News: 1614769205

You can't control language. Deal with the accepted definition, or forever be shouting at pigeons in the park.

Yup. That battle is well lost.

My current annoyance is "gift" as a verb. No, the verb is "give". "Gift" refers to that which is given. I think it must be something to do with lack of confidence in using an irregular verb.

"to gift" has a longer history than people might realise; there are instances of it from the 18th century. I think I hate it more today because of its commercial connotations or implications; you never hear ordinary people say it, it's only marketing or advertising where you read about "gift a generous donation", etc.

Looking in the Oxford Dictionary on the shelf - Gift can be a verb and is [1]400 years old . I'd usually expect it something like "To Gift something to ..."

I have usually seen it that way in legal documents

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/gift-as-a-verb

@"Looking in the Oxford Dictionary on the shelf " self proclaimed authority that only wishes they had any control of any version of English including the one currently spoken at Oxford Schools.

For my part when they started adding school nmemonics for Latin as English words then they lost my support.

You, no doubt, would just ask Humpty for the definition.

self proclaimed authority that only wishes they had any control of any version of English

I don't think they've ever claimed to control anything, they see their job as documenting how the language is used. The don't want to be an Académie Française of the English language which is a b*****d of many parents and evolves constantly.

In defense of french speakers, nobody gives a damn about the Académie Française's ideas on [1]neologisms ...

Although I can't wait to see a reference to some "point d'enregistrement de wi-fi" (or even the more absurd "zone d'urgence migratoire de wi-fi" )

[1] http://www.academie-francaise.fr/la-langue-francaise/terminologie-et-neologie

You do understand OED documents the language, it doesn't define it?

I've seen quite a few interviews with Oxford Dictionary staff over the years, written and TV interviews etc.

Each time they've stated their job is to document the language, as used. It's the people that define the language, through usage, and English is a living constantly changing language (like many others in the World).

The OED have quite a strict process for adding new words to the dictionary, anyone can submit new words, but they have to be in widespread use, in books, in newspapers etc. before they are actually added into the dictionary itself.

You might not like some of the new words, but that's nothing to do with the OED itself.

OED isn't an Academie Française type prescriptive document. It's real job is to describe current and historical usage with contemporary examples. I should think the keepers of the OED shudder at some of the usages they do document but then all languages (including French despite the AF) change at varying speeds.

OED has never attempted to have control, they have always been descriptive, not prescriptive

Mine is to speak into a situation -- I speak into telephones, microphones even ears sometimes I advise, suggest, discuss, inform but a situation does not have receptors or intelligence to receive ... But as others have said it is a lost cause.

Unless used sarcastically or ironically, to "gift" someone something implies giving the person permanent possession of something beneficial for no charge. "To give" does not imply permanent possession, lack of compensation or that the item is wanted, so the two words are not interchangeable.

Unfortunately, MSM is rarely concerned with accuracy, preferring to put views and profits way ahead of accuracy, then due to the prevalence of the public adoption of MSM attitudes and phrases such thing become the norm.

Trying to change the public view of the word hacker to one with rather more cuddly connotations is like trying to push back the tide.

I agree with the argument but it is way too late to douch about it, easier to invent a new word to describe cuddly hackers.

Now that's a problem, I want hacker to keep its meaning (and lifehack arguably uses hack from the old meaning), but I'm not really bothered about master/slave, blacklist/whitelist, and others being replaced by new words.

I'm sort of with you. But blacklist/whitelist goes back a couple of thousand years and has absolutely nothing to do with race, for example.

Slave, I can sort of agree with. It has become a very loaded term. But it is hard to think of alternatives, in some cases, E.g. slaving a convoy of automated vehicles to the lead car.

Masturbation is not a crime, unless you do it in your local supermarket. It's the intent and circumstances of your actions that make it a crime. And good luck with trying to educate the standard journalist.

Maybe we should reserve the word computer for its correct usage too.

The word [1]"computer" dates to the 1640’s and referred to a human being who performed calculations. These human generated calculations would be compiled into things like navigation tables or interest rate tables.

I, for one, am heartily sick of the dimwits who abuse the word, ignorantly believing that it refers to programmable calculating machines instead of a type of mathematician.

Joke alert, because Poe's law.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(job_description)

I thought people that performed calculations were called "computors".

[1]Not across the pond

[1] https://www.nasa.gov/subject/12330/human-computers/

Not in 1672, they aren't.

Now it is manifest, and most men likewise know, that the Calenders of these computers, and the accounts of these days are very different; the Greeks dissenting from the Latins, and the Latins from each other; the one observing the Julian or ancient account, as great Britain and part of Germany; Sir Thomas Browne (1646; 6th ed., 1672) [1]Pseudodoxia Epidemica VI.iv (pp. 336-338)

[1] https://penelope.uchicago.edu/pseudodoxia/pseudo64.html

"...or forever be shouting at pigeons in the park."

You say this like it's a bad thing. Also, I propose we "verb-ivy" the word pigeon to mean engaging in that activity.

Examples: "Mark and I were planning to *pigeon* in Central Park this evening. Care to join us?"

"I saw the network administrator *pigeoning* about the idiots in upper management during my walk into work this morning."

But usage eventually wears everyone down and wins. Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1483/ .

Did Randall write about it on his Blag?

