Is Naïve properly written in English ?

[Externet]

Naïve

Or should be just ' naive ' ?

 

(Found on a pathology publication)

[Strange]

Either.

 

Although, I suspect most people nowadays would consider the version with diaeresis to be rather pretentious.

[Phi for All]

Those of us with more wisdom and experience use the second one.

[imatfaal]

Although the diaerisis does provide a useful clue as to pronunciation.

 

The French tend to use diacritics and other modifiers and thus the words we have in English with them tend to be from the French - I could speculate that the continued use of the diaerisis is an old-fashioned fusty acknowledgement that the word is French. However the word is now routine Englishand would normally be spelled without the diaerisis.

[Acme]

Those of us with more wisdom and experience use the second one.

So naiveté is remediable.

 

Interestingly, my online dictionary of choice gives both spellings of naïve with the acute accented e [é]; naïveté & naiveté. However in their entry for naïve they do not give naiveté as a noun form, but they do give naiveness. On top of that, my spell checker marked naiveness as incorrect but not naiveté and it auto corrects naive to naïve. Sacré bleu!

 

naiveté @ The Free Dictionary

naive @ The Free Dictionary

[StringJunky]

So naiveté is remediable.

 

Interestingly, my online dictionary of choice gives both spellings of naïve with the acute accented e [é]; naïveté & naiveté. However in their entry for naïve they do not give naiveté as a noun form, but they do give naiveness. On top of that, my spell checker marked naiveness as incorrect but not naiveté and it auto corrects naive to naïve. Sacré bleu!

 

naiveté @ The Free Dictionary

naive @ The Free Dictionary

I never would, and never will, use 'naiveness',,, naivete it is. Perhaps, it could be modified to naivety.

Edited May 23, 2015 by StringJunky

[Greg H.]

The English language is, unfortunately, getting less complex by the day. Words that used to have very precise meanings get usurped by pop culture and butchered until people forget what they mean.

 

I will never forget the principal that had to issue an apology for racist comments because he used the word niggardly.

 

And I weep for the future.

[StringJunky]

The English language is, unfortunately, getting less complex by the day. Words that used to have very precise meanings get usurped by pop culture and butchered until people forget what they mean.

 

I will never forget the principal that had to issue an apology for racist comments because he used the word niggardly.

 

And I weep for the future.

Language is like biological evolution, constantly changing. You are, I think, actually lamenting the disappearing habits of language-use from your own youth. C'est la vie!

[imatfaal]

Language is like biological evolution, constantly changing. You are, I think, actually lamenting the disappearing habits of language-use from your own youth. C'est la vie!

 

I agree with Greg on this one. Just because language naturally adapts and that usage is the real arbiter does not mean that other influences and changes cannot be wholly negative.

 

We are losing diversity in language as communications technology allows for ever greater mixing of languages, cultures, and dialects; to continue your biological analogy this should lead to strength and vigour - but combined with other manipulation it can also lead to a monoculture. We have so changed the environment that we can no longer be sure that pressures of survival will still create a thriving and healthy eco-system. To rephrase - just because a natural development in language has allowed the flourishing of Shakespeare, Proust, GG Marquez, Oe etc. does not mean that this same process cannot in the future create an environment in which this pinnacle of talent is unlikely to ever happen again.

 

Back onto the biological simile - we are a blip on the evolutionary time-scale; an unfortunate mar on the long term domination of the great lizards. We risk great language being preserved only as a distant echo of its once great self - the birds of today as the sole ancestors of the late tyrant king.

[StringJunky]

 

I agree with Greg on this one. Just because language naturally adapts and that usage is the real arbiter does not mean that other influences and changes cannot be wholly negative.

 

We are losing diversity in language as communications technology allows for ever greater mixing of languages, cultures, and dialects; to continue your biological analogy this should lead to strength and vigour - but combined with other manipulation it can also lead to a monoculture. We have so changed the environment that we can no longer be sure that pressures of survival will still create a thriving and healthy eco-system. To rephrase - just because a natural development in language has allowed the flourishing of Shakespeare, Proust, GG Marquez, Oe etc. does not mean that this same process cannot in the future create an environment in which this pinnacle of talent is unlikely to ever happen again.

 

Back onto the biological simile - we are a blip on the evolutionary time-scale; an unfortunate mar on the long term domination of the great lizards. We risk great language being preserved only as a distant echo of its once great self - the birds of today as the sole ancestors of the late tyrant king.

We are products of our time. Every generation says: " <insert subject> is going to the dogs.".

Edited May 23, 2015 by StringJunky

[Delta1212]

We are products of our time. Every generation says: " <insert subject> is going to the dogs.".

I used to be concerned about this. Then I learned some linguistics, and now I've come to appreciate the dogs. They're very nice animals. Not sure why anyone gets upset about the idea that they're taking over.

[imatfaal]

We are products of our time. Every generation says: " <insert subject> is going to the dogs.".

 

 

I used to be concerned about this. Then I learned some linguistics, and now I've come to appreciate the dogs. They're very nice animals. Not sure why anyone gets upset about the idea that they're taking over.

 

To continue by shamefully mixing metaphors: quite a few (probably most) generations before us thought they were changing the world around them but nature's inertia was too great - it is only in the last 50 years or so that we have held the power to irrevocably change the global ecosystem; unfortunately the changes we have made to the physical environment could be catastrophic. I think it is dangerously lax to assume that our actions in the environment and by extension in our culture might not have lasting and irreversible implications.

 

Frankly the fact that other generations thought that X was going to the dogs does not preclude the possibility that X is now going to the dogs

[Delta1212]

 

 

 

To continue by shamefully mixing metaphors: quite a few (probably most) generations before us thought they were changing the world around them but nature's inertia was too great - it is only in the last 50 years or so that we have held the power to irrevocably change the global ecosystem; unfortunately the changes we have made to the physical environment could be catastrophic. I think it is dangerously lax to assume that our actions in the environment and by extension in our culture might not have lasting and irreversible implications.

 

Frankly the fact that other generations thought that X was going to the dogs does not preclude the possibility that X is now going to the dogs

While true, I don't think that language is actually capable of being 'damaged' in the way that an environmental system is. Newspeak is an interesting idea, but based on everythinI know about human language acquisition and use, I don't think it would be possible to actually pull off, and even if you could, would require active on-going management to keep the language pared down, a state which would very quickly reverse itself as soon as the oppressive management was lifted.

 

Languages change. They serve the purpose of communicating ideas, and that means they need to be able to fulfill that role. If a language doesn't have the ability to communicate an idea that someone wants to communicate, a way to do it will be swiftly adopted. You don't lose anything without gaining something else.

 

Now, you are right that we are losing languages and some regional variations, and to an extent that is lamentable but English as a language isn't becoming any less expressive. It may lose features some people like and gain some they don't, but that's the way it always goes with languages.

 

Just because we're now capable of sending X to the dogs when we weren't before doesn't mean Y is now really going to the dogs as well.

Edited May 23, 2015 by Delta1212

[StringJunky]

It's interesting how a simple enquiry about a single word can spiral off into a discussion about the direction the world is heading!

[Acme]

It's interesting how a simple enquiry about a single word can spiral off into a discussion about the direction the world is heading!

I'm skeptical of that claim. Reference please.

[overtone]

 

 

Languages change. They serve the purpose of communicating ideas, and that means they need to be able to fulfill that role. If a language doesn't have the ability to communicate an idea that someone wants to communicate, a way to do it will be swiftly adopted. You don't lose anything without gaining something else.

Losing the subjunctive tense and the single negative will be compensated not at all.

 

There are dead losses, and some of the recent ones (liberal, socialist) are deliberate acts of vandalism by interested parties.

[ajb]

I would go for 'naïve' as it is a French word that we have borrowed. However 'naive' is also considered correct. I don't know if American journals would be funny about this or not.

[michel123456]

Language is like biological evolution, constantly changing. You are, I think, actually lamenting the disappearing habits of language-use from your own youth. C'est la vie!

That is why the French created the Académie française. I don't know if there is an English counterpart.

[imatfaal]

That is why the French created the Académie française. I don't know if there is an English counterpart.

 

There isn't - the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) is the nearest equivalent but even the influence of the OED is far removed from the Académie française.

