Re: [romconlang] -able

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 3:30 PM, David J. Peterson <dedalvs@...> wrote:
>  What on Earth is this bizarre American dialect you speak?
Well, take away my generalization; my apologies.  But what I said is true IML.

>  Anything that's paved is paved, no matter what it's paved with.
That would be a perfectly valid generalization, but a meaningless one
IML, where the verb "to pave" implies "with asphalt".  Laying down
concrete or bricks or what have you is not "paving".  For instance,
paving the road to Hell with good intentions has always created in my
mind a vision of those intentions being poured into a machine and
coming out as a mystical variety of blacktop.

I was just observing a dialectical curiosity; I apologize for
overgeneralizing it.

>  And why can't "spade" have the definition "old word for shovel"?
It can have whatever definition you like, and of course it already has
several.   To me, it's one of those words that brings up unpleasant
associations (unless you're talking about playing cards, in which
"Spades" is one of my all-time favorite games; I don't claim toe be
fully logical).  I do know that I'm not the only one who has this
association, though, since I have read several times about people
having (mis)interpreted the proverb "To call a spade a spade" as
having racist intent.

Obviously, I know that it also can mean "shovel" and I have no trouble
making the leap to that definition in context; it just takes a
millsecond or two.   I don't even think "old word" is appropriate - it
is a current word, just not IML.  Unlike the "pavement" case, you'll
note I didn't generalize; I never claimed it was archaic or British or
anything, just not part of my natural vocabulary.


--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

Replies