native Spanish speaker calls DR "The Dominican"

[XanaduRanch]

Mondongo

I am not opposed to the change and evolution of the language. I often comment to people that it's one of the things that makes English special. I just as frequently laugh at the French 'language police' who try to keep the language pure. I also have previously posted that I have no objection to coining a new term like Domin, DR, or others to reference the Dominican Republic in English.

That having been said there are sounds, or combinations of sounds in all languages that, for that particular language, are awkward sounding. This situation can occur for any number of reasons, ranging from the inability of the native speakers to form the proper sounds to the sound for the new word rhyming inappropriately with certain taboo body parts. Because of this it's extremely rare to see such a sound incorporated into a language as a new word.

This is the objection that is being stated here. The Dominican is an extremely poor fit with English for the reasons already posted.

Tom aka XR Why doesn't Tarzan have a beard?

P.S.
I do not write weather forecasts. I write computer software, a few articles, and get paid to speak. I pointed that out to offer an 'expert' opinion on this subject from one for whom words pay for the food in the refrigerator.

 

[MaineGirl]

Poor fit? If it was a poor fit, "common" people wouldn't use it. It rolls off the tongue.

BTW there are many, many people for whom words put bread on the table. I'd hardly call them linguistic experts.

 

[XanaduRanch]

Poor fit? If it was a poor fit, "common" people wouldn't use it. It rolls off the tongue. BTW there are many, many people for whom words put bread on the table. I'd hardly call them linguistic experts.

Who said that it doesn't? That's not the reason many people find it ignorant sounding in English. It's objectionable in this case because of the confusion it generates by attempting to create a new noun out of an already existing adjective.

The pure ignornace of misusing the adjective this way is what has previously led to words like "inflammable" having its meaning reversed from describing something that can not burn, to something that can, and requiring the creation of another bastardized word, "noninflammable" which also reverses the meaning of the prefix "in". By rights, "noninflammable" should describe something that burns (non=not in=not flammable=burnable, or not-notburnable) How stupid! And, here we go again with "The Dominican".

I find it equally ignorant when people try to make verbs out of nouns in an effort to be trendy, as in "Let's do lunch" as opposed to "Let's have lunch". If you intend to "do language" that way don't be surprised or offended when others folks "have a laugh" at your expense.

Tom aka XR A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.

 

[Porfio_Rubirosa]

Ugh!

The pure ignornace of misusing the adjective this way is what has previously led to words like "inflammable" having its meaning reversed from describing something that can not burn, to something that can, and requiring the creation of another bastardized word, "noninflammable" which also reverses the meaning of the prefix "in". By rights, "noninflammable" should describe something that burns (non=not in=not flammable=burnable, or not-notburnable) How stupid!

Though I do not wish to spur on another tirade from XR, he is plain wrong about ?inflammable?.

According to The Institute For Etymological Research and Education, ?inflammmable comes from Latin inflammare ?to catch fire, to enflame?. Some bright spark [their words, not mine!] thought that this was too difficult to remember so the obscure word flammable was taken down from the shelf and dusted off.? http://www.takeourword.com/Issue103.html. Accordingly, the term "flammable" is really akin to saying "flamed" instead of "enflamed" (what irony!).

Acceptance of language change is often a matter of whether one is statist. If one relies on what one perceives as haughty status and education compared to common folk to prop up one?s perceived superior position in life, then it becomes very important to reject ?pop? culture and ?pop? language adaptations. These base-level social happenings give regular people an advantage over the self-proclaimed elites, who often have trouble keeping up. Thus, you see people like Golo going out of their way to denounce everything ?chopo?, even though ?chopo? culture is much more powerful and interesting than the elite culture here in Dominicana.

 

[Forbeca]

Ay Dios mio...

 

[Jane J.]

Hundreds of companies pay obscene amounts of money every month to have the privelege [sic] of hearing, using, and selling the words that I speak.

Oh, the irony.

See, the only thing to do here would be for XR to say, "Gee, Porfio, you're right. I can't believe I didn't know that!"

Let's watch...

 

[Talldrink]

Back to Class children - Playground time is over...

This is too funny. I didnt know five-year olds can type this nicely!

 

[XanaduRanch]

That's Interesting.

According to The Institute For Etymological Research and Education, ?inflammmable comes from Latin inflammare ?to catch fire, to enflame?. Some bright spark [their words, not mine!] thought that this was too difficult to remember so the obscure word flammable was taken down from the shelf and dusted off.?

But also logically it doesn't make any sense. What's been left out of their description is that for that to have actually happened, that same 'bright spark' was also quite ignorant of the meaning of common English prefixes. Enflammable means, or should mean, exactly the reverse of inflammable. Which rather neatly proves my point about "The Dominican".

