You must log in or register to comment.
they make terrible linguists too.
they should aim for “cunning” instead of “terrible”.
They don’t.
Language requires intelligent design from intelligent people sometimes. When needed, prescriptivists in legion can make a literate civilization out of illiterate primitives.
The asinine and the arcane can both make learning unnecessarily difficult.
Yes and no but mostly no. Prescriptivists are are great when you need to build a general structure of a language, but language can and will evolve without any intelligent design by the people using it.
The primary purpose of language is to communicate ideas and most of the times the linguistic rules are not necessary to convey an idea.
Internal inconsistencies fester and degrade a language if the changes people like you defend are not only left unshamed, but even encouraged as “creative”.
There are language that have lived for centuries without any lexical rules. Any value lost is only in the the eyes of the preceptivists. Language can and will easily live on with all the internal inconsistencies. In fact language rules are usually built around those inconsistencies because the language people speak is more important than whatever rules purists come up with.
Isn’t the primary purpose of languge to think?
oof, no. “in legion”? lol wtf, do you think this is Warhammer or something?
we started speaking way before we started writing. literacy had been irrelevant in the evolution of a language. and even today it barely matters; thanks to the the current ubiquity of media and communication, people can start using a new word, or start pronouncing a word a different way, or spelling something a new way, and it can spread faster than it ever did before. some dickwad insisting that this is “incorrect” is not going to change anything if most people disagree.
speaking of which, why are you not speaking or spelling the way Shakespeare did? what are these newfangled bullshit words and spellings you’re using like some illiterate primitive?
I mean writing systems are not a part of the real spoken language and how it evolved. I think it’s fine to be prescriptivist about writing systems as many did not evolve naturally anyway, and many could be made far easier to learn and use. You shouldn’t mess with spoken language as that’s the part that did evolve naturally and is still subject to evolution. The focus though should always be on making these writing systems simpler and a better reflection of the spoken language. Hangul is a great example of prescriptivism over writing systems.
I don’t think designing a writing system is prescriptivist – or at least if it’s any good then it isn’t.
Here’s a good and recent example, a new, unified, orthography for Low Saxon. The way they did it is to take Old Saxon, re-trace the sound changes in modern dialects phoneme by phoneme and then assign glyphs to everything, which may be realised differently depending on dialect, say “sk” can be pronounced (English orthography) sk, shk, or sh. Mergers etc. are preserved in the over-regional orthography, though there’s also a set of regular changes you can make to that universal orthography to get at dialect orthographies.
That is, what it’s doing is simply to try its best to do both the history and the present of the language justice, to preserve nuance while providing regularity. Situations such as “loose” vs “lose” are perfectly fine because you derive the spelling of the adjectives from their roots (at least I assume why it’s that way in English). Your dialect may, or may not, merge them in that situation the orthography doesn’t say that you should or shouldn’t do that – only that you should still distinguish it in writing because there’s people who don’t merge stuff like that. People don’t start to write “cot” and “caught” the same all of a sudden, either, they probably don’t even realise they’re pronouncing them the same.
Contrast that with the previous “standard” orthography (for the dialects within Germany, that is), Sass. It basically says “write it like you would write German” and that’s right-out disastrous as German orthography just can’t deal with the phonetics, merging and shifting especially vowels left and right away from what anyone is speaking. As such it was prescriptive by negligence, confusing many a learner.
I knew after the first FOUR WORDS of your comment that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Language literally evolves organically, constantly.
You don’t consider the simplification of Chinese “language”, nor the ordering of Nynorsk, or the creation of the Korean alphabet.
You don’t think the efforts of thousands of teachers across a nation teaching the language prescriptively according to the designs of the state constitutes language. You seem to consider it forceful meddling in a natural evolution that should be left to just do what it does, unrestrained and undisturbed by judgmental nerds.
People are taught how to write in an academic style in school.
There’s different applications for writing. Some examples in include but are not limited to academic, creative, and conversational/casual writing. Education tends to focus on academic(correct grammar, writing essays, doing research papers) followed by creative writing which is storytelling and poetry.
