|
10 Jun 17 - 06:45 PM (#3860156) Subject: BS: 'Majorities' that aren't. From: McGrath of Harlow Yet again, with this UK election, I keep on seing people, both in online discussions, and in the press and TV, airily talking about "majorities" in cases where there is not any majority. What they are talking about is the situation where one party, or one person, gets more votes, or more seats, than any other. But typically the winner will in fact have got less than half the total votes, or seats. The word for that is not "majority" but "plurality". Is it pedantic to point out that difference? Has the language undergone the same kind of erosion under which "decimate" is so generally taken to mean almost annihilate, rather than to kill one in ten? I think preserving the meaning of majority is important, because when used in these cases it seems like a dishonest attempt to suggest that the winner has wider support than is actually the case. |
|
10 Jun 17 - 06:58 PM (#3860158) Subject: RE: BS: 'Majorities' that aren't. From: Stanron Compare these two definitions from Merriam-Webster. 3 a : a number or percentage equalling more than half of a total a majority of voters a two-thirds majority b : the excess of a majority over the remainder of the total : margin won by a majority of 10 votes c : the greater quantity or share the majority of the time 4 : the group or political party having the greater number of votes (as in a legislature) You can select which one you prefer, they are almost opposites. |
|
10 Jun 17 - 07:22 PM (#3860165) Subject: RE: BS: 'Majorities' that aren't. From: McGrath of Harlow Number 4 is a rotten definition, because it is completely ambiguous as to what it means. |
|
10 Jun 17 - 07:26 PM (#3860167) Subject: RE: BS: 'Majorities' that aren't. From: Steve Shaw I've always argued that precise case, Kevin. Look at the EU referendum. The brexiteers claim a majority, a mandate, yet just 38% of the electorate voted leave. The alternative truth is that 62% didn't vote leave. The conversion of "winning" with around 40% of the vote to claiming a mandate is always very suspicious to say the least. |
|
10 Jun 17 - 07:34 PM (#3860168) Subject: RE: BS: 'Majorities' that aren't. From: Steve Shaw By the way, trivially, there's no point clinging to the original definition of "decimate." Its meaning has shifted so we just have to live with it. I can't bear it when people say disinterested when they mean uninterested, as I regard the distinction between the words as valid and useful, but I have to accept the fact that people use the words interchangeably. |
|
10 Jun 17 - 07:50 PM (#3860170) Subject: RE: BS: 'Majorities' that aren't. From: McGrath of Harlow That's what I was thinking, Steve. Has the misuse of majority followed the misuse of decimation into becoming accepted usage? The same goes for fulsome, as in "he made a fulsome apology", which ought to imply that no real apology at all was actually made. |
|
10 Jun 17 - 08:09 PM (#3860172) Subject: RE: BS: 'Majorities' that aren't. From: Steve Shaw So often it seems that the drift of a word's meaning is tantamount to degradation. Ultimately, though, the evolution of language is just about the most democratic thing, and even professors of English generally see that they must go along with it. But tendentious abuse of words is another thing, and it behoves us to spot when it's happening. |
|
10 Jun 17 - 08:38 PM (#3860180) Subject: RE: BS: 'Majorities' that aren't. From: Stanron Words eventually get to mean, funnily enough, what the majority of people think they mean. I like precision in words but what can you do when bad means good and losing by an enormous amount is counted as winning? |
|
11 Jun 17 - 02:08 AM (#3860192) Subject: RE: BS: 'Majorities' that aren't. From: Joe Offer Is that like when Hillary Clinton got 3 million more votes than the other guy and didn't win the election? |
|
11 Jun 17 - 04:15 AM (#3860204) Subject: RE: BS: 'Majorities' that aren't. From: Stanron Joe Offer wrote: Is that like when Hillary Clinton got 3 million more votes than the other guy and didn't win the election?Exactly the same, except that over here the party with the most votes actually won. |
|
11 Jun 17 - 04:34 AM (#3860207) Subject: RE: BS: 'Majorities' that aren't. From: Steve Shaw No-one's actually denied that the Tories won. There's a context around the statement, however, that's it's a bit mischievous to ignore. Likewise, the bald statement that Labour lost, whilst true, lacks the context that they did overwhelmingly better than most people expected, they are not the basket case that most people predicted and that Corbyn certainly isn't toast, as a good many people thought he'd be. Intelligent discussion doesn't ignore these complexities. |
