for decades; if "correcting" it is truly no big deal on the part of its author, what's the issue with pointing the error out?
There is no real issue to pointing the error out. It's just that the OP and various other users in the thread go beyond correcting grammatical mistakes and take it to mean that the originator of these gramatical errors are idiots or lazy.
@SethPhotopoulos said:
@theManUnknown said:
The question I would then ask is whether there's anything wrong with the hypothetical author articulating the sentence conventionally? Certainly, most readers will understand it if he uses the more colloquial rendering, but its utilization still carries with it an inherent and utterly unnecessary potential to be misunderstood, and the effort involved in correcting it would be nothing short of completely trivial.
Its not like this phrase is on some giant billboard aside a highway, or a brand a company has been using for decades; if "correcting" it is truly no big deal on the part of its author, what's the issue with pointing the error out?
There is no real issue to pointing the error out. It's just that the OP and various other users in the thread go beyond correcting grammatical mistakes and take it to mean that the originator of these gramatical errors are idiots or lazy.
To be fair, they probably are lazy enough. As journalists (on the internet, no less) they certainly have the resources to determine the correct rendering. It's just that getting things out timely often matters more to folks in that industry than getting them out pretty.
@theManUnknown said:
@SethPhotopoulos said:
@theManUnknown said:
The question I would then ask is whether there's anything wrong with the hypothetical author articulating the sentence conventionally? Certainly, most readers will understand it if he uses the more colloquial rendering, but its utilization still carries with it an inherent and utterly unnecessary potential to be misunderstood, and the effort involved in correcting it would be nothing short of completely trivial.
Its not like this phrase is on some giant billboard aside a highway, or a brand a company has been using for decades; if "correcting" it is truly no big deal on the part of its author, what's the issue with pointing the error out?
There is no real issue to pointing the error out. It's just that the OP and various other users in the thread go beyond correcting grammatical mistakes and take it to mean that the originator of these gramatical errors are idiots or lazy.
To be fair, they probably are lazy enough. As journalists (on the internet, no less) they certainly have the resources to determine the correct rendering. It's just that getting things out timely often matters more to folks in that industry than getting them out pretty.
That isn't something you would actually know though. Maybe there were other factors leading to a small mistake than just pure laziness. Maybe they didn't know it was wrong. The grammar check feature doesn't always work. That would be more a matter of ignorance which doesn't necessarily reflect intelligence or laziness. Maybe there wqas a tiger in the room. It could just be an innocent mistake.
@theManUnknown said:
@SethPhotopoulos said:
@theManUnknown said:
The question I would then ask is whether there's anything wrong with the hypothetical author articulating the sentence conventionally? Certainly, most readers will understand it if he uses the more colloquial rendering, but its utilization still carries with it an inherent and utterly unnecessary potential to be misunderstood, and the effort involved in correcting it would be nothing short of completely trivial.
Its not like this phrase is on some giant billboard aside a highway, or a brand a company has been using for decades; if "correcting" it is truly no big deal on the part of its author, what's the issue with pointing the error out?
There is no real issue to pointing the error out. It's just that the OP and various other users in the thread go beyond correcting grammatical mistakes and take it to mean that the originator of these gramatical errors are idiots or lazy.
To be fair, they probably are lazy enough. As journalists (on the internet, no less) they certainly have the resources to determine the correct rendering. It's just that getting things out timely often matters more to folks in that industry than getting them out pretty.
In order to correct it they would first need to notice that it's wrong. It's not immediately obvious to most people that this is wrong and I don't think that's an issue of laziness or stupidity. Even though I know it's objectively wrong, it still feels fine to me which is why I don't object to its usage.
@SethPhotopoulos: @CaLe:
What's then interesting to me there is the question of how much proofreading is done with these articles before release. With traditional print journalism any such article probably would have gone through an editor and the mistake spotted preemptively. I wonder just how an article progresses from being conceived to being written to being published. Does the process differ substantially company to company?
In the grand scheme of things, people spelling things wrong on the internet or making grammatical errors isn't a big deal. Yes it's dumb, but people are dumb and they will always do it. I suggest you find something constructive to do with your life so you don't get hung up on such minor things.
