3 ms·

> 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

> 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
    > 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". Then "Legos" is still wrong because the components are called "bricks", "pieces" or similar. > Thus the probably extremely common sentence used by parents all over America is "Please cleanup your legos". Just because it is common it doesn't mean it is correct. Plenty of people misunderstand computer jargon, it doesn't mean they're correct either. > And that refers to duplo bricks and off brand building block copies as well. This is basically an admission that the term is being used incorrectly if people are using it for stuff that literally isn't Lego too. :) > So basically, for it to be technically incorrect, you have to argue that "legos" is an incorrect substitution for "lego bricks". I'd already supplied lots of examples of how it's not a suitable substitution. > it is now technically correct as well as coloquially common. It isn't technically correct. Colloquially common, sure. But I've given numerous examples of how it's not technically correct. Even Lego themselves don't use the term "Legos" -- which should be evidence enough that it's not technically correct. > 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. This "'literally' is misused by the modern generation" sentiment is actually an inaccurate modern meme. The virtual usage of the term -- used when people want to exaggerate a point -- has been in used since the 1700s. 'A Dictionary of the English Language'[0] was published in 1755 (nearly 200 years before the first edition of esteemed the Oxford Dictionary[1]). The first American English dictionary[2] was another ~50 years after that. Thus the virtual definition of 'literally' is not actually considered slang since it pre-dates modern dictionaries. Ironically its more colloquially incorrect using the virtual term than it is literally incorrect. Thus you'll often find the virtual term used in older texts by highly regarded writers: > Among the meaning of literally is one which many people find problematic: "in effect, virtually—used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible." Neither this nor any of the other meanings of literally is what we would consider slang. This sense has been in standard use by many esteemed writers since the 18th century. Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally (Is the extended use of literally slang?) This is all stuff that's really easy to research. All the text is public domain and online for anyone to read. Likewise with the "Legos" slang, you can see on Lego's[3] website how they refer to the product vs the components. Thus none of this requires us to guess at whether common vernacular is formal, because it's all already published online for all to reference. The issue is many conflate colloquial slang with formal writing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dictionary_of_the_English_Language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dictionary_of_the_English_La... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary [2] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Compendious_Dictionary_of_the_English_Language https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Compendious_Dictionary_of_t... [3] Which is correct because I'm attributing ownership here

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
  > 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". Then "Legos" is still wrong because the components are called "bricks", "pieces" or similar. > Thus the probably extremely common sentence used by parents all over America is "Please cleanup your legos". Just because it is common it doesn't mean it is correct. Plenty of people misunderstand computer jargon, it doesn't mean they're correct either. > And that refers to duplo bricks and off brand building block copies as well. This is basically an admission that the term is being used incorrectly if people are using it for stuff that literally isn't Lego too. :) > So basically, for it to be technically incorrect, you have to argue that "legos" is an incorrect substitution for "lego bricks". I'd already supplied lots of examples of how it's not a suitable substitution. > it is now technically correct as well as coloquially common. It isn't technically correct. Colloquially common, sure. But I've given numerous examples of how it's not technically correct. Even Lego themselves don't use the term "Legos" -- which should be evidence enough that it's not technically correct. > 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. This "'literally' is misused by the modern generation" sentiment is actually an inaccurate modern meme. The virtual usage of the term -- used when people want to exaggerate a point -- has been in used since the 1700s. 'A Dictionary of the English Language'[0] was published in 1755 (nearly 200 years before the first edition of esteemed the Oxford Dictionary[1]). The first American English dictionary[2] was another ~50 years after that. Thus the virtual definition of 'literally' is not actually considered slang since it pre-dates modern dictionaries. Ironically its more colloquially incorrect using the virtual term than it is literally incorrect. Thus you'll often find the virtual term used in older texts by highly regarded writers: > Among the meaning of literally is one which many people find problematic: "in effect, virtually—used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible." Neither this nor any of the other meanings of literally is what we would consider slang. This sense has been in standard use by many esteemed writers since the 18th century. Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally (Is the extended use of literally slang?) This is all stuff that's really easy to research. All the text is public domain and online for anyone to read. Likewise with the "Legos" slang, you can see on Lego's[3] website how they refer to the product vs the components. Thus none of this requires us to guess at whether common vernacular is formal, because it's all already published online for all to reference. The issue is many conflate colloquial slang with formal writing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dictionary_of_the_English_Language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dictionary_of_the_English_La... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary [2] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Compendious_Dictionary_of_the_English_Language https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Compendious_Dictionary_of_t... [3] Which is correct because I'm attributing ownership here