|
11 Jun 17 - 06:26 AM (#3860232) Subject: RE: BS: 'Majorities' that aren't. From: David Carter (UK) The problem is with the UK system of FPTP, and the absolute insistence that a single party should always govern (except in one recent case). In much of Europe, for instance Germany and The Netherlands, coalitions are absolutely normal. |
|
11 Jun 17 - 08:07 AM (#3860248) Subject: RE: BS: 'Majorities' that aren't. From: Mr Red language morphs. eg prevent is used (even by Mr de Harlow I would suggest) to mean inhibit, but there is a Christian prayer that says "prevent us Oh Lord" that was written in the time when prevent meant pre vent ie go before (ie lead). gay was once meant heterosexually active (as in brisk young widow) and fell out of favour devolving into "happy" until the homosexual fraternity commandeered it in a successful PR exercise. The Nigel Reese Rule is "bad meanings drives out good". I would disagree with McGrath in the premise of the OP but if we are talking politicians - give to 'em with both barrels - I say! 200% 😆 |
|
11 Jun 17 - 09:42 AM (#3860265) Subject: RE: BS: 'Majorities' that aren't. From: Donuel A majority of people on earth have believed there are only four elements, Earth wind fire and the element of surprise. Everyone knows they are made by Jesus H.G's Father. However the element of surprise is man made, I think by Russia. |
|
11 Jun 17 - 02:17 PM (#3860321) Subject: RE: BS: 'Majorities' that aren't. From: McGrath of Harlow The Tories got more votes than any other party, but nowhere near a majority. Nobody ever does. |
|
11 Jun 17 - 04:44 PM (#3860348) Subject: RE: BS: 'Majorities' that aren't. From: Bonzo3legs I want to be absolutely clear and more crucially,crucial. Crucially, May may be more or less crucial in June, but May may not be PM for all of June!!! |
|
11 Jun 17 - 04:59 PM (#3860350) Subject: RE: BS: 'Majorities' that aren't. From: Steve Parkes As an aside on those pesky words ... Decimate got its 'modern' meaning not long after it was first coined, several centuries ago. 'Literally' first appeared in print to mean 'figuratively' just a few years after it first appeared, in the 14th century. Noon comes from the monastic hour nones, and was about three o'clock in the, er, afternoon. (And if you're form round Hampshire or Isle of Wight way, 'nammet' = 'noon meat', i.e afternoon food.) Like it or not, we're stuck with lots of words that have changed their meanings, often several times, over the centuries. Etymology isn't a good guide to usage. ... according to the full version of the Oxford English Dictionary. |
|
11 Jun 17 - 06:02 PM (#3860359) Subject: RE: BS: 'Majorities' that aren't. From: Steve Shaw I like the way words change. it's very democratic. There's nobody in charge, and the pedants just end up looking like curmudgeons. Nuance is lost sometimes, but nuance is gained too. Innit. |
|
11 Jun 17 - 06:03 PM (#3860360) Subject: RE: BS: 'Majorities' that aren't. From: Steve Shaw That was supposed to be ...oh, never mind! |
|
11 Jun 17 - 06:51 PM (#3860374) Subject: RE: BS: 'Majorities' that aren't. From: McGrath of Harlow No need to be a curmudgeon just because you're pedantic. When people accidentally say the opposite of what they intend there's no reason to be grumpy about it. It's quite engaging to see some self important public figure who's been found out declare they wish to make a "fulsome apology". Especially when that's exactly what they are doing. |
|
12 Jun 17 - 05:34 AM (#3860430) Subject: RE: BS: 'Majorities' that aren't. From: Mr Red in the circumstances ............ never under (something that surrounds one) - but who uses etymology anyway! or am I being circumscribe ? And just to bring it back to politics: circumlocution............... |
|
12 Jun 17 - 06:26 AM (#3860433) Subject: RE: BS: 'Majorities' that aren't. From: Bonzo3legs GavinBarwell is an inspired choice for Chief of Staff. Moderate, sensible, respected, listens, understands campaigning. Perfect choice. |
|
12 Jun 17 - 07:01 AM (#3860437) Subject: RE: BS: 'Majorities' that aren't. From: Steve Shaw And a loser. Yeah, perfect choice all right! |
|
12 Jun 17 - 07:35 AM (#3860448) Subject: RE: BS: 'Majorities' that aren't. From: Bonzo3legs Yes but crucially, and I want to be absolutely clear about this..................................... |