3 ms·

> You're missing the point of the GP I don't think I missed the point. They asked: "who does that?" And my answer was, essentially, "some people!" In fact, ar

> You're missing the point of the GP I don't think I missed the point. They asked: "who does that?" And my answer was, essentially, "some people!" In fact, around me, it's everyone I've ever talked with legos about. > People might informally call it "Legos" in America but that doesn't mean it's technically accurate. I think it is technically accurate, because I'm a descriptivist. So, when people in America (or other place) say: "legos" to describe they toys they're playing with that is technically accurate. Because language is how people use it. There is no "formal rule" for what english is. English is however it is used.

hnlmorg 6y ago
> So, when people in America (or other place) say: "legos" to describe they toys they're playing with that is technically accurate. Because language is how people use it. There is no "formal rule" for what english is. English is however it is used. You're conflating different things there: - Colloquially correct - Formally correct English, like most languages, does have formal rules. You claim there is no "formal rule for what English is" but that's 100% incorrect. Yes you're right that common usage does alter languages but not in the way you imply. Colloquial usage doesn't alter formal rules. "Legos" might be colloquial but it is not formally correct. A good equivalent here is jigsaw puzzles. You don't call multiple games "jigsaw pieces" like you implied the Lego game might be called "Lego bricks". Colloquially some people call them "jigsaws" but formally they're called "jigsaw puzzles". Just because there is a colloquial convention it doesn't it's correct. There are countless examples of colloquial "rules" that are grammatically or formally incorrect. Even just within the UK and USA we have different communities that have their own colloquial standards. Yet there is a national standard for how one writes formal documents.
- ncallaway 6y ago
  > Yet there is a national standard for how one writes formal documents. Citation needed, please. Could you link me to the formally defined national grammar for American English, please? Who is the body that maintains this formal standard? Is it NIST, or ANSI, or an ISO standard? There is, in fact, no formal English standard that defines what is "correct". I'm not conflating "colloquially correct" with "formally correct". I am fundamentally disagreeing with you that a concept such as "formally correct" exists for language. I am a descriptivist. You sound like you are a prescriptivist. We may just have to agree to disagree on this point.
  - hnlmorg 6y ago
    > Citation needed, please. Could you link me to the formally defined national grammar for American English, please? Who is the body that maintains this formal standard? Is it NIST, or ANSI, or an ISO standard? It's not a technical language like C so you're not going to find a technical standard in ANSI but organisations like Websters (and Oxford in the UK) do define standards for formal writing. I guess the confusion here is it's not a "formal standard" but a "standard in formal writing". I apologise for not being clearer on that. Generally the formal version of the language is considered "correct" while variations are "slang". You might argue that is only a de facto standard but it's still one that is upheld. Some languages go further and do literally have a formal body in charge of maintaining their language, such as Académie Française who dictate the evolution of French https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_Fran%C3%A7aise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_Fran%C3%A7aise > You sound like you are a prescriptivist I'm really not. I frequently colour my speech with non-literal imagery and slang. But I also acknowledge that there are still underlying rules to any language. And if I seem like a prescriptivist it's only because I'm dyslexic so have to work harder than most to make my thoughts understandable -- so much so that a frequent phrase I used as a teen was "if the point of languages is to be understood then who gives a shit if I'm grammatically correct when you clearly understood me?" Suffice to say, human languages aren't something that comes naturally to me. Thus I might be more acutely aware of the rules where you might take them for granted.
    - jjeaff 6y ago
      I think you are misattributing the rules in this case. What you seem to be missing is that when people say "legos" they are not referring to a game like your example of snooker. Legos refers to "lego bricks". Thus the probably extremely common sentence used by parents all over America is "Please cleanup your legos". And that refers to duplo bricks and off brand building block copies as well. So basically, for it to be technically incorrect, you have to argue that "legos" is an incorrect substitution for "lego bricks". I would argue that it is such a common synonym for "attachable building blocks" or "lego bricks", that it is now technically correct as well as coloquially common. Just like many dictionaries have now added an additional definition for the word "literally", making sentences like, "I am literally dead right now" both colloquially common and technically correct.

hnlmorg 6y ago

> So, when people in America (or other place) say: "legos" to describe they toys they're playing with that is technically accurate. Because language is how people use it. There is no "formal rule" for what english is. English is however it is used. You're conflating different things there: - Colloquially correct - Formally correct English, like most languages, does have formal rules. You claim there is no "formal rule for what English is" but that's 100% incorrect. Yes you're right that common usage does alter languages but not in the way you imply. Colloquial usage doesn't alter formal rules. "Legos" might be colloquial but it is not formally correct. A good equivalent here is jigsaw puzzles. You don't call multiple games "jigsaw pieces" like you implied the Lego game might be called "Lego bricks". Colloquially some people call them "jigsaws" but formally they're called "jigsaw puzzles". Just because there is a colloquial convention it doesn't it's correct. There are countless examples of colloquial "rules" that are grammatically or formally incorrect. Even just within the UK and USA we have different communities that have their own colloquial standards. Yet there is a national standard for how one writes formal documents.

ncallaway 6y ago
> Yet there is a national standard for how one writes formal documents. Citation needed, please. Could you link me to the formally defined national grammar for American English, please? Who is the body that maintains this formal standard? Is it NIST, or ANSI, or an ISO standard? There is, in fact, no formal English standard that defines what is "correct". I'm not conflating "colloquially correct" with "formally correct". I am fundamentally disagreeing with you that a concept such as "formally correct" exists for language. I am a descriptivist. You sound like you are a prescriptivist. We may just have to agree to disagree on this point.
- hnlmorg 6y ago
  > Citation needed, please. Could you link me to the formally defined national grammar for American English, please? Who is the body that maintains this formal standard? Is it NIST, or ANSI, or an ISO standard? It's not a technical language like C so you're not going to find a technical standard in ANSI but organisations like Websters (and Oxford in the UK) do define standards for formal writing. I guess the confusion here is it's not a "formal standard" but a "standard in formal writing". I apologise for not being clearer on that. Generally the formal version of the language is considered "correct" while variations are "slang". You might argue that is only a de facto standard but it's still one that is upheld. Some languages go further and do literally have a formal body in charge of maintaining their language, such as Académie Française who dictate the evolution of French https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_Fran%C3%A7aise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_Fran%C3%A7aise > You sound like you are a prescriptivist I'm really not. I frequently colour my speech with non-literal imagery and slang. But I also acknowledge that there are still underlying rules to any language. And if I seem like a prescriptivist it's only because I'm dyslexic so have to work harder than most to make my thoughts understandable -- so much so that a frequent phrase I used as a teen was "if the point of languages is to be understood then who gives a shit if I'm grammatically correct when you clearly understood me?" Suffice to say, human languages aren't something that comes naturally to me. Thus I might be more acutely aware of the rules where you might take them for granted.
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    I think you are misattributing the rules in this case. What you seem to be missing is that when people say "legos" they are not referring to a game like your example of snooker. Legos refers to "lego bricks". Thus the probably extremely common sentence used by parents all over America is "Please cleanup your legos". And that refers to duplo bricks and off brand building block copies as well. So basically, for it to be technically incorrect, you have to argue that "legos" is an incorrect substitution for "lego bricks". I would argue that it is such a common synonym for "attachable building blocks" or "lego bricks", that it is now technically correct as well as coloquially common. Just like many dictionaries have now added an additional definition for the word "literally", making sentences like, "I am literally dead right now" both colloquially common and technically correct.