Flaming And A Grumpy Old Englishman.

[chimsa]

Please, can somebody indulge me and explain the origin of the peculiar use of the adjective "flaming" as a verb on this board, both by posters and the illustrious ones. Inexperienced in the use of forums maybe, but I have only encountered it on this site. The use of an adjective as a verb is, for a start, a grammatical howler. Chambers English Dictionary: Flame; "The visible flickering luminous streams produced by a gaseous matter undergoing combustion." What has this got to do with an internet forum?

Our (English) language is rich and precise and varied. Why then the need to make up words and then apply them as a blanket cover for a multitude of sins? It creates a system that becomes open to abuse by those with limited thought processes or linguistic skills.

If "being over critical, or unpleasant is meant, then say so and justify.

If being "rude or crude" is meant, then say so. No justification needed.

And so on.

[stevenl]

This may be a surprise to you, but the www has resulted in a host of new words/expressions. Check Wikipedia for flaming:

Flaming (also known as bashing) is hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users.

[Pomthai]

If (no ill intent meant here just an example) I called the origional poster an idiot for asking this question, this response would be considered a flame. If he retorted back with insults towards me, it'd have become a flame war.

More info here:- http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flame

Edited April 14, 2010 by Pomthai

[LivinginKata]

Not really Phuket related. Moved to General ...

[Birdman]

an amphibology of the Sweet camp back in the 70s after Slade's

[soundman]

Unfortunately - this is not in the right context:

Flaming hel_l it's time for my tranquilliser already.

...............

English is an evolving language, so the lexicon for this year will not be the same as the the one for ten years ago. Based on that, pictographs and emoticons, will replace entire complex words and entire sentences in the future so we will end up communicating with text that looks something like this:

<deleted> did the when some mod took it upon himself to hand out 's for members who were over the correct use of the English language.

Makes perfect sense to me.

[Changian]

I am in the medical profession. A profession in which the imprecise use of language costs lives.

Ahem . . .

It is up to teacher's here . . .

sbstitutes.

Fortunately no lives were lost this time.

[Ulysses G.]

Never heard of slang?

[chimsa]

I am in the medical profession. A profession in which the imprecise use of language costs lives.

Ahem . . .

It is up to teacher's here . . .

sbstitutes.

Fortunately no lives were lost this time.

Ponts made.

Never come across typing slips before.

[DP25]

If widely used internet slang bothers you perhaps you should revert to the telegraph

[BWPattaya]

I am in the medical profession. A profession in which the imprecise use of language costs lives.

Ahem . . .

It is up to teacher's here . . .

sbstitutes.

Fortunately no lives were lost this time.

Spelling mistakes jump out at me. So, when I saw the ubiquitous, and incorrectly used, apostrophe when the original poster wrote the imprecise use of language I had to decide whether to smile or flame him.

[BLUEEYEDTHAI]

You make many good points sir but,you will be long departed from this mortal plane before most here would tell you.

[nisakiman]

I'm a participant in a number of very disparate forums (or "fora" I suppose, if you want to be pedantic), and the verb "to flame" is common linguistic currency in all of them, and universally understood. As is "trolling", another word you wouldn't have come across until a few years ago. As already said here, the English language is constantly evolving...

[Garry9999]

I got called a troll today, WTFs a Troll?

I thought it was a monster that lives under a bridge.

And Trolling is a method of fishing, right?

[TheLaughingMan]

Keep up with the new lingo or GTFO

[chimsa]

Nevertheless, our language is not short of words and has the biggest dictionary in the World. Why resort to cheap, urban, short cuts?

Todays cheap urban shortcuts, are tomorrows well established words. Do you think all the words in the Oxford English dictionary were added on the same day?? They are constantly adding new words to their dictionary and currently have over 40,000 entries of words that are now obsolete. That's exactly how a language works. Otherwise we would all be speaking Ye Old English still, and sounding like a bunch of country bumpkin halfwits.

As a medical professional, don't you use predominantly Latin words anyway, not English?

The teachers you criticized, although probably less qualified than yourself, I'm pretty sure have a far better understanding of language and how it evolves, and are in a much better position to pass that knowledge on to children.

Of course, I cannot disagree. But when a new word evolves that covers a multitude of meanings and is imprecise. Then that is not evolvement, but rather a lazy distortion.

