A whinge about whinging

5 thoughts on “A whinge about whinging”

1. Oh dear.

   You may recall that etymology is a bit of a hobby of mine, but I’m quite confused about the difference between “whine” and “whinge”.

   I consulted the Online Etymology Dictionary and found that although they have quite similar meanings, they each evolved from a dialectic split: whine from Old English “hwinan”, and whinge from “hwinsian”, which is from the northern dialect of Old English.

   Can’t split hairs much finer than that, would you? When I got past the title and really read the article, then I recalled again what a dizzying field linguistics really is, and not just in the area of differences between British and American (U.S.) English. Language as a living, evolving means of communication routinely defies convention. I appreciate grammar and syntax, especially when it helps to communicate across disparate cultures, but… well, there’s a gap between written language and spoken language for many reasons beyond what I’ve just implied… and that would really take a post of my own to explore. And yes, milliardaire just doesn’t roll off the tongue. Probably the quickest and easiest example right there.

2. I thought about using the word whining when I was going through the dictionary. And going back to dialectic differences in Old English is very fine indeed!
      I don’t mind the differences—I have to admit American English makes more sense in so many cases, e.g. maneuver versus manœuvre. Even among British English there are issues, such as -ize versus -ise (the latter, to me, is French, but most Commonwealth countries would prefer it). I’ll cringe at typos but I would not have someone up on them—unless that were the topic or they were working for us.
      Like you, with language evolving, I think we should accept there are differences, and it does seem, if some online comments are to be believed, that those who focus on the trivialities of usage have nothing to add to the original issue.
      Incidentally, I’ve been enjoying your pictures on your blog.

3. Thank you! The move to the house has been quite exciting, and I’ve started putting up before and after pictures, as was requested.

4. Ask LaQuisha if that is with or without a hat or fascinator?

   I recall being told, years ago, that colonial languages actually evolved more slowly than in the motherland, so that, in theory, American English was closer to British English of the 1700s than British English is today. I don’t know that I believe it, but it may be.

   In any case, those little spelling and vocab differences are fun, occasionally irritating, and they exist. Neither is right or wrong. One way or another, with us or without us, language evolves. I agree with everything you said about communication, and addressing the POINT being THE POINT and nitpicking typos or minor errors revealing more about the one pointing them out than about the original writer OR whatever they’re trying to communicate. I used to do it. Now…well let’s just say I’ll always reserve the right to exploit a good typo for its unintended humor or double entendres. I’m no saint. But I don’t edit others’ work for free, these days.

5. I have read that as well, Holly, and that the Bostonian accent is actually closer to how the English spoke centuries ago. It makes sense, because you see similar phenomena play out in other diasporas. The British insistence on -ise is a recent development, too; before WWII both sides of the Atlantic were happy with -ize (except in analyse and others where the Greek suffix was -lyse, or where the root word has an s, e.g. exercise or televise). Like you, I can’t be bothered changing others’ grammar or spelling as it doesn’t really advance things, except, as you say, where there may be unintended humour—and that’s where Font Police often comes in.

   On the BMW’s headroom, Queen Olivia (as she now is) accommodated a beehive hair-do sans hat.