4 ms·

> They are not equivalent They are often used as equivalents. Descriptivism is better than prescriptivism if you want to understand language as it's actually u

by DanBC 6y ago

> They are not equivalent They are often used as equivalents. Descriptivism is better than prescriptivism if you want to understand language as it's actually used.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> They are often used as equivalents No, they are often (though very, very far from most often) used in reverse because people forget which is which. Even in that case they have very distinct intended meanings, and are not equivalents. > Descriptivism is better than prescriptivism if you want to understand language as it's actually used. Sure, but descriptivism isn't “words lose all distinct meaning if occasionally someone mixes them up” or nothing would mean anything.
- DanBC 6y ago
  > No, they are often (though very, very far from most often) used in reverse because people forget which is which. Even in that case they have very distinct intended meanings, and are not equivalents. Isn't this just another way of saying they're equivalent as used? People don't know which is which, they often don't car,e and they pick one. Prescriptivist "what should eg mean in this sentence?" Descriptivist "what does Bob mean when he uses eg in this sentence?"
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Isn't this just another way of saying they're equivalent as used? No, it's not. One is used a vast majority of the time to mean “that is” and occasionally, by different people, to mean “for example”. One is used a vast majority of the time to mean “for example” and occasionally, by different people, to mean “that is”. Neither group (not the one with the dominant understanding nor the one with the minority understanding) uses the terms interchangeably, they both use them with distinct meanings. The existence of some confusion of meaning and minority usages resulting from that does not eliminate all distinction in meaning, even from a descriptivist standpoint. It's true that “X means Y” is usually a simplification of a distribution to a modal value, but that's also widely recognized and, from a descriptivist standpoint, already incorporated into the meaning of the phrase.
    - Talanes 6y ago
      The only time I would use "that is" as a distinctive phrase is to mean "for example" though.

by DanBC 6y ago

> They are not equivalent They are often used as equivalents. Descriptivism is better than prescriptivism if you want to understand language as it's actually used.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> They are often used as equivalents No, they are often (though very, very far from most often) used in reverse because people forget which is which. Even in that case they have very distinct intended meanings, and are not equivalents. > Descriptivism is better than prescriptivism if you want to understand language as it's actually used. Sure, but descriptivism isn't “words lose all distinct meaning if occasionally someone mixes them up” or nothing would mean anything.

DanBC 6y ago
> No, they are often (though very, very far from most often) used in reverse because people forget which is which. Even in that case they have very distinct intended meanings, and are not equivalents. Isn't this just another way of saying they're equivalent as used? People don't know which is which, they often don't car,e and they pick one. Prescriptivist "what should eg mean in this sentence?" Descriptivist "what does Bob mean when he uses eg in this sentence?"
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Isn't this just another way of saying they're equivalent as used? No, it's not. One is used a vast majority of the time to mean “that is” and occasionally, by different people, to mean “for example”. One is used a vast majority of the time to mean “for example” and occasionally, by different people, to mean “that is”. Neither group (not the one with the dominant understanding nor the one with the minority understanding) uses the terms interchangeably, they both use them with distinct meanings. The existence of some confusion of meaning and minority usages resulting from that does not eliminate all distinction in meaning, even from a descriptivist standpoint. It's true that “X means Y” is usually a simplification of a distribution to a modal value, but that's also widely recognized and, from a descriptivist standpoint, already incorporated into the meaning of the phrase.
  - Talanes 6y ago
    The only time I would use "that is" as a distinctive phrase is to mean "for example" though.