@theManUnknown said:
@SethPhotopoulos: @CaLe:
What's then interesting to me there is the question of how much proofreading is done with these articles before release. With traditional print journalism any such article probably would have gone through an editor and the mistake spotted preemptively. I wonder just how an article progresses from being conceived to being written to being published. Does the process differ substantially company to company?
Editors and proof readers don't catch everything.
@Emperor_Jimmu said:
@CaLe said:
I only notice when people use then when it should be than. I like coke more then pepsi, for example. I don't care about any other mistakes, just this one.
Who are you talking to who doesn't know the difference between those two entirely different words? That is a pretty obvious mistake for an english speaker.
you could say the same about all those crazy people confusing they're/their/there and you're/your ...it's absolutely maddening!
It's not really @AuthenticM said:
@CaLe said:
@Benny said:
Some people on this site use the term 'Meta game' like it means 'another layer' and that drives me fucking nuts.
What is it supposed to mean?
A "meta-game" would be a video game about people playing video games. Like Game Room, to an extent.
That isn't the only correct use of Meta- which does mean a lot of things, the most well known and common being that adding meta- means your are something-ing about something. Meta-data is data about data, in that context.
However, it can also refer to adjacency, which can basically mean 'pertaining to'.
Also, most uses of 'meta game' when not used to describe a game but rather a feature of a game are usually talking about a mechanic that is itself something of a game, so a game on top of a game, or that occurs beside the game. A scoring mechanic, for example Halo's met-game of scores based on kills and medals and time and difficulty, is a sort of a game adjacent to the core game. It's a bit of an interpretation, but when you're talking about something based off an ancient greek preposition or whatever...
@AuthenticM said:
This has been going on for a couple of months I'd say; a very recent phenomenon. I haven't seen anyone here at Giant Bomb do it; it happens mostly on Kotaku (that I've noticed, at least) and IGN. Basically, when talking about a game and its release date, the editor will say such things as:
"The game releases at the end of the year." (simple form indicative present)
"The game will release at the end of the year." (simple form indicative future)
"The game will be releasing at the end of the year." (compound form future continuous)
Not only are they using verb tenses suggesting that the game itself is performing the action of releasing something by being the subject, but the sentence is also missing a core component: the object of the verb (that is, the game is releasing what exactly?). Anyone with half a brain will know that a game does not "release", but is being released. The past participle is required. The game does not perform the action of releasing something. Something or someone is performing the action of releasing the game. As far as I know, Skynet does not yet exist.
Needless to say, this is driving me fucking BATSHIT and English isn't even my mother tongue. Has anyone else noticed this? Here's the article which has prompted me to post this topic. Last paragraph.
While i'd agree that it might be a bit sloppy because of the weird use of tense, let's all remind ourselves that grammar is a artificial construct that is agreed upon by convention and is therefore susceptible to change. Release can change to be become a intransitive verb, and as such, require no object. We can ask ourselves if this verb is somehow invalidated by there not being an object, but as everyone, at the very least everyone in the gaming community, can understand the sentence without too much trouble, i'd say that the absence of an object is not the grave affront to the gods of journalism and 'proper' writing that some people make it out to be. I find it funny there are still people fighting change in English, considering the language already went through a prescriptivist phase ages ago, complete with all the butthurt and bitch fighting these things cause. Change is good, it means your language is alive. Prescriptivism is the bane of any language.
@AuthenticM said:
@believer258: How is this a non-issue? The object is being switched for the subject. This is more than a typo or semantics; the structure of the sentence is changed such that its entire meaning is different. I may not be a native English speaker, but goddamn, this seems like a fucking crazy thing to accept as being a non-issue.
I don't know what your credentials in linguistics are, but you're missing some key points here.
First of all, languages are "living beings". Language change is inevitable and you're acting like a douche for trying to force your "correctness" onto others. Secondly, that construction is similar to a Middle Voice o a "passival": a construction that is in-between the active ("The developers are releasing the game...") and the passive ("The game is being released..."). Guess what: it's a normal construction in a shitload of Indoeuropean languages. There's nothing wrong with it. Throughout most of its history, English used the Middle Voice instead of the Passive voice ("The house is building"). It's only natural that some historical features re-emerge from time to time, it happens to every single language in the world, and it will continue to happen no matter how much you complain on the Internet about it.
So, why is it a non-issue? Because everyone understand and accepts the new meaning. It does not create any confusion in the readers and it fits into natural structures of the language. So get over yourself and learn to live with language change. Especially if it's not your mother language.