Ever since I heard it four decades ago, "hacker" has always sounded to me to be somebody to "hacks" away at something instead of thinking through, planning, and structuring something. I don't want software that's been "hacked" together, I want it to be written properly. So, "hacker" to me means more like "unprofessional" than "without permission".

To hack, often 'a quick hack', is employed by engineers with enough skill to know better. They describe the 95% solution to a problem implemented in 5% of the time as a 'hack' to show they know the code is of dubious quality and they fully intend to re-implement the modification properly sometime later.

Which never happens.

The (TMRC-correct) parlance for that would be a kludge.

To me that's a bodge.

Nothing is as permanent as a temporary fix....

Sadly "hack" has insinuated itself into common language; magazines talk about "10 Life Hacks to Improve Your Fitness", so the concept of hacking as making a change to something, even if it's with somebody else's toolkit, is ingrained now. People used to talk about "cracking" computer systems, vs "hacking", but that seems to have fallen by the wayside.

However many, many years ago my mum's Woman's Own used to include "Reader's Tips". I suppose that now it would be "10 Life Hacks you would never believe!!!!!"

Sorry but I don't like the picture on the stories page - if you're going to get your face that close to something you're using clippers on, for goodness sake wear eye protection. Wire ends can flirt a surprising distance in unexpected directions.

Obvious Icon!

Came here to say exactly that.

Wire ends can flirt?

I guess echoing what a lot of folks here have already said. Language is gonna language and fighting it is as productive as standing on the beach and shouting at the tide....

Except... I've personally observed something of a drift towards "cybercriminal" as a term rather than "hacker", at least in broadsheets and their online equivalents so maybe the use of "hacker" is now relegated to the red-tops?

On the flip side, there's also been something of a move away from referring to hardware hackers for folks who mess with stuff physically, using terms like "maker" so maybe the term "hacker" is being abandoned by the educated mainstream for both it's orginal and cybercriminal meanings?

It's rather ear-opening listening to/reading songs and novels from the 1920s or so that talk about eg "making love in the park". Back then it meant more like "courting".

Oh, go ask your parents.

;)

I have a problem with people using "I've been hacked" as an excuse when what they mean is "I gave away the credentials myself".

If you still have your car keys and your car has been stolen, your insurance company will be ok. If you don't have your car because you gave the keys to someone else?

The technical equivalent of a bodger?

You may find that already used elsewhere but please run it up the flagpole and see who salutes....

a hacker was someone who could skilfully build something physical or code something using a quick and dirty method (big ball of mud programming?) that worked whereas a cracker was someone intent on breaking into a system for nefarious gain, information gathering or showing off to other crackers. A former colleague was one of the original phone-phreakers in Italy. In modern parlance, he would be described as a hacker.

English is very much a language of stolen words, concepts and common ignorance, there are people who claim to be authorities on English but since these self proclaimed authorities are vastly outnumbered by those who "misuse" the language then there is always going to be misunderstandings and conflicts about meanings simply because, with English, everyone is equally able to define the language.

If you want to change a word's definition then just including your definition in brackets after the word is typically enough, if enough people agree with you then that definition will be added to the psuedo authority's lists of English. It won't stop future misuse or confusion but that is just how it is, English is whatever people agree it is and every English conversation is a negociation.

So rather than bitching about definitions it would be better to recognise the fact that the language is not static, there are no real authorities on English just surveys of common opinion.

I agree that during my lifetime many words have annoyingly changed their "agreed" definitions sometimes through intentional political manipulation in order to make what was popularly seen as bad more palatable, sometimes because those without vocabulary find that their normal "swearword as replacement for vocabulary" method is not getting the message across and sometimes because the English breaker wants to be special. So via mangling some word or language convention they do know inorder to "communicate". This is not novel and hence you should not be surprising.

So in reply, yes, it is annoying that as you get older and start wishing things would stop changing so fast you find that those new people are talking gibberish, this has always been the case and it is just you who has stopped changing with the times. On the plus side "those new people" are going to be bitching just like you sometime in the future if they live long enough and so the cycle continues

I am not surprising. I wear psuedo pshoes.

Is the apostrophe in the headline an example of that?

Apostrophe's are defined by there* user's?

* yes I know; my comment probably didn't really require any more argh, but "more is more" and all that.

Definded? Did you mean defined?

and as well as the two examples in previous replies, I add

"you should not be surprising"

I am mostly interested in how many people change their mind during a debate, not how many there absolutely are. The comments here are a good example why: apparently lots of the readership has given up on the term, and presumably thought so before reading the article - it would be interesting to see if anyone went from against to for, though. Surely the readers of this esteemed organ could handle six or seven options (unsure/unsure in addition to the conclusive 6).

Was people who tinkered with things to try to understand how things work. For EXAMPLE, I found ways to increase AND use additional memory on the Amiga 1000, which is clearly what hackers did back then. This applies to ANYTHING - software, hardware, your car, your phone, etc.

When I was growing up, a hacker was someone who pushed technology to its limits, found new ways of doing things and generally pushed frontiers.

I did all that. I was only minor league and never did anything that famously pushed the boundaries we know today, although my first hour in college received a, "wow, I didn't know you could do that with a computer!" From my computer programming lecturer!

Being a hacker was something to be proud of. I still use the term that way today. I hate that it is so misused and abused in the press and society in general.

As least for anything involving videogames, even making a backup of your save data.

https://www.kotaku.com.au/2019/01/game-modding-illegal-in-japan-punishable-by-prison-and-fines/