What is "common lexicon"?

lexicon is typically synonymous with dictionary, but focused on a particular usage that's more narrow than a common dictionary. In other words, a common lexicon for describing cellular and molecular pathways would allow everyone discussing such things to use the same terms.

I'd say that it's simply a more formal term than jargon.

Folks who throw around words like "lexicon" don't like to be thought of as using jargon.

You're right, JPB. There always has been, and still is, that sort of snobbery when it comes to language.

That might be believed since the English of the masses uses many words with German roots. Words with Latin roots reflect the educated English one uses in academia. Spanish cognates of English words tend to be words from Latin. In effect, Spanish, which many think is a language of the uneducated, actually reflects words that in English are used by the educated classes. Like "masticar" (to chew in Spanish) is a cognate of "masticate." Now what self-respecting working class person will say "I am masticating my sandwich"?

But, must it be snobbery of those with a larger vocabulary, or just the preference of the working class to use a language that is the English that one would learn in the streets, if one's home is not English speaking, and one left school before college. In other words a "simple" English allows for bonding of the working class "volk."

Yes, it is clearly snobbery, Foofie. Studies have shown that it is among the educated that most grammatical errors are found.

We've seen this snobbery in spades here at A2K in the Pet Peeves of English threads, which thankfully, have pretty much died.



US colleges haven't taught much in the way of anything accurate about the English language for centuries. Americans are woefully ignorant about the grammar and the workings of the English language. They are, however, pretty damn good at reciting useless old prescriptions.

Language snobbery, while certainly not exclusive to any particular country, is quite well established in the USA. We've even seen it from you.

+++++++++++++++++

"Ferguson and Heath (1981), for instance, comment on prescriptivism in the US that 'quite possibly no other nation buys so many style manuals and how-to-improve-your-language books in proportion to the population.'"
(Suzanne Romaine, "Introduction," The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. IV. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999)

++++++++++++++++++

Thank you all.

What rubbish. You insist on using 'jargon' through obvious need to project, (insecurity is obvious first bet). Now I have thrown what may be bogus science at you, I'll happily inform you that jargon has a meaning which seeks to put distance between those using it and others. Whereas Lexicon, on the contrary, has no problem being all inclusive. 'That Lexicon', simply relevant to that subject or context or group or whatever. In fact, and here's my proof and trumping of your idiotic insistence: A group of gang banging, under educated, almost illiterate, cap-in-ya-arse-u-snob, buffoonish peoples, (yet who manage to string a few syllables together), share a common Lexicon, but (through our usage of, and with yes, the inbuilt prejudices of our language so to speak) do NOT use jargon. YOU would argue that, but I hope to preempt you trying to bucket out common usage from whatever your Lord ship insists is a true/r meaning - your ship is sinking and will sink!
It's the English language, commonly seen as rich and poor, but with different words to convey (many times, ever so subtly) different meanings - so stop being a petulant child and arguing 'snobbery'. Alas, if and when possible, use the darn language, happily, in all it's diversity and richness of meaning! Fool.
PS. you must be a yank - at least, please stop doing what farking yanks do with other people's oil, resources, Democracies, etc, and the common language - stop destroying it with your not so smart arrogance!
Good day.

This should be obvious. No other country in the world has as many writers, journalists, newspapers, magazines, scientific journals, etc.

That's kind of arrogant. The US may have a lot of newpapers but most of them are owned by the same few publishers. Where as the largest readership of English newspapers would be in India. As for writers.. come on. The US, again, may have many but do you read Russian, or Chinese? How the hell can you make a claim like this with absolutely no facts to back it up?

If you don't believe me, feel free to look up the facts and share them with us.

You don't seem very smart for a grammar student.

One thing you should learn is that the burden of proof lies with the claimant, otherwise it's a fallacy.

Look this list and tell the rank of the first US newspaper:

List of newspapers in the world

First, I meant number of newspapers, not number of printed copies.

Second, intelligence and ignorance are two different things. You should question your intelligence before you question someone else's.

Third, I'm not going to waste my time proving something I know for a fact. If someone does not believe me, he is welcome to look it up. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

Fourth, I am quite surprised to find barbarians even in a grammar forum. What is the world coming to?

What are you doing here? Anyhow, JPB's was professional and elegant.