@SethPhotopoulos said:
@Jimbo said:
@CaLe said:
@Jimbo said:
@mrpandaman said:
@AuthenticM said:
@mrpandaman said:
Wait... wouldn't it be the same problem as movie people saying, " the movie will be coming out this summer" or "the movie will be out this summer" or "the movie is out this summer?"
No. In your example, the movie is the thing that will come out, as it should be. The movie is not making something coming out. It's not the same thing as what I'm talking about.
Okay. So that's the thing, releases/ is out, will release/ will be out, will be releasing/ will be coming out, they all mean the same thing. You can argue that they don't and you will be right, but at the same time I am right as well. It is the same the thing and it's not at the same time. We don't make that distinction, not because as English speakers we're dumb (well not all of us are dumb), but because we don't care, it gets the point across, and it means pretty much the same thing.
None of those mean the same thing. You're using 'release' incorrectly in all of those examples. That's the OP's whole point.
It's like saying 'the prisoner frees at the end of his sentence' instead of 'the prisoner will be freed at the end of his sentence'. The prisoner frees what at the end of his sentence? The game releases what in August?
The difference is that 'the prisoner frees at the end of his sentence' feels wrong. 'The game releases / will release in August' doesn't feel wrong. At least to me, as a native English speaker, it doesn't feel wrong. I can see it is objectively wrong, but it doesn't immediately stand out like your first example. Maybe to other native speakers it will sound immediately wrong, but for the majority it's fine.
Yes, it feels fine because people have become used to it being used incorrectly. A lot of people are apparently fine with they're / their / there being used interchangeably too. There are, however, usually good reasons for why 'the correct way' is what it is. It's fine not caring about the difference until you get to a situation where the correct and incorrect way would each give a sentence a different meaning.
Language does evolve, but that doesn't mean we should also encourage it to devolve just because some people can't be bothered to learn how to use it.
How can language "devolve" if it is being used in such a way that may not be the originally "correct" use of the word(s) but is still understandable to most people that speak and write in that language. Why should it matter when it looks and sounds right or that it doesn't look/sound wrong? If it is definitely unclear what the speaker or writer is trying to say then it becomes a major issue. To say that "The game will release in august" is one of those major issues is insane since most people look at that sentence and know that it will be released in August without any major confusion. That is unless you try your damnedest to find something wrong in everything, then you get hung up on something trivial. In the same way people understand 12 items or less to mean 12 items or fewer. It doesn't matter.
Because the error not leading to ambiguity in one instance doesn't mean it won't lead to ambiguity in some other instance. And to introduce ambiguity where none existed previously is to devolve the language. Using 'release' and 'be released' interchangeably makes the language less accurate not more accurate. The primary purpose of language is to communicate ideas accurately, not to 'look and sound right' (unless you're using it artistically or whatever). It's a matter of not undermining trust in each other's ability to use the language accurately, so that when you do get to an instance where there is potential for ambiguity, you trust that the author means it the way they wrote it, not some other way that has just been commonly accepted through laziness and ignorance.
@AuthenticM said:
@CaLe said:
@Benny said:
Some people on this site use the term 'Meta game' like it means 'another layer' and that drives me fucking nuts.
What is it supposed to mean?
A "meta-game" would be a video game about people playing video games. Like Game Room, to an extent.
A meta-game is not confined only to being a video game. It can very easily refer to any kind of activity focused on the actions of a game while occurring outside of the proper game to the point of which the activities become very much a part of the game / a game in itself.
You're technically right, but "to release" when used in a video game context is more akin to "to launch." When a video game writer says a video game will release, "to the public" is the implied prepositional phrase object of that verb. It's not really a big deal.
@Jimbo said:
@SethPhotopoulos said:
@Jimbo said:
@CaLe said:
@Jimbo said:
@mrpandaman said:
Okay. So that's the thing, releases/ is out, will release/ will be out, will be releasing/ will be coming out, they all mean the same thing. You can argue that they don't and you will be right, but at the same time I am right as well. It is the same the thing and it's not at the same time. We don't make that distinction, not because as English speakers we're dumb (well not all of us are dumb), but because we don't care, it gets the point across, and it means pretty much the same thing.
None of those mean the same thing. You're using 'release' incorrectly in all of those examples. That's the OP's whole point.