While I am not sure their version of how this linguistic train wreck occured is correct, conceding the point for a moment we would find that:

• It is even better example than my version of why using "The Dominican" as a noun is a dumb idea.
• That in either case the arguments against "The Dominican" as a noun stand on their own merit.
• It's still about a few of us wanting to avoid future misunderstandings and misconceptions of exactly this type by sensing intuitively that "The Dominican" is a very poor choice for a noun, just as "inflammable" is a very poor choice for a word that properly should be "enflammable."
• It still sounds ignorant to most people listening objectively whether you are forced to say "noninflammable" because of an accident of history or if you use the adjective "The Dominican" as a noun.

Thank you. And good day.

Tom aka XR If you look like your passport picture, you probably need the trip.

 

[Porfio_Rubirosa]

See, the only thing to do here would be for XR to say, "Gee, Porfio, you're right. I can't believe I didn't know that!"

Let's watch...

No luck, Jane. The Institute For Etymological Research and Education never had a chance.

 

[XanaduRanch]

No luck, Jane. The Institute For Etymological Research and Education never had a chance.

Please Porfi, perhaps you could go back to their site and ask them what "conceding the point" means. Get back to us dear boy when you know. Then when you're done, it would be an interesting change of pace if you actually addressed the points in the post. If their version is correct we need to thank you for pointing that out because it's an even clearer argument than the one I made for not using "The Dominican" as a noun. You made our point.

Now, what, of what I said in the last post, do you feel is incorrect, and why?

Tom aka XR Accept that some days you're the pigeon. Some days you're the statue.

 

[Porfio_Rubirosa]

Wrong Again!!!

This guy doesn't know his ... from a ... in the ground, in Latin. And I find it amusing that he wants to start an argument about it - unarmed.

...perhaps you could go back to their site and ask them what "conceding the point" means ... But also logically it doesn't make any sense. What's been left out of their description is that for that to have actually happened, that same 'bright spark' was also quite ignorant of the meaning of common English prefixes. Enflammable means, or should mean, exactly the reverse of inflammable.

That's "conceding the point"?!?! No matter. You're wrong again.

You see, XR, according to (real) Latinist N.S. Gill, the Latin prefix "in" can mean "in, into" as well as "not". http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa052698.htm. Accordingly, "inflammable" makes perfect sense and is consistent with a Latin carry-forward into English.

If you like, XR, I will give you the Institute's and N.S. Gill's email addresses so you can try to belittle them too.

 

[Jane J.]

From www.dictionary.com

Historically, flammable and inflammable mean the same thing. However, the presence of the prefix in- has misled many people into assuming that inflammable means ?not flammable? or ?noncombustible.? The prefix -in in inflammable is not, however, the Latin negative prefix -in, which is related to the English -un and appears in such words as indecent and inglorious. Rather, this -in is an intensive prefix derived from the Latin preposition in. This prefix also appears in the word enflame. But many people are not aware of this derivation, and for clarity's sake it is advisable to use only flammable to give warnings.

Those little tags on your polyester shirts? Dumbed down for people who make a living on words...How sad!

(Hey, did I just verbificate "dumb"? Hang on a sec, did I just verbificate "verb," too?)

 

[XanaduRanch]

And you were Sooooo Close this time ...

You see, XR, according to N.S. Gill, the Latin prefix "in" can mean "in, into" as well as "not". http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa052698.htm. Accordingly, "inflammable" makes perfect sense and is consistent with a Latin carry-forward into English.
If you like, XR, I will give you the Institute's and N.S. Gill's email addresses so you can belittle them too.

We'll put everyone to sleep with this one, it's so obscure. While there are exceptions to every rule, had you read a little more closely before spouting you would have found that according to Gill the "in" prefix is most commonly found as mean "in or into" with verbs. When used with adjectives in English it most commonly means "not."

So, when used with the original word which was a verb, as in "inflame" it definitely means "in or into". However, when used with the adjective "flammable" as in "inflammable" a the presumption flips to "not". Exactly as in inadequate, insane, indelicate, etc.

But once again, the unsanswered question remains, Porfi. This proves the point of the thread. People who use "The Dominican" as a noun are purposefully ignoring normal English grammatical and syntactical rules and in the process are creating yet another confusing mess in English for absolutely no good reason.

Is that not true? You're arguing our point for us. Thanks, again!

Tom aka XR Someone stole all my credit cards, but I won't be reporting it. The thief spends less than my wife did.

 

[XanaduRanch]

Exactly Correct, Jane.

Thank you, too, for making the point. Did you read that quote before you posted it? Let's start with:

This prefix also appears in the word enflame. But many people are not aware of this derivation, and for clarity's sake it is advisable to use only flammable to give warnings.

I know that inflammable means it will combust. But someone not aware of this special circumstance, applying only common English grammatical rules would believe the exact opposite. Hence the authors warning about using the term. It is confusing.

