9 ms·

Language is defined by the people who speak it, not by some authority. If people are using “les” than it is part of Spanish.

by lotu 5y ago

inglor_cz 5y ago
Some languages actually do have a central authority. IDK about Spanish, but my native language (Czech) definitely has an official standard. Anyone can, of course, use any weird construction they want, it is just not correct Czech.
- kwanbix 5y ago
  Spanisch also hast it. Real academia española But he post of the other member was about that languages naturally evolve, which is true, but this is forced and unatural.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    What makes it forced or unnatural? It's intentional, to be sure, but hope does that make it less natural? Or put differently, how do you distinguish between a natural and unnatural change to language?
    - kwanbix 5y ago
      Unnatural because they thought of inventing it, they started saying "tod@s" (todos is everyone), didn't catch, they then moved to "todxs", didn't catch, then they said "todes", and because people don't naturally use it. They even use it wrongly all the time. But more importantly, unnatural because if you have to impose it and call me names for not using it, you are doing it wrong.
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        > they thought of inventing it, How is this different than any other term that was coined? > didn't catch, they then moved to "todxs", didn't catch, then they said "todes", and because people don't naturally use it. They even use it wrongly all the time This sounds like natural evolution to me. People try different terms until one sticks. > But more importantly, unnatural because if you have to impose it and call me names for not using it, you are doing it wrong. Why? You're calling their use of language "wrong". Can't they do the same?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
kwanbix 5y ago
If it was natural an used by all, it could be, but it in this case it was not natural, not used or liked by all, and forced. For example, thief's use their own words and it is not considered part of Spanish for example. They started with gender ideology and then started to escalate. And it is not more inclusive if you force me to leave my believes. If you want to be called "les", and you ask nice, I will probably have no problem. Now, if you want me to embrace that "les" is more inclusive because you just say so and you force me to do it, is not part of Spanish. A similar thing happened with abortion. First they started saying it has to be legal, then that it had to be free, and then that if you are a doctor and you don't agree with abortion you have to do it anyway (they force you to do it by law).
- Djvacto 5y ago
  Do you have any more information on the abortion policy you're using as a comparison? Tried to guess which country you were referring to but couldn't find concrete info after a bit of googling. I don't think the comparison between using more inclusive language to refer to people, and you being forced to abandon your beliefs, makes much sense. Putting aside potential issues with beliefs and their effect on a person's treatment of those around them, no one is forcing you to stop believing whatever it is you believe. Potentially limited may be how you treat or talk to people, but that is a separate limit than what you are allowed to believe, since once it becomes words or actions, now it's not just in your head but out in reality and potentially affecting others.
  - kwanbix 5y ago
    This is in Argentina. MY MISTAKE: apparently the law does allow a doctor to say no for his believes. I cannot edit the previous post. Again, so this people today say that you have to say "les", what prevents me from saying I am not filling included, I want everybody to start saying "lus" or "chimichangas" for that matter? The problem for me is that they force you to behave however they want you to behave.
    - munk-a 5y ago
throwaway894345 5y ago
The parent is pretty clearly saying that "les" wasn't previously a Spanish word, because HN is an English language forum and some of us don't know that. Let's not nitpick the English of folks for whom it's a second language.
jhgb 5y ago
> Language is defined by the people who speak it, not by some authority. This may be true in case of English, but not necessarily in case of many national languages.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > > Language is defined by the people who speak it, not by some authority. > This may be true in case of English, but not necessarily in case of many national languages. Counterexample: The German Rechtschreibreform of 1996 was mainly retracted after a decade of popular resistance. Seems even languages that are ostensibly “regulated by a central authority” in the end follow the will of those who use the language. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_orthography_reform_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_orthography_reform_of_1...
  - jhgb 5y ago
    English is already a counterexample. As for orthography reforms, well, they don't affect language as such, as languages are primarily spoken. An orthography reform won't ever change how people speak, so whether the German one was successful or not is irrelevant. And the fact that orthography reforms in particular may not be often successful is not surprising either since written words tend to more conservative as they have facilitated communication through time. Just look at the discrepancy between English speech and writing.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > English is already a counterexample. I meant counterexample in the sense of "language that does at least ostensibly have a central authority (the Duden) still in the end having to bow to the will of the language-using public". English isn't a counterexample of that, since it doesn't even remotely claim to be governed by any central authority. > ...languages are primarily spoken. An orthography reform won't ever change how people speak, so whether the German one was successful or not is irrelevant "Primarily" is not the same as "only". You haven't heard a word I've said, have you? And yet here we are, talking to each other...

