View Single Post
Old 01-05-2016, 11:38 PM   #130
Marin
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyschulman View Post
Marin You are probably right but no way will you win or change thinking amongst the general population.
Eyschulman--- You are correct, and I have no illusions about changing anything. If others wish to cling to and defend their ignorance that's no concern of mine. My only concern is that I'M correct and am not promoting a bogus use of the language.

Other boaters can call their toy boats whatever they want. It won't change what their boats actually are.

I've had a lot of very spirited discussions over the years with ad agency writers, aerodynamicists, propulsion engineers, etc. on why things are--- or in some cases were and then changed--- called what they are called. Language is a fascinating thing--- it's a big reason I've been drawn to the careers I've had and will have in the future. So I know that words and meanings change over time. But the legitiimate changes always have a basis in reality for changing, be it the world "gay," the word "high," the word "coyote," and so on. Changes in meaning that are not based in a word's past tend to not catch on or survive.

Flywright says that defending an established meaning of a word indicates living in the past. He could not be more wrong. The way a person uses a language is a significant and telling indicator of the intelligence of that person, but it has nothing to do with past or present. It has everything to do with education, upbringing, common sense, logic, and an understanding of how a language and its words originated and evolved.

I've had the privilege of taking courses in language use and evolution from some very highly regarded linguistics professors here and in the UK. Some of them I took on my own tiime, some were sponsored by my employer. One of the takeaways has been learning how one can use language to change language. Sometimes the change is "legitimate" and sometimes it isn't.

It's been several decades since the people manufacturing and marketing what were previously called "cabin cruisers" realized that they could appeal to a very specific (and wealthy) type of buyer by implying that their boats had the attributes of a respected type of commercial vessel by associating the commercial name with their cabin cruisers. Adapting a few superficial design lines from these commercial boats helped convince the potential buyers that they were getting something that they really weren't and still aren't.

It was a brilliant piece of marketing as wittnessed by this entire thread. With several decades of use behind it, it's obvious that this particular market is not going to stop using the term erroneously.

Which to me says a lot about the people who make up the bulk of this particular (and very small in the overall scheme of things) market. When one matches the characteristics of the type of person who makes up the bulk of this segment of the recreational boating market with the term that's been attached to the boats themselves, it becomes obvious what a brillliant piece of marketing this has been.

The interesting thing to me is that the marketers who dreamed up the idea of using the word "trawler" to describe something that isn't one could have chosen any one of a number of other terms and had exactly the same results. They could have chosen "troller," "dragger," "seiner," "clipper," and the list goes on. As long as the word conjured up the attributes of seaworthiness--- however one defines that term--- strength, reliability, ruggedness-- however one defines that--- and so on, their market would have taken the bait hook, line and sinker and bought into the concept that their new toy boat had all the attributes of the commercial vessel that legitimately bears the name.

It's been interesting and entertaining writing about all this, and it's helped clarify some of my own thoughts, but no, I have no illusions of changing anyone's mind who long ago swallowed the bait.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote