3 ms·

The first thing is obviously playful hyperbole, but I don't know about "childish". But, regarding your second quote... if you bring up the idea of a way of spe

The first thing is obviously playful hyperbole, but I don't know about "childish". But, regarding your second quote... if you bring up the idea of a way of speaking being "better" or "worse" to a modern linguist, trust, me: you will understand why the author uses "wildly offended" instead of just "offended". If the author had just kept it at "The entire concept of an elocution class is offensive to most of the modern linguists I know", that would not at all be sufficiently conveying the degree to which the idea of a prescribed elocution class is violently at odds with everything most modern linguists believe in.

zeveb 10y ago
> if you bring up the idea of a way of speaking being "better" or "worse" to a modern linguist, trust, me: you will understand why the author uses "wildly offended" instead of just "offended". Not all modern linguists are descriptivists; some are in fact prescriptivists. It is a pretty fundamental personality divide: some people take the world as it is, others as it could be (or ought to be).
- nptatall 10y ago
  Point me towards a single modern academic prescriptive linguist with publicly-available writing in english, and I will be grateful and fascinated. Even just a single modern prescriptive linguist, without any of those other qualifiers. I would genuinely love to see it.
  - zeveb 10y ago
    Geoff Nunberg certainly sounds like he's prescriptive in at least some ways: http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Fall_2016/ling001/Nunberg.html http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Fall_2016/ling001/Nunberg.... Granted, it's from 1983, but Dr. Nunberg is still alive & writing. My own thought is that the question, 'is linguistics descriptive or prescriptive?' is as wrong as the question, 'is salvation through faith or through works?' Linguistics can both describe language as she is spoke and prescribe the best ways to speak. There's nothing inherent in describing current practise that obligates one to applaud that practise; nor is there anything inherent in prescribing better use that prevents one from recognising that other uses exist. The logical end of stating that all that matters is describing language as it's used, and not bothering to prescribe the best ways to use it, as to both not end up meaning-stand @talk.

zeveb 10y ago

> if you bring up the idea of a way of speaking being "better" or "worse" to a modern linguist, trust, me: you will understand why the author uses "wildly offended" instead of just "offended". Not all modern linguists are descriptivists; some are in fact prescriptivists. It is a pretty fundamental personality divide: some people take the world as it is, others as it could be (or ought to be).

nptatall 10y ago
Point me towards a single modern academic prescriptive linguist with publicly-available writing in english, and I will be grateful and fascinated. Even just a single modern prescriptive linguist, without any of those other qualifiers. I would genuinely love to see it.
- zeveb 10y ago
  Geoff Nunberg certainly sounds like he's prescriptive in at least some ways: http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Fall_2016/ling001/Nunberg.html http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Fall_2016/ling001/Nunberg.... Granted, it's from 1983, but Dr. Nunberg is still alive & writing. My own thought is that the question, 'is linguistics descriptive or prescriptive?' is as wrong as the question, 'is salvation through faith or through works?' Linguistics can both describe language as she is spoke and prescribe the best ways to speak. There's nothing inherent in describing current practise that obligates one to applaud that practise; nor is there anything inherent in prescribing better use that prevents one from recognising that other uses exist. The logical end of stating that all that matters is describing language as it's used, and not bothering to prescribe the best ways to use it, as to both not end up meaning-stand @talk.