 

To be honest I think words like naive, schadenfreude, and machismo add to the beauty and diversity of the English language; I am not sure the same can be said for le week-end and le shampooing. But that could merely the perception of a monoglot - and if I understood French to a good level I would be able to notice the same positive changes in French.

[StringJunky]

 

 

 

There isn't - the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) is the nearest equivalent but even the influence of the OED is far removed from the Académie française.

That and Fowler's

Edited May 24, 2015 by StringJunky

[Delta1212]

Losing the subjunctive tense and the single negative will be compensated not at all.

 

There are dead losses, and some of the recent ones (liberal, socialist) are deliberate acts of vandalism by interested parties.

Can you give an example of a thought that English has ceased to be able to express?

[imatfaal]

Can you give an example of a thought that English has ceased to be able to express?

 

Of course he cannot - that would be impossible by its very nature (edit - in English at least). Lots of things have become more difficult to express or one loses the ability to be precise. I have been told that there is really no difference now between infer and imply; when I argued, I was told that usage is king and only the effete pedant cares about the difference

[Delta1212]

 

Of course he cannot - that would be impossible by its very nature (edit - in English at least). Lots of things have become more difficult to express or one loses the ability to be precise. I have been told that there is really no difference now between infer and imply; when I argued, I was told that usage is king and only the effete pedant cares about the difference

While true, some people apply that argument too broadly. I don't think we're at that point with 'infer' yet where usage as turned it into a synonym for 'imply' but it is a common enough mistake that I could see that happening eventually, yes.

 

As far as difficulty in expressing things, yes, some things become more difficult to express while others become easier. That's natural and very frequently comes down to what people most feel a need to express. If a distinction is important to communicate often, a way of making that distinction consistently will find its way into the language. If a distinction loses its importance to most people, it may be lost.

 

As far as things that are no longer able to be expressed, at one point they would have been, so I'm fine with the previous expression and why it meant something that would be impossible to express now even if he can't explain exactly what that was.

 

Or use another language, that's fine, too. I'm fine with other languages.

 

Edit: And, incidentally, I can see how a hypothetical language could have a name for, eg, the conditional without there being a way to express a conditional statement in that language. Not that such a language would be likely to exist, but just to say that just because a particular idea cannot be expressed in a language doesn't mean that you can't categorize the type of idea that you can't directly express examples of in that language.

 

I don't think that there really is an idea that could have been expressed in English in the past that cannot be expressed now. Expressed differently maybe, but not lost altogether. But if there is, that doesn't necessarily mean that we've lost the ability to talk about the type of concept that has been lost even if the idea itself can't be expressed on a granular level.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Delta1212

[John Cuthber]

Can you give an example of a thought that English has ceased to be able to express?

The argument put forward is both unspeakable and indescribable.

On a related note English just won the Eurovision song contest again- that's every year bar one since some time in the late 90s I think.

[overtone]

As far as difficulty in expressing things, yes, some things become more difficult to express while others become easier.

Nothing becomes easier to express due to the loss of the subjunctive tense, or the muddling of the double and single negative, or the gutting of meaning from words such as "infer" or "liberal".

 

Try, for example, to express the 1975 educated person's meaning of "If I was assigned that, it would be done". (Notice the immediate distinction, possible then and probably never again reliably, between that and "If I were assigned that, it would be done". The meanings are fundamentally different).

 

You will need twice as many words, and the meaning will not be quite the same.

 

As all prose writers know, there are no synonyms in English other than "gorse" and "furze". As all poets know, "gorse" and "furze" are not synonyms. But the principle applies to much more than individual words - verbose allusions, however clear they may with difficulty be made, will not carry the same meaning or play the same role in expression as the more direct and pithy statements formerly possible.

 

 

Expressed differently maybe, but not lost altogether

And you can do arithmetic in Roman Numerals. But you can't do it as quickly or as easily or with the same suggestive implications, and the difficulty handicaps you, limits your potential accomplishments.

 

When "He did nothing" and "He didn't do nothing" mean the same thing, it has become more awkward and difficult to say what one used to by saying "He didn't do nothing".

 

When it takes a page of complicated verbiage to handle the concept that used to be packaged into the word "liberal", we have lost some of our ability to reason politically. And that is not accidental. Cui bono?

Edited May 25, 2015 by overtone