The English language/vocabulary/verbal phrases

Dayvenkirq wrote: Now that zachfive mentioned Roger Goodell on the "... American football" thread, I've skimmed through the guy's Wiki page and found a phrase in use: fait accompli. Clicked on it, and this is what I've seen. Anyone around here in the habit of using foreign phrases in their English writing or speech?

Now that zachfive mentioned Roger Goodell on the "... American football" thread, I've skimmed through the guy's Wiki page and found a phrase in use: fait accompli. Clicked on it, and this is what I've seen.

^ it is more to do with how the word sounds to English ears (and from what Roger has said, Indian ears) than any difference in meaning. We can (and do) appreciate the difference in meaning (and Aggression has the same two related meanings), but prefer to use the verb 'aggressive' with an appropriate noun as an descriptive noun-phrase than use this verbal noun.

Edited by Dean - August 18 2014 at 08:01

Gerinski wrote: ^ Perhaps there has been contamination from other languages where the distinction is more definite, such as Spanish. In Spanish we have: Agresion (noun) Agresividad (noun) Agresivo (adjective) (Agredir is the verb but I don't think it's relevant for this) So we have two nouns linked to the same adjective and verb, and in Spanish the distinction between the two is clear.  Agresion is a fact, it is the fact of acting against someone or something, or of breaking the rules or the generally accepted correct behaviour. Agresividad is taking risks, it is showing no fear, it is putting your opponents against the wall, stressing them. It is taking the lead, in a way the opposite of being prudent or conservative. It is an attitude, not a definite act. Depending on the situation such an attitude could result in harm to others but not necessarily. A racing driver may drive with "agresividad" and that means that he is increasing the risks of anything nasty happening, but it does not mean that he has actually caused anything nasty yet. He may drive with "agresividad" and the race ends happily without anything bad having happened. But the term may also be used for a tennis player who constantly pushes his opponent to the limits, or someone who gambles taking risks and causing his opponents to take risks higher than they would normally do etc, and in these situations if it goes wrong it will not result in any harm to the opponent, only to himself.   Agresion implies that something nasty or at least considered incorrect has actually happened, it is not merely taking risks but actually having caused something undesirable. Because of this distinction in my mother language I tend to equate "aggressiveness" more with "agresividad" and "aggression" with "agresion" even if that's probably not the actual proper use in English.

^ Perhaps there has been contamination from other languages where the distinction is more definite, such as Spanish. In Spanish we have:

Edited by Gerinski - August 18 2014 at 01:31

HackettFan wrote:   A parallel historical development. Rogerthat can say the tennis player played with aggression. I cannot do so and mean the same thing. I am positing that what Rogerthat can do is a later development that occurred outside North America. A back formation would indeed make 'aggression' older than 'aggress'. But if the back formation is older than aggressive, then it still makes more sense to say that aggressive is derived from aggress, otherwise the reason we don't have the form 'aggressionive' would be without explanation.

We are just contradicting each other now. I cannot respond without repeating myself, I cannot see where any of this is metaphoric or abstract and I cannot find any of your definitions in the dictionary so I'm giving up. 

