The English language/vocabulary/verbal phrases

Thanks, I hadn't read that.  Yes, it would make sense if it is indeed more of a North American usage because English pedagogy in India is based more around the, well, English way of handling it, including and not limited to English spelling and pronunciation. As in, we still say mult-ee or sem-ee rather than mult-I or sem-I (the latter pronunciation is pretty much like nails to a chalkboard for me  though I can see how it would make sense) and used to pronounce schedule with a shhh before American pronunciation became a fad somewhere around the early noughties.

Edited by rogerthat - August 17 2014 at 03:39

To my English ears 'aggressiveness' sounds clumsy and contrived, as is often the case with forming nouns from the adjective form of an existing mass noun by adding a -ness suffix. 

I hadn't actually known the word 'aggressiveness' was just a North American thing. I didn't look at Dayvenkirq's link yet, but working from intuition, I would say that aggression is a way acting that reflects a state of mind. Aggressiveness is just a way of acting that reflects a commitment to opportunistic advancement (in driving in traffic, in sports, in the stock market, etc.) that is constant and undelayed. This is metaphorically related to aggression, as when you get in someone's face you are advancing forward.   Aggressiveness, however, does not imply anything about your state of mind other than you are being competitive or opportunistic. I don't find aggression a great way to talk about a serve and volley game in tennis, for instance, because there is normally no anger involved, but 'aggressiveness' is a useful word for describing a commitment to approach the net.

Edited by HackettFan - August 17 2014 at 10:00

Aggression means "to attack" - any forward motion (advancement) in that is implicit, this attack can be motivated by anger but not necessarily so. Both aggression and aggressive can also mean "readiness to attack or confront". This isn't metaphorical, it is literal - aggressive means 'ready to attack' and aggressiveness means 'being ready to attack' - that is not competitive or opportunistic, nor is it defensive. Since the -ness ending does literally mean "a state of aggression" or "a measure of aggression" then that directly refers to a state of mind. In sports commentary it is possible that it is being used metaphorically to mean competitiveness but since sporting events are attack vs. defence I honestly doubt that any metaphoric use is intended.

Dean wrote: Aggression means "to attack" - any forward motion (advancement) in that is implicit, this attack can be motivated by anger but not necessarily so. Both aggression and aggressive can also mean "readiness to attack or confront". This isn't metaphorical, it is literal - aggressive means 'ready to attack' and aggressiveness means 'being ready to attack' - that is not competitive or opportunistic, nor is it defensive. Since the -ness ending does literally mean "a state of aggression" or "a measure of aggression" then that directly refers to a state of mind. In sports commentary it is possible that it is being used metaphorically to mean competitiveness but since sporting events are attack vs. defence I honestly doubt that any metaphoric use is intended.

Not for me, aggressive does not mean "ready to attack". One can have an aggressive driving style, which doesn't mean that your confronting other drivers, just that a driver is taking every opportunity to fill gaps in the traffic and is not driving defensively. Aggressiveness in the stock market would also be a metaphor. It's a way of actively buying and selling and being generally bullish, not about attacking anything. You spoke about sporting events being about attack vs. defense, but that's already a metaphor. I can't use 'aggression' to convey these things at all. Apparently, as I just learned, 'aggression' can be used for things like serve and volleying in tennis, so the metaphor also took place in England's English and India's English, but linked it to the already established morphology.

rogerthat wrote: Actually I said that I had heard the usage aggressive tactics, neither aggression nor aggressiveness.  It is more an issue of aesthetics rather than grammar.  There's nothing grammatically wrong with aggressiveness, it's a recognised word.  It just sounds (to me) kind of clumsy and wordy.  I would actually prefer to use two words (in this case aggressive tactics) to convey the meaning I intend than to use aggressiveness.

Indeed. This is all very interesting. It doesn't sound clumsy or wordy to me, not surprising considering that I'm from North America. I've been supposing that it doesn't sound clumsy because 'aggression' is not a viable alternative for me without changing the meaning.

rogerthat wrote:  On the song Certifiable #1 Smash, Kevin Gilbert pronounces multicultural the way English/Indian speakers would so perhaps the styling mult-I wasn't born yet.  But it's always sem-I final now.

