"subjectional" debate

Question

I have been embroiled in a debate about the so-called word "subjectional." I contend it is not a standard English word. I did a Google search and did find it used, but I cannot find it in a dictionary. Can anyone tell me about this so-called" word. What does it mean? Where can I find a definition in print or online? Is it a corruption of another word? Help!!

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]I have been embroiled in a debate about the so-called word "subjectional." I contend it is not a standard English ... it mean? Where can I find a definition in print or online? Is it a corruption of another word? Help!![/nq]
I've not come across this word before. Like you I Googled.

There seem to be three uses:
1. as a synonym for 'subjective'. For example "I'm sorry my comments aresubjectional rather than objectional".
2. as an adjective derived from 'subject' (in the sense of 'topic','theme', etc) "Deckfour systems provides this service as a means of communication and information, to boost inter-subjectional interchange and the spreading of knowledge and..." (This is from a German site and is possibly written by a non-native English speaker.)
3. as an adjective derived from 'subject' ('being subject to') "due tosubjectional subordination" (This is from a Theology site).

I find use 1 unnecessary and objectionable.
In 2 'inter-subject' would be more normal.
As for 3 - it is written by a theologian. If the word is useful to theologians then let us leave it to them to use.
Google found only 56 cases of the word. It is fair to say that it does not exist in "standard" English.

Peter Duncanson
UK
(posting from a.e.u)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I have been embroiled in a debate about the so-called word "subjectional." I contend it is not a standard English ... it mean? Where can I find a definition in print or online? Is it a corruption of another word? Help!![/nq]
The entries from Oxford give no hint that "it is not a standard English word":
(SOED5)
? subjectional adjective (rare) involving or based on subjection E17.

(OED2)
subjectional, a.
(s@b"dZEkS@n@l) (f. prec. + -al1.)
Involving or based upon subjection.
a1617 Bayne Diocesan's Tryall (1621) 18 By vertue of their subjectionall subordination.

1846 Ruskin Mod. Paint. II. iii. i. vi. §3 There is the Unity ofdifferent and separate things, subjected to one and the same influence, which may be called Subjectional Unity.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Google found only 56 cases of the word. It is fair to say that it does not exist in "standard" English.[/nq]
Google is hardly an arbiter. All you know from that is that the group of people who have written indexed pages used it only 56 times. Big deal. "Subjectional" is a standard English word; that it is not in your vocabulary doesn't matter.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Google found only 56 cases of the word. It is fair to say that it does not exist in "standard" English.[/nq]
[nq:1]Google is hardly an arbiter. All you know from that is that the group of people who have written indexed pages used it only 56 times. Big deal. "Subjectional" is a standard English word; that it is not in your vocabulary doesn't matter.[/nq]
Fair enough. I certainly agree that Google is not an arbiter, but it can be useful.
After posting, I found 'subjectional' in the SOED, marked "rare". I have never previously met the word.
I perhaps had in mind a loose definition of standard English. The word is formed in a normal way from 'subjection', and is in that sense 'standard'. However, does it form part of the standard vocabulary of a well-educated user of English, I wonder?
I still recoil at the example found by Google: "I'm sorry my comments are subjectional rather than objectional". There are other instances where subjectional is used in place of subjective.

Peter Duncanson
UK
(posting from a.e.u)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I have been embroiled in a debate about the so-called ... or online? Is it a corruption of another word? Help!![/nq]
[nq:1]The entries from Oxford give no hint that "it is not a standard English word": (SOED5) ? subjectional adjective (rare) ... the Unity of different and separate things, subjected to one and the same influence, which may be called Subjectional Unity.[/nq]
Whatever "standard" may be taken to mean, it remains so that the word is rare, and hence if used today had best be used both aright and with need.
The Google examples cited seem largely arguably wholly founded on ignorant groping for an ill-recalled idea or term, not conscious decisions to use a now-arcane term; few or none seem to use the word in any sort of accordance with the OED's definition.

