I can think of a few words that no AI (or most humans, for that matter) have or ever will think of. For example ... Hoolima-kittilooka-chee-chee-chee ...! (The Philological Waltz by Flanders and Swann. Lyrics here). Or, for instance ... Niq fluk bwarney quando floo! (What George Carlin would say, if someone would ask him to "tell us, in your own words") These examples are part of what makes English so wonderful. You can use any nonsense you like for comic effect. Joking aside, it's also possible to use well-known and well-trodden phrases for any effect you like. Just think of Ray Chandler and his well-known metaphors, or this bit from an episode of "Yes, Prime Minister" (where the PM is urged to promote the banker, Desmond Glazebrook): Desmond Glazebrook? But he's such a fool. He only talks in clichés. He can talk in clichés 'til the cows come home. You can also subvert these clichés to your own ends. For instance, you can have a character with a scrape on their arm complain and whine endlessly, until someone gets fed up and dump The Complete Works of William Shakespeare on their foot, so they don't have to listen to him any more. As we all know, tome heals all wounds. Or, you can have a character brag about how he's a wonderful surfer and can do anything, until his family take him to the beach to watch him surf ... and he just stands at the water's edge and doesn't even go in. After all, they also surf who only stand and wait. But I've spoken too much, so I'll shut up now.
In writing works of fantasy I do find use of words I make up. They are for items or beings of the fantasy scenario. The words help the understanding of inhabitants of that location having some amount of familiarity with what is introduced for that, but they are not in isolation from my use of made up compound words of our own speech. I have lots of such words. But more recent word searches show me the problem with that. My own compound words are at enough times used for something else by some others.
That's one of the problems with fantasy, true. But it doesn't matter if someone else used your compound words first or not. That's not what makes your story good, or better than theirs. Context is king. Since I write historical fiction, with settings in non-English-speaking countries, I use their words here and there - just a sprinkling, to add authenticity - but with enough context to make the meaning clear. Context is what matters.
I began to read the short story Ming, by Han Ong, published recently in The New Yorker. I didn’t finish it. Not only did it not grab my attention, but the reduction of the language to a utilitarian function – in what I suppose could be called a conversational tone – did not engender me to the story. It begins this way: I can’t say there is much of beauty or creativity about using language this way. This style isn’t about creativity, but cutting corners. IMO, language deserves more respect than this, as does the reader. I find this hard to follow. I’m not sure if this makes me a language snob, but I think language should be used properly. Yes, lol, rules of structure. The kind of writing above seems more about the writer trying to be different for difference’s sake. Or, it’s a writer saying, “I can’t be bothered doing it properly.” It’s a writer making themself more important than the language. I am but a humble storyteller, grateful for the gift of language. I’m not going to disrespect it.
Present tense would put me off from the get-go. I don't write it, and don't read it unless I absolutely have to, and the second word should be "has".
That's not conversational tone. That's BS. (Hey, that's my opinion, even if it stinks. No-one can call me biased for expressing my opinion). Seriously, though ... Han Ong flip-flops between present and past tense like they're nothing. (Four times in the opening paragraph? Please. He's making my head ache). Couple that with a lack of quote marks to show someone is speaking, as well as the stereotypical view of westerners (the name "Johnny Mac", and the meal they eat) ... and I don't want to read any more. :-\ It's a pity. I don't know Han Ong from a hole in the ground. Maybe he's a good writer, maybe not. But those few paragraphs make him look like a talentless hack who disrespects both the English language and people who speak English.
This sentence is grammatically correct and makes sense (i.e. it is not a nonsense sentence): Dogs dog dogs dogs dog.
*thinks about it; gives up; shrugs* All right, I know that "dog" can mean either to the canine creature or (as a verb) "to follow someone persistently and irritatingly". But what does that sentence mean, please?
Got it. Thanks, Naomasa. Speaking of "for the love of language", one of my favourites is unintentional misspellings. For instance ... Sesame Street characters. (Yikes for the typo. Warning, NSFW).
It is true that my stories will have the context that have my compound words fit well. But to not have any saying that my compound words are derivative from other sources, I desire to yet have more original words I make up, to use more, leaving the compound words a secondary term for those same things in the writing.
Oddly, there's a word in German that serves the same purpose: "doch." It stresses the affirmative, even if it's a negative affirmative (if you get my drift). I wonder if that was the reason that Germany and Japan were on the same side in World War II. I'm late to this conversation but the subject is dear to my heart. Thanks for the mention of Linguaphile: A Life of Language Love. I've just reserved it at my local library. I have some book recommendations for you all. They were all written by people who are totally stoned in love with English, which make them delights to read: The first is Benjamin Dreyer's book Dreyer's English: An Utterly Correct Guide to Clarity and Style. What sets this apart from all the other style guides is that he's very funny and insightful about the English language and how it should be used. He's the chief copy editor of Random House, so he's got cred. There's a good laugh on practically every page. I turn at random to page 163 and find: As I read this book, I discovered that this is the style guide I've been looking for all my life. Dreyer is perfectly aware that the language is in perpetual flux and, while there are some usages worth preserving, there are others that are hills not worth dying on. And he's perfectly aware that while the editor has a great influence on preparing the copy for print, the author should always have the last word. A second book is a world without "whom" : the essential guide to language in the BuzzFeed age by Emmy Favilla. (I picked it up because it had an endorsement by Benjamin Dreyer on the back of the book.) Favilla is also a copy editor, but for BuzzFeed, which puts her on the front lines of the changing language. She's very quick to defend new usages and discard old conventions that no longer make sense (like starting book-title words with capital letters?). It made me aware of how older guides like the venerable Strunk & White should be seen mainly as artifacts of the language as it was spoken and written at the time of their publication, but no longer reflect the language we use today. A third book is Word by word: the secret life of dictionaries by Kory Stamper. She's a lexicologist for Merriam-Webster. I'll quote from the publisher's synopsis of the book: Lastly, I can heartily recommend Our Marvelous Native Tongue: The Life and Times of the English Language by Robert Clairborne, who was himself an editor for most of his life. I may have mentioned this book before. I've probably read a hundred books on the history of the English language, and this one, published in 1983, outshines them all forty years later. It's nothing less than a three-hundred-page love letter to the language from its roots in Indo-European to its present day. I find myself constantly re-reading it for its insights and his skill at writing gracefully and clearly. (If E.B. White had written on the subject, it might well have come out looking like this one.) What also sets it apart from the others is the way he shows how English was influenced by political climates and the literary world's attempt to regulate the language in the face of time's inexorable mutation of the language. You may not have been aware of how the literary output of Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Swift (to name just three) was shaped by the world they lived in and the people they were writing for, and for their own considerable powers of observation. I also found out that Claiborne was also an amateur musician who used to jam with Pete Seeger. That in itself is an endorsement to me. If I were ever fortunate enough to attend a luncheon with Dreyer, Stamper, and Favilla, I would just keep my mouth shut and hang on every word as they discussed their favorite hot buttons in language. (Mr. Dreyer already knows Favilla, of course, but I don't know if either of them know Ms. Stamper). I would have invited Mr. Claiborne, too, but he's been dead for many years.