Expecting people to write academically in casual settings is weird. If I write a letter or email to my friend it’s going to include slang and have looser grammar.
Casual and academic writing have their place and time. Suggesting casual writing is inferior is just silly. If people always wrote everything like some formal essay it’d be fucking boring. No humor, no colorful language. Just boring ass academic writing everywhere.
Plus, believe it or not some of my most brilliant professors had a very casual way of speaking and writing. Academic use of language does not indicate intelligence. It just means they know how to write in an academic setting. Nothing more, nothing less.
There are some cases in history where academic writing (seen in government and religious documents) differs so greatly from the actual language of the people (which those very same government employees and clergy use when outside of their professional environments) that the two languages are more like distant cousins.
Of course, it’s the popular language which evolves into the language of today, while leaving the ancient, once “proper” language behind where it belongs.
And then, that region’s language prescriptivists of today say that the version they were taught is the right one, all over again 😅
Took me much longer. I was like “this has to be a joke about intelligent design or something”. Only at the very end I realized it’s serious
They don’t know we’re in the 4th iteration of English.
The English they think is perfectly correct proper English would make the language prescriptivist from a couple centuries ago puke and kick them in the groin
Ah the ages old: The few drag the masses kicking and screaming into a better future.
I think there is a very fine line between prescribing language because of a world view that insists on conformity, and correcting Grammer and vocabulary because it’s being clear and understood is kinda the point of language.
I don’t think it’s that hard, the line is mainly “is this hard to understand?” If yes then correcting or discussing it is not prescriptivism, if no, then you’re just being pedantic
Just take texting or internet comments for example, how many are missing punctuation? How many are using slang terms or shortenings of words? How many are straight up omitting/skipping words? How many are making liberal use of language to either express themselves or have some emotional impact? Or just don’t put in the effort to do grammar
After all, I miss punctuation in this very comment as well, especially at the end of paragraphs, in addition to skipping words or making liberal use of language like “do grammar”. Is that grammatically correct? Absolutely not, but you understand what I mean
Assuming informal communication, of course. Formal communication is more about being proper, and ties into cultural norms of formality etc
“Hard to understand?” Is a question more complex than it might appear on the surface. There are obvious examples of ambiguity in speech which lead to complete misunderstanding.
But “hard to understand?” may also satisfy the criteria of “effort to understand”. Just because a message was understood does not mean the audience was able to hear it effortlessly. And that boils down to consideration.
It’s a two way street. Correcting mistakes because of apparent lack of effort is probably not warranted, but a speaker is not entitled to a happy audience either
As with many online feuds, I think a lot of these problems typically arise because of a lack of operating under the assumption others are acting in good faith.
If course, ultimately language is about (efficient) communication. And as long as that is satisfied, grammar is secondary. Like if there is ambiguity, asking for clarification is very much not pedantic
There is of course some nuance and leeway, but I still think it’s fairly obvious where the line goes
But ultimately, yes, language is nuanced and constantly evolving, it’s very neat though
See, I could understand you just find despite you writing “If course”, but if you try to say to me that is not a mistake simply because I could understand you, I cannot at all agree with your logic of what makes it the language “correct”.
I never said it makes the language “correct”, more that language is fluid and there’s no need to correct people
Unless a typo or spelling mistake is so common it becomes widely used, it’s fair to say it’s just a mistake
I agree completely and have nothing to add, but I felt compelled to put my username under both of yours.
Skyes unite
I know this is, like, counter to your argument, which I fully agree with, but… I am triggered by the lack of periods at the end of your paragraphs.
However, when you put periods at the end of stuff like text messages, it sounds almost passive aggressive, doesn’t it?
It’s the difference between
“Okay”
And
“Okay.”
Oh definitely. Context is everything.
Imagine getting hit with “K.”
Some may call it prescriptivism, but I’ll never accept “a few bad apples” as an excuse for horrible shit from bad people in an organization, not just because it’s a gross misreading of the original meaning, but also that bad apples actually do chemically spoil the rest of the bunch as they rot.
Upvote for the perscurptivist spelling, lawl
Prescriptivists: don’t use that word, it’s not in the Dictionary. It doesn’t exist.
People working for Dictionary: new words? Yeah we pick whatever people say or write.
Yeah we pick whatever people say or write.
"The framework of the language says it shouldn’t be pluralized as a mass nouns, but Becky and the cool kids got everyone saying it so it’s now a word.
Calling someone a prescriptivist is a sad rebuttal to the worry that our language is evolving arbitrarily based on the whims of vapid influencers.
You’ve got it backward. Successful modern influencers follow linguistic trends and reinforce them, but they typically do not invent them (see the litany of words from jersey shore that never made it into the greater american lexicon) even when they try. Typically, new words arise out of necessity, efficiency, or mutual enjoyment.
It boggles the mind to see how many armchair linguists come out of the woodwork for posts like these. As language evolves, we get new ways to express ourselves, but idiots that cannot possibly learn one new word stall that progress by just being stubborn. If anything, you should be more wary of people or groups preventing the use of new words, or re-prescribing existing words that are usually used one way popularly.
The ONLY valid goal with language is communication and understanding - couples develop words, workplaces develop words, gaming communities develop words, and all of these groups use either existing words to mean new things, or acronym words in new ways, or even make completely new words from brand names or nonsense. Prescriptivists cannot typically handle new jargon, regardless of its use, and this makes them a laughingstock in academia and online spaces alike.
If you can’t parse what’s being said, lurk more. The etymology of new words is just as valid as the etymology of ancient ones. It’s fine to take words on loan from another language regardless of grammatical correctness. The word “eyeball” came from “an influencer”.
if you don’t want language to evolve based on the whims of vapid influencers, help steer society away from vapid influencers being influential rather than getting pissy about how people speak.
What you’re doing is very close to complaining about poor people speaking “lazily”, and telling them to try harder, because obviously you’re the shining example of enlightened correct speech.
The speakers decide. Always has been.
Oxford English Dictionary: -adds a slang term or portmanteau in common use for years by millions of people in order to reflect the linguistic zeitgeist-
Prescriptivists: 🤬NO🤬SLANG🤬IN🤬DICTIONARY🤬
Prescriptivists from the 1800s: 🤬NO🤬USING🤬"ZEITGEIST"🤬OUTSIDE🤬PHILOSOPHY🤬
Yeah, but loose instead of lose and too in place of to is annoying. As well as using apostrophe’s on word’s that end in S’s that aren’t possessive.
I thinc u kare abowt this to much
OP did you put a typo in your title to bait the prescriptivists?
… Yes, I am totally that clever. 👀
Could it be a pun on perception?
Perhaps
Why would anyone want rules and consistent applications of those rules? ANYONE could just learn any language that way. How would we keep our ability to communicate for native speakers only? It doesn’t make sense.
You can want it all you want. It’s just not reality. And pretending like it is isn’t helpful to people trying to learn the language.
We don’t have to be silly with descriptivism either. Of course languages evolve over time, but speakers also make mistakes that should still be corrected to keep language cohesive. It’s the difference between change in body shape from evolution, and an isolated growth that probably shouldn’t exist. We use a different word for that second one: cancer.
You gotta have both IMO. Not too rigid, not too flexible.
I really hate the idea of saying corrected in this context. There is really no right and wrong in language iself. Standardized language is not some “correct” way to speak, but a common guide to try to help an individual be understood by more people. Someone not following standard is not wrong, just maybe difficult to comprehend due to not following convention. I think in one off mistakes that are hard to understand, it is better to thinking in terms of asking for clarification. In more consistent problems of understanding, I think explaining (which is not the same as correcting) to them a more conventional way of speaking to easy future communication is the best path.
Also equating individuals unique linguistic quirks to cancer is gross.
You can pick a word besides ”correct" but it means sort of the same thing either way: we are moving individual variations of language toward the collective standard.
Languages all have categories of words, general rules for how those categories are applied, exceptions to the rules, and idiomatic parts to name a few. Misconjugating a word is not evolution of language, it is a mistake. Mismatching count is also a mistake. Mixing direct and indirect object pronouns is a mistake. The risk is not “i don’t understand you”, it is rather that I did understand you, but what I understand is not what you mean. You can call it a “unique linguistic quirk”, but if it leads to people misunderstanding you it’s a mistake. And yeah, pushing mistakes under a rug of " it’s descriptivism" is just as gross as any allegory to runaway cell growth.
If everyone understands you and its not a perfectly grammatically correct construction and lots of people start to use it, sure this is evolution of language. Every deviation is not that.
Be mad then I guess lol
In one sense, native speakers literally can’t make mistakes (unless they’re drunk/tired or stumble over a word or something like that). For example, misconjugation is not a mistake-- it could just mean that the word wasn’t popular enough in their dialect to have a rigid conjugation, so usually this means that an irregular verb is falling out of use. A verb like abide is uncommon enough that its past participle form abidden has fallen out of use, and the simple past abode also has the acceptable abided, mostly because not enough people use it to maintain the same conjugations. So in a certain group of people with the same dialect, using abode is actually less effective at communicating than abided (I had to look up the conjugation for this, as I’d never heard abode outside the noun meaning home).
As for the direct and indirect pronouns (I assume you mean subject vs object pronouns), natives often use different pronouns in coordination (using an “and” to join two pronouns) than they would alone. It’s very common to hear “jim and me went to the store” whereas only a tiny fraction of those speakers would say “me went to the store”. Although no one would misunderstand (like they might with the verb conjugation above) a “jim and me” vs “jim and I”, people can hear the difference in register, and in certain situations a less formal register is more appropriate than informal. This doesn’t make those speakers wrong, and I don’t think it even changes the communicated meaning, as you said with “what I understand is not what you mean.”
Because no one has ownership of what’s absolutely correct, a lot of this stuff falls under the purview of register, and therefore we have prestige dialects. So language “mistakes” just become another way to separate classes of people, because for a long period of history the only people with any power sounded one way, and they decided it sounded “better” than what other people sounded like. Those distinctions are less rigid these days, but I don’t think we can say they’ve gone away entirely.
As an aside, if you’d like to discuss countable vs mass nouns, I had a bit of a dive into those when I tried to teach them to an EFL class and I’m still not sure how to explain a lot about certain aspects of the topic, but things weren’t nearly as simple as I thought before I started talking about it at the front of the classroom.
So you understood most of what I meant, but we missed slightly. I agree that irregular verbs might be misconjugated or that they may tend back toward regular conjugations (see for example “to plead” in the legal sense, or “to hang” in the execution sense), but I specifically meant mismatched count. As a stickler, I would sometimes put lack of use of subjunctive or adding it unnecessarily (though the second is pretty uncommon) in the realm of a mistake but that could be because I like it and hate to see it fall out of use.
Also yes that’s what I was meaning for indirect and direct object pronouns (to/for whom vs who, or maybe more simply him/her/me vs he/she/I). Here you could also include “myself” or “themselves” or the slightly less natural sounding “themself”. I was trying to craft an example of creating a misunderstanding in English but it didn’t work as well as it does in Spanish for example where you can accidentally create reflexive verbs with a different meaning. I suppose though you are right: these are not mistakes a native speaker can really make because they have the knowledge that the word is changing.
For countability, I assume you mean the question of less vs fewer, and when you might pluralize words like ”water" and when you don’t. That is indeed an interesting topic.
Prestige dialects are not an example of a direction I would like to go, but as a counter I really appreciate that French DOES have the French academy to decide what is proper and what is not.
Im an American, I only speak one language natively because there’s not exactly a variety of spoken languages in the Midwest. Since high school though I’ve been “collecting” languages though and am passably conversant in a few. My wife’s extended family is all in France so French has been an important skill to develop. For me, the fact is that “deviations” from the book usually result in losing track of the meaning or losing track of the conversation. English is already hard enough without adding even more irregularity, so I tend to lean in on being precise and I think it’s a worthwhile effort. It is a real source of stress when the shoe is on the other foot.