It's like saying 'the prisoner frees at the end of his sentence' instead of 'the prisoner will be freed at the end of his sentence'. The prisoner frees what at the end of his sentence? The game releases what in August?
The difference is that 'the prisoner frees at the end of his sentence' feels wrong. 'The game releases / will release in August' doesn't feel wrong. At least to me, as a native English speaker, it doesn't feel wrong. I can see it is objectively wrong, but it doesn't immediately stand out like your first example. Maybe to other native speakers it will sound immediately wrong, but for the majority it's fine.
Yes, it feels fine because people have become used to it being used incorrectly. A lot of people are apparently fine with they're / their / there being used interchangeably too. There are, however, usually good reasons for why 'the correct way' is what it is. It's fine not caring about the difference until you get to a situation where the correct and incorrect way would each give a sentence a different meaning.
Language does evolve, but that doesn't mean we should also encourage it to devolve just because some people can't be bothered to learn how to use it.
How can language "devolve" if it is being used in such a way that may not be the originally "correct" use of the word(s) but is still understandable to most people that speak and write in that language. Why should it matter when it looks and sounds right or that it doesn't look/sound wrong? If it is definitely unclear what the speaker or writer is trying to say then it becomes a major issue. To say that "The game will release in august" is one of those major issues is insane since most people look at that sentence and know that it will be released in August without any major confusion. That is unless you try your damnedest to find something wrong in everything, then you get hung up on something trivial. In the same way people understand 12 items or less to mean 12 items or fewer. It doesn't matter.
Because the error not leading to ambiguity in one instance doesn't mean it won't lead to ambiguity in some other instance. And to introduce ambiguity where none existed previously is to devolve the language. Using 'release' and 'be released' interchangeably makes the language less accurate not more accurate. The primary purpose of language is to communicate ideas accurately, not to 'look and sound right' (unless you're using it artistically or whatever). It's a matter of not undermining trust in each other's ability to use the language accurately, so that when you do get to an instance where there is potential for ambiguity, you trust that the author means it the way they wrote it, not some other way that has just been commonly accepted through laziness and ignorance.
@Jimbo
I'm not missing the point at all, I know what the OP is saying, because I'm saying it as an native English speaker using the word release is the same as coming out. Even though, technically release is the wrong verb. For native English speakers, we know what they mean and there's no confusion when people say, "the game releases in August" or "the game will release in Japan." I recognize that the problem can just be fixed had the writer just said ,"the game will be released in a Japan." At the same time, both communicate the same idea.
All languages evolve over time and become less simplistic or more simplistic. They're/ Their/ there are being used interchangeably, because they all sound the same. When we say there/their/they're we know what they mean depending on the context of the sentence, but written out it can become a little more of a problem because of the 3 different spellings and different meanings. But if we read the sentence, we can probably surmise what they meant.
You say the primary purpose of language is to communicate ideas accurately and not to "look and sound right," but in the example the OP gives, to English speakers it accurately communicates and looks and sounds right; it tells us that the game will be out at the end of the year. There's no confusion, no ambiguity. Sure there are grammatical mistakes and I wish that writers would proofread a little more, but such is the age of faster and faster information. As I've said writers nowadays write how they're speaking rather than properly write.
Also on that point, English is very complex, and I believe the most words out of all the word languages.
Why the fuck are there 80 fucking posts in this thread?!
We understand what they are trying to say, therefore their use of the word is doing it's job. If it didn't actually convey the meaning than your nitpick would be understandable, but this is unnecessarily picky.
OP confused the fuck out of me. I understood his statement, but still.
@JoeyRavn: I'm not acting like a douche, you are. We were all having a perfectly fine conversation before you showed up.
@Jimbo said:
Because the error not leading to ambiguity in one instance doesn't mean it won't lead to ambiguity in some other instance. And to introduce ambiguity where none existed previously is to devolve the language. Using 'release' and 'be released' interchangeably makes the language less accurate not more accurate. The primary purpose of language is to communicate ideas accurately, not to 'look and sound right' (unless you're using it artistically or whatever). It's a matter of not undermining trust in each other's ability to use the language accurately, so that when you do get to an instance where there is potential for ambiguity, you trust that the author means it the way they wrote it, not some other way that has just been commonly accepted through laziness and ignorance.
