7 ms·

"These are “the modern truths about language: language changes constantly; change is normal; spoken language is the language; correctness rests upon usage; all

by Jun8 11y ago

"These are “the modern truths about language: language changes constantly; change is normal; spoken language is the language; correctness rests upon usage; all usage is relative.” There's of course truth to these statements, backed by a lot of linguistic research. Yet one has to be careful so as not to lean too much the other way. Using certain forms of language may be acceptable to your local peer group but may be a marker that others pick up on and label you. As for "all usage is relative": I think the points pg makes in his essay "Taste for Makers" (http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html) are spot on (though he was talking in the context of art, beauty, and taste): "Saying that taste is just personal preference is a good way to prevent disputes. The trouble is, it's not true. You feel this when you start to design things. Whatever job people do, they naturally want to do better. Football players like to win games. CEOs like to increase earnings. It's a matter of pride, and a real pleasure, to get better at your job. But if your job is to design things, and there is no such thing as beauty, then there is no way to get better at your job. If taste is just personal preference, then everyone's is already perfect: you like whatever you like, and that's it."

aaron-lebo 11y ago
Taste is entirely a personal preference. The trick is to get other people to agree with your own. It's hard to look at the drastically different ideas of what is "tasteful" across different cultures and believe that there's any such thing as a universal view on it. We only have that mindset because Western/American culture in particular has been promulgated across the world and poeple in Hollywood or SV have chosen what is or isn't fine. Also, who cares if people label you for your use of language. Those people can get over themselves. Some of the linguistic tricks from those in the lowest rungs of society now dominate our discourse and it's because they didn't care.
- pdabbadabba 11y ago
  Well you should care if you want to be hired, published, or generally taken seriously in certain environments. (Note that speaking "proper" English is not always what you want either; there are some social situations where other dialects will get you farther -- and, of course, all of this also applies to languages other than English.) But I also take your point. The problem--as is often the case with various forms of stereotyping--is that such preconceptions are simultaneously useful as indicators about a person you are dealing with (such as level of education), but also deserving of serious skepticism since they can have the effect of disadvantaging certain groups, cause you to miss interesting opportunities, and generally making life less interesting by enforcing a stultifying uniformity.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    It's pretty normal to switch between styles of speech depending on the situation. Word and grammar choices you use with a good friend are different than those you'd use in a television interview are different than those you'd use in court. There are times in your life in which you need to speak with precision, and that means using generally agreed upon grammar and vocabulary. There's no harm in breaking those rules in everyday speech, but you should know them.
- nothrabannosir 11y ago
  Also, who cares if people label you for your use of language. Those people can get over themselves. Theoretically true, but how far are you willing to go to defend this? E.g., how much less are you willing to earn per year? How much risk do you want to take for your children not getting into that school you have your eye on? What about getting that promotion "because the boss thinks you show promise"? Having the benefit of the doubt is a powerful thing, and it makes or breaks decisions in or out of your favor every single day. That is, assuming you're living in a society, of course. If you're crazy Chad in his forest cabin, then, by all means, talk to the spirits in any tongue you please.
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  Ok, it's a set of personal preferences mostly shared by the entire human population (and other mammals to a lesser degree). Yes, there is some variance, but it's much smaller than the shared parts. In reality, everybody cares if people labels them, and for good reason, because we depend on collaboration with others for satisfying about 100% of needs, some of what are exact variants of "collaboration with others", like socialization.
