[juliangamble]

Quoting from that page:

In her 1961 book The United States and the Southwest Pacific, American author Clinton Hartley Grattan commented that, "the use of the word Oceania to cover Australia, New Zealand, and the [Pacific] islands now has a slightly old-fashioned flavor."

[mfer]

> has a slightly old-fashioned flavor

When people use things like this I try to catch it. This isn't a reasoned argument. It's meant to have the reader or hearer feel a certain way to change minds.

[bryanrasmussen]

I mean there are expressions that seem archaic and she remarked on it.

[yamtaddle]

Rather than reasoned, such a tip may be useful—if one wishes to speak or write about what one has read without giving an odd or unintended impression.

[atonse]

Agreed, anyway what is old-fashioned about it? And is that even a valid argument to not use it anymore?

[DiggyJohnson]

Why do you interpret her reporting that the term is "old-fashioned" as an argument that it shouldn't be used? She's not making an argument, just remarking on the term.

[pmarreck]

You’re right. But it may still have that flavor.

[bluGill]

Language is only useful if we all agree on a common meaning for it. If you use old fashioned language I may still recognize it, but it is still wrong: you need to update your language to whatever is current (this does change!) so that we continue to understand each other.

Maybe I can't define why it is old fashioned, but if it is old fashioned it is wrong. I would hope that people who better understand the details have a better definition of the terms in use and could apply it, but all I know is your usage is old fashioned. (Note, the above doesn't preclude the idea that I'm wrong and the language is current, merely that we both need to do more research and should be more careful in this area until/unless we do!)

[Verdex]

> Language is only useful if we all agree on a common meaning for it.

Is it possible to agree on a common meaning for language using the language for which we are attempting to agree on the common meaning? On a logical level, I think I reject such an idea, although I would be fascinated in an argument that suggests such a thing would be possible.

> all agree

Information theory suggests that commonly used symbols should be short and rare symbols should be long. Any subgrouping of people will encounter scenarios requiring different ideas to be discussed at different frequencies. Jargon differing amongst people is to be expected and is what at least I have observed. I also reject 'all agree' on an information theory level.

> Language is only useful

And finally on a personal note. I generally misunderstand what most people are talking about most of the time. I think of it in terms of being weakly immune to peer pressure, but the other side of the coin is that I have a hard time keeping up with whatever group I'm a part of. And vice versa, I often say things that others quite obviously misunderstand.

However, I still find language useful. Even when there is no agreement on common meaning. Even when jargon necessarily forms differently between groups (and often even between individuals). Even when we try imperfectly to define language basing it upon itself. Using old fashioned language (or simply uncommonly agreed upon language) isn't 'still wrong' even if recognized. It is, I assert, the only way language can even be.

[jefftk]

Whether it was an "old-fashioned" term in 1961 doesn't have much bearing on whether we should use it now, though.

[CRConrad]

Yeah, from all I can see it has come back into fashion, because I see it used quite often nowadays.