Christ, I was finishing dinner quickly so I could come and post exactly this. Bravo.
@Jimbo said:
Because the error not leading to ambiguity in one instance doesn't mean it won't lead to ambiguity in some other instance. And to introduce ambiguity where none existed previously is to devolve the language. Using 'release' and 'be released' interchangeably makes the language less accurate not more accurate. The primary purpose of language is to communicate ideas accurately, not to 'look and sound right' (unless you're using it artistically or whatever). It's a matter of not undermining trust in each other's ability to use the language accurately, so that when you do get to an instance where there is potential for ambiguity, you trust that the author means it the way they wrote it, not some other way that has just been commonly accepted through laziness and ignorance.
Many would argue that the purpose of language is to maintain social cohesion. Japanese is a good example of a language that actively avoids being direct in favour of maintaining social relationships. And we aren't talking about anything ambiguous here. There is nothing ambiguous about 'game X will release in August'. If there were you might have a point.
@AuthenticM said:
@JoeyRavn: I'm not acting like a douche, you are. We were all having a perfectly fine conversation before you showed up.
@Jimbo said:
Because the error not leading to ambiguity in one instance doesn't mean it won't lead to ambiguity in some other instance. And to introduce ambiguity where none existed previously is to devolve the language. Using 'release' and 'be released' interchangeably makes the language less accurate not more accurate. The primary purpose of language is to communicate ideas accurately, not to 'look and sound right' (unless you're using it artistically or whatever). It's a matter of not undermining trust in each other's ability to use the language accurately, so that when you do get to an instance where there is potential for ambiguity, you trust that the author means it the way they wrote it, not some other way that has just been commonly accepted through laziness and ignorance.
Christ, I was finishing dinner quickly so I could come and post exactly this. Bravo.
He would be correct if it did create a situation of ambiguity. But as it stands it does not since it is easily understandable.
@mrpandaman: Your first post implied pretty strongly that you had missed the point. You said 'wouldn't it be the same problem as...' and then gave 3 examples which were all perfectly correct ways to say something. OP then pointed out that, no, it wasn't the same problem as that at all - that wasn't what he was getting at. If you did 'get it' then you should have used more analogous examples ie. one not being 'correct'.
I appreciate that a reader can often surmise what a shitty / lazy writer meant, but the onus should not be on the reader to do so. The onus should be on the author to actually write what they meant. The reader (of a news article) should only have to read, not decipher. I don't buy into this 'as long as you could figure out what they meant, that's all that matters' school of thought. That might be ok if you're sending a text message or something, but professional writers should be held (and hold themselves) to a higher standard. If they're trying to inform then their writing should be concise, accurate and easy to read.
My issue isn't even with bad writers really (I don't claim to be good by any stretch of the imagination), but with people who take the 'I know it's wrong, but you figured it out so fuck you' attitude. The author's writing may be sloppy just because there was little chance of confusion, but the reader doesn't know whether they were sloppy through indifference or ignorance, and so reading becomes progressively difficult as you start second guessing whether they actually mean what they are writing or if they mean something else entirely. Trust in the author's competence is vital to readability and the author should do their best to maintain it. I try to give writers the benefit of the doubt if they're trying their best, but if they're going to aim for the bare minimum and then act like it's my responsibility to figure out what they meant then they can forget it.
@AuthenticM said:
Christ, I was finishing dinner quickly so I could come and post exactly this. Bravo.
Are you calling him Christ? I am confused.
@Gaff said:
Effect / Affect. Then / Than. A lot / Alot. Paid / Payed.
Okay, I get the first three, but who the fuck says "payed"?
edit: well I guess types/writes "payed"
@Gaff: Sidebar: I love saying I could care less, because if someone calls me on it I just come back with, yes I could care less. But not by much.
@Jimbo said:
@mrpandaman:
I appreciate that a reader can often surmise what a shitty / lazy writer meant, but the onus should not be on the reader to do so. The onus should be on the author to actually write what they meant. The reader (of a news article) should only have to read, not decipher. I don't buy into this 'as long as you could figure out what they meant, that's all that matters' school of thought. That might be ok if you're sending a text message or something, but professional writers should be held (and hold themselves) to a higher standard. If they're trying to inform then their writing should be concise, accurate and easy to read.