- mindcrime 11y ago
  It's hard to look at the drastically different ideas of what is "tasteful" across different cultures and believe that there's any such thing as a universal view on it. Well said, have an upvote. Taking a global view really does put things in a different light. It reminds me of the old saw about atheists telling Christians: "We're both Atheists, I just believe in one fewer God than you do". When you step back and realize that there are thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of religions and deities, it is kinda eye opening. And you can apply that thinking to many (most?) things. OTOH, if you do find any universal patterns shared across all (or most) human societies and cultures, then it probably means something important. :-)
scoofy 11y ago
It is better to think of language in the same way we think of maps. Yes, the borders change over time. Yes the map, even a few years ago looks different, but if you start talking about Kashmir you're going to start a lot of fights, and if you say that Paris isn't necessarily in France, people will think you're a lunatic. As it stands, i don't care how you say the plural of octopus, but if you say something "begs the question" that better end your sentence, you plebe.
- scott_s 11y ago
  I've declared defeat on "begs the question". The original meaning (a logical fallacy where the premise for an argument assumes the conclusion) is just not known to enough people, and the modern (mis)use just sounds too close to what the words mean in isolation. I've also mostly given up on "literally", which I think is worse, because it's now coming to mean its opposite.
  - mturmon 11y ago
    Bryan Garner, author of an excellent and well-regarded dictionary of English usage (famously reviewed at great length by DFW in Harper's), coined a term for such transitional constructions: "skunked words". The idea is that there are two groups of people, one holding to an original meaning, and one with a new usage. Sometimes the new meaning can be directly opposite the original meaning (e.g.: nonplussed), or just different (e.g., hopefully). So, writers who wish to be understood cannot use "nonplussed," because readers will not know what is meant. A skunked term. A longer explanation: http://englishcowpath.blogspot.com/2014/11/skunked-terms.html http://englishcowpath.blogspot.com/2014/11/skunked-terms.htm...
    - Nadya 11y ago
      Another example: "That's so bad!" meaning "That's awesome!" If I can go on a tangent about poor terms...contranyms will throw people for a loop if they are unaware of one of the meanings. Or worse, if the sentence is constructed in a way meant to cause confusion. "I would be bound for Chicago if I wasn't bound to this chair." [0] "It is transparent that the transparent man cannot be seen." [1] "Three people are left after five left." [2] "If we go back two weeks, when Tom came back, we decided to push the date back three weeks." [3] [0] I would be moving towards Chicago if I wasn't unable to move from this chair. [1] It's visible to anyone that the invisible man cannot be seen. [2] Three people remain after five departed. [3] If you go into the past two weeks, when Tom returned, we decided then to push the date further by 3 weeks. I had fun writing those.
dragonwriter 11y ago
This is one place where pg is simply flat-out wrong, on a couple of levels. If taste being mere preference meant that you couldn't be better at design, no matter how many people want it to be possible to be better at design, that wouldn't refute that taste is preference. That something implies something people don't like doesn't make it untrue. But more fundamentally, he's wrong that taste being preference makes it impossible to get better at design. A big part of design -- as with any form of communication -- is understanding the particular audience you are targeting and how to address that audience. In design that means understanding the preferences in the target audience and how best to make tradeoffs among them to achieve the effect you want -- whether it's too maximize appeal to a narrow group with cohesive preferences or a broad group with divers preferences. You can get better at that even though taste if preference. You may not be able to reduce the practical skill involved readily to simple mechanical rules, but for designers that's a good thing if true -- it means it'll be hard to automate then away.

