“There was no agreement between theory and measurement” His rise is, I suppose, a symptom of declining literacy. The Americans are nothing but ingenious. People know the verb to consent, and they know how to make abstract nouns with the use of -ance, and therefore people, especially in the spoken media, turn to consent as a substitute, in the absence of the standard appointment agreement. I first heard it at my favorite Omaha sports station, 1620 The Zone/KOZN (discussion of the sad state of Nebraska football). One of the hosts often uses this word. It prefers neologisms, so its use is not a surprise, but then I began to notice its use elsewhere. It makes me think its use is going to spread. “The results of my experience are consistent with Michelson`s and with the law of general relativity.” If you agree with me, I will make those changes. An agreement is an agreement, a compromise to get the two sides to find common ground. For things to be consistent, they are harmonious or not contradict each other.
One of the strange abstract names that has appeared lately is the word consent, because it says, “I agree with this position.” A Nounon is a person, a place or a thing. An abstract nominus is a concept. You can`t see, touch, smell, taste or hear a chord like that, see a truck, hear a noise, taste a sandwich or smell smoke. English has many ways of making abstract names. The extension – ance is one of them with – ion and – ment. To anticipate an objection, yes, I am aware that consent is an old English word that dates back to at least the 16th century. But I also suppose that his ascent is not based on a re-appreciation of an ancient word, although rarely used. Rather, I assume that the word is used because people have forgotten or do not know consent. Have agreement and approval always meant exactly the same thing? Because there is no feeling and carelessness, is there? Is it possible that history is littered with agreements that were not agreements? “Agreement between experimental observations and theory” To be on the safety side, I will continue to use “agreement.” This is a very effective contribution and I strongly agree with it. To anticipate another objection, yes, I celebrate the flexibility, adaptability and inventiveness of the English language, but it is one thing to form a new and useful word to meet a need.
But I shout when English words do because they don`t know or have not forgotten a very good and normal word. There is nothing wrong with an agreement. It is not archaism, even if it is a consensus. The use of consent is, in most cases, only linguistic antinomianism. It`s irritating. “They had an agreement not to interfere in each other`s affairs” We were almost finished with “agreement” and then some damn Redneck had to mix “agreement” with “acceptance” and we`re back where we started. The use of a chord is probably the linguistic equivalent of using a half-moon key instead of a combination key or a basic key. You can do it, but it still leaves a little bit of damage. If you want to use consent, end, whatever, but at least note that the old robust contract is in the toolbox. “If we agree, we should sign the agreement.” I`ve always used both; If we agree, we should sign the agreement.