3 ms·
Most of the examples given are fairly unsurprising, but I'm unsure how to feel about "embiggen" being in the dictionary. On the other end of the scale, I'm ama
by larkeith 9y ago
Most of the examples given are fairly unsurprising, but I'm unsure how to feel about "embiggen" being in the dictionary.
On the other end of the scale, I'm amazed "demonym" was previously absent.
- Spivak 9y agoKeep in mind that a dictionary isn't a manual on what does and does not constite valid English but a reference for how words are used by English speakers and writers. Whether you think it's good style or not to use embiggen if someone came across a text with the word it is useful to have it's meaning readily available.
- posterboy 9y agoPrescription versus Description is a false dichotomy. Certainly, the choice of words to include is prescriptive. Any other interpretation of the debate would be paradox, because, a descriptivist would have to describe it as prescriptive if many users think it's prescriptive. Getting out of that paradox requires reasoning that would be absurd compared to the simple solution that they are in fact being prescriptive whether they want to or not.
- vladf 9y ago> Any other interpretation of the debate would be paradox, because, a descriptivist would have to describe it as prescriptive if many users think it's prescriptive. Why is this a paradox? Why is prescriptivity a result of the actions of "many users"?
- posterboy 9y agogee, I have a hard time reading that myself now. Descriptivists would have to describe themselves as prescriptive, if many users think they are being prescriptive. -- Is that better? The irony is: Many users think the editors are descriptive, because that's what the editors prescribe. I really don't see a way out of this. Also see the comment I left on the sibling.
- CrystalLangUser 9y agoThat doesn’t make any sense. Descriptivism describes usage, not whether people think it’s prescriptivist or not. Each dictionary has their own standards for what constitutes enough usage to be considered a word. Otherwise we’d have infinite dictionaries. Dictionaries look at what many people say, and log those as words eventually. They’re decidedly Descriptivist.
- posterboy 9y agoThey are prescriptive by extension, e.g. when describing usage from prescriptive speakers. Language is not inherently descriptive or prescriptive, it is a false dichotomy, because language is acquired by copying, but it is is modified to suit needs, so it is used prescriptive. If language was purely descriptive, where did it first copy from? In a sense, I assume that language faculty is inherently prescribed in a natural way. And in another sense, the words show de-scription is copying (this doesn't work well in english, but in french e.g. it would be quite literall "ecrire de ..."), and pre-scription is what was written before it was copied. It's two sides of the same medal. If they describe, somebody else will interpret that as prescription, whether that was intended or not.
- derefr 9y ago> Keep in mind that a dictionary isn't a manual on what does and does not constite valid English but a reference for how words are used by English speakers and writers. A funny thought: dictionaries are to words as the Unicode standard is to characters.
- geoffpado 9y agoI don’t like that they added “embiggen” but left out “cromulent”, given the shared origin.