Now, let's try a word substituion, shall we?

This adjective also appears as the noun "The Dominican". But many people are not aware of this derivation, and for clarity's sake it is advisable to use only "The Domincan Republic" when referring to the country.

Interesting, no?

Now put two and two together and try not to come up with anything but four as the sum, regarding the word inflammable. If Porfi's information is correct then it is clear that the error occured because while "flamare" is a verb in latin, and as such "in" is the correct prefix to attach to indicate "in or into", when it was converted to English the verb "flamare" was discarded, replaced with the adjective "flammable", but the prefix was never changed or removed as it should have been! "In" works with the verb "flamare", but works in reverse with the adjective "flammable". Goit it yet? Which leaves us again in this confusing mess - which some folks are bound and determined to try and recreate with "The Dominican" as a noun.

Tom aka XR Alba's idea of housework is to sweep the room with a glance.

 

[Jane J.]

Goit it yet?

I've absolutely goit it.

If you had had a shirt on yesterday that said "inflammable" and I came up to you with a lit match, you would have thought your shirt impervious to my flame. But you would have been wrong!

And on fire!

But mainly wrong.

 

[Porfio_Rubirosa]

People who use "The Dominican" as a noun are purposefully ignoring normal English grammatical and syntactical rules and in the process are creating yet another confusing mess in English for absolutely no good reason.

Does "introverted" mean not verted? Does "inflatable" mean not flatable? Are these not commonly used adjectives?

The point of The Institute was that the word "flammable" was pulled of the shelf because, essentially, there are many people who know enough Latin to recognize a Latin prefix but not enough Latin to properly interpret a prefix that has two possible meanings. People who have no understanding of Latin prefixes at all probably never made the mistake. So perhaps we should call it the "XR Rule".

Of course I get your point, XR. But, again, your example is inapposite. The "inflammable" problem was one of ignorance and, no doubt, real danger (confusion could lead to things going BOOM). "The Dominican" is a matter of style. Everyone knows it's grammatically wrong. Accordingly, it is used for effect.

I happen to agree with you that, because it is so grammatically awkward, it will likely never transmute into being grammatically correct.

 

[XanaduRanch]

You must be a Blonde, right?

I've absolutely goit [sic] it. If you had had a shirt on yesterday that said "inflammable" and I came up to you with a lit match, you would have thought your shirt impervious to my flame. But you would have been wrong. And on fire. But mainly wrong.

Thank you for clearing up for everyone exactly why Robert tagged you with the nickname "Ditz".

I said "I know that inflammable means it will combust." Combust means, burn dear. In other words I know that it will burn. Should I type more slowly?

Apparently you seem quite upset now that it's dawning on you - albeit slowly - that you're making the point that "The Dominican" is stupid for me, and Chiri, and cemedina07, and TexasBill, and Forbeca, and RickToronto, et al.

Thank you, again, ditz!

Tom aka XR If you jog backwards, will you gain weight?

 

[Porfio_Rubirosa]

You must be blond ... "Ditz" ... Should I type more slowly? ... dear ...it's dawning on you - albeit slowly ... ditz!

See what happens, Jane. He was actually civil there for a few minutes. But then you frustrated him with logic, again. It's like trying to tame a hyena.

And I warned you about the mysogeny.

 

[XanaduRanch]

Does "introverted" mean not verted? Does "inflatable" mean not flatable? Are these not commonly used adjectives?

I don't know. That would depend on whether "trovert" and "flate" a words. I personally have never heard of anyone "flating" a tire, or being "verted". Just because a word starts with in, does not mean that the "in" is a prefix. I suppose it could be, but I really don't care one way or the other. I also allowed from the start that there are a myriad exceptions to every rule, especially in English. I am just loathe to sanction another one.

It was just an interesting discussion on why there are three words describing something combustible, and I learned something new about it, thanks to you. :: LOL :: Not sure when that knowledge will ever come in handy. But it was interesting to discuss. Honestly.

Tom aka XR My degree is in Calcium Anthropology. The study of milkmen.

P.S.
Porfi, what is the proper response to someone suggesting that I should be set on fire? Or that I am a drug delaer. Or a liar, or a braggard, or masochistic, or sadistic, or that I abuse my wife and children, or that I am an alcoholic, etc. You, PR, O&C, The Ditz, and several others have referred to me with those terms over the last few days. My response has been quite mild considering the shrillness of these attacks. And for what? Because you don't have a point, and just type to hear your brains spilling out all over DR1? What she said is offensive. She's lucky I don't take any of you seriously enough to be very concerned about it. You all show everyone else here exactly how petty, and insignificant you are everytime you post such vitriol.

 

[Jane J.]

**Ditzy double post**