English Language & Usage Asked by Skylark on December 23, 2020
I recently had an encounter with word "iffy", which if explained with reference to word "if", its meaning that "something/some-concept cannot be considered fully and unconditionally right and therefore trustable" becomes absolutely crystal-clear.
And I just recalled an old question that I asked myself: when some words are just mere extension of other original words, then why those original words are not used in explanation of these "extension" words’ meanings specifically, so that the meaning along with its context is crystal clear ? In Etymology description it is explained as if+-y, but then why avoid its mention in meaning explanation?
Why is the use of diverse words i.e. "other" words necessary for lengthy, elaborate explanation of the phrase/term. For eg. in this case, if someone had mentioned that "iffy means something having the sense/notion of "if" in its truth-validation" it could have been easily explained simply, straightforward with fewer words and less cognitive load.
I have seen this thing happening with many newer(maybe there are some older ones as well of this sort unbeknownst to me) extended/joint words where instead of referencing/using the original word for explaining full meaning with context in simple manner, it(dictionary online/offline) just uses more words to make the reader/visitor "circum-navigate" to finally narrow-down that its true meaning is mere extension of original word/phrase’s meaning.
Why does this happen, is it just the mistaken over-work by some literary writers or they deliberately did avoided the original word’s mention? If they did avoid the original word’s mention, why would they do that?
One reason is that etymology is not always a reliable predictor of the current meaning or usage of a word. While it might make sense to think of 'iffy' as being based on a conditional (and therefore unreliable), the modern definition can include 'not very good' in modern English ("an iffy neighborhood"). This meaning is not quite the same as 'unreliable'. Already, the usage of the word has shifted a little away from the original.
While there are many cases where etymology can help memorize a word's meaning, on the whole, it's just not reliable enough as a strategy to make it a core principle of learning vocabulary. That is not to say that learners can't benefit from incorporating etymology into their studies. They certainly can, but you seem to be suggesting that it should be given more attention at policy level or a wider pedagogical level. I'm not convinced it's justified.
Answered by kandyman on December 23, 2020
Get help from others!
Recent Questions
Recent Answers
© 2024 TransWikia.com. All rights reserved. Sites we Love: PCI Database, UKBizDB, Menu Kuliner, Sharing RPP