There are more important and more informed bodies than internet forum users who make decisions about the acceptance of new words into our dictionary. It is a precise art and takes into account "fad" language. The Urban Dictionary is not to be taken seriously. I had a daily imput from them for a while. I cancelled it as it was silly embarrassing and ephemeral street talk. Much like "flaming" and "troll" IMHO.

[cdmtdm]

This may be a surprise to you, but the www has resulted in a host of new words/expressions. Check Wikipedia for flaming:

Flaming (also known as bashing) is hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users.

not to be confused with Blue Flaming

[sadman]

Gadzooks, prithee cease thy perturbedness. Thou consider these terms rebarbative - is it e'en so?

If the words offend thee, I beg thee forswear such intercourse.

[Garry9999]

This may be a surprise to you, but the www has resulted in a host of new words/expressions. Check Wikipedia for flaming:

Flaming (also known as bashing) is hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users.

not to be confused with Blue Flaming

Or Flaming Ass Monkeys

[IMA_FARANG]

Well, I'm a grumpy old American, so I can understand some of your concern.

However, you have to realise that English is not a static lnguage, but one that develops by creating new words and terms that more precisely illustrate the meaning intended.

Take the word "flaming", that you mentioned. Consider a pilot being "shot down in flames" in a dogfight with an enemy airplane.

That is a close analogy to what is meant by "flaming" someone. If you are the recipient of such a "flame", you have certainly been "flamed", and "shot down in flames". The metaphor is apt, and therefore the word "flamed" is a fine description of a "flame", isn't it?

As an amatuer scientist I often have to deal with some words that non-scientists find confusing. Just try to explain to a non-scientist what an "order of magnitude improvement" is. Or for that matter try to explain to someone outside medicine what being "asymptomatic" is.

My point is that English, like most living languages, describes the real world as experiencd by the users of that language. That changes as the world they expeience, and need to describe, changes. If that hadn't been true for many years, English would still be the same language that Chaucer used. But it isn't, is it.

I heard a story about a man who traveled to a Pacific island where pidgin English was used. He brought a Video Camera with him. On going through customs, the local customs inspector asked the man,"This fella, what him name be then?". The man answered,"This fella, him name be Video Camera". "O.K. then", said the customs inspector,"that fella he can go".

Certainly not gramatically correct, but the information was conveyed and understood by both parties, wasn't it.

That's the point.

[WOOHOO]

Of course, I cannot disagree. But when a new word evolves that covers a multitude of meanings and is imprecise. Then that is not evolvement, but rather a lazy distortion.

That doesn't make any sense. All words have a multitude of meanings and are imprecise.

If you call someone obnoxious, the word obnoxious has only one collective meaning, but there are thousands of different ways you can be obnoxious. The same goes if you describe something as being appealing, again, there is a multitude of ways something can be appealing but the word only has one meaning. Flaming and trolling are exactly the same. One meaning that covers a multitude of scenarios. Every word is the same in that respect so that's a very poor argument against such words.

Edited April 14, 2010 by WOOHOO

[WOOHOO]

I heard a story about a man who traveled to a Pacific island where pidgin English was used.

Reminds me of a sign outside a bar on Nai Thon beach, Phuket. It reads: "Pidgin English spoken perfectly" What more do you need than that!

[Patsycat]

I'm flammoxed.

[Garry9999]

Well, I'm a grumpy old American, so I can understand some of your concern.

However, you have to realise that English is not a static lnguage, but one that develops by creating new words and terms that more precisely illustrate the meaning intended.

Take the word "flaming", that you mentioned. Consider a pilot being "shot down in flames" in a dogfight with an enemy airplane.

That is a close analogy to what is meant by "flaming" someone. If you are the recipient of such a "flame", you have certainly been "flamed", and "shot down in flames". The metaphor is apt, and therefore the word "flamed" is a fine description of a "flame", isn't it?

As an amatuer scientist I often have to deal with some words that non-scientists find confusing. Just try to explain to a non-scientist what an "order of magnitude improvement" is. Or for that matter try to explain to someone outside medicine what being "asymptomatic" is.

My point is that English, like most living languages, describes the real world as experiencd by the users of that language. That changes as the world they expeience, and need to describe, changes. If that hadn't been true for many years, English would still be the same language that Chaucer used. But it isn't, is it.

I heard a story about a man who traveled to a Pacific island where pidgin English was used. He brought a Video Camera with him. On going through customs, the local customs inspector asked the man,"This fella, what him name be then?". The man answered,"This fella, him name be Video Camera". "O.K. then", said the customs inspector,"that fella he can go".