To remark that "Google is hardly an arbiter. All you know from that is that the group of people who have written indexed pages used it only 56 times" ignores both the quantity of Google- indexed pages and their fraction of all web content. Surely no one will argue that the totality of web content today is not a fair not necessarily exact, but fair sample of modern language use. If, in the 4,285,199,774 pages Google has indexed, the word occurs 56 times, we can draw some safe conclusions about its currency.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]The entries from Oxford give no hint that "it is ... and the same influence, which may be called Subjectional Unity.[/nq]
[nq:1]Whatever "standard" may be taken to mean, it remains so that the word is rare, and hence if ... the 4,285,199,774 pages Google has indexed, the word occurs 56 times, we can draw some safe conclusions about its currency.[/nq]
If you don't mind I will argue. I actually think that all these pages represent a rather lopsided sample of modern langauge. I don't have reliable sources but I would expect that terms of computer lingo are heavily overrepresented, while terms you use, for example, for knitting a pullover might be found scarcely. As long as there are still people out there without internet connection and private home pages, I refuse to believe in these statistics.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]. . . I actually think that all these (Google-indexed web) pages represent a rather lopsided sample of modern langauge. ... there are still people out there without internet connection and private home pages, I refuse to believe in these statistics.[/nq]
They will be somewhat lopsided, doubtless. But how badly? Almost anyone today can and, it seems, almost everyone does put up some sort of web site. A query on "knitting pullover" returns over 22,000 pages, which is probably not a wildly unrepresentative sample of the extent to which the topic is discussed in the world.
Yes, there are many people, especially outside the industrialized nations, without web access. But the logic implying that those people are a radically unrepresentative sample of humanity escapes me; and if they are, at least on a gross scale, representative, then omitting them from the Google index will not radically skew the degree to which Google returns reflect general patterns.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]. . . I actually think that all these (Google-indexed ... private home pages, I refuse to believe in these statistics.[/nq]
[nq:1]They will be somewhat lopsided, doubtless. But how badly? Almost anyone today can and, it seems, almost everyone does put up some ... then omitting them from the Google index will not radically skew the degree to which Google returns reflect general patterns.[/nq]
Sigh... You may be right, you know. Yet I had hoped there were some areas untouched by computers and internet - probably a romantic illusion of a programmer.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Sigh... You may be right, you know. Yet I had hoped there were some areas untouched by computers and internet - probably a romantic illusion of a programmer.

[/nq]
I am clumsy, so let me assure you that I mean to say this kindly: that is needless angst. It is like someone raised in the era of oral lore feeling distress over the newly arrived influence of the printed word.
It is only when the Internet becomes an appliance something easily used by all, not just specialists that it becomes a vital part of our lives, and an augmentation of our ability to communicate our thoughts and feelings to others, which ability is of the essence of being human.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]. . . I actually think that all these (Google-indexed ... private home pages, I refuse to believe in these statistics.[/nq]
[nq:1]They will be somewhat lopsided, doubtless. But how badly? Almost anyone today can and, it seems, almost everyone does put up some ... then omitting them from the Google index will not radically skew the degree to which Google returns reflect general patterns.[/nq]
I agree that Google is good for representative samples of modern usage of languages in 1st world countries. Seeing as this is alt.english.usage, I think it definitely has a place. It if were alt.swahili.usage or alt.bangla.usage I would highly suspect of using Google for determining much about language usage.
The main problem with Google is checking that the results you get back are actually what you were searching for. Sometimes a phrase you search for seems to be far more common than you might expect - but this may be simply because it occurs as part of a memorable quote, or occurs in certain texts (such as the Bible) that are over-represented on the WWW. And sometimes, the phrase, sentence fragment or word isn't what you thought it was at all, but just something that happened to be indexed containing something matching what you queried on.

I do think it's fair to say though that if something you search for turns up very very few hits, you can be sure it's a fairly uncommon phrase, or you have misheard it, no matter how sure you are about its usage. One example in my case is "running around like a mad army", which is a phrase my parents used, and hence I've picked up. But I can't find a single Google hit for it (or anything much like it - although 'like a mad army' gets an interesting hit on groups.google.com), so I can only assume it has a very small following!
Actually there's plenty of "running around like a mad man/dog/woman/hatter/etc. etc.", but I almost only ever use 'army', even when talking about a single person (or animal - especially our cat).
Dylan

"subjectional" debate

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions