9 ms·

I disagree with the notion that the novelty of a component of language can be best assessed by when it was first used. In particular, vocabulary is far more mu

I disagree with the notion that the novelty of a component of language can be best assessed by when it was first used. In particular, vocabulary is far more mutable than grammar. Then again, I'm a grammatical traditionalist: I consider English to not have a male gender, but rather the three genders "inanimate", "female", and "animate".

tptacek 10y ago
The assessment isn't simply that its first use is ancient, but that it has been used universally throughout the history of the language and occurs routinely in its greatest works --- not just in Chaucer, but in Orwell. See the link I posted downthread. To me, a "controversial" language feature that has been used by Chaucer, Austen, and Orwell is no controversy at all. The prescriptivists have lost this debate, comprehensively. There may be a language that lacks a gender-neutral singular "they", but it isn't English.
jdmichal 10y ago
> I disagree with the notion that the novelty of a component of language can be best assessed by when it was first used. I think novelty is a bad choice of word here, as that has a connotation of being related to time and exposure, which makes your statement seem somewhat contradictory... I think the word "controversial" that Thomas uses is more appropriate. I'll continue as if you had used that instead. I do agree, that length of attestation does not necessarily mean a feature is non-controversial. But I do think it is likely a prerequisite for being non-controversial, precisely because it allows the usage to be non-novel.
vacri 10y ago
> Then again, I'm a grammatical traditionalist: I consider English to have a male gender, but rather the three genders "inanimate", "female", and "animate". Ironically for a grammatical traditionalist making a comment about grammar, this sentence is not grammatically correct.
- rhizome 10y ago
  Muphry's Law
blacksqr 10y ago
Are grammar traditionalists now ok with the split infinitive?

tptacek 10y ago

The assessment isn't simply that its first use is ancient, but that it has been used universally throughout the history of the language and occurs routinely in its greatest works --- not just in Chaucer, but in Orwell. See the link I posted downthread. To me, a "controversial" language feature that has been used by Chaucer, Austen, and Orwell is no controversy at all. The prescriptivists have lost this debate, comprehensively. There may be a language that lacks a gender-neutral singular "they", but it isn't English.

jdmichal 10y ago

> I disagree with the notion that the novelty of a component of language can be best assessed by when it was first used. I think novelty is a bad choice of word here, as that has a connotation of being related to time and exposure, which makes your statement seem somewhat contradictory... I think the word "controversial" that Thomas uses is more appropriate. I'll continue as if you had used that instead. I do agree, that length of attestation does not necessarily mean a feature is non-controversial. But I do think it is likely a prerequisite for being non-controversial, precisely because it allows the usage to be non-novel.

vacri 10y ago

> Then again, I'm a grammatical traditionalist: I consider English to have a male gender, but rather the three genders "inanimate", "female", and "animate". Ironically for a grammatical traditionalist making a comment about grammar, this sentence is not grammatically correct.

rhizome 10y ago
Muphry's Law

blacksqr 10y ago

Are grammar traditionalists now ok with the split infinitive?