HackettFan wrote: Dean wrote: Aggression means "to attack" - any forward motion (advancement) in that is implicit, this attack can be motivated by anger but not necessarily so. Both aggression and aggressive can also mean "readiness to attack or confront". This isn't metaphorical, it is literal - aggressive means 'ready to attack' and aggressiveness means 'being ready to attack' - that is not competitive or opportunistic, nor is it defensive. Since the -ness ending does literally mean "a state of aggression" or "a measure of aggression" then that directly refers to a state of mind. In sports commentary it is possible that it is being used metaphorically to mean competitiveness but since sporting events are attack vs. defence I honestly doubt that any metaphoric use is intended.   Not for me, aggressive does not mean "ready to attack". One can have an aggressive driving style, which doesn't mean that your confronting other drivers, just that a driver is taking every opportunity to fill gaps in the traffic and is not driving defensively. Aggressiveness in the stock market would also be a metaphor. It's a way of actively buying and selling and being generally bullish, not about attacking anything. You spoke about sporting events being about attack vs. defense, but that's already a metaphor. I can't use 'aggression' to convey these things at all. Apparently, as I just learned, 'aggression' can be used for things like serve and volleying in tennis, so the metaphor also took place in England's English and India's English, but linked it to the already established morphology.

Dean wrote: HackettFan wrote: Dean wrote: Aggression means "to attack" - any forward motion (advancement) in that is implicit, this attack can be motivated by anger but not necessarily so. Both aggression and aggressive can also mean "readiness to attack or confront". This isn't metaphorical, it is literal - aggressive means 'ready to attack' and aggressiveness means 'being ready to attack' - that is not competitive or opportunistic, nor is it defensive. Since the -ness ending does literally mean "a state of aggression" or "a measure of aggression" then that directly refers to a state of mind. In sports commentary it is possible that it is being used metaphorically to mean competitiveness but since sporting events are attack vs. defence I honestly doubt that any metaphoric use is intended.  Not for me, aggressive does not mean "ready to attack". One can have an aggressive driving style, which doesn't mean that your confronting other drivers, just that a driver is taking every opportunity to fill gaps in the traffic and is not driving defensively. Aggressiveness in the stock market would also be a metaphor. It's a way of actively buying and selling and being generally bullish, not about attacking anything. You spoke about sporting events being about attack vs. defense, but that's already a metaphor. I can't use 'aggression' to convey these things at all. Apparently, as I just learned, 'aggression' can be used for things like serve and volleying in tennis, so the metaphor also took place in England's English and India's English, but linked it to the already established morphology. Sorry, but I think you are wrong on every count here. If an aggressive driver is not driving defensively then he is driving offensively. To go on the offensive is to attack. And aggressive driving style is confrontational, it is not that the driver is taking every opportunity to fill gaps in traffic, he is using aggression to create them. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggressive_driving). Aggressive driving is not a positive trait unless it is on the racetrack (and even then it is seen as irresponsible if it endangers the lives of other drivers). Aggressive really does mean "ready to attack", that's part of the dictionary definition of the word <span style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.2;">In the stock market example you are mixing up your metaphors (erm, not mixing metaphors that something different). Bullish is the metaphor, to act like a bull is to be aggressive and assertive. A bullish market is an aggressive one, not the other way around. Aggressive buying is precisely and literally about attacking the market. In business a hostile takeover is an act of aggression against a company that is unwilling to be bought or resistant to the merger - it is an attack.</span> Attack and Defence in sport is not a metaphor, it is literal. When one side attacks the other defends - that is precisely what it means. How can this be a metaphor? If a player has an aggressive serve it means he has an attacking serve, this again is not a metaphor.

No, I have to disagree on every point as well. However, before I go on in any detail, let me point out that there is a fundamental divide in semantics. One says that there are individual core meanings that are then extended as necessary to the full universe of possible meaning (the model I'm presuming). The other says that the entire universe of possible meaning is anticipated in human cognition and divided up with sufficient abstraction to cover everything (the model you're presuming). In other words, you are only accepting what I am calling metaphorical extension as part of a single abstract meaning, abstract enough to cover all cases that the word is used for. It is an entirely rational thing to do, arrive at a full generalization. Part of the problem with that, however, is what we are running into right now when abstractions differ it provides no way to calibrate and compare them. As example of this point I am simply going to point out that you misinterpreted what I said about aggressiveness in the stock market. 'Aggressive trading' in the meaning that I'm familiar with (which for the moment is what we're talking about) has nothing to do with hostile takeover. It means that an investor buying and selling frequently with a high risk tolerance. In the other case with aggressiveness in driving, what I am talking about is a manner of going about driving that could be applied to a motorcyclist practicing by himself on a motocross track. Aggressiveness, as I am referring to it, could also be applied to a single competitor on an obstacle course. Now there still could be a notion of "attacking" in a very very abstract sense (e.g. 'He really attacked the course'), but since since the course doesn't defend itself, I would say this is not part of a broader abstract definition of the word, but rather a metaphorical extension of a tighter core meaning. In the same vein, I would say that 'He was very aggressive throughout the (obstacle) course' is similarly a metaphorical extension.

Edited by HackettFan - August 17 2014 at 16:46

We are just contradicting each other now. I cannot respond without repeating myself, I cannot see where any of this is metaphoric or abstract and I cannot find any of your definitions in the dictionary so I'm giving up.