Dean wrote: HackettFan wrote: Dean wrote: Aggression means "to attack" - any forward motion (advancement) in that is implicit, this attack can be motivated by anger but not necessarily so. Both aggression and aggressive can also mean "readiness to attack or confront". This isn't metaphorical, it is literal - aggressive means 'ready to attack' and aggressiveness means 'being ready to attack' - that is not competitive or opportunistic, nor is it defensive. Since the -ness ending does literally mean "a state of aggression" or "a measure of aggression" then that directly refers to a state of mind. In sports commentary it is possible that it is being used metaphorically to mean competitiveness but since sporting events are attack vs. defence I honestly doubt that any metaphoric use is intended.  Not for me, aggressive does not mean "ready to attack". One can have an aggressive driving style, which doesn't mean that your confronting other drivers, just that a driver is taking every opportunity to fill gaps in the traffic and is not driving defensively. Aggressiveness in the stock market would also be a metaphor. It's a way of actively buying and selling and being generally bullish, not about attacking anything. You spoke about sporting events being about attack vs. defense, but that's already a metaphor. I can't use 'aggression' to convey these things at all. Apparently, as I just learned, 'aggression' can be used for things like serve and volleying in tennis, so the metaphor also took place in England's English and India's English, but linked it to the already established morphology. Sorry, but I think you are wrong on every count here. If an aggressive driver is not driving defensively then he is driving offensively. To go on the offensive is to attack. And aggressive driving style is confrontational, it is not that the driver is taking every opportunity to fill gaps in traffic, he is using aggression to create them. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggressive_driving). Aggressive driving is not a positive trait unless it is on the racetrack (and even then it is seen as irresponsible if it endangers the lives of other drivers). Aggressive really does mean "ready to attack", that's part of the dictionary definition of the word <span style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.2;">In the stock market example you are mixing up your metaphors (erm, not mixing metaphors that something different). Bullish is the metaphor, to act like a bull is to be aggressive and assertive. A bullish market is an aggressive one, not the other way around. Aggressive buying is precisely and literally about attacking the market. In business a hostile takeover is an act of aggression against a company that is unwilling to be bought or resistant to the merger - it is an attack.</span> Attack and Defence in sport is not a metaphor, it is literal. When one side attacks the other defends - that is precisely what it means. How can this be a metaphor? If a player has an aggressive serve it means he has an attacking serve, this again is not a metaphor.

No, I have to disagree on every point as well. However, before I go on in any detail, let me point out that there is a fundamental divide in semantics. One says that there are individual core meanings that are then extended as necessary to the full universe of possible meaning (the model I'm presuming). The other says that the entire universe of possible meaning is anticipated in human cognition and divided up with sufficient abstraction to cover everything (the model you're presuming). In other words, you are only accepting what I am calling metaphorical extension as part of a single abstract meaning, abstract enough to cover all cases that the word is used for. It is an entirely rational thing to do, arrive at a full generalization. Part of the problem with that, however, is what we are running into right now when abstractions differ it provides no way to calibrate and compare them. As example of this point I am simply going to point out that you misinterpreted what I said about aggressiveness in the stock market. 'Aggressive trading' in the meaning that I'm familiar with (which for the moment is what we're talking about) has nothing to do with hostile takeover. It means that an investor buying and selling frequently with a high risk tolerance. In the other case with aggressiveness in driving, what I am talking about is a manner of going about driving that could be applied to a motorcyclist practicing by himself on a motocross track. Aggressiveness, as I am referring to it, could also be applied to a single competitor on an obstacle course. Now there still could be a notion of "attacking" in a very very abstract sense (e.g. 'He really attacked the course'), but since since the course doesn't defend itself, I would say this is not part of a broader abstract definition of the word, but rather a metaphorical extension of a tighter core meaning. In the same vein, I would say that 'He was very aggressive throughout the (obstacle) course' is similarly a metaphorical extension.

Edited by HackettFan - August 17 2014 at 16:46

HackettFan wrote: Dean wrote: Aggression means "to attack" - any forward motion (advancement) in that is implicit, this attack can be motivated by anger but not necessarily so. Both aggression and aggressive can also mean "readiness to attack or confront". This isn't metaphorical, it is literal - aggressive means 'ready to attack' and aggressiveness means 'being ready to attack' - that is not competitive or opportunistic, nor is it defensive. Since the -ness ending does literally mean "a state of aggression" or "a measure of aggression" then that directly refers to a state of mind. In sports commentary it is possible that it is being used metaphorically to mean competitiveness but since sporting events are attack vs. defence I honestly doubt that any metaphoric use is intended.   Not for me, aggressive does not mean "ready to attack". One can have an aggressive driving style, which doesn't mean that your confronting other drivers, just that a driver is taking every opportunity to fill gaps in the traffic and is not driving defensively. Aggressiveness in the stock market would also be a metaphor. It's a way of actively buying and selling and being generally bullish, not about attacking anything. You spoke about sporting events being about attack vs. defense, but that's already a metaphor. I can't use 'aggression' to convey these things at all. Apparently, as I just learned, 'aggression' can be used for things like serve and volleying in tennis, so the metaphor also took place in England's English and India's English, but linked it to the already established morphology.

rogerthat wrote:  On the song Certifiable #1 Smash, Kevin Gilbert pronounces multicultural the way English/Indian speakers would so perhaps the styling mult-I wasn't born yet.  But it's always sem-I final now.