Certainly not gramatically correct, but the information was conveyed and understood by both parties, wasn't it.

That's the point.

Well said, and I agree with all. Many other replies above mentioned the evolvement of our language and the need for it to adapt in the internet environment, for example.

However, why replace perfectly good and precise words with "fad" language like flame and troll. Is it a case of the older members of this forum trying to appear as trendy as youngsters like to be?

Let's forget about accuracy, let's be trendy instead.

"Flaming" can mean anything. Trolling. What does that mean for goodness sake?

Please mods. Abort this thread. I started it off a bit tongue in cheek, but I am getting a hammering, one way or the other.

This might help http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll quite amusing really.

[metisdead]

Well, I'm a grumpy old American, so I can understand some of your concern.

However, you have to realise that English is not a static lnguage, but one that develops by creating new words and terms that more precisely illustrate the meaning intended.

Take the word "flaming", that you mentioned. Consider a pilot being "shot down in flames" in a dogfight with an enemy airplane.

That is a close analogy to what is meant by "flaming" someone. If you are the recipient of such a "flame", you have certainly been "flamed", and "shot down in flames". The metaphor is apt, and therefore the word "flamed" is a fine description of a "flame", isn't it?

As an amatuer scientist I often have to deal with some words that non-scientists find confusing. Just try to explain to a non-scientist what an "order of magnitude improvement" is. Or for that matter try to explain to someone outside medicine what being "asymptomatic" is.

My point is that English, like most living languages, describes the real world as experiencd by the users of that language. That changes as the world they expeience, and need to describe, changes. If that hadn't been true for many years, English would still be the same language that Chaucer used. But it isn't, is it.

I heard a story about a man who traveled to a Pacific island where pidgin English was used. He brought a Video Camera with him. On going through customs, the local customs inspector asked the man,"This fella, what him name be then?". The man answered,"This fella, him name be Video Camera". "O.K. then", said the customs inspector,"that fella he can go".

Certainly not gramatically correct, but the information was conveyed and understood by both parties, wasn't it.

That's the point.

Well said, and I agree with all. Many other replies above mentioned the evolvement of our language and the need for it to adapt in the internet environment, for example.

However, why replace perfectly good and precise words with "fad" language like flame and troll. Is it a case of the older members of this forum trying to appear as trendy as youngsters like to be?

Let's forget about accuracy, let's be trendy instead.

"Flaming" can mean anything. Trolling. What does that mean for goodness sake?

Please mods. Abort this thread. I started it off a bit tongue in cheek, but I am getting a hammering, one way or the other.

I think you stated previously that you didn't like using Urban Dictionary, there you will be able to find the definition of trolling.

If you want the mods to close this thread, click on that little report button and enter what you want done in the panel there.

[PhilHarries]

If widely used internet slang bothers you perhaps you should revert to the telegraph

You're 'aving a giraffe there aren't you?

As others have pointed out, the English language is developing all the time. New words are coming into use, old words are being dropped and other old words change their meaning (take gay for an example).

When a language stops developing it stagnates and starts to die which is why the French get upset every now and again at the amount of English words being absorbed into their language. So they all go for a good protest march at "le weekend".

[mr_hippo]

Of course, I cannot disagree. But when a new word evolves that covers a multitude of meanings and is imprecise. Then that is not evolvement, but rather a lazy distortion.

Evolvement???? Try 'evolution' - stop making up nonsense words!!!!!!

[Chinavet]

Chimsa, please don't take offense. I meant none and I don't believe the other posters do either. Your 'tongue in cheek' is understood as is your obvious genuine distress at what is happening to your language. Nay drama and nothing personal.

But you have opened an interesting can of worms.

....that's a metaphor, right? dam_n, I've gotta learn to speak proper.

[chimsa]

Of course, I cannot disagree. But when a new word evolves that covers a multitude of meanings and is imprecise. Then that is not evolvement, but rather a lazy distortion.

Evolvement???? Try 'evolution' - stop making up nonsense words!!!!!!

Funny, but evolvement is equally valid. See Chambers

[Loz]

Its a little narsasistic to demand that you be the one to decide when language is evolving and when it is being bastardized. I think you should consider your oath as a medical practioner before making a post like this.

"...never do harm to anyone"

remember that bit?

Edited April 14, 2010 by Loz