Language is defined by the people who speak it, not by some authority. If people are using “les” than it is part of Spanish.

by lotu 5y ago

Language is defined by the people who speak it, not by some authority. If people are using “les” than it is part of Spanish.

inglor_cz 5y ago

Some languages actually do have a central authority. IDK about Spanish, but my native language (Czech) definitely has an official standard. Anyone can, of course, use any weird construction they want, it is just not correct Czech.

kwanbix 5y ago
Spanisch also hast it. Real academia española But he post of the other member was about that languages naturally evolve, which is true, but this is forced and unatural.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  What makes it forced or unnatural? It's intentional, to be sure, but hope does that make it less natural? Or put differently, how do you distinguish between a natural and unnatural change to language?
  - kwanbix 5y ago
    Unnatural because they thought of inventing it, they started saying "tod@s" (todos is everyone), didn't catch, they then moved to "todxs", didn't catch, then they said "todes", and because people don't naturally use it. They even use it wrongly all the time. But more importantly, unnatural because if you have to impose it and call me names for not using it, you are doing it wrong.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      > they thought of inventing it, How is this different than any other term that was coined? > didn't catch, they then moved to "todxs", didn't catch, then they said "todes", and because people don't naturally use it. They even use it wrongly all the time This sounds like natural evolution to me. People try different terms until one sticks. > But more importantly, unnatural because if you have to impose it and call me names for not using it, you are doing it wrong. Why? You're calling their use of language "wrong". Can't they do the same?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

kwanbix 5y ago

If it was natural an used by all, it could be, but it in this case it was not natural, not used or liked by all, and forced. For example, thief's use their own words and it is not considered part of Spanish for example. They started with gender ideology and then started to escalate. And it is not more inclusive if you force me to leave my believes. If you want to be called "les", and you ask nice, I will probably have no problem. Now, if you want me to embrace that "les" is more inclusive because you just say so and you force me to do it, is not part of Spanish. A similar thing happened with abortion. First they started saying it has to be legal, then that it had to be free, and then that if you are a doctor and you don't agree with abortion you have to do it anyway (they force you to do it by law).

Djvacto 5y ago
Do you have any more information on the abortion policy you're using as a comparison? Tried to guess which country you were referring to but couldn't find concrete info after a bit of googling. I don't think the comparison between using more inclusive language to refer to people, and you being forced to abandon your beliefs, makes much sense. Putting aside potential issues with beliefs and their effect on a person's treatment of those around them, no one is forcing you to stop believing whatever it is you believe. Potentially limited may be how you treat or talk to people, but that is a separate limit than what you are allowed to believe, since once it becomes words or actions, now it's not just in your head but out in reality and potentially affecting others.
- kwanbix 5y ago
  This is in Argentina. MY MISTAKE: apparently the law does allow a doctor to say no for his believes. I cannot edit the previous post. Again, so this people today say that you have to say "les", what prevents me from saying I am not filling included, I want everybody to start saying "lus" or "chimichangas" for that matter? The problem for me is that they force you to behave however they want you to behave.
  - munk-a 5y ago

throwaway894345 5y ago

The parent is pretty clearly saying that "les" wasn't previously a Spanish word, because HN is an English language forum and some of us don't know that. Let's not nitpick the English of folks for whom it's a second language.

jhgb 5y ago

> Language is defined by the people who speak it, not by some authority. This may be true in case of English, but not necessarily in case of many national languages.

CRConrad 5y ago
> > Language is defined by the people who speak it, not by some authority. > This may be true in case of English, but not necessarily in case of many national languages. Counterexample: The German Rechtschreibreform of 1996 was mainly retracted after a decade of popular resistance. Seems even languages that are ostensibly “regulated by a central authority” in the end follow the will of those who use the language. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_orthography_reform_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_orthography_reform_of_1...
- jhgb 5y ago
  English is already a counterexample. As for orthography reforms, well, they don't affect language as such, as languages are primarily spoken. An orthography reform won't ever change how people speak, so whether the German one was successful or not is irrelevant. And the fact that orthography reforms in particular may not be often successful is not surprising either since written words tend to more conservative as they have facilitated communication through time. Just look at the discrepancy between English speech and writing.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > English is already a counterexample. I meant counterexample in the sense of "language that does at least ostensibly have a central authority (the Duden) still in the end having to bow to the will of the language-using public". English isn't a counterexample of that, since it doesn't even remotely claim to be governed by any central authority. > ...languages are primarily spoken. An orthography reform won't ever change how people speak, so whether the German one was successful or not is irrelevant "Primarily" is not the same as "only". You haven't heard a word I've said, have you? And yet here we are, talking to each other...