Wednesday, September 22, 2010

ENGLISH SPEAKERS, LEND ME YOUR EARS!

Should we just accept "Agreeance" as a word. This past week I have heard two separate people use the word in conversation.

I'll give you an example- "We are in agreeance on the main idea, but we still need to iron out a few minor things."

Both times I felt myself start to correct them, but then checked myself. I know it's not a word, but why not? It seems to me that if enough people are saying it and its meaning is clearly understood by the listener, then perhaps it is a de facto word. Are we in agreeance on that point? Is it snobbery to deny agreeance a place within the lexicon of the English speaking world.

I am leaning toward accepting agreeance as a word. It is a word. It is in common use. Why fight it? Anybody wanna make an argument against agreeance?

11 comments:

The Brunetts said...

My argument is this: it is a waste of time!

Why would you say "We are in agreeance on the main idea" when you only need to say "We agree on the main idea."

Keep it concise, people.

Christopher Leisz said...

If ain't and amn't can be words then so can agreeance. It's just not possible to keep the english language concise with all the accents.

MomZup said...

This begs the question. . .will we now allow disagreeance? I would love to take up this cause but my personal crusade is with the incorrect usage of lie and lay.

Steve said...

Another argument is that the "word" is unnecessary and duplicative of "agreement." Like "irregardless" and "anyways" and a host of other redundancies, this word communicates more than its message. It shouts, "I don't pay attention to what I say; you needn't either."

Christopher Leisz said...

Its like how the eskimos have like eight words for snow. Well whats the harm in having one more way of saying "we agree"...

BAREFOOT KANGAROO said...

"I don't pay attention to what I say; you needn't either."

That's perfect, Steve. I laughed out loud when I read that. I didn't LOL though because I speak the queen's English.

Steve said...

Inasmuch as the Eskimos have multiple words for snow, it is because there are multiple varieties and styles of snow: e.g., flurries, squalls, sleet, powder, frost, snowflake, blizzard, slush. A new word is only as valuable as the shade of meaning it adds to our language -- because words are, fundamentally, tools of communication.

Christopher Leisz said...

You sound like a literature major. But there is often more than one way of getting the job done by having multiple tools for the same task.

Steve said...

Ha, no. I prize truth too much to devote myself to a field that sees it in turn as quaint and dangerous. Also I wanted a (non-teaching) job.

Where there are multiple tools to accomplish the same task, they generally have reasons to exist, unique strengths. No one simply re-invents the hammer and calls it the "yorgox."

Sesame Street covered this here.

Christopher Leisz said...

Nice video simile.

Annie said...

Yes, but they might call it a hammeonce!
I love your word, Janie. Can't we just agree to be in disagreeance on that?
NO really, I do have to lean towards Steve on this, it's closer to "I mispronounced a word and am trying to now make it sound plausible- English."
"I don't pay attention to what I say and you shouldn't eiither, " is priceless!