My issue isn't even with bad writers really (I don't claim to be good by any stretch of the imagination), but with people who take the 'I know it's wrong, but you figured it out so fuck you' attitude. The author's writing may be sloppy just because there was little chance of confusion, but the reader doesn't know whether they were sloppy through indifference or ignorance, and so reading becomes progressively difficult as you start second guessing whether they actually mean what they are writing or if they mean something else entirely. Trust in the author's competence is vital to readability and the author should do their best to maintain it. I try to give writers the benefit of the doubt if they're trying their best, but if they're going to aim for the bare minimum and then act like it's my responsibility to figure out what they meant then they can forget it.
The thing is with the original post we are talking about it is something that does not require much thought to understand what the writer meant. Anyone who understands the language can easily tell what they were saying with just a glance. If the author made mistakes throughout the article then you would have a problem. Yes professional writers should be held to a higher gramatical standard unless the mistake was done on purpose. The mistake we are talking about is the one that sparked the thread so we can safely assume that it was just an accident. If it was an honest mistake and it is just that one sentence all one would need to do is say "Hey man it should be written like this. Just a heads up." instead of the vehement anger that the OP and others have demonstrated towards the subject. Calling these people lazy and stupid for what could have just been an accident that no one caught is just insane. Everyone fucks up, even on a professional level. Why do they deserve to burn for it?
@CaLe said:
@Jimbo said:
Because the error not leading to ambiguity in one instance doesn't mean it won't lead to ambiguity in some other instance. And to introduce ambiguity where none existed previously is to devolve the language. Using 'release' and 'be released' interchangeably makes the language less accurate not more accurate. The primary purpose of language is to communicate ideas accurately, not to 'look and sound right' (unless you're using it artistically or whatever). It's a matter of not undermining trust in each other's ability to use the language accurately, so that when you do get to an instance where there is potential for ambiguity, you trust that the author means it the way they wrote it, not some other way that has just been commonly accepted through laziness and ignorance.
Many would argue that the purpose of language is to maintain social cohesion. Japanese is a good example of a language that actively avoids being direct in favour of maintaining social relationships. And we aren't talking about anything ambiguous here. There is nothing ambiguous about 'game X will release in August'. If there were you might have a point.
See first three sentences. By using words/phrases with distinct meanings interchangeably, ambiguity is being introduced to those words. The sentence the error is made in may well be decipherable, but if the error becomes accepted as common usage then the words involved become less specific and lead to more ambiguity in future. If 'releases' now suddenly means 'let go' and 'be let go' (just out of ignorance and laziness, which are obviously great reasons for this change) then ambiguity has been introduced.
Cop: "This fucking guy stinks."
McNulty: "He probably evacuated."
Cop: "What, he left and he came back?"
McNulty: "No, he shit himself."
Like so.
@pyromagnestir said:
@Gaff: Sidebar: I love saying I could care less, because if someone calls me on it I just come back with, yes I could care less. But not by much.
I started using "I could care less" in more positive situations.
@MariachiMacabre said:
Video games have gained sentience. I don't go to many game sites besides this one so I haven't noticed this phenomenon.
And now, we shall rule the world. Tremble before us mortals, tremble in fear and awe!
Pertaining to the evolution of languages, one has to keep in mind that evolution implies a compensation for some weakness. A good example would be the introduction of computers in our world. At the time, there were no words to describe a computer and everything that comes with it. It was a new reality. We had to come up with new vocabulary, so we took words which already existed and meshed them together as portmanteaus. Or we took already existing words that had definitions fitting for the new reality; words such as "computer", meaning "that which computes", which is pretty much what a computer does.
An example of de-evolution of language would be the confusion and blatant misuse of the word "ironic". So many people use it to mean a plethora of similar-but-not-so-quite meanings. But the thing is, we already have words for what those people are trying to say. Multiple, distinct words, each having a specific definition and appropriate for different contexts. However, by simple ignorance of said words, people use ironic in lieu, warping and devaluating its meaning, thus hurting the language.
@SethPhotopoulos: I think I made it clear enough that my issue wasn't with people making honest mistakes. It's misused far too often to just be an 'oops I slipped' mistake though. Most instances will be down to either ignorance or indifference, which is why I used those words specifically and not some other words that mean something else. Like I said, it's the indifference towards sloppy writing that annoys me really, rather than the sloppy writing itself.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment