PSA: Dice

[ATHATH]

The singular form of "dice" is "die". The plural form of "die" is "dice", not "dices".

Correct Example: Roll a die.
Incorrect Example: Roll a dice.

Thank you for your time.

[Trekkin]

Unless, of course, you are referring to the molds used to make die-cast dice rather than dice themselves. One can indeed roll the dies, and thereby roll the dice within.

And, of course, depending on dialect dice can be singular. It shows up more often in British than American English.

Thus, it is entirely possible to roll some dies and within them some dices in order to tell your GM across the Atlantic what the dice indicate you got on your die roll.

[90,000]

As long as the intent of the statement is clear it doesn't matter. Anything else is pedantic.

[Anonymouswizard]

It depends, I prefer sure as the singular and try to get people to use it, but over here (UK) dice as a singular is so common is essentially correct. I think it might actually be in one of the dictionaries. Note that this is more common with non roleplayers.

Dices is not used though, it's like sheep. I say 'I roll a die', others say 'I roll a dice', but everyone says 'I roll four dice'.

[Lord Torath]

It depends, I prefer sure as the singular and try to get people to use it, but over here (UK) dice as a singular is so common is essentially correct. I think it might actually be in one of the dictionaries. Note that this is more common with non roleplayers.

Dices is not used though, it's like sheep. I say 'I roll a die', others say 'I roll a dice', but everyone says 'I roll four dice'."Dices" is used, but usually involves a chef knife or butcher knife. Or a katana: "It slices; it dices; it makes french fries in three different shapes." Come to think of it, though, does Leo really dual-wield katanas? Or is that some sort of wakazashi or ninja-to?

[Joe the Rat]

Dice is also the verb form. He dices with death on the fate of his soul.

It's also a proper noun, but he's got a lifetime ban from... a lot of things.

[CharonsHelper]

And the past tense of die is dead. But... what if you made dice dies out of the dead. (bone probably - or maybe involving horse glue)

Then you could roll dead dies with dice.

[DataNinja]

As long as the intent of the statement is clear it doesn't matter. Anything else is pedantic.

Ah, you must be new around here. This forum runs on pedantry. :smalltongue:

[Max_Killjoy]

As long as the intent of the statement is clear it doesn't matter. Anything else is pedantic.

And thus languages suffer long and painful deaths.

[Max_Killjoy]

"Dices" is used, but usually involves a chef knife or butcher knife. Or a katana: "It slices; it dices; it makes french fries in three different shapes." Come to think of it, though, does Leo really dual-wield katanas? Or is that some sort of wakazashi or ninja-to?

That's a conjugated form of the verb "dice", not a form of the noun "die".

[Segev]

Let's dice these die-cast dice until they die!

https://media0.giphy.com/media/12OPgCADX2lwYw/200_s.gif

[Anonymouswizard]

Ah, you must be new around here. This forum runs on pedantry. :smalltongue:

It's been a while since I've been on a thread of this type, so remind me. Is it two or three pages until we're allowed to realise we're all arguing for the same thing?

Also I'll have you know that most of us aren't running, I suspect most of us post sitting down :smallwink:

[CharonsHelper]

Also I'll have you know that most of us aren't running, I suspect most of us post sitting down :smallwink:

I'm sitting down, but I'm also half refrigerator, so...

[Segev]

I'm sitting down, but I'm also half refrigerator, so...

On your mom's or dad's side? I understand the ice chest inheritance rites are matrilineal.

[ImNotTrevor]

And thus languages suffer long and painful deaths.

Linguistically speaking, languages very rarely just die but very commonly turn into multiple new languages.

Also, trying to police the formation of a language and prevent it from changing has never actually worked in the entirety of human history.

Also also, because I like shattering worldviews, the Grammar rules we're taught in school are not only arbitrary (meaning there is no actual reason to use those rules as opposed to any other set) but were mostly established by a bunch of latin-speaking monks who wanted English to sound more Latin so they could feel less bad about the bible being in English. The rules were prescribed, and not descriptive of how the language is or was actually spoken. This is why many constructions seen in academia sound strange and stuffy, and why we describe some writing as "Conversational." Academic Written English and Spoken English are very different dialects.

TL;DR
Historically speaking, any "correct" way to speak English was selected arbitrarily and trying to enforce One True Right Way upon a language has never worked on any language, ever, so it's not worth trying.

/randomrant

[Max_Killjoy]

Linguistically speaking, languages very rarely just die but very commonly turn into multiple new languages.

Also, trying to police the formation of a language and prevent it from changing has never actually worked in the entirety of human history.

Also also, because I like shattering worldviews, the Grammar rules we're taught in school are not only arbitrary (meaning there is no actual reason to use those rules as opposed to any other set) but were mostly established by a bunch of latin-speaking monks who wanted English to sound more Latin so they could feel less bad about the bible being in English. The rules were prescribed, and not descriptive of how the language is or was actually spoken. This is why many constructions seen in academia sound strange and stuffy, and why we describe some writing as "Conversational." Academic Written English and Spoken English are very different dialects.

TL;DR
Historically speaking, any "correct" way to speak English was selected arbitrarily and trying to enforce One True Right Way upon a language has never worked on any language, ever, so it's not worth trying.

/randomrant

I refuse to accept idiots using "optics" to mean "how the public will perceive an action" or flipping "lend" and "borrow" as verbs.

[Mordar]

Linguistically speaking, languages very rarely just die but very commonly turn into multiple new languages.

Also, trying to police the formation of a language and prevent it from changing has never actually worked in the entirety of human history.

Also also, because I like shattering worldviews, the Grammar rules we're taught in school are not only arbitrary (meaning there is no actual reason to use those rules as opposed to any other set) but were mostly established by a bunch of latin-speaking monks who wanted English to sound more Latin so they could feel less bad about the bible being in English. The rules were prescribed, and not descriptive of how the language is or was actually spoken. This is why many constructions seen in academia sound strange and stuffy, and why we describe some writing as "Conversational." Academic Written English and Spoken English are very different dialects.

TL;DR
Historically speaking, any "correct" way to speak English was selected arbitrarily and trying to enforce One True Right Way upon a language has never worked on any language, ever, so it's not worth trying.

/randomrant

Yet you used "proper" grammar, punctuation and spelling (at least as far as I can tell) along with traditionally accepted definitions and word uses to make your point(s).

Is that because you wanted your points to be sufficiently well articulated as to be both clear and persuasive?

I subscribe to the idea that "language lives" as well...but that doesn't mean it can be pruned as to grow stronger and not just kudzu all over my desk. :smallamused:

- M

[Satinavian]

With English as new lingua franca, further "evolution" will probably mean it will split into several new languages based on regional dialects. It is already happening.

[hymer]

With English as new lingua franca, further "evolution" will probably mean it will split into several new languages based on regional dialects. It is already happening.

There's a lot of truth to this, but there is also a force driving the other way, a unifying force with global media, entertainment, teaching and business. It seems to me people will tend to learn two kinds of English (which may indeed turn into dialects with time, I agree): One for international or just interregional communication, and one for local identity.
It may of course turn out a lot more messily than that.

[ImNotTrevor]

Yet you used "proper" grammar, punctuation and spelling (at least as far as I can tell) along with traditionally accepted definitions and word uses to make your point(s).

Is that because you wanted your points to be sufficiently well articulated as to be both clear and persuasive?

I subscribe to the idea that "language lives" as well...but that doesn't mean it can be pruned as to grow stronger and not just kudzu all over my desk. :smallamused:

- M

"You used grammar, therefore the grammar being arbitrary is untrue!"

I can use the arbitrarily selected grammar when I feel the audience is appropriate. How I write here is not how I speak, which is not how I text, which is not how I write Resumes, which is not how I write college essays. When I say "I'm gonna run over and get me a snack right quick" to my friends (and yes, that is an accurate example of my spoken english), I am speaking Correct English in a dialect that is not Academic English. Because there is no legitimate reason why the southern dialect of english is incorrect.

Your argument doesn't counter mine, but it does show the irony that one must occassionally follow arbitrary rules to acheove desires results.


I refuse to accept idiots using "optics" to mean "how the public will perceive an action" or flipping "lend" and "borrow" as verbs.

Grammarists in the 1400's refused to accept the word "You" being used as the second-person singular. And as we all know, they were right in the end.

[Max_Killjoy]

"You used grammar, therefore the grammar being arbitrary is untrue!"

I can use the arbitrarily selected grammar when I feel the audience is appropriate. How I write here is not how I speak, which is not how I text, which is not how I write Resumes, which is not how I write college essays. When I say "I'm gonna run over and get me a snack right quick" to my friends (and yes, that is an accurate example of my spoken english), I am speaking Correct English in a dialect that is not Academic English. Because there is no legitimate reason why the southern dialect of english is incorrect.

Your argument doesn't counter mine, but it does show the irony that one must occassionally follow arbitrary rules to acheove desires results.



Grammarists in the 1400's refused to accept the word "You" being used as the second-person singular. And as we all know, they were right in the end.


This is not the 14th century. We have the printing press, an "infinite" supply of books (relative to that time period), mass public education, public libraries, the internet, etc.

There's no need to just shrug and watch language degrade. "Die" is the singular, "dice" is the plural. "Dice" for a single die is as incorrect as "mice" for a single mouse.

("Ask" and "axe" are not homophones, and neither are "cot" and "caught". And by all the spirits of every dead writer ever, THERE IS NO APOSTROPHE IN PLURALIZATION.)

[Anonymouswizard]

If I was going to write English how I'd speak it there would likely be commas in strange places (I have a minor speech impediment, not a stammer but can sound like one), ever other sentence would include the word 'sorry', and sentences would just run on for too long because I wouldn't know when to stop them because I don't tend to stop sentences until I've finished my train of thought.

To be honest, I tend to write overlong, sentences even while typing. Sorry.

[Yuki Akuma]

Linguistic prescriptivism is stupid and has never worked. Even in languages with prescriptivist "language academies". Talk the way you want to talk, and as long as people understand you, that's fine.

[hymer]

Linguistic prescriptivism is stupid and has never worked. Even in languages with prescriptivist "language academies". Talk the way you want to talk, and as long as people understand you, that's fine.

There's quite a bit more to it than that, though. Here's one thing:


https://youtu.be/kge9ZzjsfW8

[Max_Killjoy]

Linguistic prescriptivism is stupid and has never worked. Even in languages with prescriptivist "language academies". Talk the way you want to talk, and as long as people understand you, that's fine.

Language is a tool for communication. The utility of that tool suffers when the language degrades.

Something as "simple" and "subtle" as the Oxford comma can change the meaning of a sentence entirely.


http://www.verbicidemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Oxford-Comma.jpg

[Anonymouswizard]

Linguistic prescriptivism is stupid and has never worked. Even in languages with prescriptivist "language academies". Talk the way you want to talk, and as long as people understand you, that's fine.

I remember watching a video on prescriptivism versus descriptivism. I agree on some language areas being prescriptivist, such as academia, if clarity of language is paramount, but honestly in everyday conversion or writing on this forum I'm not going to bother strictly following grammar rules.

Spelling is different, I can work with a few misspelt words and infer from context, and can even read the 'if all the letters are there and the first and last are in the right place' things, but I recommend people try to make sure their spelling is correct (for their version of English at least) just so that it takes less brainpower to read what they're saying.

[Segev]

While linguistic drift does happen, there is no reason to support it where it hinders understanding. Otherwise, we shouldn't ever correct anybody for using whatever word they like to mean whatever they wish it to. Perhaps, like the Caterpillar, they must pay some words a little extra for overtime, but surely the fact that we can't comprehend them is our fault for being linguistic prescritivists.

Using "dice" as a singular does grate on my ear, though it's mildly forgivable because it is understandable.

Using "irregardless," however, not only grates on my ear, but (because I know the meaning of the prefix) it makes me stop and try to figure out how one thing is with regard to another, even though after I stop and think for a moment I realize the person is just speaking poorly.

It especially drives me batty when people start misusing words because they think the words sound sophisticated.

The prevalence of misused words even in modern mass media, amongst pundits and writers who make their living at it, is troubling...because they often wind up writing nonsense that I then must spend quite some time divining the real meaning of, and as it gets worse, communication suffers.


There is beauty in a well-constructed language which remembers that certain prefixes and suffixes (or, in some languages, modifying particles or tones) have specific meanings that modify root words. It enhances communication and expands vocabulary by allowing clear, concise information transmission. When we start to say that "it's just linguistic drift; get over it" because people who are less educated don't know the meanings of the words (or constructions) they're misusing, we excuse bad communication and make it harder to construct new, meaningful expressions, because we do things like make antonyms into synonyms (except when we mean the opposite).

Context might be powerful, but rely too much on it to untangle language that has become meaningless by itself and you wind up with constant, intractable miscommunication.


Heck, Japanese has a lot of context-related half-finished sentences with implied subjects and even verbs, and while it's intelligible, a lot of miscommunication occurs that is impossible to transliterate into English because English is a more precise language, and would not accept the trail-offs and implied subjects that allow the listener to inject entirely opposite meanings from what the speaker meant. It sometimes makes anime a little confusing, because the transliterater had to choose one of the two (or more) meanings, and thus we as English-speaking audiences get clarity that wasn't there. Making it hard to understand how the other party misunderstood...or how they MEANT what they claim to have intended.

This is in no small part because Japanese puts a lot of stock in context that is multi-layered and social-position-based, on top of numerous other elements. Again, they can make themselves understood, but it's not as powerful a language as English for precise communication.

I dread to see English lose that precision just because "linguistic drift happens." May as well just argue that we shouldn't bother teaching it; babies pointing and making whatever noises they want are just as valid a means of communication. That's linguistic drift, right?

[Max_Killjoy]

While linguistic drift does happen, there is no reason to support it where it hinders understanding. Otherwise, we shouldn't ever correct anybody for using whatever word they like to mean whatever they wish it to. Perhaps, like the Caterpillar, they must pay some words a little extra for overtime, but surely the fact that we can't comprehend them is our fault for being linguistic prescritivists.

Using "dice" as a singular does grate on my ear, though it's mildly forgivable because it is understandable.

Using "irregardless," however, not only grates on my ear, but (because I know the meaning of the prefix) it makes me stop and try to figure out how one thing is with regard to another, even though after I stop and think for a moment I realize the person is just speaking poorly.

It especially drives me batty when people start misusing words because they think the words sound sophisticated.

The prevalence of misused words even in modern mass media, amongst pundits and writers who make their living at it, is troubling...because they often wind up writing nonsense that I then must spend quite some time divining the real meaning of, and as it gets worse, communication suffers.


There is beauty in a well-constructed language which remembers that certain prefixes and suffixes (or, in some languages, modifying particles or tones) have specific meanings that modify root words. It enhances communication and expands vocabulary by allowing clear, concise information transmission. When we start to say that "it's just linguistic drift; get over it" because people who are less educated don't know the meanings of the words (or constructions) they're misusing, we excuse bad communication and make it harder to construct new, meaningful expressions, because we do things like make antonyms into synonyms (except when we mean the opposite).

Context might be powerful, but rely too much on it to untangle language that has become meaningless by itself and you wind up with constant, intractable miscommunication.


Heck, Japanese has a lot of context-related half-finished sentences with implied subjects and even verbs, and while it's intelligible, a lot of miscommunication occurs that is impossible to transliterate into English because English is a more precise language, and would not accept the trail-offs and implied subjects that allow the listener to inject entirely opposite meanings from what the speaker meant. It sometimes makes anime a little confusing, because the transliterater had to choose one of the two (or more) meanings, and thus we as English-speaking audiences get clarity that wasn't there. Making it hard to understand how the other party misunderstood...or how they MEANT what they claim to have intended.

This is in no small part because Japanese puts a lot of stock in context that is multi-layered and social-position-based, on top of numerous other elements. Again, they can make themselves understood, but it's not as powerful a language as English for precise communication.

I dread to see English lose that precision just because "linguistic drift happens." May as well just argue that we shouldn't bother teaching it; babies pointing and making whatever noises they want are just as valid a means of communication. That's linguistic drift, right?


These forums desperately need a +1 button for moments like this.

It's one thing to expand a language because new ideas come into our shared space of ideas, and new words are needed. As an old acquaintance of mine (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Nicoll) on Usenet once said, "on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."

It's another thing entirely to watch a language fall apart and use its utility as a means of sharing ideas, because we didn't want to be "prescriptive". (In part I blame postmodernists and their disdain for actual meaning.)

[CharonsHelper]

With English as new lingua franca, further "evolution" will probably mean it will split into several new languages based on regional dialects. It is already happening.

I'll +1 that this is unlikely due to modern media.

There's already been a lessening of accents due to this.

[Yuki Akuma]

Language is a tool for communication. The utility of that tool suffers when the language degrades.

Something as "simple" and "subtle" as the Oxford comma can change the meaning of a sentence entirely.


http://www.verbicidemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Oxford-Comma.jpg


God, I've always hated that example of why the Oxford comma is vital. You can just rearrange the nouns to make that sentence less ambiguous!

I agree that the Oxford comma has uses but come on. Deliberate ambiguity doesn't prove anything.

[Segev]

God, I've always hated that example of why the Oxford comma is vital. You can just rearrange the nouns to make that sentence less ambiguous!

I agree that the Oxford comma has uses but come on. Deliberate ambiguity doesn't prove anything.

Personally, I just find failure to use the Oxford comma to be awkward-looking and not at all representative of how the sentence is spoken. Whenever I hear a list spoken by anybody, there is a comma-pause in their speech just before the terminal "and [item]," unless they were using the (technically grammatically correct, but often awkward-to-listen-to) convention of "[item] and [item] and [item] and [item] and ... and [item]."

[Yuki Akuma]

Personally, I just find failure to use the Oxford comma to be awkward-looking and not at all representative of how the sentence is spoken. Whenever I hear a list spoken by anybody, there is a comma-pause in their speech just before the terminal "and [item]," unless they were using the (technically grammatically correct, but often awkward-to-listen-to) convention of "[item] and [item] and [item] and [item] and ... and [item]."

There are a lot of pauses in everyday speech that don't get transcribed in formal writing, but I concede the point that the Oxford comma matches the way people speak better, and also helps lessen ambiguity in some cases.

I honestly just hate those Oxford comma jokes, because they require very particular construction that not many people would use anyway. I certainly wouldn't omit the "of" at the end of "off of", although I might actually use "dismount" instead because I'm a pretentious prick.

[Mordar]

"You used grammar, therefore the grammar being arbitrary is untrue!"

I can use the arbitrarily selected grammar when I feel the audience is appropriate. How I write here is not how I speak, which is not how I text, which is not how I write Resumes, which is not how I write college essays. When I say "I'm gonna run over and get me a snack right quick" to my friends (and yes, that is an accurate example of my spoken english), I am speaking Correct English in a dialect that is not Academic English. Because there is no legitimate reason why the southern dialect of english is incorrect.

Your argument doesn't counter mine, but it does show the irony that one must occassionally follow arbitrary rules to acheove desires results.

I wasn't trying to counter it, just trying to show the point you make in the closing line - regardless of the origin of the rules, we must follow the rules for the game or suffer the consequences. Sometimes the consequences are significant - we don't get the job/promotion/scholarship - and sometimes they are minor - that our point gets lost or doesn't resonate - and sometimes they are niggling, at worst - that person we don't know or really care about thinks we present ourselves as uneducated/backwater/ignorant.

In short, the reason the rules became the rules is a secondary consideration to the existence of the rules, at least in this case.

- M

[oudeis]

Also also, because I like shattering worldviews, the Grammar rules we're taught in school are not only arbitrary (meaning there is no actual reason to use those rules as opposed to any other set) but were mostly established by a bunch of latin-speaking monks who wanted English to sound more Latin so they could feel less bad about the bible being in English. The rules were prescribed, and not descriptive of how the language is or was actually spoken. This is why many constructions seen in academia sound strange and stuffy, and why we describe some writing as "Conversational." Academic Written English and Spoken English are very different dialects.

This is fascinating. Can you recommend any books about this ?



With English as new lingua franca, further "evolution" will probably mean it will split into several new languages based on regional dialects. It is already happening.

Linguistic prescriptivism is stupid and has never worked. Even in languages with prescriptivist "language academies". Talk the way you want to talk, and as long as people understand you, that's fine.


Perhaps, yet I will never accept Lazy, Self-justifying Ignoramus, or Willfully Uneducated as valid tongues, no matter how widespread they become (NOT directed at anyone in this thread). I am fed up to the point of open hostility with retards and special snowflakes who have hissy fits when someone points out their mistakes, even when the correction is well-meaning and informative in nature (again, not directed at anyone here). Calling someone a 'grammar nazi' is just a special case of the tired teen phenomenon of jeering at 'the nerd' who does his homework, gets good grades, and can give the correct answer when called upon in class.

[Lord Torath]

There is beauty in a well-constructed language which remembers that certain prefixes and suffixes (or, in some languages, modifying particles or tones) have specific meanings that modify root words. It enhances communication and expands vocabulary by allowing clear, concise information transmission. When we start to say that "it's just linguistic drift; get over it" because people who are less educated don't know the meanings of the words (or constructions) they're misusing, we excuse bad communication and make it harder to construct new, meaningful expressions, because we do things like make antonyms into synonyms (except when we mean the opposite). I quite agree. Sneaked vs snuck? I could care less? (https://xkcd.com/1576/) No big deal. Literally (http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/109061?redirectedFrom=literally)? Suddenly I don't know if you mean actually or figuratively.

The case I've heard for the Oxford comma comes from the real-world case of a wealthy man's will. He left his fortune to be divided evenly among Child 1, Child 2, Child 3, Child 4 and Child 5. The judge ruled that the lack of the Oxford comma meant that Children 1-3 each got 25% of the money, and Children 4 and 5 had to split the last share.

[Yuki Akuma]

The case I've heard for the Oxford comma comes from the real-world case of a wealthy man's will. He left his fortune to be divided evenly among Child 1, Child 2, Child 3, Child 4 and Child 5. The judge ruled that the lack of the Oxford comma meant that Children 1-3 each got 25% of the money, and Children 4 and 5 had to split the last share.

Also works as an example of a punctuation nazi hurting people to prove a point. :smallwink:

[hymer]

Literally (http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/109061?redirectedFrom=literally)?

Ah yes, the non-literal interpretation of the word 'literally'.


I could care less? (https://xkcd.com/1576/)

But I started... Now I have to... Oh, well.


https://youtu.be/om7O0MFkmpw

[Segev]

I quite agree. Sneaked vs snuck? I could care less? (https://xkcd.com/1576/) No big deal. Literally (http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/109061?redirectedFrom=literally)? Suddenly I don't know if you mean actually or figuratively."I could care less" bugs me when I think about it, but I catch myself using it, too, which makes me feel bad for the poor communication it represents.

On the one hand, it's so prevalent that people almost universally know what it means. On the other, I remember when I first heard it that I was utterly baffled. For a time, I used "couldn't care less" afterwards, thinking I must have heard that. I still strive to, even though repeatedly hearing it has led me to use the more common but literally-less-strong construction.

I mean, the phrase "could care less" has a literal meaning: that it is possible to care less about the subject than you do. This does not convey a natural implication that you care very little, unless used somewhat ironically (in not-quite-the-right definition of "irony"). It works in the same sense that asking if something is, say, spicy. "It could be more spicy" does imply that it's spicy, but it could be moreso. In that vein, "I could care less," might suggest that you don't care much, but that you could be made to care less.

But the way it's commonly used? We really mean (at least figuratively), "I couldn't care less." Perhaps you're not being literal, but the meaning you wish to convey is that the amount you care is so miniscule as to not be worth considering.


But holy cow, yes, I loathe "literally" being used as a superlative. There are a few cases where that works - "I literally drove a thousand miles to be here" is rather impressive, and pointing out that you mean that literally makes it more so in comparison to using it as 'a big number to indicate you drove a lot' - but using it to simply add emphasis, "I literally drove a thousand miles to be here" when you really just mean "I drove a lot to be here, and a thousand is a big number that I'm using to suggest it was a big distance," and you're using 'literally' as either "extremely" or (worse) "practically/figuratively"...

Again, that hinders communication. It comes to mean "figuratively" because people are trying to use it when they mean "practically." (And even then, 'practically' is being misused, just not as badly, to mean 'figuratively' rather than 'it may as well have been.')


The case I've heard for the Oxford comma comes from the real-world case of a wealthy man's will. He left his fortune to be divided evenly among Child 1, Child 2, Child 3, Child 4 and Child 5. The judge ruled that the lack of the Oxford comma meant that Children 1-3 each got 25% of the money, and Children 4 and 5 had to split the last share.


Also works as an example of a punctuation nazi hurting people to prove a point. :smallwink:

Yes and no. It's impossible to be certain, without asking the deceased, if he meant to snub the last two kids. Presumably, there was litigation over it. I mean, if my Mom died and left a sudden fortune to all of my siblings and me, we would insist on splitting it evenly unless there was good reason not to. (There are good reasons, and they'd leave me and my brother who lives with me without much of an "inheritance," but we don't need it, either.) But in this case, it sounds like Children 1-3 actually made a case that that's what was meant, to grab 5% more each of the inheritance. Presumably in opposition to children 4-5 saying it meant 20% to each. With a family willing to bicker with each other over that much wealth, it's possible the father might have been playing (un)favorites. Or not. Who knows?

[ImNotTrevor]

What I'm seeing is a lot of flagrant misinterpretation and strawmanning of what Linguistics talks about with regard to Linguistic Drift.

A baby babbling is not language, so it can't experience drift.

As for words and grammar changing over timen see the Split Infinitive, which is now a debated point in English Grammar, and not a Fact-of-Truth grammar rule. That is Linguistic Drift.

There is also this bizaare idea that words only die and languages don't pick up or create new words to make up for other words losing or gaining meanings. This is also patently not true. Language does not "Decay." It changes. No language can or does encompass all possible concepts. There are words in other languages with no single-word parallel in English. If those concepts become important to talk about, English will likely end up stealing those words, or coming up with new ones.

As much as people bemoan it, we pick up words like "Frenemy" to describe new things. Use of the word "Squad" has been expanded to include a group of close friends almost always seen together with a sibling-like bond. This is not decay. It's change.

These changes happen whether we have the printing press or not. They happen whether you approve or not. They happen by Linguistic democracy, and you have as much a chance of stopping it as you have of persuading the Amazon River to flow the other way. It is better to teach a language as WHAT IT IS than to teach WHAT YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE. This crap is why foreigners struggle to learn English and it's described as breaking its own rules. Because what we teach as English and what we speak are different.

[Max_Killjoy]

As much as people bemoan it, we pick up words like "Frenemy" to describe new things. Use of the word "Squad" has been expanded to include a group of close friends almost always seen together with a sibling-like bond. This is not decay. It's change.


I would never use the word "frenemy", because it doesn't mean anything useful. There's no such thing as a "frenemy".

I would never use the word "squad" in that manner, that's not what it means.




These changes happen whether we have the printing press or not. They happen whether you approve or not. They happen by Linguistic democracy, and you have as much a chance of stopping it as you have of persuading the Amazon River to flow the other way. It is better to teach a language as WHAT IT IS than to teach WHAT YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE. This crap is why foreigners struggle to learn English and it's described as breaking its own rules. Because what we teach as English and what we speak are different.


A failure of the speakers, and not the teaching.


By your proposed standard, if you can get enough people to embrace ignorance of the difference between "they're", "their", and "there" in writing, then it suddenly becomes just fine to mangle the usage, even though the words have entirely different histories and entirely different meanings -- even though that would reduce the utility of the language by making the written form less clear and less concise.

Language is supposed to be a set of shared symbols and structures for conveying ideas, thoughts, and meaning. Mangling those symbols and structures out of laziness, ignorance, and disdain makes the language less useful. Inserting an apostrophe into pluralization isn't harmless, it obscures the intended meaning, and when used in writing, makes the sentence harder to read because context must be checked to infer what the writer intended.


"Don't split infinitives (http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/split-infinitives)" and "never end a sentence with a preposition (http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/ending-a-sentence-with-a-preposition)" were indeed rules from another language that some attempted to impose on English; even at the time they were really pushed, they had little to do with how anyone spoke or wrote the language. But that doesn't make all grammar rules meaningless or arbitrary.

The value of currency is symbolic and arbitrary -- a $100 note doesn't have anything in it that justifies what it can be exchanged for in almost any store almost anywhere in the world. And yet it would be very bad if the value of $100 notes changed in the random and silly way that common-usage language sometimes changes.

[Segev]

What I'm seeing is a lot of flagrant misinterpretation and strawmanning of what Linguistics talks about with regard to Linguistic Drift. Agreed. The trouble is, it's people defending a degradation of the usefulness of words to communicate meaning that are misinterpreting and using "linguistic drift" to mean something it isn't.


A baby babbling is not language, so it can't experience drift. Granted. But by the same token, a baby learning to say "no" when he means "yes" is also not linguistic drift; the baby is just learning the word incorrectly. My point was to demonstrate that "linguistic drift" does not mean "any way that somebody purporting to speak the language happens to feel like using it to get a point across, no matter how poor


As for words and grammar changing over timen see the Split Infinitive, which is now a debated point in English Grammar, and not a Fact-of-Truth grammar rule. That is Linguistic Drift. Sure.


There is also this bizaare idea that words only die and languages don't pick up or create new words to make up for other words losing or gaining meanings. This is also patently not true. Language does not "Decay." It changes. No language can or does encompass all possible concepts. There are words in other languages with no single-word parallel in English. If those concepts become important to talk about, English will likely end up stealing those words, or coming up with new ones.

As much as people bemoan it, we pick up words like "Frenemy" to describe new things. Use of the word "Squad" has been expanded to include a group of close friends almost always seen together with a sibling-like bond. This is not decay. It's change.

These changes happen whether we have the printing press or not. They happen whether you approve or not. They happen by Linguistic democracy, and you have as much a chance of stopping it as you have of persuading the Amazon River to flow the other way. It is better to teach a language as WHAT IT IS than to teach WHAT YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE. This crap is why foreigners struggle to learn English and it's described as breaking its own rules. Because what we teach as English and what we speak are different.
Oh, absolutely. The issue isn't with words being lost, nor with them being added. It's with them being misused in ways that are actively contrary to their definition in such a way that it hinders communication.

Teaching that "irregardless" and "regardless" are synonyms, and that "literally" means "figuratively" as well as "exactly what the words are saying" hinders understanding of language. It makes the "ir-" prefix confusing, at best, and it renders "literally" near-meaningless.

[Yuki Akuma]

"Awful" using to mean "to inspire wonder".

"Bully" used to mean "very good".

"Doom" used to mean "judgement".

"Egregious" used to mean "remarkably good".

"Garble" used to mean "to sort out/to solve".

"Hilarity" used to mean "calm joy".

"Nervous" used to mean "strong and vigorous".

"Radical" used to mean "basic" or "fundamental".

English has lots of words that now mean something entirely different from their original etymology. You're not going to stop it from happening again.

[NeXeH]

I am really curious which would be the correct format?

Please roll twenty (20) die six (6)

or

Please roll twenty (20) dice six (6)

[Yuki Akuma]

I am really curious which would be the correct format?

Please roll twenty (20) die six (6)

or

Please roll twenty (20) dice six (6)

I can't even understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying "please roll twenty six-sided dice" or "please roll six twenty-sided dice"?

Whichever one you're trying to say, that's how you say it.

[CharonsHelper]

I am really curious which would be the correct format?

Please roll twenty (20) die six (6)

or

Please roll twenty (20) dice six (6)

Both are wrong.

It would be "Please roll twenty six-sided dice.

"d6" isn't short for "die six" or "dice six" it's short for "six-sided die".

[LordCdrMilitant]

With regards to linguistic perscriptivism vs. descriptivism, I was lectured by a group of linguists last week for a few hours about it. Apparently, both are distinct and valid schools of linguistic thought, and they hate each other.

As I understand it, descrptivists are concerned with analyzing what is and why, while perscriptivists are concerned with deciding what should be. I like linguistic descriptivism better than perscriptivism, so I'm going to side with them. But, I'm an engineer, not a linguist, and I can english good enough to tell other engineers where I want my satellite to go, but that's about it.

[NeXeH]

It would be please roll twenty six-sided dice.

Thanks for clearing that up for me ;)

[hymer]

Thanks for clearing that up for me ;)

I'd be saying 'rul tyve-d-seks', but I doubt that helps you. If pressed, I'd say 'roll twenty-d-six' or possibly 'roll twenty d-sixes'.

[ImNotTrevor]

Agreed. The trouble is, it's people defending a degradation of the usefulness of words to communicate meaning that are misinterpreting and using "linguistic drift" to mean something it isn't.
That has at no point been my argued point.

What has been the argued point is that linguistic shift does occur, and stopping it is literally impossible. Secondly, words that "degrade" are replaced if their other meaning is still needed and clarity is still needed. This also is a stance that denies context as a thing.



Granted. But by the same token, a baby learning to say "no" when he means "yes" is also not linguistic drift; the baby is just learning the word incorrectly. My point was to demonstrate that "linguistic drift" does not mean "any way that somebody purporting to speak the language happens to feel like using it to get a point across, no matter how poor


That has not been anyone's argued point that I have seen. What HAS been the point is that "correct" grammar in English was and is selected arbitrarily and that the idea of their being a "correct" English grammar is silly and literally only exists because academics say so. It would be like of one day schools decided that one particular, exact shade of blue was Blue, and anyone using a different shade was not using Correct Blue.

It's exactly as silly.




Oh, absolutely. The issue isn't with words being lost, nor with them being added. It's with them being misused in ways that are actively contrary to their definition in such a way that it hinders communication.
This is a problem that is, at worst, temporary thanks to the processes you're agreeing is a thing.



Teaching that "irregardless" and "regardless" are synonyms, and that "literally" means "figuratively" as well as "exactly what the words are saying" hinders understanding of language. It makes the "ir-" prefix confusing, at best, and it renders "literally" near-meaningless.

Whatever will we do, since the rest of English is so clear and obvious.
What with the abilty to both "sanction" an action as good and impose "sanctions" as punishments
"Before" to be used to refer to things both ahead of and behind you, time-wise
"Boned" meaning both having bones, and having had the bones removed
"Mosey" means both to move quickly and to move slowly
"Original" means both plain and unchanged, as well as novel and unique.

Auto-antonyms are neither rare nor new in English. That you're watching some of them form does not make these new ones especially greivous or a different thing from the others. It's just the ones where you get to watch it happen.

And with all the words above, context informs us of which meaning is being used. The same shall be true of these words.

TL;DR
Nothing you're complaining about hasn't happened before, and it has never made English unspeakable. It's also not an exclusive problem to this language by any means. Chill.

[Mordar]

"Awful" using to mean "to inspire wonder".

"Bully" used to mean "very good".

"Doom" used to mean "judgement".

"Egregious" used to mean "remarkably good".

"Garble" used to mean "to sort out/to solve".

"Hilarity" used to mean "calm joy".

"Nervous" used to mean "strong and vigorous".

"Radical" used to mean "basic" or "fundamental".

English has lots of words that now mean something entirely different from their original etymology. You're not going to stop it from happening again.

Regina George stopped fetch from happening.

- M

[Segev]

"Awful" using to mean "to inspire wonder".

"Bully" used to mean "very good".

"Doom" used to mean "judgement".

"Egregious" used to mean "remarkably good".

"Garble" used to mean "to sort out/to solve".

"Hilarity" used to mean "calm joy".

"Nervous" used to mean "strong and vigorous".

"Radical" used to mean "basic" or "fundamental".

English has lots of words that now mean something entirely different from their original etymology. You're not going to stop it from happening again.Indeed. And with most of those, you can see clearly the old meaning in the evolved meaning.

"Awful" went from "inspiring awe (and terror)" to "synonymous with terrible," where "terrible" meant "inspiring terror," and went to mean "something very bad" because bad things inspire terror. Note how even using it with the old meaning still gets a significant portion of the intention across.

"Bully" still does mean "very good" in context, and I don't think the etymology of the term meaning "to pick on and abuse those who cannot or will not retaliate" is even related. In fact, I believe the latter is rooted in the same notion as "bull rush."

While "Doom" might have once meant "Judgment," it has always carried the connotation of "punishment" when so associated. Saying somebody is "going to his doom" when you mean "to his judgment" is probably not going to convey an incorrect meaning.

I hadn't heard those definitions of "egregious," "garble," "hilarity," "nervous," or "radical" before, though "radical" I suspect you're basing off the same reason that we call a "root" a "radical" in math. I would be interested in the etymologies of these before I would condemn them for being bad shifts that confuse communication.

If I had to guess, "radical" probably shifted because it got associated with some sort of fundamentalist movement, which was known for being extreme, and that pushed it in the direction we have today.

No idea how the others happened.

And none of it makes me want to say "sure, we should let 'literally' mean its antonym without a fight, because screw clarity in communication for this marvelous and supposedly inevitable linguistic drift."

(Note, I'm not saying linguistic drift isn't inevitable. I am saying, however, that we don't have to accept all possible options for it.)




I'm an engineer, not a linguist, and I can english good enough to tell other engineers where I want my satellite to go, but that's about it.
Nonsense. As engineers, we tell people what to do using math. Which is a language all its own.

[Segev]

Regina George stopped fetch from happening.

- M

Good. Changelings need to stop stealing people.

[ImNotTrevor]

(Note, I'm not saying linguistic drift isn't inevitable. I am saying, however, that we don't have to accept all possible options for it.)


What you do and don't accept is irrelevant to what the language will do. Linguistic democracy wins the day, always. It depends on how people decide to speak. (And you've already lost the Literally war. It's "figuratively" meaning is already in most dictionaries being published now)

[Max_Killjoy]

I just came across a perfect example of how muddled language makes communication worse / more difficult.

We received a set of questionnaires called "Pathogen Lethality Information Forms" from a potential customer. Everyone in our office read that as "how lethal are the pathogens in your product?", and we were a bit taken aback, since there are no pathogens in our product.

It wasn't until we read through the questionnaires twice that it became clear that they wanted to know about steps in the production process that are lethal to potential pathogens.

[Mordar]

What you do and don't accept is irrelevant to what the language will do. Linguistic democracy wins the day, always. It depends on how people decide to speak. (And you've already lost the Literally war. It's "figuratively" meaning is already in most dictionaries being published now)

But isn't that linguistic democracy made up of what the individuals do and don't accept? Or is there some horrible misuse of the electoral college going on here? [Yes, the irony is the electoral college would, in theory, support stopping things like the literally = not at all meant to be literal drift].

- M

[Max_Killjoy]

What you do and don't accept is irrelevant to what the language will do. Linguistic democracy wins the day, always. It depends on how people decide to speak. (And you've already lost the Literally war. It's "figuratively" meaning is already in most dictionaries being published now)

The failure of dictionary publishers to resist the rot doesn't make the meaning any more valid in any sense beyond "some people are too ignorant to know better".

[Segev]

What you do and don't accept is irrelevant to what the language will do. Linguistic democracy wins the day, always. It depends on how people decide to speak. (And you've already lost the Literally war. It's "figuratively" meaning is already in most dictionaries being published now)


The failure of dictionary publishers to resist the rot doesn't make the meaning any more valid in any sense beyond "some people are too stupid to know better".

I obviously haven't lost the war, despite there being insurgents in the dictionary-publishing business, or people wouldn't still be fighting it.

You're right, of course, that democracy is ultimately what's going to happen. That doesn't mean that people can't fight for hearts and minds by sharing erudition over etymology and meaning. It is perhaps an insidious assault by those who WANT to force a particular change to claim that it's "inevitable" and that resisting it isn't just futile, but bad behavior. This is actually a common tool in the broader culture war: "Not only is my preferred way the wave of the future, but anybody who disagrees is a bad person. I don't have to debate bad people; they're bad. You don't want to be a bad person, do you? Then don't bring up any points that might be construed as opposing my view."

[LordCdrMilitant]

Nonsense. As engineers, we tell people what to do using math. Which is a language all its own.

In a way, but not really. I don't give people the mathematics to tell them what to do, I tell people what to do with plain language, and if they ask why, math is the logical process by which I came to that course of action.

But that's besides the point.

Math is subject to descriptivist analysis as well. If perscriptivism governed how the world worked/was interpreted, then planetary orbits would be inscribed within various three-dimensional regular geometric figures, instead of moving in ellipses.

[Segev]

In a way, but not really. I don't give people the mathematics to tell them what to do, I tell people what to do with plain language, and if they ask why, math is the logical process by which I came to that course of action.

But that's besides the point.

Math is subject to descriptivist analysis as well. If perscriptivism governed how the world worked/was interpreted, then planetary orbits would be inscribed within various three-dimensional regular geometric figures, instead of moving in ellipses.

Sure, but REAL purists would insist on a 4-space static representation that completely describes the closed loop.

[Âmesang]

I never understood the term "Grammar Nazi." Wouldn't that be someone wanting to put an end to grammar? I suppose one could use "Grammar Gestapo" for its alliteration, or maybe "Grammar K.G.B.?" :smalltongue: I'd better stop before things get too dark.

Granted I've a background in website design and computer programming where syntax is often everything, and add being socially awkward on top of that I can't help but be careful about my choice of words and phrasing to make my ideas as clear and concise as possible; it's why I find language and its history rather fascinating, making The Adventure of English: 500 AD to 2000 one of my favorite documentary series.

Still, I find myself needing to relax every so often, and Stephen Fry helps with that:



https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY?rel=0



I'm sitting down, but I'm also half refrigerator, so...
On your mom's or dad's side? I understand the ice chest inheritance rites are matrilineal.
"Your mother was a snowblower!"

[Max_Killjoy]

I obviously haven't lost the war, despite there being insurgents in the dictionary-publishing business, or people wouldn't still be fighting it.

You're right, of course, that democracy is ultimately what's going to happen. That doesn't mean that people can't fight for hearts and minds by sharing erudition over etymology and meaning. It is perhaps an insidious assault by those who WANT to force a particular change to claim that it's "inevitable" and that resisting it isn't just futile, but bad behavior. This is actually a common tool in the broader culture war: "Not only is my preferred way the wave of the future, but anybody who disagrees is a bad person. I don't have to debate bad people; they're bad. You don't want to be a bad person, do you? Then don't bring up any points that might be construed as opposing my view."

Indeed.

Evidently, as with any democracy, the people who use a language end up with the quality of language that as a whole they deserve. :smallconfused:

If the people speaking a language "decide" that "apple" means "any round(ish) fruit that grows on trees", they've actively made the language less useful, and either don't have a specific word for an actual apple, or just have to invent/adopt some other word to mean the same damn thing.

[DataNinja]

It's been a while since I've been on a thread of this type, so remind me. Is it two or three pages until we're allowed to realise we're all arguing for the same thing?

I think the regulations require four pages, or three tangents. Whichever comes first.

[Yuki Akuma]

Amusingly, that's actually what apple used to mean, until people decided it just meant one fruit.

[Max_Killjoy]

Amusingly, that's actually what apple used to mean, until people decided it just meant one fruit.

Are you sure that's entirely true, and not a case of repeated back and forth drift, and borrowing?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/apple
http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2013/10/apple-linguistic-history/
https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/etymology-of-apple.2475535/

Regardless, it's entirely beside the point. Entirely.

We need a word for the "sort of thing" that we currently call apples. If the lowest common denominator of usage ruins that word we currently use, we just have to go get or invent another word for the same "sort of thing". Far better to keep using that word for that "sort of thing", and if we really need a broader word or different word to function as the verbal and written symbol for a different "sort of thing", go get or invent the new word for that.

The degradation (again, based on the lowest common denominator of usage) of "literally" was entirely unnecessary. We already had words and phrases that more precisely and accurately meant what some people ignorantly and inaccurately use "literally" for now. It muddles the language and makes the words less useful.


E: The whole "but that's how things have always been and words don't mean what they used to so it's OK if words mean something else in 50 years" argument is utter nonsense. We can't control the past, only the present and the future. For most of human existence, a plethora of infectious diseases ravaged the species. Then in the very recent past we realized that basic hygene and sanitation saved lives, and started inventing vaccines and discovering antibiotics. No one says "hey that's not how things were for 100000 years! We can't stop infectious diseases, we'd be going against the course of our entire history and prehistory as a species!" And yet when it comes to something like linguistic rot, some people act as if the limits of the past should constrain our future.

And yes, this means that I'd consider putting the brakes on linguistic rot (such as the degradation of "literally") the cultural equivalent to basic sanitation and vaccines.

[Max_Killjoy]

As an aside that actually relates to gaming and worldbuilding, it might be interesting to see a very-long-lived species with a literate culture (and thus very low language drift) interact across time and generations with humans of largely illiterate cultures (and thus higher language drift).

[Mordar]

As an aside that actually relates to gaming and worldbuilding, it might be interesting to see a very-long-lived species with a literate culture (and thus very low language drift) interact across time and generations with humans of largely illiterate cultures (and thus higher language drift).

Alternatively cultures that actively oppose outside influences on their language...

Does French suffer more or less drift as a byproduct of their policies regarding assimilation of non-French words?

- M

[CharonsHelper]

Anyone else reminded of this?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc

[LordCdrMilitant]

Anyone else reminded of this? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc

Well, as I was talking about linguistic perscriptivism and descriptivism earlier, that's perscriptivism.

I'm not going to get anywhere talking about why there's not a correct English and the likes, because that would operate on the fundamental assumption that language should be viewed and studied descripitively as opposed to perscriptively.

But, anyway:

Descriptivism is the objective study of what language is and how it is used. Scholarly research into language is done descriptively.

Perscriptivism is the defining of what language should be. Perscriptivism tends to be more prevalent in education.

Neither is strictly right or wrong, though perscriptivism is criticized by some descriptivists as being as classist or rascist view of language, and being disconnected from what language actually is. I don't know any perscriptivist linguists to provide the opposite argument, but it has been observed to me that establishing a uniform language eases communication.

Neither approach, I guess, is strictly right or wrong, and both have their uses.

[ImNotTrevor]

Are you sure that's entirely true, and not a case of repeated back and forth drift, and borrowing?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/apple
http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2013/10/apple-linguistic-history/
https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/etymology-of-apple.2475535/

Regardless, it's entirely beside the point. Entirely.

We need a word for the "sort of thing" that we currently call apples. If the lowest common denominator of usage ruins that word we currently use, we just have to go get or invent another word for the same "sort of thing". Far better to keep using that word for that "sort of thing", and if we really need a broader word or different word to function as the verbal and written symbol for a different "sort of thing", go get or invent the new word for that.

The degradation (again, based on the lowest common denominator of usage) of "literally" was entirely unnecessary. We already had words and phrases that more precisely and accurately meant what some people ignorantly and inaccurately use "literally" for now. It muddles the language and makes the words less useful.


E: The whole "but that's how things have always been and words don't mean what they used to so it's OK if words mean something else in 50 years" argument is utter nonsense. We can't control the past, only the present and the future. For most of human existence, a plethora of infectious diseases ravaged the species. Then in the very recent past we realized that basic hygene and sanitation saved lives, and started inventing vaccines and discovering antibiotics. No one says "hey that's not how things were for 100000 years! We can't stop infectious diseases, we'd be going against the course of our entire history and prehistory as a species!" And yet when it comes to something like linguistic rot, some people act as if the limits of the past should constrain our future.

And yes, this means that I'd consider putting the brakes on linguistic rot (such as the degradation of "literally") the cultural equivalent to basic sanitation and vaccines.

1. Restating Linguistic Change as "Rot" does not make it so. Wording the thing discussed in grossly overblown negative terms is cheap tactics. You'd be pissed if I referred to your position as Linguistic Stagnation, so don't pull that BS in the other direction.

2. The medical parallel is not there. No one will die of Literally gaining a definition. No empire will fall. No population will suffer. An increasingly small handful of people will be mad about it until all those people are gone and there's no one left to care. Just like what happens EVERY TIME.

3. English Grammar is built on a lie in the first place, enforcing it is stupid. It is not based on how English is actually spoken.

4. Your Pathogens example had no instance of a word being misused and was an instance of a sentence not being constructed well for its audience. Nothing more.

5. Linguistic Change is just change. Good and bad, it's all change. The creation of the word Computer is Linguistic change. The loss of pointless grammatical rules that obfuscate meaning is Linguistic Change. Literally shifting meaning in certain contexts is Linguistic Change. It happens.

6. The only way to stop Linguistic Change entirely, and I mean THE ONLY WAY, is to make sure that there is NO variation in accent or vocabulary by region, NO difference in education among any members of your society, NO difference in economic status among any members of your society and NO slang terms ever, for any reason. Why? Because these are the forces that push linguistic change. Solve those, and it will stop. Until then, you're just yelling into the void.

[mikeejimbo]

"Dices" is used, but usually involves a chef knife or butcher knife. Or a katana: "It slices; it dices; it makes french fries in three different shapes."

I could use that katana for my kitchen!

[Amphetryon]

I have had a college paper marked down for referencing the Merriam-Webster definition of a word, rather than the Oxford English Dictionary definition. We had not been given guidelines beforehand indicating this was the expectation.

Pedantry is irrelevant, until it isn't.

[Max_Killjoy]

1. Restating Linguistic Change as "Rot" does not make it so.



Ironically, by your position, it does -- words mean whatever it's convenient for them to mean, right? Purple monkey dishwater, train orange seventeen grand! :smalltongue: Postmodernism at its finest. (Edit -- see, it's contagious, I almost missed the sloppy apostrophe there...)


When people ignorantly use a word to mean the opposite of what it actually means, that's rot.

When someone wants to ask me where I live, and they say "Where you stay at?", that's rot.


I don't know where this idea that English grammar is disconnected from English-as-spoken comes from... personally, I speak in a manner quite similar to the manner in which I write.

[ImNotTrevor]

Ironically, by your position, it does -- words mean whatever it's convenient for them to mean, right? Purple monkey dishwater, train orange seventeen grand! :smalltongue: Postmodernism at its finest. (Edit -- see, it's contagious, I almost missed the sloppy apostrophe there...)
http://i.imgur.com/pUS69Lb.jpg



When people ignorantly use a word to mean the opposite of what it actually means, that's rot.
Explain Auto-Antonyms and why you have no problems with the ones that have existed for centuries.



When someone wants to ask me where I live, and they say "Where you stay at?", that's rot.


Why is the version of English you use inherently superior to all other forms as opposed to arbitrarily preferred?



I don't know where this idea that English grammar is disconnect from English-as-spoken comes from... personally, I speak in a manner quite similar to the manner in which I write.

Probably from decades of linguistic study of English from people who know more about it than either of us.

[Max_Killjoy]

There you go again, acting like words can mean whatever you want them to mean.

The definition of "strawman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)" is not "someone turned ImNotTrevor's position back against him".


Words have meaning, or they don't.


Language is a scalpel, not a sledgehammer; a tool for communication. Linguistic rot (as opposed to actual expansion to accommodate new and useful concepts) blunts the edge. Loss of precision and subtlety in meaning makes communication harder, not easier. Go back far enough, and even "English" isn't recognizable. We can stop that from happening to our writings in turn, if we use the tools that didn't exist 500 or 1000 years ago to maintain the language into the future so that it's easier for us to communicate our ideas and thoughts and concepts forward to people 500 or 1000 years from now.

Of course, that would require us to rein in the format churn and rabid planned obsolescence in storage and communication media.



Why is the version of English you use inherently superior to all other forms as opposed to arbitrarily preferred?

Your first mistake is calling "where you stay at?" English in the first place.



A language is being murdered, and your response is "That's OK, murder has always happened and always will".

[LordCdrMilitant]

Words do have meaning, but according to some linguist I was told about at dinner, there's nothing that inherently gives them that meaning.

This postulate is, however, disputed by the structures of sign language, where some signs are inherently related to their meaning.



There's no real way to win the argument except by convincing one of the parties of the validity of descriptivism versus perscriptivism, as I said before.

[Max_Killjoy]

Words do have meaning, but according to some linguist I was told about at dinner, there's nothing that inherently gives them that meaning.

This postulate is disputed by the structures of sign language, where some signs are inherently related to their meaning.



That the meanings of words are not inherent or absolute, does not require them to be arbitrary and utterly relative instead -- those who insist that it does are falling back on a false dichotomy.

Languages only work to the degree that the words and structure have shared and reliable meaning. Treating words as arbitrary and mutilation drift of the language as inevitable is directly counter to that shared and reliable meaning. There are those who say that form must follow function, but in language, the form is part of how the function is fulfilled.


Pure descriptivism would seem to lead to dadaist poetry (https://imgur.com/gallery/MvUb5aA) or the Tower of Babel.

Pure prescriptivism would seem to prevent growth and adaptation in the language even when it's actually needed to encompass legitimately new concepts and objects.

[ImNotTrevor]

There you go again, acting like words can mean whatever you want them to mean.

That is not my position.



The definition of "strawman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)" is not "someone turned ImNotTrevor's position back against him".

You are terrible at correctly identifying my position. Please try again.



Words have meaning, or they don't.

Repeating the strawman does not make it valid. Please try again.
(Ironic that you hate being informed of your position, but love to inform me of mine. Hmmm....)



Language is a scalpel, not a sledgehammer; a tool for communication. Linguistic rot (as opposed to actual expansion to accommodate new and useful concepts) blunts the edge. Loss of precision and subtlety in meaning makes communication harder, not easier. Go back far enough, and even "English" isn't recognizable. We can stop that from happening to our writings in turn, if we use the tools that didn't exist 500 or 1000 years ago to maintain the language into the future so that it's easier for us to communicate our ideas and thoughts and concepts forward to people 500 or 1000 years from now.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ce/58/b8/ce58b80f3ff6086e026bf580f0d89003.jpg
You expect to use The Internet to fix drift that is caused by things like Unequal Education, Unequal Social Status, Immigration, and Regional Variation. You don't even understand the forces at work and already think you have a panacea.



Your first mistake is calling "where you stay at?" English in the first place.

Are you telling me that there is 1 dialect of English, it has no grammatical variance based on Education, Social Status, Regional differences, or anything else? That all minor differences in grammar by region constitute a new language?

You also did not answer my question. What is it about the particular dialect you were taught that is inherently superior to all others?



A language is being murdered, and your response is "That's OK, murder has always happened and always will".

This is the single biggest overstatement I've ever seen. You think the English Language is DYING, because some people don't use some words how you want them to.

You have no actual knowledge of the subject matter at hand, and in the meanwhile are attempting to be dismissive and superior when you have no idea of what you speak. You don't even comprehend that saying Linguistix Drift is Inevitable is not the same as saying words can mean whatever we want, you don't comprehend the forces at play that CAUSE linguistic drift (namely, again, variation in Education, Social Status, Regional Dialect, and Immigration of Non-Native Speakers), and you want to cling to a gammar textbook and claim that those arbitrarily selected and (mostly) imposed rules are the One True English while people in actual England don't spell Behavior or Color or Gray the same way as you do, they don't say "Aluminum," their pronunciation os different, and their acceptable grammatical constructions are different. But no, the version of English in your Grammar textbook is The One True English, so sayeth Yonder English Teacher, and anyone who strayeth from its divinely inspired edicts seeks the death of the Sacred Tongue itself.

When you're ready to talk about my actual points, feel free to come back. Continue to misrepresent my points and I will just cease replying to you in this thread.

[ImNotTrevor]

That the meanings of words are not inherent or absolute, does not require them to be arbitrary and utterly relative instead -- those who insist that it does are falling back on a false dichotomy.

Languages only work to the degree that the words and structure have shared and reliable meaning. Treating words as arbitrary and mutilation drift of the language as inevitable is directly counter to that shared and reliable meaning. There are those who say that form must follow function, but in language, the form is part of how the function is fulfilled.


Pure descriptivism would seem to lead to dadaist poetry (https://imgur.com/gallery/MvUb5aA) or the Tower of Babel.

Pure prescriptivism would seem to prevent growth and adaptation in the language even when it's actually needed to encompass legitimately new concepts and objects.

Descriptivism is not "Words are arbitrary," indicating you don't understand the position at all.

Descriptivism in Linguistics works like this:
"Describe the language as what it is."

That would mean that when writing a Rules of English Grammar book for the first time, they would listen to English Speakers speaking English, and write down what the rules are based on what they observe. That is pure Descriptivism. A Descriptivist sees lingistic shift and goes, "Neat! Linguistic shifting! Let's write about it as it happens." Because no language has ever died of Linguistic Shift. Not even Latin.

Prescriptivism works like this:
"Write down what you think the language should be instead"
For instance: (the following literally happened)
"Oh, this English thing is becoming popular. Ok... but it's so brutish and harsh. Let's write some rules for how English SHOULD be, because we can't print laws and holy texts in such a barbaric tongue."
A prescriptivist sees linguistic shift and panics because "they're ignoring the rules we made up!"

There's your crash course.

[Yuki Akuma]

Words do have meaning, but according to some linguist I was told about at dinner, there's nothing that inherently gives them that meaning.

This postulate is, however, disputed by the structures of sign language, where some signs are inherently related to their meaning.

Sign languages are different from spoken languages. Sign languages are based on body language, which has some 'inherent' meanings that most mammals understand. Spoken languages have a few of those too (a scream is pretty easy to identify), but we humans make up a lot of random sounds for random things too.

Sign language can also be based purely on miming actions, which are fairly easy to identify if you know what the action being mimed is.

If words had inherent meanings, we'd find that the same word crops up in unrelated languages, but that hardly ever happens - when it does, it's just a random coincidence.

I would also argue that a lot of sign languages are likely to be related to each other, but I don't know enough about the subject to know for sure.

[Max_Killjoy]

That is not my position.

You are terrible at correctly identifying my position. Please try again.


When you're ready to talk about my actual points, feel free to come back.

Continue to misrepresent my points and I will just cease replying to you in this thread.


I'm basing these responses on what you're writing.

But if you want to keep spamming meme images and threatening to take your ball and go home, be my guest.




Descriptivism is not "Words are arbitrary,"


Again, "word are arbitrary" was based on what you previously wrote on the matter.




A prescriptivist sees linguistic shift and panics because "they're ignoring the rules we made up!"


Interesting way of framing the academic "factions" there. Makes the underlying bias in the presentation quite clear. Thanks.

[ImNotTrevor]

I'm basing these responses on what you're writing.

But if you want to keep spamming meme images and threatening to take your ball and go home, be my guest.

Quote me taking the exact position that words are arbitrarily defined and have no inherent agreed upon meaning.

This is IN CONTRAST to me taking the following positions:
Words are defined by "Linguistic Democracy", ie what the majority of speakers think it means and what they use it for sets the meaning.

GRAMMAR RULES as taught in schools WERE CHOSEN ARBITRARILY IN THE PAST based on a particular dialect, and this in no way invalidates or "makes wrong" any other dialect, and certainly doesn't cause people who SAY "Where you at?" to no longer be speaking English.

Those are indeed parts of my postion. Your inferrences and insistence upon informing me of my position are unneeded.




"word are arbitrary" was based on what you previously wrote on the matter.

Read more carefully.



Interesting way of framing the academic "factions" there. Makes the underlying bias in the presentation quite clear. Thanks.
That I threw in one mild dart at the very end does not mean my initial descriptions of the two are incorrect or inaccurate.

Google is your friend in corroborating what I'm saying. None of this is more than a google search away.

(Random Note on the Oxford Comma since I saw a post on it: no one argues that the Oxford Comma has no use at all, even the AP who are the biggest academic proponent, and the reason it is rare to see them used in newspapers. Proponents of dropping the Oxford Comma propose dropping it unless its absence changes the meaning of the sentence. ie:
"We brought the strippers, Lenin, and Stalin" is a very different sentence without the comma. But "We brought ketchup, mustard and relish." Doesn't change its meaning in its absence. The most severe removal of the Oxford Comma would literally just be to semicolon-ize it to a "use it when you need it for clarity" job. I have no strong stance either way, but I'm interested to see where the language goes. I don't personally think it will change in wider usage for a long, long time.)

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, as I was talking about linguistic perscriptivism and descriptivism earlier, that's perscriptivism.

I'm not going to get anywhere talking about why there's not a correct English and the likes, because that would operate on the fundamental assumption that language should be viewed and studied descripitively as opposed to perscriptively.

But, anyway:

Descriptivism is the objective study of what language is and how it is used. Scholarly research into language is done descriptively.

Perscriptivism is the defining of what language should be. Perscriptivism tends to be more prevalent in education.

Neither is strictly right or wrong, though perscriptivism is criticized by some descriptivists as being as classist or rascist view of language, and being disconnected from what language actually is. I don't know any perscriptivist linguists to provide the opposite argument, but it has been observed to me that establishing a uniform language eases communication.

Neither approach, I guess, is strictly right or wrong, and both have their uses.


Let's try another analogy... traffic laws. Drive on the X side of the road, red means stop and green means go, signal other drivers as to your intentions, wait for traffic to clear before turning, don't go faster than Y, yield when merging, etc. Historically, at the very core, they're entirely arbitrary, with a mashup of origins and modifications and adaptations. But no one calls traffic laws classist or elitist. They're necessary for us to all use the road together, and when people ignore them, it can cause serious breakdowns in the system -- the rules get bent a little, but too far, and everything breaks.

It is useful to study how people actually drive, and too strict an adherence to every last rule results in something like the self-driving cars that refuse to break the speed limit no matter how fast the flow of traffic is, actually making the traffic around them less safe as human drivers encounter a moving obstacle. However, "everyone drive however you want as long as you all get where you're going" isn't really functional, and is actively counter-productive to the actual purpose of having roads and cars, and of driving.

[Max_Killjoy]

Read more carefully.


Write more precisely.




GRAMMAR RULES as taught in schools WERE CHOSEN ARBITRARILY IN THE PAST.


Traffic laws as taught in driving schools were chosen arbitrarily in the past.

Forum rules about what can be discussed in which section and what's off limits are arbitrary, but necessary.

[Jay R]

Getting back to the intended thread:

The plural of polyhedron (tetrahedron, octahedron, etc.) is not polyhedrons (tetrahedrons, octahedrons, etc.). It is polyhedra (tetrahedra, octahedra, etc.)

How can you expect your dice to roll high for you if they know you can't handle numbers higher than one?

[ImNotTrevor]

Write more precisely.

The hypocrisy is strong.




Traffic laws as taught in driving schools were chosen arbitrarily in the past.
Traffic rules vary slightly by state. Thank you for adding to my point.

But yes, Language, like traffic laws, are decided once and henceforward by a group of people, and do not grow organically over time as large numbers of humans across the globe speak them.

So thanks to that, we know that this comparison is 100% valid.



Forum rules about what can be discussed in which section and what's off limits are arbitrary, but necessary.

And languages are also just like the rules decided on for a privately owned server on which people have a conversation: decided by a small handful of dudes, and not an emergent phenomenon when you get a bunch of humans in a community.

[AvatarVecna]

I am amused at the supposition made in this thread that the dictionary definition of a word can be ignored if it doesn't align with your linguistic opinions, almost as if those making the argument haven't considered that determining what words are worth having a set definition for and figuring out what definition for those words would best aid communication on a global scale isn't the literal job of the people writing the dictionary.

EDIT: I also find it amusing that the side insisting language is open to drift and interpretation doesn't want to accept the other side's definition of "Linguistic Rot", while the side arguing for "Linguistic Purity/Stagnation/Standards/whatever you want to call it" is justifying their use of Linguistic Rot by claiming that their usage can't be labeled incorrect unless their opponent's argument is also incorrect, and how both sides didn't seem to see how this particular aspect of the argument undermined their respective points. :smalltongue:

[Yuki Akuma]

I don't think objecting to the term "Linguistic Rot" particularly undermines any descriptivist stance. It's simply objecting to a term that's horribly loaded.

Descriptivists are allowed to say "please don't use that term, it's offensive".

[LordCdrMilitant]

Pure descriptivism would seem to lead to dadaist poetry (https://imgur.com/gallery/MvUb5aA) or the Tower of Babel.

Pure prescriptivism would seem to prevent growth and adaptation in the language even when it's actually needed to encompass legitimately new concepts and objects.

That's not correct. A Descriptivist is a researcher, and would look at a language, how it's different from another language or dialect, and record its characteristic. When it changes, he would record the properties of the change, and postulate as to the mechanisms that govern it. It's approaching the matter as a science. He would observe that people in the south speak differently from people in scotland who speak different from people in Hawaii, and then categorize the dialects by their characteristics and note the mechanisms for their similarities and differences, but explicitly not elevate one as "what should be".

Perscriptivism can also be used to force linguistic change, not just to block it. But the idea of there being a correct version of a language is a perscriptivist one, and generally considered incorrect by linguistic researchers, as I am led to understand.

[AvatarVecna]

I don't think objecting to the term "Linguistic Rot" particularly undermines any descriptivist stance. It's simply objecting to a term that's horribly loaded.

Descriptivists are allowed to say "please don't use that term, it's offensive".

The connotations the phrase carries are a simple and efficient way of communicating the users view on the Descriptivist position. I'm not saying that using it isn't offensive or that it's an appropriate way to argue, I'm just pointing out that complaining about its linguistic accuracy doesn't support the point Descriptivists make, which is how the complaint at its use in that context came across.

I'm personally in the camp of "linguistic changes are things that should be evaluated on an individual basis to determine whether they do more to aid or hinder communication rather than being collectively accepted on the ground of 'linguistic drift can't be stopped' or collectively rejected on the grounds of 'linguistic impurity is the death of communication'", and that which position is objectively correct is, at best, extremely difficult to prove to the other side.

Using 'literally' in a figurative sense has probably done more to hinder than aid, for example.

[Max_Killjoy]

The hypocrisy is strong.


Your continued devolution into sniping hollow sarcasm and personal attacks is duly noted. As is the irony of your statement.

/plonk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(Usenet)) -- again, and permanently.

[AvatarVecna]

Your continued devolution into sniping hollow sarcasm and personal attacks is is duly noted. As is the irony of your statement.

/plonk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(Usenet)) -- again, and permanently.

This sentence has repeated words and missing punctuation which, according to my understanding of prescriptive linguistics, means your sentence isn't understandable to anybody. Curious how this didn't actually prevent anybody from understanding what you're saying. :smalltongue:

[Lord Torath]

"Your mother was a snowblower!"Hah! I don't want to short-circuit this discussion, but that brought back memories! :smallbiggrin:

[Yuki Akuma]

This sentence has repeated words and missing punctuation which, according to my understanding of prescriptive linguistics, means your sentence isn't understandable to anybody. Curious how this didn't actually prevent anybody from understanding what you're saying. :smalltongue:

He skipped an optional comma and accidentally repeated "is". Really?

[Max_Killjoy]

The connotations the phrase carries are a simple and efficient way of communicating the users view on the Descriptivist position. I'm not saying that using it isn't offensive or that it's an appropriate way to argue, I'm just pointing out that complaining about its linguistic accuracy doesn't support the point Descriptivists make, which is how the complaint at its use in that context came across.


That was the same irony I spotted.

However it's likely not entirely fair to pin that on the Descriptivist position outside this thread -- it was my reaction specifically to the "words mean whatever enough people think they mean, all linguistic variations and changes are value-neutral" position being pushed by some in this thread.




I'm personally in the camp of "linguistic changes are things that should be evaluated on an individual basis to determine whether they do more to aid or hinder communication rather than being collectively accepted on the ground of 'linguistic drift can't be stopped' or collectively rejected on the grounds of 'linguistic impurity is the death of communication'", and that which position is objectively correct is, at best, extremely difficult to prove to the other side.

Using 'literally' in a figurative sense has probably done more to hinder than aid, for example.

That's closer to my actual position, despite what some of have presumed, but I probably have a significantly less charitable standard for what's a "helpful" change or variation.

[Max_Killjoy]

This sentence has repeated words and missing punctuation which, according to my understanding of prescriptive linguistics, means your sentence isn't understandable to anybody. Curious how this didn't actually prevent anybody from understanding what you're saying. :smalltongue:

I'm also doped up on allergy medicine and posting from work between inventory lookups... I'd have caught it and fixed it at some point.

[AvatarVecna]

He skipped an optional comma and accidentally repeated "is". Really?

He skipped two commas, one of which is only optional if you think the Oxford comma is optional, despite arguing earlier in the thread for the importance of the Oxford comma unless I'm misremembering, and repeated a word. These minor issues aren't a huge issue for me in understanding the post's content or the position of the poster (as that post pointed out, these errors don't actually prevent understanding, they're just minor nitpicks that would only get called out by somebody deliberately being a butt about it), but when you're arguing in a thread about the merits of Linguistic Precision in aiding communication (and how grammar/spelling/definition errors hinder communication), making errors yourself when making your point detracts from the point you're attempting to make.

As the poster in question has pointed out, we have a fairly similar stance on this issue, albeit no doubt with disagreements on the usefulness of certain changes to the language.


That was the same irony I spotted.

However it's likely not entirely fair to pin that on the Descriptivist position outside this thread -- it was my reaction specifically to the "words mean whatever enough people think they mean, all linguistic variations and changes are value-neutral" position being pushed by some in this thread.

A fair point, although I will note that your posts in this thread give the impression that your position is extreme in the other direction (that changes to the language are inherently harmful to using that language to communicate). As is usually the case in a miscommunication, this impression is in part the responsibility of both parties.


That's closer to my actual position, despite what some of have presumed, but I probably have a significantly less charitable standard for what's a "helpful" change or variation.

I imagine this is most people's actual position, and that it's their connotative definition of "helpful" in this context that varies, rather than people actually ascribing to the beliefs that changes in the language are inherently good or bad.


I'm also doped up on allergy medicine and posting from work between inventory lookups... I'd have caught it and fixed it at some point.

No worries, I'm not blaming you for it. Just one of those funny things that happens. It's not because I feel your position is necessarily inherently mockable, I just usually write these kinds of threads off as a complete waste of time except for the potential entertainment value contained within.

[Max_Killjoy]

A fair point, although I will note that your posts in this thread give the impression that your position is extreme in the other direction (that changes to the language are inherently harmful to using that language to communicate).


My position is that aimless drift is inherently bad, because it lessens the utility of the language as a tool for communicating between people, across distance and time. This doesn't mean that all change is bad. New words that genuinely broaden the useful vocabulary, cover new concepts and objects, or add more precises choices, are not aimless drift and don't generally contribute to the rot of a language.

Also, are commas -- Oxford or otherwise -- actually needed when a list only has two items?

[AvatarVecna]

My position is that aimless drift is inherently bad, because it lessens the utility of the language as a tool for communicating between people, across distance and time. This doesn't mean that all change is bad. New words that genuinely broaden the useful vocabulary, cover new concepts and objects, or add more precises choices, are not aimless drift and don't generally contribute to the rot of a language.


Also, are commas -- Oxford or otherwise -- actually needed when a list only has two items?

Ah, interesting. There was a miscommuniciation, but it wasn't due to a lack of punctuation, but due to variable definitions of words. I had presumed that 'sniping' was a separate action from 'hollow sarcasm', rather than being an adjective further describing the sarcasm in question.

Of course, this brings up the oddity of using commas to separate adjective being used to describe the same word.


Your continued devolution into sniping, hollow sarcasm, and personal attacks is duly noted.

Your continued devolution into sniping, hollow sarcasm and personal attacks is duly noted.

Your continued devolution into sniping hollow sarcasm and personal attacks is duly noted.

I saw you using the third, and assumed you had meant the first, when you actually meant the second, and the third was a generally acceptable substitute.

EDIT: sniping having definitions as a adjective and adverb makes this confusing in this context.

[Max_Killjoy]

As an aside that actually relates to gaming and worldbuilding, it might be interesting to see a very-long-lived species with a literate culture (and thus very low language drift) interact across time and generations with humans of largely illiterate cultures (and thus higher language drift).


Alternatively cultures that actively oppose outside influences on their language...

Does French suffer more or less drift as a byproduct of their policies regarding assimilation of non-French words?

- M


Probably still an interesting place to take the thread, as relates to a wide range of possible "speculative" settings.

[Delicious Taffy]

Right, I'm completely lost. The OP states that "dice" is an incorrect singular form, and suddenly everyone is arguing about linguistic drift and the death of a language. In direct response to the OP, "dice" is perfectly acceptable in certain parts of the world, such as the UK. However, I assume you were referring to people using it that way in a region in which "die" is the proper singular form, in which case, yes, sticking to the local dialect does make more sense.

[Max_Killjoy]

Ah, interesting. There was a miscommuniciation, but it wasn't due to a lack of punctuation, but due to variable definitions of words. I had presumed that 'sniping' was a separate action from 'hollow sarcasm', rather than being an adjective further describing the sarcasm in question.

Of course, this brings up the oddity of using commas to separate adjective being used to describe the same word.





I saw you using the third, and assumed you had meant the first, when you actually meant the second, and the third was a generally acceptable substitute.

EDIT: sniping having definitions as a adjective and adverb makes this confusing in this context.


When someone says "werewolf hunter", do they mean "a hunter of werewolves" or "a hunter who is a werewolf"? One of the places where English is vague.

[Yuki Akuma]

When someone says "werewolf hunter", do they mean "a hunter of werewolves" or "a hunter who is a werewolf"? One of the places where English is vague.

In spoken English you can probably tell the difference due to intonation, but in text you're out of luck.

[Max_Killjoy]

In spoken English you can probably tell the difference due to intonation, but in text you're out of luck.

I need context to tell in speech, intonation alone doesn't seem to do anything for me on those.

[RazorChain]

Alea iacta est!

[ImNotTrevor]

In spoken English you can probably tell the difference due to intonation, but in text you're out of luck.

Correct. Context is also still a thing and should help you. As with most complaints about minor drifts or vagueness, Context helps to solve the problem.

"I literally died," in a story about someone hearing a funny joke, is obviously not meant to mean someone in actuality ceased to live.

"I had literally two minutes left" in a story about being pressed for time is probably pretty close to accurate.

As I've said before, Auto-Antonyms already exists and nobody has uttered word one about them even after I brought some of them up. They are easy to google, and many have been around for centuries.

The position of Descriptivism is not that all change is beneficial to a language, nor is it that all change must be celebrated. Descriptivists understand that many of the forces pushing such drift are outside of human control. Because guess what? Someone with 4 years of college will speak and write differently and use different words from someone who only finished highschool. (Am I wrong?)
Someone who comes from a very wealthy background will speak and write differently from someone who comes from a very poor background. (Am I wrong?)
Someone who is from New York will speak and write differently from someone who is from Alabama. (Am I wrong?)
Linguistic drift starts with, and is propelled by, these inequalities of life experience.

The word Coupon has two common pronunciations:
KOO-pon
And
KYOO-pon

Guess what? Both are correct. There is regional variation. Fast forward 200 years, and Coupon's meaning might split along its different pronunciations. (Do I know it absolutely will? Nope. Has this kind of thing happened before? Yes.)

The forces at work causing Linguistic Change are far beyond the scope of having a single-step panacea. Solving Linguistic Drift is, at its core, finding a way to Homogenize human experience. I'm not going to assert whether that's a good or bad thing, but it IS an extremely tall order compared to making changes to the dictionary once per year.

[Max_Killjoy]

Alea iacta est!

+1 internet.

[Segev]

"Rot" is a good term to describe things like "literally" being used to "literally" (in the incorrect usage) mean that the language is "literally" (still incorrect) dying.


Correct. Context is also still a thing and should help you. As with most complaints about minor drifts or vagueness, Context helps to solve the problem.

"I literally died," in a story about someone hearing a funny joke, is obviously not meant to mean someone in actuality ceased to live.

"I had literally two minutes left" in a story about being pressed for time is probably pretty close to accurate. Tell me, do you advocate for people speaking like smurfs? I raise this not facetiously, but as a thought experiment. Most of the time, anybody watching a random episode of The Smurfs can tell what "smurf" means in context. Does this mean that, if I were to start speaking that way and encouraged others to do so "because it's funny" or for whatever reason people spread incorrect uses of words (e.g. that "fetch" thing that was apparently part of a movie, mentioned earlier in this thread), anybody telling me to stop it would be inherently wrong because there's no "right" way to speak?

When someone misuses words, should we always excuse it because hey, it's still possible (sometimes) to tell from context what the speaker really means? Or should we correct them, letting them know what the word actually means? When is it acceptable, since apparently daring to raise the "prescriptivist" voice is somehow sinning against linguistic evolution?

When I referred to a baby's babble accompanied by gestures that still gets across what the baby wants as "linguistic drift," others objected to my exaggeration. They didn't call it a reduction to the absurd, but that would be, I think, a fair paraphrase of the criticism. However, if we are not to tell Billy that the singular of "dice" is "die," when ARE we to correct his English? At what point is encouraging Billy to use words "correctly" no longer acceptable behavior? Should we not correct Twin Speak between siblings who have private languages but are unintelligible to others? Should we not tell little Segev that the word is pronounced "breakfast," not "breckrest?" (One of the bits of baby talk I apparently did was that little mispronunciation.) I mean, surely everybody could understand me when I said it was "breckrest time" in the morning and was asking for food. That lovely linguistic drift has been slain by my cruel parents, however, who eventually decided it wasn't cute enough to avoid correcting anymore. Those monsters. If only they'd realized that the way I was using it was understandable, and thus correcting it was wrong of them!


As I've said before, Auto-Antonyms already exists and nobody has uttered word one about them even after I brought some of them up. They are easy to google, and many have been around for centuries. "I mentioned they exist, and nobody did research to find them and dispute me, so obviously everybody who disagrees with me is wrong, even though I didn't bother to support my point after asserting it."

ImNotTrevor, I expect better from you. If you did list some, I did not see it, unless you're the one to whom I replied and to which my reply got no reply.

I never denied drift happens. Nor that words whose meanings have flipped over the centuries are hard to comprehend today. However, "it's happened before to the point where it's no longer confusing" is no reason to argue that it must be allowed to happen now when it creates confusion.

"The black plague wasn't so bad; we've totally recovered from it by now and nobody suffers from the leftover effects anymore," is not a good argument for why we should allow a new plague - say the "white plague" - to ravage our populace unchecked.


The position of Descriptivism is not that all change is beneficial to a language, nor is it that all change must be celebrated. Descriptivists understand that many of the forces pushing such drift are outside of human control. Because guess what? Someone with 4 years of college will speak and write differently and use different words from someone who only finished highschool. (Am I wrong?)
Someone who comes from a very wealthy background will speak and write differently from someone who comes from a very poor background. (Am I wrong?)
Someone who is from New York will speak and write differently from someone who is from Alabama. (Am I wrong?)
Linguistic drift starts with, and is propelled by, these inequalities of life experience. ...and? That somehow means that people who don't know the meaning of the words they're using incorrectly shouldn't be informed what they're saying, nor how to say it properly according to historical and contemporary definitions, because their misuse of it is prevalent enough that it might one day become the new contemporary definition? No effort at clarifying confusing speech should be made?

Again, at what point is it acceptable to smurf somebody that they're using a word wrong, as long as you can smurf it from context?


The word Coupon has two common pronunciations:
KOO-pon
And
KYOO-pon

Guess what? Both are correct. There is regional variation. Fast forward 200 years, and Coupon's meaning might split along its different pronunciations. (Do I know it absolutely will? Nope. Has this kind of thing happened before? Yes.)And if it does, prescriptivists aren't going to lynch people over it.

That's words gaining and/or evolving meanings.

The objection is to words being used flat-out wrong, when there are correct words for the concepts they're intending to convey, and the words they're smurfing convey the wrong concept to anybody who smurfs what the word means.

My objection to the attitude being stricken by those espousing descriptivism in this thread is that they're getting aggressively offended that people might dare point out that words have particular meanings, and trying to prevent confusion from spreading due to a growth of a conflicting meaning for the word.


The forces at work causing Linguistic Change are far beyond the scope of having a single-step panacea. Solving Linguistic Drift is, at its core, finding a way to Homogenize human experience. I'm not going to assert whether that's a good or bad thing, but it IS an extremely tall order compared to making changes to the dictionary once per year."It's such a big problem that anybody trying to solve it is in the wrong," is what this seems to be advocating, considering the rest of the context of this thread.

And, if that's not what you meant to smurf, perhaps context alone is not sufficient for clarity, and we should strive to preserve words with specific meanings and encourage use of other words that better convey the smurfs people want to say, rather than smiling sagely and nodding at the way language is drifting.


(Random Note on the Oxford Comma since I saw a post on it: no one argues that the Oxford Comma has no use at all, even the AP who are the biggest academic proponent, and the reason it is rare to see them used in newspapers. Proponents of dropping the Oxford Comma propose dropping it unless its absence changes the meaning of the sentence. ie:
"We brought the strippers, Lenin, and Stalin" is a very different sentence without the comma. But "We brought ketchup, mustard and relish." Doesn't change its meaning in its absence. The most severe removal of the Oxford Comma would literally just be to semicolon-ize it to a "use it when you need it for clarity" job. I have no strong stance either way, but I'm interested to see where the language goes. I don't personally think it will change in wider usage for a long, long time.)To me, I just don't get why there's so much resistance to its use. When present, it doesn't hinder understanding of sentences which arguably don't need it. And, at least in my experience, it also more accurately reflects the pattern of speech used by those actually uttering such sentences.


Alea iacta est!Ia ia to you, too, my good f'taghn!

[JBPuffin]

Ah, a thread related to my true academic interests and future profession! Whoo-hoo!

OP - Totally. It endlessly frustrates me when certain individuals, those aware of the rules, ignore them consistently, ie. a gamer or gamer-adjunct saying "use this six-sided dice." Grr.

It's possible, and indeed likely, however, that we stand at a crossroads of the English language's development we've yet to observe because we cannot see any current significance. That's how history works. Eventually, "literally" may be replaced by "for real" in common American/British speech, but for now, we're stuck in the middle of this awfully inconvenient transition. And yes, I do say transition with the hope that, consensually, English speakers will decide to severe one of the two meanings and return some means of distinction, regardless of which definition wins. Ambiguity is the enemy, not necessarily the usages themselves.

I have to say, though, I speak with great ambiguity without the need for such contradictory configurations of conflation and congruency. I use oversized words inappropriately and audaciously; I abuse unusual and sometimes incorrect grammatical constructions, to the point where the most common complaints I receive are, "This sounds pretentious" or "WTF does this mean"; and, perhaps most dangerously, I write sentences in my own inflectional mode and let other people parse them out, which usually means the words I write and the words I mean have drastically different connotations. Blame the Asperger's, blame Penny Arcade, blame my father being too smart for his and my own good - whatever the reason, I use English idiosyncratically, consequences be damned. So, while I agree with Segev and MaxKilljoy, and identify proudly as a prescriptivist (because some of these are plagues on English, colloquial or otherwise), I can understand accepting grammatical and syntactical errors and expect the common populace to do so. Why shouldn't they? But, when I remember, I do my best not to join in, because I do believe that the English I want to speak is different from that spoken from those of my peers with, in some cases at most, the linguistics skills of a teenager.

TL;DR - Simply understanding why language decay and drift happens does not mean I have to accept it, tolerate it in the modern doctrinal style of "you must support everything I do in the name of this cause!", or otherwise endorse the appropriation of words in a fashion I disprove of.

Admittedly, I'm also trying to design a language of my own, and plan on learning several other languages before my eventual death, so if push comes to shove, I can just stop speaking English if need be. Es ist mir egal.

[Max_Killjoy]

Interesting, an academic and (nascent) professional linguist who doesn't spit on the prescriptive position... :smallwink:



TL;DR - Simply understanding why language decay and drift happens does not mean I have to accept it, tolerate it in the modern doctrinal style of "you must support everything I do in the name of this cause!", or otherwise endorse the appropriation of words in a fashion I disprove of.


So very true, and it ties in with this:


I never denied drift happens. Nor that words whose meanings have flipped over the centuries are hard to comprehend today. However, "it's happened before to the point where it's no longer confusing" is no reason to argue that it must be allowed to happen now when it creates confusion.

"The black plague wasn't so bad; we've totally recovered from it by now and nobody suffers from the leftover effects anymore," is not a good argument for why we should allow a new plague - say the "white plague" - to ravage our populace unchecked.


Understanding that a phenomenon has previously occurred, and why it has previously occurred, should not leave us helpless to decide for ourselves whether it should continue to occur.

And we should never be afraid of "should".


Something else I noticed in this discussions is a presumption on the part of certain posters that someone who even favors the prescriptive side of the debate
must by default:

* be part of a monolithic block that whole-heartedly endorses every last grammatical rule no matter how obscure or artificial (that is, anyone who endorses "standard English" must without variation endorse "don't split infinitives" and "never end with a preposition", and cannot waver).

* be somehow on a lower plane of understanding and sophistication on all matters linguistic.

As soon as I was called out as "prescriptivist", the existence of specific rules that even prescriptivist grammarians for the most part chuckle at was immediately thrown in my face as "proof" of how "stupid" prescriptivism is.

[Lord Torath]

In a timely coincidence, Terry Gross interviewed Kory Stamper (Associate Editor at Mirriam-Webster) today on Fresh Aire (http://www.npr.org/2017/04/19/524618639/from-f-bomb-to-photobomb-how-the-dictionary-keeps-up-with-english). Among other things, I learned that, in the original Latin, you couldn't split an infinitive (they were single words). One of the properties of English is that infinitives are two words, and so they can be split.

[Segev]

In a timely coincidence, Terry Gross interviewed Kory Stamper (Associate Editor at Mirriam-Webster) today on Fresh Aire (http://www.npr.org/2017/04/19/524618639/from-f-bomb-to-photobomb-how-the-dictionary-keeps-up-with-english). Among other things, I learned that, in the original Latin, you couldn't split an infinitive (they were single words). One of the properties of English is that infinitives are two words, and so they can be split.

While there might be other languages where that is the case, English is the only one I know of. Though admittedly, I've only really studied Spanish. My Japanese is good enough to pick out words, but not to actually conjugate.

[Max_Killjoy]

In a timely coincidence, Terry Gross interviewed Kory Stamper (Associate Editor at Mirriam-Webster) today on Fresh Aire (http://www.npr.org/2017/04/19/524618639/from-f-bomb-to-photobomb-how-the-dictionary-keeps-up-with-english). Among other things, I learned that, in the original Latin, you couldn't split an infinitive (they were single words). One of the properties of English is that infinitives are two words, and so they can be split.

As far as I know, the impossibility of split infinitives in Latin is actually part of why, in the past, some pushed so hard for the artificial restriction as a rule of English grammar -- they loved Latin and thought English should be as much like Latin as possible.

[Delicious Taffy]

Man, Latin fanboys ruin everything. Maybe there's a good reason it's always used as the go-to "evil incantation" language.

[Squiddish]

Man, Latin fanboys ruin everything. Maybe there's a good reason it's always used as the go-to "evil incantation" language.

He's on to us...

Oops. Sorry, I meant to say that Latin is a language with a number of legitimate applications beyond evil chanting, and I am both shocked and saddened by your accusation.

As for current ongoing grammar debate, I leave this.

https://xkcd.com/1735/

[AvatarVecna]

As far as specific examples go, I feel using literally in the figurative sense cam be acceptable for the purposes of enhancing/emphasizing an existing hyperbole (since it will still be understood that the setence is hyperbolic even with the word 'literally' present), but is just confusing outside of such a context. I can certainly understand why that would irk some people, though.

[AvatarVecna]

He's on to us...

Oops. Sorry, I meant to say that Latin is a language with a number of legitimate applications beyond evil chanting, and I am both shocked and saddened by your accusation.

As for current ongoing grammar debate, I leave this.

https://xkcd.com/1735/

And here I was hoping this was a link to the "in 500 years, the slang of the past 400 years will all sound equally old-timey" comic.

[Squiddish]

And here I was hoping this was a link to the "in 500 years, the slang of the past 400 years will all sound equally old-timey" comic.

Oh, wow, I almost forgot that one.

[ImNotTrevor]

"Rot" is a good term to describe things like "literally" being used to "literally" (in the incorrect usage) mean that the language is "literally" (still incorrect) dying.

This is where I get to introduce the expansion of my position while also getting to be smug because a Usage Dictionary (the guys who tell you how words are used) are A-ok with it outside of formal contexts:
"In its standard use literally means ‘in a literal sense, as opposed to a non-literal or exaggerated sense’, as for example in I told him I never wanted to see him again, but I didn't expect him to take it literally. In recent years an extended use of literally (and also literal) has become very common, where literally (or literal) is used deliberately in non-literal contexts, for added effect, as in they bought the car and literally ran it into the ground. This use can lead to unintentional humorous effects (we were literally killing ourselves laughing) and is not acceptable in formal contexts, though it is widespread"
-Oxford English Dictionary



Tell me, do you advocate for people speaking like smurfs? I raise this not facetiously, but as a thought experiment. Most of the time, anybody watching a random episode of The Smurfs can tell what "smurf" means in context. Does this mean that, if I were to start speaking that way and encouraged others to do so "because it's funny" or for whatever reason people spread incorrect uses of words (e.g. that "fetch" thing that was apparently part of a movie, mentioned earlier in this thread), anybody telling me to stop it would be inherently wrong because there's no "right" way to speak?

Here is where I introduce a new concept that will likely blow your mind:

Linguistic Ettiquette.

It is essentially the Linguistic version of "When in rome" or the two-word version of "write/speak for the intended audience."

If you're joking, in a format suited to such jokes, then yes. They are incorrect to correct you. Especially when the social context allows it.

If you are at a Formal Event, you need to play by THEIR rules. And probably avoid using it. Where you go wrong is in two directions:

Firstly, that because using a word "incorrectly" is possible in some instances, it is incorrect in all instances.

Secondly, that because someone says linguistic drift is as stoppable as continental drift they extend it to mean all rules should go out the window.

Neither is true.



When someone misuses words, should we always excuse it because hey, it's still possible (sometimes) to tell from context what the speaker really means?

Let the context of the situation be your guide. If I'm in a rodeo in Texas, and I say "Howdy," am I speaking appropriately to the audience?

If I'm in a New York Board Meeting and I say "Howdy?" am I speaking appropriately for the audience?



Or should we correct them, letting them know what the word actually means? When is it acceptable, since apparently daring to raise the "prescriptivist" voice is somehow sinning against linguistic evolution?

Let context, as always, be your guide.
Correcting a guy who's clearly being facetious in his use of Literally when he obviously doesn't mean it and the context is casual is having a stick up your butt. Someone doing the same in a research paper or formal speech should be corrected, because it is inappropriate for the context.



When I referred to a baby's babble accompanied by gestures that still gets across what the baby wants as "linguistic drift," others objected to my exaggeration. They didn't call it a reduction to the absurd, but that would be, I think, a fair paraphrase of the criticism. However, if we are not to tell Billy that the singular of "dice" is "die," when ARE we to correct his English? At what point is encouraging Billy to use words "correctly" no longer acceptable behavior? Should we not correct Twin Speak between siblings who have private languages but are unintelligible to others? Should we not tell little Segev that the word is pronounced "breakfast," not "breckrest?" (One of the bits of baby talk I apparently did was that little mispronunciation.)
Funnily enough, mispronunciation in children often fixes itself without teaching because your brain is programmed to learn language. Speech impediments aside, of course.

And of course, on a casual internet forum where the whole Die vs. Dice issue is likely tangential to Billy's point, it probably isn't worth spending the time unless it is apparent that they want to learn it correctly.



I mean, surely everybody could understand me when I said it was "breckrest time" in the morning and was asking for food. That lovely linguistic drift has been slain by my cruel parents, however, who eventually decided it wasn't cute enough to avoid correcting anymore. Those monsters. If only they'd realized that the way I was using it was understandable, and thus correcting it was wrong of them!
EDIT: whoops. Long day on the psych ward.

Are you sure they actively corrected you or that you just stopped? I'm guessing the latter is more likely. That's how it goes for most young kids.



"I mentioned they exist, and nobody did research to find them and dispute me, so obviously everybody who disagrees with me is wrong, even though I didn't bother to support my point after asserting it."

ImNotTrevor, I expect better from you. If you did list some, I did not see it, unless you're the one to whom I replied and to which my reply got no reply.
I replied to you and/or Max and listed several. That this was unread is not really my problem.

Also, please do not put words in my mouth. The MOST I said was that nobody had addressed that point. That's it. Just as you expect me not to make an assertion like that, I expect you to pay enough attention to note that I never made the second step in that chain.

Saying the point is unaddressed is not the same as saying those not addressing it are therefore wrong.



I never denied drift happens. Nor that words whose meanings have flipped over the centuries are hard to comprehend today. However, "it's happened before to the point where it's no longer confusing" is no reason to argue that it must be allowed to happen now when it creates confusion.

What is the inherent difference between those situations and this one that makes the fight over Literally comparable to PLAGUES and GLOBAL SUFFERING? As opposed to an argument about not liking how some people use a word?

What is it that makes this particular word the one where the line in the sand must be drawn, facetious use and situational context be damned, there is only one way to ever use this word.



"The black plague wasn't so bad; we've totally recovered from it by now and nobody suffers from the leftover effects anymore," is not a good argument for why we should allow a new plague - say the "white plague" - to ravage our populace unchecked.
So many people die from misuse of Dice and Literally. You're right. Comparing a plague that killed millions to an argument about a word is apt and appropriate, and in no way trivializes human suffering.
OR
This is overblown Appeal to Fear nonsense that I reject out-of-hand.

For a more accurate comparison you'd be looking at:
"Santa Claus wore a green cloak for many years, but then began moving towards the modern red suit in the past, causing multiple depictions of Santa Claus to exist at the same time, possibly confusing some children. Based on this, why would we not stop the trend of replacing the white-fur Easter Bunny with a blonde-fur Easter Bunny?"
That's a bit closer.



...and? That somehow means that people who don't know the meaning of the words they're using incorrectly shouldn't be informed what they're saying, nor how to say it properly according to historical and contemporary definitions, because their misuse of it is prevalent enough that it might one day become the new contemporary definition? No effort at clarifying confusing speech should be made?
Within the correct contexts, yes. Play by all contextually appropriate rules. Walking up to your best friend and saying "My most sincere greetings to you my beloved friend" (to be somewhat exaggerated) is likely going to be weirder than saying "Wassup, dude?" Thanks to context.

Unless, I suppose, you never use slange or shortened speech such as "wassup," or "ain't" (the latter of which has been a recognized word for decades now, while also still being frowned upon in formal use. Weird how both can be true.)



Again, at what point is it acceptable to smurf somebody that they're using a word wrong, as long as you can smurf it from context?
Let context be yoir guide~~~

(Situational context, here)



And if it does, prescriptivists aren't going to lynch people over it.
No, but if they don't we will suffer Black-plague levels of suffering!

Or people will be minorly inconvenienced by one word until this slang usage moves out of popularity just like Groovy and Epic did.



That's words gaining and/or evolving meanings.

Which is totally different from Literally gaining the meaning of "Figuratively, when used facetiously."

Which isn't a word gaining a meaning. It's a word gaining a meaning.
Totally different.



The objection is to words being used flat-out wrong, when there are correct words for the concepts they're intending to convey, and the words they're smurfing convey the wrong concept to anybody who smurfs what the word means.

How dare they use Literally in a figurative and exaggerated sense! What untold, plague-like suffering awaits us! (Yes, I'm still harping on how utterly absurd that comparison is.)

Are we also banning Sarcasm, in which an entire sentence is used to convey its opposite? (Obviously not.)



My objection to the attitude being stricken by those espousing descriptivism in this thread is that they're getting aggressively offended that people might dare point out that words have particular meanings, and trying to prevent confusion from spreading due to a growth of a conflicting meaning for the word.

Point it out all you want. I'm not offended, I just think it's a waste of time.



"It's such a big problem that anybody trying to solve it is in the wrong," is what this seems to be advocating, considering the rest of the context of this thread.
Not wrong. Wasting their time. There's a difference.



And, if that's not what you meant to smurf, perhaps context alone is not sufficient for clarity, and we should strive to preserve words with specific meanings and encourage use of other words that better convey the smurfs people want to say, rather than smiling sagely and nodding at the way language is drifting.

If you think Descriptivists don't also seek to point out these growing meanings to make people aware of potential confusion without saying one version is wrong and will bring about nogoodverybadtimes, you don't understand the position. Pointing out a point of conflicting Usage for the benefit of speakers seeking to cater to their audiences accomplishes a similar task without also being smug and judgemental about it.

"Ohey, in this context that might be confusing. Is that your intent?" Is more pleasant than "You're using that word wrong."

Unfortunately it takes more words and, if I wanted to be needlessly biting, I'd bring up some bit about how the first doesn't let you feel superior. But I don't think that is a conscious intent of you in particular.




To me, I just don't get why there's so much resistance to its use. When present, it doesn't hinder understanding of sentences which arguably don't need it. And, at least in my experience, it also more accurately reflects the pattern of speech used by those actually uttering such sentences.

Again, I have no strong feelings one way or another. I see the argument for both but I still use it out of habit.


As a further clarification just in case:
Linguistic Etiquette is not prescriptive. It doesn't inform you what rules to use. It encourages you to observe and know the rules of your social context prior to choosing your words.

Saying "y'all" at the rodeo is OK, because everyone around you is saying it, it fits the dialect, and you will be understood by your audience.

Pronouncing "New Orleans" as "Nawlins" in Louisiana is OK because that's common. Doing so in New York won't communicate the intended idea, so don't use it.

Using very precise, heavily edited grammar and vocabulary when writing an essay is a good idea. Doing so when you're at the sports bar with friends would be weird, unless all your friends are English Professors.

So should you not learn "proper" grammar? No. To be successful you need to learn to speak "Academic English."
Ever read a Law? Legal documents use their own dialect. As do scientific papers. (Source: Usage dictionaries talk about various grammatical constructions being more or less OK between formal, scientific, and Legal documents whenever it applies)

Does that mean that therefore Academic English is The One True Right English? Pffft, no.

Does it mean it is rhe Gilded God that determines how all things must be written? Any Usage dictionary will say No. The reason MLA, Chicago, and AP style guides all exist is because even the academics don't agree.

The idea that it is up to the brave few to uphold the One True Right English while even the people supposedly responsible for establishing the One True Right English can't agree is incredibly funny to me.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Marvy. Fab. Far out.

[BayardSPSR]

Alternatively cultures that actively oppose outside influences on their language...

Does French suffer more or less drift as a byproduct of their policies regarding assimilation of non-French words?

- M

Empirically more, because the enforcement of French-origin words is in response to "non-French words" that have already assimilated, rather than to preempt the possible assimilation of "non-French" words?

Irregardless, I'd rather roll a dice than quibble over grammar.

Since I've only been skimming the thread: has the class issue come up yet? That is, the fact (I think it's safe to say fact) that prescriptivism consistently prescribes the highest-status version of the language it's describing (within a given region)?

[Delicious Taffy]

This was somewhat entertaining at first, but now it's just gotten grating. Nobody is arguing any of the points being refuted, at this point, so far as I can tell. Maybe if the primary actors would shut the hell up and explain themselves clearly*, this could be resolved in a reasonable manner. The closest I've come to understanding the conflict is that one person is saying that dialects exist, and the other is saying there are still basic rules to follow. If this is the case, then there's no reason to continue, because it's gotten nasty, and the two points aren't contradictory in the first place. Having general rules and guidelines does not remove the legitimacy of a dialect, and having a dialect does not remove the legitimacy of having general rules and guidelines. In the end, conveying a concept is the point of a language, and if you can understand someone well enough, clarification is fine on what you missed, but lecturing them on how improper their language is? Well, that's just called being an overly-pedantic *******. Just admit you're both generally right, forget the worthless little quibbles that have caused pointless tangents, and make out already.


*To everyone else, not yourselves. It doesn't matter how well you understand what you mean if nobody else does.

[ImNotTrevor]

This was somewhat entertaining at first, but now it's just gotten grating. Nobody is arguing any of the points being refuted, at this point, so far as I can tell. Maybe if the primary actors would shut the hell up and explain themselves clearly*, this could be resolved in a reasonable manner. The closest I've come to understanding the conflict is that one person is saying that dialects exist, and the other is saying there are still basic rules to follow. If this is the case, then there's no reason to continue, because it's gotten nasty, and the two points aren't contradictory in the first place. Having general rules and guidelines does not remove the legitimacy of a dialect, and having a dialect does not remove the legitimacy of having general rules and guidelines. In the end, conveying a concept is the point of a language, and if you can understand someone well enough, clarification is fine on what you missed, but lecturing them on how improper their language is? Well, that's just called being an overly-pedantic *******. Just admit you're both generally right, forget the worthless little quibbles that have caused pointless tangents, and make out already.


*To everyone else, not yourselves. It doesn't matter how well you understand what you mean if nobody else does.

This is why I brought up Linguistic Etiquette, since it is, in my mind, the optimal approach.

When in Rome, etc.

Y'all is OK in Texas, even if not in New York. AND, when in New York, cut back on its use. But in Texas, go nuts. If you tell a Texan talking to Texans that Y'all is wrong, you're being pedantic and an A-hole. If you're telling a New Yorker that (I apologize for this) "badabing, badaboom" are not words, you're being a butt. (And so am I for doing that. I honestly couldn't think of the inverse otherwise.)


And in response to a previous post, yes. Prescriptivism does lean heavily towards "The way rich educated people do it is the right way. We know because they're rich and educated and they say so." Not explicitly so, but it's creepily close.
(For clarity, I don't think anyone here is of that particular stance, mostly out of not really knowing anything other than very summarized bits of the tips of the icebergs of the two general schools of thought, so I don't really think most of the people bringing dogs to the fight and throwing in with either side actually know all that much about the sides themselves)

[hymer]

Marvy. Fab. Far out.

That's totally spam. Lubricated! I'm phasing.

[Max_Killjoy]

Empirically more, because the enforcement of French-origin words is in response to "non-French words" that have already assimilated, rather than to preempt the possible assimilation of "non-French" words?

Irregardless, I'd rather roll a dice than quibble over grammar.

Since I've only been skimming the thread: has the class issue come up yet? That is, the fact (I think it's safe to say fact) that prescriptivism consistently prescribes the highest-status version of the language it's describing (within a given region)?

At least in the US, there really isn't a "dialect of the wealthy and elite" any more. There used to be an "aristocratic Northeast" dialect/accent (listen to speeches by Franklin Roosevelt and some of his peers), but that's largely faded since. In part due to the the anti-intellectual underbelly of American culture, people are just as easily judged for being "too proper" in their manner of speech. In fact, some American politicians are encouraged by their advisors to dumb-down their vocabulary in order to avoid "alienating" or "offending" the electorate.

Listen to the richest Americans today, and you'll hear broad sample and blend of American dialects, clustering around "television American" / General American English. It's a broad blend of "de-regionalized" American English that's descended at least as much on what a farmer in Wisconsin or a store clerk in industrial Ohio grew up speaking as it is on what a fourth-generation multi-millionaire in the Northeast might sound like.


Of interest to me due to my location is this -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Cities_Vowel_Shift -- which I have found to be fascinating because it in no way at all reflects how I speak despite living in SW Michigan my entire life.

[Segev]

Man, Latin fanboys ruin everything. Maybe there's a good reason it's always used as the go-to "evil incantation" language.Interestingly, Anime will often use Engrish or Gelman for its "spellcasting" language.


As far as specific examples go, I feel using literally in the figurative sense cam be acceptable for the purposes of enhancing/emphasizing an existing hyperbole (since it will still be understood that the setence is hyperbolic even with the word 'literally' present), but is just confusing outside of such a context. I can certainly understand why that would irk some people, though.I disagree. It's one thing for a word to stretch from its original meaning based on usage to encompass another, related meaning, or even an unrelated one. When the word can literally mean two opposite concepts, that is a problem. Especially when no, you cannot guarantee that the context will let you know which is intended.

"He literally drove that car into the ground!" What is meant here? Is he saying "he drove that car into the ground" in the metaphorical sense, but with added emphasis, or is he saying that the guy crashed the car into a steep hill or other representation of the ground? The fact that this dual-and-opposite meaning for "literally" leads to - at best - having to ask for clarification when it's used because it's not possible to tell from context makes the utterance of more than half the phrases using it a waste of breath. At worst, it makes people who think they know what the word means (whether they're right or not) assume one meaning when the other was meant, leading to "amusing" misunderstandings.

"She literally fed me poison!"

Should somebody be taking me to the hospital and calling the police, or am I just warning them away from her awful cooking? Doubly problematic if I'm showing signs of intestinal distress.


This is where I get to introduce the expansion of my position while also getting to be smug because a Usage Dictionary (the guys who tell you how words are used) are A-ok with it outside of formal contexts:
"In its standard use literally means ‘in a literal sense, as opposed to a non-literal or exaggerated sense’, as for example in I told him I never wanted to see him again, but I didn't expect him to take it literally. In recent years an extended use of literally (and also literal) has become very common, where literally (or literal) is used deliberately in non-literal contexts, for added effect, as in they bought the car and literally ran it into the ground. This use can lead to unintentional humorous effects (we were literally killing ourselves laughing) and is not acceptable in formal contexts, though it is widespread"
-Oxford English DictionaryFrankly, it's not something that should go uncorrected even outside "formal" contexts. About the only time it's really acceptable is in parody. Again, because this particular usage muddles meaning even within context, since the original meaning is intended to disambiguate figurative hyperbole from literal denotation.


Here is where I introduce a new concept that will likely blow your mind:

Linguistic Ettiquette.

It is essentially the Linguistic version of "When in rome" or the two-word version of "write/speak for the intended audience."

If you're joking, in a format suited to such jokes, then yes. They are incorrect to correct you. Especially when the social context allows it.

(...)

Let the context of the situation be your guide. If I'm in a rodeo in Texas, and I say "Howdy," am I speaking appropriately to the audience?

If I'm in a New York Board Meeting and I say "Howdy?" am I speaking appropriately for the audience?I'm going to trim a lot of your post, not because I didn't read it, but in an attempt to be brief. I'll fail at that attempt anyway, but I'm going to make the effort. I apologize if you think I've missed something important.

Here, I don't disagree. This concept doesn't "blow my mind" at all. The fact you think it does is mildly insulting, but I don't think you mean it that way, so I won't take offense. You bring up "howdy" and "y'all" repeatedly. No, I have no problem with those words. I am aware of "howdy"'s etymology, and what it means now, and it's fine as a dialectic greeting. I, at least, am not speaking against dialects. "Y'all" isn't even a problem in formal grammar; it's a perfectly legal contraction for "you all." Some might quibble over its common use as a singular, but if you're talking to one person, "all" of him is still one person.

Later, you also bring up "ain't" and suggest I might use such in conversation. I do not. The only time I use it is in parody, because it bothers me that it's a non-contraction, non-possessive that we spell with an apostrophe. If you want to invent a new word, go ahead and do so. But heavens, please don't take one of our already mildly confusing written symbols and make it even more so. Spell it "aint" if you really, really must. I'd prefer you didn't; I dislike the word. But I won't dispute that it's valid linguistic drift. Just annoying.



Let context, as always, be your guide.
Correcting a guy who's clearly being facetious in his use of Literally when he obviously doesn't mean it and the context is casual is having a stick up your butt. Someone doing the same in a research paper or formal speech should be corrected, because it is inappropriate for the context. The trouble is that "clearly being facetious" - unless you mean he's mocking the improper use of "literally" by demonstration - is often very hard to tell. Short of "I literally died" style expressions, where the lie is put to the adverb by simply seeing that he's there speaking it, the fact that the only reason to correctly use "literally" is to disambiguate from when you're engaging in figurative hyperbole to when you actually mean the exact definition of what you're saying, means that it is often not possible to tell.

And, even when you can take a pretty solid guess that they don't mean "literally" literally (godlings, if that very construction doesn't illustrate the problem...), you're left with the problem that you're now forced to assume that the one time you should really be asking, "wait, do you ACTUALLY mean that, or was that - I really hope - figurative?" is figurative, because the word that should have clarified it by its use is being used to exaggerate the hyperbole.

"Donald Trump literally screwed Hillary Clinton out of the Presidency," has an entirely different and more horrifying meaning if 'literally' is used correctly. We only know it's (thankfully) figurative because we have no reason to expect that Trump and Clinton had any sort of sexual encounter, nor that the process is what cost her the election. But that choice of words should make people stop and double-take, because if somebody had some new, breaking story that was actually about that, that is the phrasing one would use to disambiguate it from the colloquial meaning.


Funnily enough, mispronunciation in children often fixes itself without teaching because your brain is programmed to learn language. Speech impediments aside, of course. Often, but not always. Especially when it's very close.



Are you sure they actively corrected you or that you just stopped? I'm guessing the latter is more likely. That's how it goes for most young kids. They actually corrected me. It was close enough that my brain did an audio equivalent of what yuors deos wehn you raed tihs setnence: it heard enough of the sounds to translate to the concept and didn't filter that others were pronouncing that middle bit slightly differently. (It's noteworthy that, at least where I'm from and every place I've lived, people pronounce "breakfast" as if the first syllable rhymed with "wreck," rather than "ache," despite the root word being "break." Also, the second syllable is glossed over in the vowel sound, so it could just as easily be a rapidly-pronounced "fist," "fast," or "fest." "Fist" is probably closest in pronunciation, but it's really just a slur over the vowel sound that's more like "f'st.")


I replied to you and/or Max and listed several. That this was unread is not really my problem. Please, provide them again. I can't seem to find the post with them in this monstrous thread.


Saying the point is unaddressed is not the same as saying those not addressing it are therefore wrong. I'll accept that you mean this, but generally if somebody says, "Hey, nobody addressed this point that would seem to counter their position," they mean it as an insinuation that the point was deliberately ignored because the opposing side knew they were unable to answer it.



What is the inherent difference between those situations and this one that makes the fight over Literally comparable to PLAGUES and GLOBAL SUFFERING? As opposed to an argument about not liking how some people use a word?

So many people die from misuse of Dice and Literally. You're right. Comparing a plague that killed millions to an argument about a word is apt and appropriate, and in no way trivializes human suffering.
OR
This is overblown Appeal to Fear nonsense that I reject out-of-hand. Yes, yes, dismiss the analogy that uses obviously more extreme circumstances, but don't actually address the points of comparison. I wouldn't mind if you rolled your eyes at my extreme analogy, but when you don't take the actual comparable bits and address them, it feels like, "I don't like how you said that, so I'm going to pretend that I won with


What is it that makes this particular word the one where the line in the sand must be drawn, facetious use and situational context be damned, there is only one way to ever use this word.Because this particular word is directly intended to disambiguate the situations where it is now becoming part of the ambiguity.

When I was a kid, there was a prevalence amongst my elementary school peers of use of the word "ask" when they meant "answer." It was prevalent enough that I, as an impressionable 6 and 7 year old, started to wonder if maybe I had the definitions backwards, but, being the stubborn jerk that I demonstrably am (given my persistence in these arguments on forums like this), I persisted in using it (as it turns out) correctly. I also asked my parents, because, being a kid, I trusted their judgment.

This would have been less problematic than "literally" coming to mean its opposite, but it was definitely confusing. Other kids would walk up to me and say, "Would you ask me a question?" Now, with the background I just gave, you can probably guess what they really meant, but remember that we're all little kids, and this kid didn't give me any background. Even knowing other kids have used this word that way, I'm not sure which meaning they intend.

It's even worse with "literally" being used as a superlative.

Correcting it prevents the loss of disambiguation, and also, when people take to the correction, prevents them from uttering sentences which inherently are a waste of everybody's time and breath due to - at best - requiring somebody to ask them if they mean what they said. Replace it with "essentially" or "basically" or "practically" or any other word that hedges the denotation, and their meaning becomes crystal clear. And leaves those times when they do say "literally" and mean it correctly likewise clear and appropriately attention-getting.



For a more accurate comparison you'd be looking at:
"Santa Claus wore a green cloak for many years, but then began moving towards the modern red suit in the past, causing multiple depictions of Santa Claus to exist at the same time, possibly confusing some children. Based on this, why would we not stop the trend of replacing the white-fur Easter Bunny with a blonde-fur Easter Bunny?"
That's a bit closer. Not really. It replaces it with a situation where communication isn't as essential, and where people - even kids - aren't really confused by it. I have never heard anybody question whether a given bunny is the Easter Bunny based on its coloration. Heck, the worst I've seen from even little kids regarding Santa-in-green is, "Why is Santa wearing a green coat?" Most don't even bother with that; everybody understands that people can change clothes, since they, themselves, have been doing it daily their whole lives. (Well, okay, maybe some haven't, but even so.)



No, but if they don't we will suffer Black-plague levels of suffering!Not my point, as you might have guessed by the fact that I didn't use "literally" as an adjective nor adverb. Of course, if I had, how would you have known if I meant it literally or not, since "literally" means "extremely figuratively" as well as "literally?"


Or people will be minorly inconvenienced by one word until this slang usage moves out of popularity just like Groovy and Epic did. Godlings, I hope so. I intend to encourage it by correcting misuses of the word.



Which is totally different from Literally gaining the meaning of "Figuratively, when used facetiously."

Which isn't a word gaining a meaning. It's a word gaining a meaning.
Totally different. No, it's "wet" coming to mean "dry," as well as "moist," "damp," and "desiccated." "He's totally dripping wet!" now means either that he's soaked and is literally dripping water everywhere, or that he's so dry he might be dehydrated and literally a withered husk. (Also, bets on which of those 'literally's meant 'literally' and which meant 'practically'? Hint: I can prove you wrong by declaring my meaning to be the opposite of what you said you guessed and the context doesn't give you grounds to say I was deliberately deceptive.)


How dare they use Literally in a figurative and exaggerated sense! What untold, plague-like suffering awaits us! (Yes, I'm still harping on how utterly absurd that comparison is.)Which I wouldn't mind if you weren't essentially using that harping as a variant on ad hominem. "Your analogy is extreme! Therefore the actual point contained in it can be ignored! I don't have to demonstrate that there isn't a problem of confusion because it isn't as bad as the suffering of the plague!"

I can take a ribbing. But when it's used to avoid actually engaging in the discussion, it irritates me.


Are we also banning Sarcasm, in which an entire sentence is used to convey its opposite? (Obviously not.) Indeed not. You'll note that we have conventions for conveying sarcasm. In speech, it's conveyed by tone. In text, we often have to ask people if they're being sarcastic or not. It happens often enough that some people on this forum adopt a convention of using blue text for it when they think there's risk of it not being clear. They're obviously meaning exactly what they say, those terrible people!



Point it out all you want. I'm not offended, I just think it's a waste of time. It isn't, because most people who misuse it don't realize they're misusing it. And, if you harp on it enough, it does change some people's behavior, even if they persist out of habit for a while. (Others persist to be deliberately annoying, the way I still pronounce "origin" with accent on the second syllable to annoy my brother, who insists that it should be on the first...and he's PROBABLY right, but it's fun to irk him.) (...actually, in truth, I vacillate on how I accent that word, depending on the cadence of the sentence. It tends to be unintentional.)


If you think Descriptivists don't also seek to point out these growing meanings to make people aware of potential confusion without saying one version is wrong and will bring about nogoodverybadtimes, you don't understand the position. Pointing out a point of conflicting Usage for the benefit of speakers seeking to cater to their audiences accomplishes a similar task without also being smug and judgemental about it.

"Ohey, in this context that might be confusing. Is that your intent?" Is more pleasant than "You're using that word wrong."

Unfortunately it takes more words and, if I wanted to be needlessly biting, I'd bring up some bit about how the first doesn't let you feel superior. But I don't think that is a conscious intent of you in particular.I generally don't say "you're using that word wrong." I skip straight to, "When you said that you 'literally died laughing,' you conveyed that you meant that you really, truly died, not that you are using 'died' as a hyperbole but want to emphasize it." Which is more words, but gets the correct definition across as quickly as I am able.


Again, I have no strong feelings one way or another. I see the argument for both but I still use it out of habit.I literally do not see the argument for refusing to use it.

No, I mean literally. I don't know what the argument is.


The idea that it is up to the brave few to uphold the One True Right English while even the people supposedly responsible for establishing the One True Right English can't agree is incredibly funny to me.
That really isn't the point. The point is to maintain understanding of what the words people are saying actually mean. For the same reason that we should discourage people from starting to use "wet" to mean every possible level of moisture something could exhibit.

It isn't about snobbery, at least not to me. It's about clarity and accuracy and precision in speech.

[Max_Killjoy]

"Literally" being used to mean either "figuratively" OR "literally literally" isn't a word gaining a meaning.

It's a word losing all meaning. It's a word being made useless. It's the language being degraded.

[Delicious Taffy]

Did you know the word "literally" has three Ls in it? It also contains three vowels, which are A, E, and I. Furthermore, it contains the consonants R, T, and Y. You can separate it right down the middle to create the words "liter" and "ally", as well, and if you take out the "-ly" suffix, it becomes "literal", which is the root word.

I was going to bring up something more constructive, but isn't it fun to just harp on about a single word for pages and pages? It matters so much, and I'm so glad I read all of this wonderful dialogue about it, instead of a rational discussion about how different words can mean the same thing depending on context and dialect, like the OP opened the door for.

[Mordar]

Empirically more, because the enforcement of French-origin words is in response to "non-French words" that have already assimilated, rather than to preempt the possible assimilation of "non-French" words?

I don't think I quite get this...I believe the effort to be to "prevent assimilation of additional non-French words due to the perceived impact of previous assimilation". Basically, we've let one or two in and don't like what it portends, so we're both going to try and kick them out and stop any new ones from sneaking into the language.

So if that is the case, that leads to more drift? Help!

[Also: I appear to have never learned how to include both the quoted reply and the comment the reply quoted from a previous post. Is there a way to do that on the quick, or do I have to select multi-quote on each original posting?]



Irregardless, I'd rather roll a dice than quibble over grammar.

This would have been improved by swapping "myself" in for "I'd"...


Since I've only been skimming the thread: has the class issue come up yet? That is, the fact (I think it's safe to say fact) that prescriptivism consistently prescribes the highest-status version of the language it's describing (within a given region)?

...and yet the school that the poor white kid from the trailer park attended taught the same version as the school that the rich kid from the country club attended. 150 years ago there was probably a lot more validity to this defense against expecting adherence to the rules (arbitrary or otherwise) of our language and the inevitable consequence from ignoring or dismissing those rules. The basics necessary for most of this conversation are sufficient and managed in elementary school. This isn't physics or calculus (or Latin or comparative religions or Russian literature, etc.) where the differences in schooling really separate.

- M

[Lord Torath]

Did you know the word "literally" has three Ls in it? It also contains three vowels, which are A, E, and I. Furthermore, it contains the consonants R, T, and Y. You can separate it right down the middle to create the words "liter" and "ally", as well, and if you take out the "-ly" suffix, it becomes "literal", which is the root word.

I was going to bring up something more constructive, but isn't it fun to just harp on about a single word for pages and pages? It matters so much, and I'm so glad I read all of this wonderful dialogue about it, instead of a rational discussion about how different words can mean the same thing depending on context and dialect, like the OP opened the door for.I'm just going to leave these here (anyone who's managed to wade through this much discussion of "literally" needs a laugh!):
Captain Literally: ALL EPISODES! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhlLd9XzNxM)
The Grammar League - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIq2LLLlk0M)


[Also: I appear to have never learned how to include both the quoted reply and the comment the reply quoted from a previous post. Is there a way to do that on the quick, or do I have to select multi-quote on each original posting?]I think the easiest way is the Multi-Quote button.

[BayardSPSR]

At least in the US, there really isn't a "dialect of the wealthy and elite" any more. There used to be an "aristocratic Northeast" dialect/accent (listen to speeches by Franklin Roosevelt and some of his peers), but that's largely faded since. In part due to the the anti-intellectual underbelly of American culture, people are just as easily judged for being "too proper" in their manner of speech. In fact, some American politicians are encouraged by their advisors to dumb-down their vocabulary in order to avoid "alienating" or "offending" the electorate.

Listen to the richest Americans today, and you'll hear broad sample and blend of American dialects, clustering around "television American" / General American English. It's a broad blend of "de-regionalized" American English that's descended at least as much on what a farmer in Wisconsin or a store clerk in industrial Ohio grew up speaking as it is on what a fourth-generation multi-millionaire in the Northeast might sound like.

I don't see the adoption of lower-status dialects for political purposes as evidence against a hierarchy of dialects, but as evidence supporting it. The status associated with a dialect doesn't necessarily mean that someone is guaranteed to like or respect you for using it; on the contrary, using it in an area where the local dialect is considered lower-status at the national level might be a great way to seem like an uppity outsider.

As far as what today's high-status American dialect is, I think you've described it pretty well. It's not aristocratic, but it definitely dominates American public life, and people who use lower-status dialects in environments dominated by it are definitely stigmatized.


...and yet the school that the poor white kid from the trailer park attended taught the same version as the school that the rich kid from the country club attended. 150 years ago there was probably a lot more validity to this defense against expecting adherence to the rules (arbitrary or otherwise) of our language and the inevitable consequence from ignoring or dismissing those rules. The basics necessary for most of this conversation are sufficient and managed in elementary school. This isn't physics or calculus (or Latin or comparative religions or Russian literature, etc.) where the differences in schooling really separate.

Yes, they're both taught a higher-status dialect, which the wealthier kid probably grew up speaking with their parents, and the poorer kid may not have. Low-status dialects don't get taught in schools. That said, since the poorer kid is likely surrounded by people who speak the same dialect they do, they may leave school still speaking it - or more likely, will leave school able to code-switch between their native dialect and the high-status one they'll use in job interviews.

I also want to point out that you're specifically using a poor white kid as an example. Dialect status in the US is heavily racialized.

EDIT: Possible rule of thumb: if you can't think of the high-status dialect in your region/society, you probably speak it?

[Max_Killjoy]

I don't see the adoption of lower-status dialects for political purposes as evidence against a hierarchy of dialects, but as evidence supporting it.


Notice I said "vocabulary", not "dialect".




The status associated with a dialect doesn't necessarily mean that someone is guaranteed to like or respect you for using it; on the contrary, using it in an area where the local dialect is considered lower-status at the national level might be a great way to seem like an uppity outsider.

As far as what today's high-status American dialect is, I think you've described it pretty well. It's not aristocratic, but it definitely dominates American public life, and people who use lower-status dialects in environments dominated by it are definitely stigmatized.


There doesn't appear to be any evidence at all to indicate that there's a specific dialect that separates "high status" from the general population or the overall "middle class" or "professional class" in America.

Do you have any evidence to indicate that such a dialect exists?

[Mordar]

Yes, they're both taught a higher-status dialect

This struck me as an interesting turn of phrase. Are they being taught a high-status dialect...or are they being taught what is accepted as proper usage? And that is thought to correspond to what was at one time the dialect of the people of high status?

In this case, is status referential to social status, economic status or some other status?

I guess some of my confusion may also relate to the connotation I have/had of "dialect" which is that a dialect is effectively a variant of the standard language...thus you have 1 standard language with possibly X dialects (that may be regional, ethnic, temporal, etc). Is this incorrect, and there is a "standard dialect" with possible X other sub-dialects?

- M

[Max_Killjoy]

This struck me as an interesting turn of phrase. Are they being taught a high-status dialect...or are they being taught what is accepted as proper usage? And that is thought to correspond to what was at one time the dialect of the people of high status?

In this case, is status referential to social status, economic status or some other status?

I guess some of my confusion may also relate to the connotation I have/had of "dialect" which is that a dialect is effectively a variant of the standard language...thus you have 1 standard language with possibly X dialects (that may be regional, ethnic, temporal, etc). Is this incorrect, and there is a "standard dialect" with possible X other sub-dialects?


English-as-taught-in-schools, sometimes referred to as "Standard English" or "General American English", is specifically does not originate with "high status America" of the time in which is was conceived.

Regarding dialects, it has for some time been fashionable in academic circles to reject even the slightest suggestion that a language might have one standard, with variations -- all dialects are "equal" and "valid".

[ImNotTrevor]

English-as-taught-in-schools, sometimes referred to as "Standard English" or "General American English", is specifically does not originate with "high status America" of the time in which is was conceived.

Regarding dialects, it has for some time been fashionable in academic circles to reject any even the slightest suggestion that a language might have one standard, with variations -- all dialects are "equal" and "valid".

Yes. One dialect in particular has been Blessed By Deity and was not selected by happenstance to be the "Standard" for no legitimate or inate reason, and certainly not becase the people making the decision just liked it the most.

Even though all evidence says that is exactly what happened, we all know better because my english teacher said it was the best English, so it is.




I disagree. It's one thing for a word to stretch from its original meaning based on usage to encompass another, related meaning, or even an unrelated one. When the word can literally mean two opposite concepts, that is a problem. Especially when no, you cannot guarantee that the context will let you know which is intended.

Let the question "Did ___ really ___?" Be your assistance when you can't tell.



"He literally drove that car into the ground!" What is meant here? Is he saying "he drove that car into the ground" in the metaphorical sense, but with added emphasis, or is he saying that the guy crashed the car into a steep hill or other representation of the ground?
Well, let's have a think here:
How many cars, on average, meet theor demise by collisions that place them INTO the ground?

Extremely rarely, no? Then assume it's facetious until they tell you otherwise. This stuff is insanely easy, being painted like it's exceptionally hard. I have never had a problem telling the difference between actual and facetious, exaggerated use.



The fact that this dual-and-opposite meaning for "literally" leads to - at best - having to ask for clarification when it's used because it's not possible to tell from context makes the utterance of more than half the phrases using it a waste of breath. At worst, it makes people who think they know what the word means (whether they're right or not) assume one meaning when the other was meant, leading to "amusing" misunderstandings.
If you think the majority of people using it aren't aware of both meanings and are using it to exaggerate ON PURPOSE, you have an insultingly dismal view of the intelligence of other people based on how they use a word. Or you live in a place unusually swamped with morons, in which case I feel for you.



"She literally fed me poison!"

Should somebody be taking me to the hospital and calling the police, or am I just warning them away from her awful cooking? Doubly problematic if I'm showing signs of intestinal distress.

If you're going through the effort of trying to insert "Literally" into a sentence instead of expressing the feeling that you are in extreme distress and feel your life is in danger, and just jave a gurgly tummy, the answer is bald-faced and obvious.



Frankly, it's not something that should go uncorrected even outside "formal" contexts. About the only time it's really acceptable is in parody. Again, because this particular usage muddles meaning even within context, since the original meaning is intended to disambiguate figurative hyperbole from literal denotation.
Again, compared to other auto-antonyms
(Apparently I need to be Google for other people again so here's a very quick link to some:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym
Yes, some are debated there and others are very obviously going both ways.)



I'm going to trim a lot of your post, not because I didn't read it, but in an attempt to be brief. I'll fail at that attempt anyway, but I'm going to make the effort. I apologize if you think I've missed something important.
I was rambling thanks to having been awake for 16 hours and getting screamed at by clinically psychotic children for around half of my 10 hour workday. I don't guarantee the quality of this post, either. But weirdly, arguing about pointless crap on the internet helps me unwind. So there you go.



Here, I don't disagree. This concept doesn't "blow my mind" at all. The fact you think it does is mildly insulting, but I don't think you mean it that way, so I won't take offense.
You have correctly spotted hyperbole amd exaggeration. Now just figure out how to do that with sentences containing the word Literally, and the problem solves itself.



You bring up "howdy" and "y'all" repeatedly. No, I have no problem with those words. I am aware of "howdy"'s etymology, and what it means now, and it's fine as a dialectic greeting. I, at least, am not speaking against dialects. "Y'all" isn't even a problem in formal grammar; it's a perfectly legal contraction for "you all." Some might quibble over its common use as a singular, but if you're talking to one person, "all" of him is still one person.

I recommend running an experiment:
Use "Y'all" in a college paper, scientific paper, legal writing, or other highly formal context and see if it causes you problems. We both know how it will play out, but I'm pointing towards actually thinking about what Formal means.



Later, you also bring up "ain't" and suggest I might use such in conversation. I do not. The only time I use it is in parody, because it bothers me that it's a non-contraction, non-possessive that we spell with an apostrophe. If you want to invent a new word, go ahead and do so. But heavens, please don't take one of our already mildly confusing written symbols and make it even more so. Spell it "aint" if you really, really must. I'd prefer you didn't; I dislike the word. But I won't dispute that it's valid linguistic drift. Just annoying.
Ain't is indeed a contraction.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ain't
It was, for many years, a valid contraction of "are not," and fell out of use for a time before resurfacing. Look up its history and be amazed at a word that was once formal and is no longer.



I have literally never had this problem. Really. Not a single time have I ever been unable to tell from the wider context of the conversation. (So don't give me a single sentence for a Gotcha, here. Give me an entire paragraph and I'll probably get it right so long as it's not intentionally engineered to deceive.)

[QUOTE]
And, even when you can take a pretty solid guess that they don't mean "literally" literally (godlings, if that very construction doesn't illustrate the problem...), you're left with the problem that you're now forced to assume that the one time you should really be asking, "wait, do you ACTUALLY mean that, or was that - I really hope - figurative?" is figurative, because the word that should have clarified it by its use is being used to exaggerate the hyperbole.



"Donald Trump literally screwed Hillary Clinton out of the Presidency," has an entirely different and more horrifying meaning if 'literally' is used correctly. We only know it's (thankfully) figurative because we have no reason to expect that Trump and Clinton had any sort of sexual encounter, nor that the process is what cost her the election. But that choice of words should make people stop and double-take, because if somebody had some new, breaking story that was actually about that, that is the phrasing one would use to disambiguate it from the colloquial meaning.
Someone is going to break a scandalous story like that using "Trump literally screwed Hillary out of the election?" That's the sentence they will use? Not just a declarative statement such as "Illicit love affair between Trump and Clinton cost her the presidency"

Come on. None of your contrived situations are even a little bit hard to parse out.



Often, but not always. Especially when it's very close.
Hence why I said "often."



They actually corrected me. It was close enough that my brain did an audio equivalent of what yuors deos wehn you raed tihs setnence: it heard enough of the sounds to translate to the concept and didn't filter that others were pronouncing that middle bit slightly differently. (It's noteworthy that, at least where I'm from and every place I've lived, people pronounce "breakfast" as if the first syllable rhymed with "wreck," rather than "ache," despite the root word being "break." Also, the second syllable is glossed over in the vowel sound, so it could just as easily be a rapidly-pronounced "fist," "fast," or "fest." "Fist" is probably closest in pronunciation, but it's really just a slur over the vowel sound that's more like "f'st.")
Sounds kinda like the Utah accent that diminishes most vowels. And I don't know of anyone in modernity that pronounces it as Break-Fast like the two individual words.



Please, provide them again.
I did above.



I'll accept that you mean this, but generally if somebody says, "Hey, nobody addressed this point that would seem to counter their position," they mean it as an insinuation that the point was deliberately ignored because the opposing side knew they were unable to answer it.

It does mean the point stands unaddressed, which is bad for the opposing side. Ignoring a point (as we've seen) is not a good thing.



Yes, yes, dismiss the analogy that uses obviously more extreme circumstances, but don't actually address the points of comparison. I wouldn't mind if you rolled your eyes at my extreme analogy, but when you don't take the actual comparable bits and address them
So... "Linguistic drift that was bad happened and in actuality it was a decade (maybe) of minor inconvenience and then it ended up not being a problem, so why would we not prevent ourselves from ever experiencing a minor inconvenience that will likely sort itself out ever again?"
Probably because it's only a minor inconvenience compared to the monumental task of stopping linguistic drift? It would be like if you had to choose between being itchy for a day and eradicating all mosquitos from the earth. I'm no expert, but most people would rather just be inconvenienced. And yes, it would be a task comparable to causing the extinction of mosquitos.



Because this particular word is directly intended to disambiguate the situations where it is now becoming part of the ambiguity.
Auto-antonyms are already a thing. The specific definition of this new one does not make it different. What is it inherently about this particular word that is where the line must be drawn?



When I was a kid, there was a prevalence amongst my elementary school peers of use of the word "ask" when they meant "answer." It was prevalent enough that I, as an impressionable 6 and 7 year old, started to wonder if maybe I had the definitions backwards, but, being the stubborn jerk that I demonstrably am (given my persistence in these arguments on forums like this), I persisted in using it (as it turns out) correctly. I also asked my parents, because, being a kid, I trusted their judgment.

This would have been less problematic than "literally" coming to mean its opposite, but it was definitely confusing. Other kids would walk up to me and say, "Would you ask me a question?" Now, with the background I just gave, you can probably guess what they really meant, but remember that we're all little kids, and this kid didn't give me any background. Even knowing other kids have used this word that way, I'm not sure which meaning they intend.
He wanted an answer. People who want to have a question asked of them almost invariably include the question. *shrug*
But a classroom-wide misunderstanding likely having to do with wonky teaching is not the same as widespread use.



Correcting it prevents the loss of disambiguation,
I wasn't aware that the death of Literally was also the end of disambiguation.



and also, when people take to the correction, prevents them from uttering sentences which inherently are a waste of everybody's time and breath due to - at best - requiring somebody to ask them if they mean what they said. Replace it with "essentially" or "basically" or "practically" or any other word that hedges the denotation, and their meaning becomes crystal clear. And leaves those times when they do say "literally" and mean it correctly likewise clear and appropriately attention-getting.
Or just, like.... listen to people while they talk so you can field the obviously facetious.



Not really. It replaces it with a situation where communication isn't as essential, and where people - even kids - aren't really confused by it. I have never heard anybody question whether a given bunny is the Easter Bunny based on its coloration. Heck, the worst I've seen from even little kids regarding Santa-in-green is, "Why is Santa wearing a green coat?" Most don't even bother with that; everybody understands that people can change clothes, since they, themselves, have been doing it daily their whole lives. (Well, okay, maybe some haven't, but even so.)
indeed. Both are minor inconveniences. If your entire communication being interpreted correctly hinges on a correct interpretation of "literally," you need to reword.



Not my point, as you might have guessed by the fact that I didn't use "literally" as an adjective nor adverb. Of course, if I had, how would you have known if I meant it literally or not, since "literally" means "extremely figuratively" as well as "literally?"
By context.

I have literally typed until my fingers fell off. You can tell by my still typing and not going to the hospital and by the impossibility of my statement.

It's also worth noting that in most cases, Literally is used to emphasise (in speech) AFTER the simple declarative form of the statement.
"Her screaming made my ears bleed."
"Ha! Wow."
"No, she literally made my ears bleed."
"Oh crap! Are you ok?"
Etc.



No, it's "wet" coming to mean "dry," as well as "moist," "damp," and "desiccated." "He's totally dripping wet!" now means either that he's soaked and is literally dripping water everywhere, or that he's so dry he might be dehydrated and literally a withered husk. (Also, bets on which of those 'literally's meant 'literally' and which meant 'practically'? Hint: I can prove you wrong by declaring my meaning to be the opposite of what you said you guessed and the context doesn't give you grounds to say I was deliberately deceptive.)

By statistics, the first is legit and the second is not since the second is vastly more exaggerated. If it had been "so wet he was literally bloated and pale like a corpse left in a river." But even you openly admitted that there is an intention at being obfuscating and not just exaggerating, meaning the choice was intentionally confusing which hurts your point rather than helping it. Yes, you can be intentionally confusing. This is true of most words.



Which I wouldn't mind if you weren't essentially using that harping as a variant on ad hominem. "Your analogy is extreme! Therefore the actual point contained in it can be ignored! I don't have to demonstrate that there isn't a problem of confusion because it isn't as bad as the suffering of the plague!"
My contention is with the scale of the problem. Saying it is the worst ever thing ever, that we are careening towards a future of meaningful grunts because a single word is becoming an additional Auto-antonym (which it really isn't, even the definition added in reads more like a point of usage with a lot of informally proceeding it and pointing out that it is meant facetiously or to exaggerate. Even in the most reasonably confusing way I can think of, namely:
"I literally walked 30 miles yesterday," the exact number of miles is probably irrelevant when the intended meaning is "I walked a lot yesterday, and I want to really emphasize how much I walked."




I can take a ribbing. But when it's used to avoid actually engaging in the discussion, it irritates me.




Indeed not. You'll note that we have conventions for conveying sarcasm. In speech, it's conveyed by tone. In text, we often have to ask people if they're being sarcastic or not. It happens often enough that some people on this forum adopt a convention of using blue text for it when they think there's risk of it not being clear. They're obviously meaning exactly what they say, those terrible people!

Ok, so tone and context magically don't apply to one particular word even though we do just fine for sarcasm, and it has the exact same weakness in text as sarcasm has, which probably means methods of establishing tone in text will solve both problems simultaneously. (Such as proposed "Sarcastices" punctuation marks)



It isn't, because most people who misuse it don't realize they're misusing it. And, if you harp on it enough, it does change some people's behavior, even if they persist out of habit for a while. (Others persist to be deliberately annoying, the way I still pronounce "origin" with accent on the second syllable to annoy my brother, who insists that it should be on the first...and he's PROBABLY right, but it's fun to irk him.) (...actually, in truth, I vacillate on how I accent that word, depending on the cadence of the sentence. It tends to be unintentional.)
And you've convinced a tiny handful while hundreds more picked up its use. Weeee!
Like I said, not wrong, but a waste of time.



I generally don't say "you're using that word wrong." I skip straight to, "When you said that you 'literally died laughing,' you conveyed that you meant that you really, truly died, not that you are using 'died' as a hyperbole but want to emphasize it." Which is more words, but gets the correct definition across as quickly as I am able.

And it also still sounds pretentious and corrective rather than engaging in a discussion for clarity.



I literally do not see the argument for refusing to use it.

No, I mean literally. I don't know what the argument is.

I don't either. That's a schism in the Prescriptivist side, hilariously enough. Ask the guys who made the AP style guide. It is, as far as I'm aware, Prescriptive Conservatism in the use of the comma. Essentially, don't use punctuation marks unless you ABSOLUTELY NEED TO for clarity. That doesn't come from my part of the field. Descriptivists, funnily, have very little infighting. Meanwhile, Prescriptivists tend to argue about which One True Right Way is the One Truest Right Way. *shrug*



That really isn't the point. The point is to maintain understanding of what the words people are saying actually mean. For the same reason that we should discourage people from starting to use "wet" to mean every possible level of moisture something could exhibit.
Here's a thought to point to some cognitive dissonance I'm seeing, in the form of some questions with what I think the answers will be:

Words have specific meanings, yes? Ok. We all need to establish a common ground of what these words mean so we can all use them correctly, yes? Ok.
Who are the gatekeepers of these meanings? Who is the person or persons who decide upon what the meaning is? Where is it kept, so that everyone can know with precision?
(Probably some kind of dictionary, yeah? Feel free to tell me who to consult instead, I'm curious.)
Ok, so when the dictionaries almost universally acquiesce to the change, why are the keepers of the meanings suddenly betrayers except that in all other instances they should still generally be trusted but they did betray you at this one point?

(This didn't come directly from you, but I've seen this cognitive dissonance happen already and I really want to know how it's justified.)




It isn't about snobbery, at least not to me. It's about clarity and accuracy and precision in speech.
Which also happens to line up almost exactly with how the Rich and Educated speak. Again, I don't think you intentionally believe this, but you need to be aware of and acknowledge that somewhat... distasteful edge.

[Mordar]

It isn't about snobbery, at least not to me. It's about clarity and accuracy and precision in speech.


Yes. One dialect in particular has been Blessed By Deity and was not selected by happenstance to be the "Standard" for no legitimate or inate reason, and certainly not becase the people making the decision just liked it the most.

Even though all evidence says that is exactly what happened, we all know better because my english teacher said it was the best English, so it is.

[Big SNIP]

Which also happens to line up almost exactly with how the Rich and Educated speak. Again, I don't think you intentionally believe this, but you need to be aware of and acknowledge that somewhat... distasteful edge.

This is the part that I find the most engaging/troublesome (not to the exclusion of other parts)...to paraphrase, "Rich (undercurrent white) folks are keeping us as second class by making their dialect the standard accepted dialect."

To be less inflammatory, some group of people with power in this area reached a consensus, either by design or by acceptance, that a certain set of rules would be applied to create "American English". Those rules and standards were codified and spread through public and private schooling. In the modern era (and for the last several decades), these rules and standards are taught in elementary/primary school and, do not seem to be as curtailed by the same funding-based troubles as advanced math, science, arts and technology coursework or curricula.

So the response to the paraphrased problem is "But now they've made their dialect accessible to everyone, so at least *that* obstacle is minimized."

I'm swapping "communicate" in for "speak" because I think we all generally accept that speech is not the only form of communication that is important, and of all the forms of communication might be most allowed to "slide" on the rules. I think it is clear that social reinforcement probably has a larger impact on speech than on other forms of communication, and perhaps this is part of why we accept things in verbal conversation that would be jarring in written communication or formal presentation.

So the question regarding communication becomes "Do the 'rich and educated' communicate as they do because they had better access to primary school, or are they rich and educated because they communicate as they do?"

Is it that the non-rich (again, mind the undercurrent) are not presented the rules and standards equitably, or is it that those rules and standards are not reinforced by the social environment in which they live? And how is that linked to lack of concern (or inability to be concerned) with the consequences of not communicating by the rules?

Again, I believe the origin of the rules is far secondary to their existence and to the consequences for not adhering to those rules. They ARE, and they are ignored at a cost.

- M

[Max_Killjoy]

This is the part that I find the most engaging/troublesome (not to the exclusion of other parts)...to paraphrase, "Rich (undercurrent white) folks are keeping us as second class by making their dialect the standard accepted dialect."

To be less inflammatory, some group of people with power in this area reached a consensus, either by design or by acceptance, that a certain set of rules would be applied to create "American English". Those rules and standards were codified and spread through public and private schooling. In the modern era (and for the last several decades), these rules and standards are taught in elementary/primary school and, do not seem to be as curtailed by the same funding-based troubles as advanced math, science, arts and technology coursework or curricula.

So the response to the paraphrased problem is "But now they've made their dialect accessible to everyone, so at least *that* obstacle is minimized."

I'm swapping "communicate" in for "speak" because I think we all generally accept that speech is not the only form of communication that is important, and of all the forms of communication might be most allowed to "slide" on the rules. I think it is clear that social reinforcement probably has a larger impact on speech than on other forms of communication, and perhaps this is part of why we accept things in verbal conversation that would be jarring in written communication or formal presentation.

So the question regarding communication becomes "Do the 'rich and educated' communicate as they do because they had better access to primary school, or are they rich and educated because they communicate as they do?"

Is it that the non-rich (again, mind the undercurrent) are not presented the rules and standards equitably, or is it that those rules and standards are not reinforced by the social environment in which they live? And how is that linked to lack of concern (or inability to be concerned) with the consequences of not communicating by the rules?

Again, I believe the origin of the rules is far secondary to their existence and to the consequences for not adhering to those rules. They ARE, and they are ignored at a cost.


Any assertion that either the origin, or the current teaching or use of the rules of American "standard" / "general" English, lie in some sort of effort to suppress the "lower classes" by an "elite" is, to be blunt, almost entirely a fantasy, founded on the ideological assertions of a particular political policy that cannot help but see all aspects of the world through a lens of "class conflict".

The past attempt at an "elite" American accent is all but extinct.

http://dialectblog.com/2012/08/25/aristocratic-american-accent/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_accent

[BayardSPSR]

This struck me as an interesting turn of phrase. Are they being taught a high-status dialect...or are they being taught what is accepted as proper usage? And that is thought to correspond to what was at one time the dialect of the people of high status?

In this case, is status referential to social status, economic status or some other status?

I guess some of my confusion may also relate to the connotation I have/had of "dialect" which is that a dialect is effectively a variant of the standard language...thus you have 1 standard language with possibly X dialects (that may be regional, ethnic, temporal, etc). Is this incorrect, and there is a "standard dialect" with possible X other sub-dialects?

I was using "dialect" very loosely; I apologize for the confusion. For me, in this context, "higher-status" and "accepted as proper usage" are exactly the same thing. I'm not trying to imply that "standard American" is descended from millionaire-talk or anything, just that the fact that it's standard is what identifies it as higher-status. Status isn't referential to anything other than the fact that it's accepted as correct, and is unlikely to have a stigma associated with its use.


Any assertion that either the origin, or the current teaching or use of the rules of American "standard" / "general" English, lie in some sort of effort to suppress the "lower classes" by an "elite" is, to be blunt, almost entirely a fantasy, founded on the ideological assertions of a particular political policy that cannot help but see all aspects of the world through a lens of "class conflict".

I don't think anyone's saying that? The point isn't that "standard American" = "wealthy overlords;" the point is that "standard American" is one of at least several ways of speaking in the United States, and many of the other ones tend to be ones that we may on average tend to think of the speakers of as folksy, less-educated, poor, or criminal. No one's doing this deliberately, and it does follow that schools would encourage a higher-status way of speaking (it's in people's best interest to be able to speak it). There's no conspiracy; I'm just trying to be descriptive. :smallwink: At the same time, there's nothing inherent about "standard American" that necessarily means it's better than regional versions of American, or inherent about other versions of American that means they ought to have a stigma associated with them (I've heard a remarkable number of non-Southerners adopt "y'all" for a clearer plural "you," for instance).

Would this idea be less bothersome if we used a different country or language as an example? For instance, BBC English vs East London? Or Parisian French vs, I don't know, Norman?

[Max_Killjoy]

I don't think anyone's saying that? The point isn't that "standard American" = "wealthy overlords;" the point is that "standard American" is one of at least several ways of speaking in the United States, and many of the other ones tend to be ones that we may on average tend to think of the speakers of as folksy, less-educated, poor, or criminal. This doesn't necessarily mean that the speakers are likely to line. No one's doing this deliberately, and it does follow that schools would encourage a higher-status way of speaking (it's in people's best interest to be able to speak it). The way of speaking taught in schools is always likely to be a higher-status one. There's no conspiracy; I'm just trying to be descriptive. :smallwink: At the same time, there's nothing inherent about "standard American" that necessarily means it's better than regional versions of American (I've heard a remarkable number of non-Southerners adopt "y'all" for a clearer plural "you," for instance).

Would this idea be less bothersome if we used a different country as an example? For instance, BBC English vs East London?

England is a bad parallel, because it's actually had a long history of dialect attached to serious issues of elitism and class conflict, an entrenched "very upper" class, legal barriers to class mobility, etc.

The problem with this idea of "dialect as an aspect of class conflict" in the US is that there was never a single "elite" dialect, and the attempt at establishing one failed -- if dialect were mapped to a "socioeconomic pyramid", the American map would cut off less than half way up from the bottom. There's no dialect that serves as a marker of socioeconomic status higher than "middle class", and in some areas even no higher than "lower middle class". Of course, the political philosophy that underlies the notion of American dialects as intertwined with class conflict also has a history of seeing the "middle class" as "in league with the elites" and in conflict with the "working class" and "poor", so the reality of this truncated map might not give them any pause in making there fallacious assertions.

[BayardSPSR]

The problem with this idea of "dialect as an aspect of class conflict" in the US is that there was never a single "elite" dialect, and the attempt at establishing one failed -- if dialect were mapped to a "socioeconomic pyramid", the American map would cut off less than half way up from the bottom.

"Higher-status dialect" doesn't mean "class conflict." All it means is that one way of speaking is treated as "normal" while others may be subject to stigma.

[Segev]

I apologize for neither having the time nor energy to give the full post the response it deserves. However, I wanted to point out this one bit:



Well, let's have a think here:
How many cars, on average, meet theor demise by collisions that place them INTO the ground?

Extremely rarely, no? Then assume it's facetious until they tell you otherwise. This stuff is insanely easy, being painted like it's exceptionally hard. I have never had a problem telling the difference between actual and facetious, exaggerated use.

This is actually the entire point. The fact that so few cars are literally driven into the ground is why "literally" is an important word to preserve. Because otherwise, yes, we are forced to assume that he probably doesn't mean what he said, but instead means the exact opposite of what he said. And thus, "literally" has lost all meaning. It is no longer a useful word. At BEST, it is a worthless extra choice to use when you mean "completely" or "totally" or some other superlative that you should be using a hedge word on.

The fact that I have lost the ability to convey to you, with the sentence, "He literally drove his car into the ground," the fact that somebody's car was driven physically, actually, and without any hyperbole into the actual, genuine ground, with no metaphors involved, is a bad thing. It diminishes our ability to communicate.

I know I'm not brief, and therefore I'm not witty. I object strongly to people making it harder for me to even attempt it by reducing the precision of language to the point of meaninglessness unless I go out of my way to be overly verbose.

[ImNotTrevor]

I apologize for neither having the time nor energy to give the full post the response it deserves. However, I wanted to point out this one bit:



This is actually the entire point. The fact that so few cars are literally driven into the ground is why "literally" is an important word to preserve. Because otherwise, yes, we are forced to assume that he probably doesn't mean what he said, but instead means the exact opposite of what he said. And thus, "literally" has lost all meaning. It is no longer a useful word. At BEST, it is a worthless extra choice to use when you mean "completely" or "totally" or some other superlative that you should be using a hedge word on.

The fact that I have lost the ability to convey to you, with the sentence, "He literally drove his car into the ground," the fact that somebody's car was driven physically, actually, and without any hyperbole into the actual, genuine ground, with no metaphors involved, is a bad thing. It diminishes our ability to communicate.

I know I'm not brief, and therefore I'm not witty. I object strongly to people making it harder for me to even attempt it by reducing the precision of language to the point of meaninglessness unless I go out of my way to be overly verbose.

This is solved by adding two words.

"He literally drove his car into the ground"
(Other person doesn't get it)
"No, really."
(Other person probably gets it now and the story becomes even funnier.)

Or just, after that statement, describe the crash.

It's not particularly hard.

(And Literally has not lost all meaning. You just need to be more careful about your context and your speech. Since you're OK with people being careful with their speech, this shouldn't be much of a change. :D)

I apologize if this comes off as rude, generally. I'm being brief and trying to bring down the proposed magnitude of the problem.

[ImNotTrevor]

England is a bad parallel, because it's actually had a long history of dialect attached to serious issues of elitism and class conflict, an entrenched "very upper" class, legal barriers to class mobility, etc.

The problem with this idea of "dialect as an aspect of class conflict" in the US is that there was never a single "elite" dialect, and the attempt at establishing one failed -- if dialect were mapped to a "socioeconomic pyramid", the American map would cut off less than half way up from the bottom. There's no dialect that serves as a marker of socioeconomic status higher than "middle class", and in some areas even no higher than "lower middle class". Of course, the political philosophy that underlies the notion of American dialects as intertwined with class conflict also has a history of seeing the "middle class" as "in league with the elites" and in conflict with the "working class" and "poor", so the reality of this truncated map might not give them any pause in making there fallacious assertions.

This is not a point anyone is making. >.>

[Max_Killjoy]

I apologize for neither having the time nor energy to give the full post the response it deserves. However, I wanted to point out this one bit:



This is actually the entire point. The fact that so few cars are literally driven into the ground is why "literally" is an important word to preserve. Because otherwise, yes, we are forced to assume that he probably doesn't mean what he said, but instead means the exact opposite of what he said. And thus, "literally" has lost all meaning. It is no longer a useful word. At BEST, it is a worthless extra choice to use when you mean "completely" or "totally" or some other superlative that you should be using a hedge word on.

The fact that I have lost the ability to convey to you, with the sentence, "He literally drove his car into the ground," the fact that somebody's car was driven physically, actually, and without any hyperbole into the actual, genuine ground, with no metaphors involved, is a bad thing. It diminishes our ability to communicate.

I know I'm not brief, and therefore I'm not witty. I object strongly to people making it harder for me to even attempt it by reducing the precision of language to the point of meaninglessness unless I go out of my way to be overly verbose.

Indeed. Language is supposed to be a scalpel, not a dull and rusted machete.

Context should matter less, not more. Changes that make vocabulary less precise and more reliant on context, make the language less accurate and useful, and end up forcing those who make the attempt at precision and clarity to use more words to say the same thing. The writer must sacrifice flow and brevity, for ever more words and more convoluted phrasing.

[ImNotTrevor]

Indeed. Language is supposed to be a scalpel, not a dull and rusted machete.

Context should matter less, not more. Changes that make vocabulary less precise and more reliant on context, make the language less accurate and useful, and end up forcing those who make the attempt at precision and clarity use more words to say the same thing. The writer must sacrifice flow and brevity, for ever more words and more convoluted phrasing.

Context will always matter. Literature and vibrant metaphor RUN ON context. This is desiring a robot language where only exactly what is meant is said, and there is no room for expression, vibrancy of language or even intentional misuse for the purpose of emphasis. "Her bones were brittle, her eyes devoid of life" must be able to mean multiple things based on its context, or else all writing becomes clinical.

The error is in assuming that one word becoming an Auto-antonym is indicative of a general trend towards the language becoming vague, when in fact no such trend exists. If anything, we now have more terms for incredibly specific feelings and situations than ever before. We're even moving towards using a combination of standard words and pictograms for further clarification (Emoticons, reaction gifs, etc) in a way no one else can.

The idea that people misusing words will lead overall to decay is silly. Imagine a society where everyone is playing catch. All the time. Almost constantly. In class, on the bus, at home, at the movies, playing catch. Their throws are not, obviously, all done to perfection. But play catch they do. Will this society overall be better or worse at throwing baseball pitches?

Ok, now take a society where everyone is writing short messages to one another all the time. Almost constantly. In class, on the bus, at home, at the movies, sending messages. Their syntax and grammar are not, obviously, all kept up to maximum standards. But write messages they do. Will this society overall be better or worse at writing?

The answer is obvious: overall, both will have greater skill. We are discovering new ways to share information with increased flexibility and accuracy, because the same technology you want to use to limit the use of language, allows us to expand upon it incredibly.

[Segev]

Context will always matter. Literature and vibrant metaphor RUN ON context. This is desiring a robot language where only exactly what is meant is said, and there is no room for expression, vibrancy of language or even intentional misuse for the purpose of emphasis. "Her bones were brittle, her eyes devoid of life" must be able to mean multiple things based on its context, or else all writing becomes clinical. You're engaged in false dichotomy, here. Max_Killjoy did not say, "Context should not matter." He said it should matter less rather than more. Given the nature of linguistic drift - which nobody denies is both happening and unavoidable - is to shift meanings of words such that we must smurf meaning from context when we don't know how a word's etymology led to it being smurfed in the way it's being smurfed in a particular smurf, context cannot help but be important. It will always be critical to poetry and even artistic prose.

This is why attention to detail and standing up for preserving words with usefully precise meanings is important, however: linguistic drift will always trend in the direction of greater context-dependency, so establishing the "battleground" of what to preserve in the name of reducing context-dependency (or at least preventing a needless increase) is wise.


The error is in assuming that one word becoming an Auto-antonym is indicative of a general trend towards the language becoming vague, when in fact no such trend exists.Actually, it is exactly that, but you're also making the error of assuming that because somebody stands against the formulation of an auto-antonym so egregious that it literally destroys the meaning of the word - turning it into a literal waste of breath and syllables to utter - means they stand against all such when those might be of use (or at least harmless).


If anything, we now have more terms for incredibly specific feelings and situations than ever before. We're even moving towards using a combination of standard words and pictograms for further clarification (Emoticons, reaction gifs, etc) in a way no one else can. And that's cool. This point doesn't defeat the point either Max_Killjoy or I are making; neither of us - nor anybody in this thread, to my recollection - has said we shouldn't expand and possibly even celebrate useful modification to the language.

If you're confused as to why it seems we might be construing your arguments as "don't bother ever worrying about language, and you're bad people for wanting to correct others when they misuse 'literally' by informing them of what it actually means," this is why: you're constantly holding up linguistic drift as inevitable and sometimes good as if that means that we stand against all of it because we stand for some preservation of understanding and definition of useful words.


The idea that people misusing words will lead overall to decay is silly. Imagine a society where everyone is playing catch. All the time. Almost constantly. In class, on the bus, at home, at the movies, playing catch. Their throws are not, obviously, all done to perfection. But play catch they do. Will this society overall be better or worse at throwing baseball pitches? That depends. Are we going to start defining "playing catch" as throwing the ball 'close enough' that it can be picked up? Are we going to start defining it as handing the ball off, because telling people that throwing it is what they have to do to "play catch" is just resisting "game drift?"

I wager that if we asserted the same lack of definition and willingness to preserve the rules of "catch" (what few there are) you're espousing for language, we would see "catch" become people carrying around balls and occasionally trading them like baseball cards. Would you say that that culture is better or worse at catch than they would be if there'd been some "elitist snobs" insisting that "catch" actually involved throwing balls back and forth to other people in such a way that they pluck them out of the air?


Ok, now take a society where everyone is writing short messages to one another all the time. Almost constantly. In class, on the bus, at home, at the movies, sending messages. Their syntax and grammar are not, obviously, all kept up to maximum standards. But write messages they do. Will this society overall be better or worse at writing? Given evidence today? We're seeing it look like society's gotten worse. Communication IS degrading in our instant messaging world. Now, the question as to whether that's because there are such lax standards, or the fact that we're just seeing the poorer examples more prominently due to exposure, is a valid one.

I mean, if we just assume, for a moment, that sampling the publicly-available and easily-accessed literature of a decade tells us the quality of writing, we'd see much higher average quality of writing in nearly any decade of the 20th century than the 21st...but I would also hasten to point out that this doesn't mean, necessarily, that writing has GOTTEN worse. Only that we now have ready access to every pre-teen's self-insert wish-fulfillment fanfic as well as the writings that were considered quality enough for a publisher to invest in printing and selling for profit.

The point of which is to say that you're not helping your point by holding up IM culture as "improving communication," but the naïve examination of it that seems to undermine your position isn't a fair judge, either, due to other factors.


The answer is obvious: overall, both will have greater skill. We are discovering new ways to share information with increased flexibility and accuracy, because the same technology you want to use to limit the use of language, allows us to expand upon it incredibly....now you're straw-manning. Nobody I've seen in this thread - certainly not me - has advocated using technology to limit the scope of language.

I'm saying that the smurf that it's bad to tell people they're using "literally" wrong when they use it to mean the opposite of what it means is an obnoxious smurf that, if obeyed faithfully, leads to degradation of the language's power to convey meaning. I will absolutely hang my metaphorical hat on the notion that words with precise, useful meanings should not be misused by people out of ignorance, and that people who, when corrected, smugly claim that the person correcting them is in some way a bad, inferior, backwards, anti-progress person because linguistic drift happens are doing harm to the language by spreading a confusing meaning, possibly just out of pique that their pride has been stung by the pain of somebody daring to tell them that they were wrong about a word's definition.

I know, being told 2+2 is 4, not 3 nor 5, can be a painful experience if you feel embarrassed by the mistake. It can be particularly uncomfortable if you had firmly believed the incorrect fact, and it shifts your paradigm a bit. So I fully understand the urge, when it is not a "provable" fact of inherent world-truth, to assert that "it's just your opinion, man" because language is arbitrary and shifts with time, so who's to say that your "incorrect" definition isn't going to become the new "correct" one? It protects the ego, and (if you've got a large enough minority of people sharing your misuse) can let you engage in a fallacy of consensus to assert that it totally has to grow.

And it probably isn't a bad thing most of the time. There ARE obnoxious people who get smug about being "right" when others are ignorant of the "truth." But at the same time, it never hurts to use words correctly nor to improve your understanding of the language you're speaking. And when you learn that you're using a word exactly wrong, perhaps you should really think about whether preserving your sense of comfort with it meaning what you believed it to mean is worth the fact that it becomes harder to use the word usefully.


Edit to add: One more thought. Have you always, upon seeing a new word that you've never read before, or hearing one you'd never heard before, understood exactly what it meant? Has context always provided you with everything you needed to piece together what was being said? Or have you had to stop and ask, "Wait, what does that word mean?" Especially in conversation, have you ever asked somebody to pause and define a word they've just used?

If so, then you understand why having words that people think they understand have opposite or askew meanings can be harmful to communication, especially if the word makes sense in context.

Again, "He literally drove his car into the ground," makes sense, in context, by its denotative, correct-use-of-"literally" meaning. It is precisely because the context would, without "literally" being there, suggest that it is a figurative turn of phrase, that "literally" makes sense as something telling you you should understand it to mean something terrible has happened and the car has impacted with terra firma, potentially becoming at least partially buried.

If somebody told you that they hammered their car to the store, would you be confused? If they explained that this meant they climbed into their car, turned it on, and engaged the various controls of it to cause it to navigate the roads until he left it parked in a parking space in front of the store, would you feel a need to inform him that "hammered" doesn't mean that, and that he should have said he drove his car to the store?

Are you wrong to do that? If he insists on using "hammered" to mean "drove," because hammering a nail can also be termed driving a nail, and that you're just fighting inevitable linguistic drift, would you feel sheepish for having resisted this new expansion of the meaning of the verb "to hammer?" Or would you think he (and whoever he's talked into using the word that way) is being silly, and hindering clear communication?

Now, what if his son was using "hammered" in that fashion out of sheer ignorance, and it made people confused who talked to him? Sure, it's kind-of cute that he's got this weird speech quirk, while he's little, but are you a bad person for taking the boy aside and explaining to him why people snicker at him for misusing the word, and what word he should use to be clearer? When he insistently (out of ignorance) asks for the "nail-driver," and people eventually figure out he means that tool with the weighted head you use to drive nails, is it wrong to tell him it's properly called a "hammer," and suggest that he not use "nail-driver" anymore? Is it wrong to suggest that he stop saying his mom hammered him to school, and instead say she drove him to school?

Heaven forbid he should also confuse "at" and "to." If we had some "linguistic drift" where people used "at" to mean both "at" and "to," that would be horribly confusing. Especially if this little boy said, "Daddy hammered me at school this morning," when he meant, "Daddy drove me to school this morning."

But it's all just linguistic drift, right? (Sure, I will allow you to stipulate that the "at" and "to" replacement is me being deliberately confusing. The "hammer" for "drive" is actually one I could see a reasonable etymological link for, however. And anyway, I would contend that "literally" meaning "figuratively but in extremis" is just as confusing as "at" for "to." You can tell from context that you don't drive people "at" things. You drive them "to" things. So obviously, if you drive at the store you mean the same thing as if you drive to the store. Just like it's totally rare for cars to literally drive into the ground, so if somebody says it was literally done, they obviously mean the opposite and that it's figurative.)

[Max_Killjoy]

Wait, did someone really just assert that "Twitter-type" and "IM-speak" and "emoji" spam are improving communication?

Regarding context: it is quite often a terrible teacher of what words actually mean -- and accepting the misuse of words as "inevitable drift" only compounds the limitations of context. I've learned the hard way to never trust context alone to tell me what a word means.

[BayardSPSR]

Wait, did someone really just assert that "Twitter-type" and "IM-speak" and "emoji" spam are improving communication?

No, no one made that specific assertion. I think ImNotTrevor was proposing that people who use text-based communication more frequently are likely to communicate more effectively in other text-based media, and separately pointed out the use of emojis as tone signifiers. Which is something you can also do with italics, as you demonstrated.

[Mordar]

The idea that people misusing words will lead overall to decay is silly. Imagine a society where everyone is playing catch. All the time. Almost constantly. In class, on the bus, at home, at the movies, playing catch. Their throws are not, obviously, all done to perfection. But play catch they do. Will this society overall be better or worse at throwing baseball pitches?

Ok, now take a society where everyone is writing short messages to one another all the time. Almost constantly. In class, on the bus, at home, at the movies, sending messages. Their syntax and grammar are not, obviously, all kept up to maximum standards. But write messages they do. Will this society overall be better or worse at writing?

The answer is obvious: overall, both will have greater skill. We are discovering new ways to share information with increased flexibility and accuracy, because the same technology you want to use to limit the use of language, allows us to expand upon it incredibly.


Wait, did someone really just assert that "Twitter-type" and "IM-speak" and "emoji" spam are improving communication?


No, no one made that specific assertion. I think ImNotTrevor was proposing that people who use text-based communication more frequently are likely to communicate more effectively in other text-based media, and separately pointed out the use of emojis as tone signifiers. Which is something you can also do with italics, as you demonstrated.

I have to disagree based on the bolded (my addition) text above - "...better or worse at writing?", not "...better or worse at texting/IMing/shorthand electronic communication."

Does communicating via texting a lot make you better at communicating via texting? Overall, almost certainly. But it is like endurance training at high altitude. Both things improve the ability to perform that task under those conditions (communicate via text, perform endurance exercise at altitude), but does not translate to the broader field.

I think a review of the development and evolution of texting/IMspeak across different regions and populations would be a really interesting read, particularly if it considered things like being able to understand it as a gate to communication (like code speak...something done intentionally to exclude others and/or obfuscate rather than communicate) or the transit of elements to the broader population.

- M

I tried to resist commenting on the fact that playing catch will absolutely not increase the society's ability to pitch beyond the very lowest baseline, but I couldn't. So I did it tiny and down here. Throwing /= pitching. Baseball geekness vented.

[BayardSPSR]

I have to disagree based on the bolded (my addition) text above - "...better or worse at writing?", not "...better or worse at texting/IMing/shorthand electronic communication."

"Writing" and "text-based media" are the same thing.

[Max_Killjoy]

"Writing" and "text-based media" are the same thing.

The sort of "emoji"-laden, spasmodically-abbreviated "writing" that was being discussed, should no more be confused with writing, than a long series of gastrointestinal-distress noises should be confused with music.

[Segev]

The sort of "emoji"-laden, spasmodically-abbreviated "writing" that was being discussed, should no more be confused with writing, than a long series of gastrointestinal-distress noises should be confused with music.

That's not entirely fair.

What would be fair is saying that...

The sort of "emoji"-laden, spasmodically-abbreviated "writing" that was being discussed...is to any sort of more formal writing, even the level of a simple young adult novel, as bawdy tavern-room songs sung by 12-year-olds at summer camp who think they're being "edgy" are to Disney Classic Musicals' greatest hits.