by Jun8 11y ago

aaron-lebo 11y ago

Taste is entirely a personal preference. The trick is to get other people to agree with your own. It's hard to look at the drastically different ideas of what is "tasteful" across different cultures and believe that there's any such thing as a universal view on it. We only have that mindset because Western/American culture in particular has been promulgated across the world and poeple in Hollywood or SV have chosen what is or isn't fine. Also, who cares if people label you for your use of language. Those people can get over themselves. Some of the linguistic tricks from those in the lowest rungs of society now dominate our discourse and it's because they didn't care.

pdabbadabba 11y ago
Well you should care if you want to be hired, published, or generally taken seriously in certain environments. (Note that speaking "proper" English is not always what you want either; there are some social situations where other dialects will get you farther -- and, of course, all of this also applies to languages other than English.) But I also take your point. The problem--as is often the case with various forms of stereotyping--is that such preconceptions are simultaneously useful as indicators about a person you are dealing with (such as level of education), but also deserving of serious skepticism since they can have the effect of disadvantaging certain groups, cause you to miss interesting opportunities, and generally making life less interesting by enforcing a stultifying uniformity.
- tsotha 11y ago
  It's pretty normal to switch between styles of speech depending on the situation. Word and grammar choices you use with a good friend are different than those you'd use in a television interview are different than those you'd use in court. There are times in your life in which you need to speak with precision, and that means using generally agreed upon grammar and vocabulary. There's no harm in breaking those rules in everyday speech, but you should know them.
nothrabannosir 11y ago
Also, who cares if people label you for your use of language. Those people can get over themselves. Theoretically true, but how far are you willing to go to defend this? E.g., how much less are you willing to earn per year? How much risk do you want to take for your children not getting into that school you have your eye on? What about getting that promotion "because the boss thinks you show promise"? Having the benefit of the doubt is a powerful thing, and it makes or breaks decisions in or out of your favor every single day. That is, assuming you're living in a society, of course. If you're crazy Chad in his forest cabin, then, by all means, talk to the spirits in any tongue you please.
marcosdumay 11y ago
Ok, it's a set of personal preferences mostly shared by the entire human population (and other mammals to a lesser degree). Yes, there is some variance, but it's much smaller than the shared parts. In reality, everybody cares if people labels them, and for good reason, because we depend on collaboration with others for satisfying about 100% of needs, some of what are exact variants of "collaboration with others", like socialization.
mindcrime 11y ago
It's hard to look at the drastically different ideas of what is "tasteful" across different cultures and believe that there's any such thing as a universal view on it. Well said, have an upvote. Taking a global view really does put things in a different light. It reminds me of the old saw about atheists telling Christians: "We're both Atheists, I just believe in one fewer God than you do". When you step back and realize that there are thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of religions and deities, it is kinda eye opening. And you can apply that thinking to many (most?) things. OTOH, if you do find any universal patterns shared across all (or most) human societies and cultures, then it probably means something important. :-)

scoofy 11y ago

It is better to think of language in the same way we think of maps. Yes, the borders change over time. Yes the map, even a few years ago looks different, but if you start talking about Kashmir you're going to start a lot of fights, and if you say that Paris isn't necessarily in France, people will think you're a lunatic. As it stands, i don't care how you say the plural of octopus, but if you say something "begs the question" that better end your sentence, you plebe.

scott_s 11y ago
I've declared defeat on "begs the question". The original meaning (a logical fallacy where the premise for an argument assumes the conclusion) is just not known to enough people, and the modern (mis)use just sounds too close to what the words mean in isolation. I've also mostly given up on "literally", which I think is worse, because it's now coming to mean its opposite.
- mturmon 11y ago
  Bryan Garner, author of an excellent and well-regarded dictionary of English usage (famously reviewed at great length by DFW in Harper's), coined a term for such transitional constructions: "skunked words". The idea is that there are two groups of people, one holding to an original meaning, and one with a new usage. Sometimes the new meaning can be directly opposite the original meaning (e.g.: nonplussed), or just different (e.g., hopefully). So, writers who wish to be understood cannot use "nonplussed," because readers will not know what is meant. A skunked term. A longer explanation: http://englishcowpath.blogspot.com/2014/11/skunked-terms.html http://englishcowpath.blogspot.com/2014/11/skunked-terms.htm...
  - Nadya 11y ago
    Another example: "That's so bad!" meaning "That's awesome!" If I can go on a tangent about poor terms...contranyms will throw people for a loop if they are unaware of one of the meanings. Or worse, if the sentence is constructed in a way meant to cause confusion. "I would be bound for Chicago if I wasn't bound to this chair." [0] "It is transparent that the transparent man cannot be seen." [1] "Three people are left after five left." [2] "If we go back two weeks, when Tom came back, we decided to push the date back three weeks." [3] [0] I would be moving towards Chicago if I wasn't unable to move from this chair. [1] It's visible to anyone that the invisible man cannot be seen. [2] Three people remain after five departed. [3] If you go into the past two weeks, when Tom returned, we decided then to push the date further by 3 weeks. I had fun writing those.

dragonwriter 11y ago

This is one place where pg is simply flat-out wrong, on a couple of levels. If taste being mere preference meant that you couldn't be better at design, no matter how many people want it to be possible to be better at design, that wouldn't refute that taste is preference. That something implies something people don't like doesn't make it untrue. But more fundamentally, he's wrong that taste being preference makes it impossible to get better at design. A big part of design -- as with any form of communication -- is understanding the particular audience you are targeting and how to address that audience. In design that means understanding the preferences in the target audience and how best to make tradeoffs among them to achieve the effect you want -- whether it's too maximize appeal to a narrow group with cohesive preferences or a broad group with divers preferences. You can get better at that even though taste if preference. You may not be able to reduce the practical skill involved readily to simple mechanical rules, but for designers that's a good thing if true -- it means it'll be hard to automate then away.