Australian Rules/AFL - what's in a name?

[Bloods05]

The meaning of a word is determined by social agreement or declaration.

This is from my own writing. I lived in France for several years. There is a ministry with the authority to declare what words are proper French. That's why France has its own words for common words used internationally, like the French use l'odinateur while the rest of the world says computer or something close to it.

Other than declarative meanings, language will just evolve as it will, and as it does. There is no taking possession of it, nor denying someone or some group from taking possession of it.

Australian Football, Aussie Rules and AFL may each have nuances which differentiate them from each other, but may well be evolving into synonyms. Time will tell.

Discussions like the one we are having on this forum are part of the process of the social evolution of language. We are attempting, as a social group, to determine how we should be using certain words, and expressing our understanding of how they are being used today. Maybe some minds will be changed. Maybe the meaning of some words will move in one particular direction or another because of this exchange.

Business is always trying to take possession of our language. Its influence on its evolution is disproportionate, and pernicious. I reserve the right to object to that, and to resist it with what little influence I have. In no way does that contradict what you are saying about the evolution of language. We are all participants in that process.

[Maltopia]

Can an admin please move the lexicon related posts to a new thread? I think it is a fascinating discussion, but it doesn’t belong in the Collingwood match thread.

[Ludwig]

Business is always trying to take possession of our language. Its influence on its evolution is disproportionate, and pernicious. I reserve the right to object to that, and to resist it with what little influence I have. In no way does that contradict what you are saying about the evolution of language. We are all participants in that process.

Like business in your example or the French government in my example, or homo sapiens on the evolution of our planet, there will always be disproportionate actors in the process. Some we might call pernicious, from a personal perspective. Nothing wrong with making a contribution to the process but do so with the realisation that any one's individual influence is likely to be minuscule. It's better for the psyche to just go with the flow.

[bloodspirit]

Never mind the Académie Française, Humpty Dumpty said it best:

"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

Scomo may be a more hirsute, latter day relation of Humpty.

[Markwebbos]

Never mind the Académie Française, Humpty Dumpty said it best:

"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

Scomo may be a more hirsute, latter day relation of Humpty.

Latter Rain version more like

[Bloods05]

Like business in your example or the French government in my example, or homo sapiens on the evolution of our planet, there will always be disproportionate actors in the process. Some we might call pernicious, from a personal perspective. Nothing wrong with making a contribution to the process but do so with the realisation that any one's individual influence is likely to be minuscule. It's better for the psyche to just go with the flow.

Speak for your own psyche. Mine is satisfied for its influence to be minuscule. "AFL" in this context is simply incorrect usage, in a similar category to "should of" or " must of" or "the powers to be". As an earlier poster pointed out, you can't play a game of Australian Football League. The point is that this form of usage is entirely contrived, not some sort of natural evolution. It was created by a corporate entity, the AFL no less, for its own commercial advantage. It has no linguistic integrity.

[bloodspirit]

Latter Rain version more like

I had to google/internet search to find out what you were talking about. But I liked this line:

"many leaders of the movement embrace aberrant teachings": What is the Latter Rain Movement? | GotQuestions.org

[Ludwig]

Speak for your own psyche. Mine is satisfied for its influence to be minuscule. "AFL" in this context is simply incorrect usage, in a similar category to "should of" or " must of" or "the powers to be". As an earlier poster pointed out, you can't play a game of Australian Football League. The point is that this form of usage is entirely contrived, not some sort of natural evolution. It was created by a corporate entity, the AFL no less, for its own commercial advantage. It has no linguistic integrity.

Good on ya. Take a strong stand. Personally, I'm with you on this. I don't like the bastardization of language. I shutter to think if the "should ofs" should take over general English usage. The infiltration is bad enough.

[RogueSwan]

... I shutter to think if the "should ofs" should take over general English usage...

[Maltopia]

Similar to "should of" is "somethink" (instead of something) and I am pretty sure I have heard Jobe Watson say that when commentating.

[Mel_C]

Similar to "should of" is "somethink" (instead of something) and I am pretty sure I have heard Jobe Watson say that when commentating.

Jobe Watson likes to make up words. I'm trying to remember the word he made up when he was commentating one of our matches last year or the year before.

[AppleCore]

Speak for your own psyche. Mine is satisfied for its influence to be minuscule. "AFL" in this context is simply incorrect usage, in a similar category to "should of" or " must of" or "the powers to be". As an earlier poster pointed out, you can't play a game of Australian Football League. The point is that this form of usage is entirely contrived, not some sort of natural evolution. It was created by a corporate entity, the AFL no less, for its own commercial advantage. It has no linguistic integrity.

I agree that, at least in theory, the game should be called Aussie Rules. However, the nasty reality is that the AFL bows to no one (except those commercial and political entities that do or might be expected to provide it with money) and makes frequent (often crazy) changes to the rules of the game as it sees fit and without reference to other bodies organising Aussie Rules competitions. It is then up to those other bodies whether they implement the AFL's rule changes or not. The AFL is without doubt the dominant and all-controlling body in Aussie Rules and the net result is that it becomes simpler, and often more accurate, to talk about AFL rather than Aussie Rules. (Recall that, because of the AFL/VFL-driven rule changes over the last 50 years, the game has turned into a very different beast than what was originally envisaged.)

[Mark26]

Jobe Watson likes to make up words. I'm trying to remember the word he made up when he was commentating one of our matches last year or the year before.

Oh I remember that match too! I had an involuntary physical reaction, similar to when someone says youse. But I can't remember what he exactly said.

[neilfws]

Jobe Watson likes to make up words. I'm trying to remember the word he made up when he was commentating one of our matches last year or the year before.

"interpretating" perhaps?

[Mel_C]

"interpretating" perhaps?

Yes I think that's it!