6 ms·

> prescriptive approaches to language have a long history of being used to enforce class, ethnicity and geography based discrimination. This is a sloppy argume

> prescriptive approaches to language have a long history of being used to enforce class, ethnicity and geography based discrimination. This is a sloppy argument. Nothing about teaching correct English enforces discrimination and in fact it does the opposite by leveling the playing field. If one day teachers stopped teaching grammar, that would only worsen the linguistic shift across the races and classes, allowing them to more easily discriminate between each other. Even if you want to erase the idea that there is a “correct” English, the inevitable presence of the differences in speech will regress the concept to “my tribe’s English” and eventually “my tribe’s language.” Teaching and promoting a standard and correct English promotes a more liberal society. I’m puzzled that sloppy arguments like the one you made above continually permeate culture when it only takes a few logical steps to see how it results in an outcome opposite to what you want.

dcminter 5y ago
Rant all you want, but if P.G.Wodehouse uses a phrase it's good enough for me.
- CyberRabbi 5y ago
  P.G.Wodehouse cites “for a lark” which is correct. He does not cite “as a lark” nor does your other source.
shkkmo 5y ago
> “my tribe’s English” That's where we are already. What you propose is forcing the other tribes to speak your tribe's english. I am not saying that there aren't advatages to teaching people about other tribe's dialects. If you combine that with inclusive policies you can merge dialects. When you enforce a specific dialect, then you exclude and alienate speakers of other dialects and this will INCREASE linguistic drift. I see nothing sloppy about my argument and I don't think that particular word (especially when you make no effort to explain what is "sloppy") is more of an ad hominem attack than perhaps you intended.
- CyberRabbi 5y ago
  It’s sloppy because it’s just a regurgitation of a talking point that has no logical basis. You and I both know that not teaching a standard English or pretending like one does not exist would only worsen language-based discrimination. > When you enforce a specific dialect, then you exclude and alienate speakers of other dialects and this will INCREASE linguistic drift. How exactly would that happen? It would provide a means for other dialects to adopt the standard dialect and communicate with the wider community. That’s the opposite of increasing linguistic drift. In the situation you’re suggesting, you’re expecting everyone to understand and communicate in every other dialect simultaneously. That’s just an unrealistic expectation. > That's where we are already. What you propose is forcing the other tribes to speak your tribe's english. I propose everyone who desires to participate in the English-speaking world voluntarily unite and find consensus under standard English. Stop taking something personally that isn’t personal and speak the standard English so that we may all better communicate and information can more freely disseminate across more populations. Imagine if people started making the argument that correcting incorrect Python was racist/classist and people should just start forking Python if they do not like standard Python. That would be silly yet that is what you are suggesting. Obviously having a single agreed-upon dialect of Python is beneficial to everyone and it shouldn’t be personally offensive to recommend that people program in standard Python.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    > It’s sloppy because it’s just a regurgitation of a talking point that has no logical basis. It definitely is not a talking point. This is a stance I have arrived at after studying linguistics, philosohy of language and psychology then doing lots of traveling and spending over a decade thinking about it, all as someone who is inclined towards engaging in language pedantry. If there are errors in reasoning, those errors are mine since it is a stance I arrived at without hearing it from other people. > How exactly would that happen? How it always happens? How much time have you spend in multi-lingual contexts? How do you think creols and slang develope? Language naturally evolves to fit the needs of people who use it. > I propose everyone who desires to participate in the English-speaking world voluntarily unite and find consensus under standard English. Who decides what is standard? Can the standard change? Is it fair to set that standard as something that one group learns at home and another group has to study and practice to use? > Stop taking something personally that isn’t personal It's hard to get more personal than the language you think in and use to talk to the people closest to you. > we may all better communicate and information can more freely disseminate across more populations. You say "we", but the "we" for whom it is easier is limited to the people that already speak the annoited "correct" dialect. > Imagine if people started making the argument that correcting incorrect Python was racist/classist and people should just start forking Python if they do not like standard Python. Programming "languages" aren't actually languages in any sense that makes your argument here have any value. Programming "languages" are actually complicated mathematical notations. Funnily enough, your example, python, actually has two versions in use. If everyone refused to use python 3 because it was "bad python" then the communtiy would have been worse off. The fundemental problem with your position is that it is inherently hypocritical, arbitrary and self-serving. You distinguish between the age of "as a lark" and "on a lark" based on an arbirary point in time. There are plenty of idioms / meanings that are younger than "as a lark" but that you hypocritically would accept as just fine. For example, you use the term "forking" in a manner that is both semantically and grammatically very new. If a word or usage arises as part of your dialect, it automatically becomes part of the "standard", but if it arises in the dialect of an outgroup then it qualifies as "incorrect english". I am not opposed to developing language standards, but those standards need to be both responsive to shifts in the language and inclusive for a wide range of dialects. Ideally you can also teach this standard without impicitly judging people as stupid and uneducated when they use their native dialect. You also need to be careful about using adherence to this standard as a gatekeeper to prevent people from having equal opportunities.

dcminter 5y ago

Rant all you want, but if P.G.Wodehouse uses a phrase it's good enough for me.

CyberRabbi 5y ago
P.G.Wodehouse cites “for a lark” which is correct. He does not cite “as a lark” nor does your other source.

shkkmo 5y ago

> “my tribe’s English” That's where we are already. What you propose is forcing the other tribes to speak your tribe's english. I am not saying that there aren't advatages to teaching people about other tribe's dialects. If you combine that with inclusive policies you can merge dialects. When you enforce a specific dialect, then you exclude and alienate speakers of other dialects and this will INCREASE linguistic drift. I see nothing sloppy about my argument and I don't think that particular word (especially when you make no effort to explain what is "sloppy") is more of an ad hominem attack than perhaps you intended.

CyberRabbi 5y ago
It’s sloppy because it’s just a regurgitation of a talking point that has no logical basis. You and I both know that not teaching a standard English or pretending like one does not exist would only worsen language-based discrimination. > When you enforce a specific dialect, then you exclude and alienate speakers of other dialects and this will INCREASE linguistic drift. How exactly would that happen? It would provide a means for other dialects to adopt the standard dialect and communicate with the wider community. That’s the opposite of increasing linguistic drift. In the situation you’re suggesting, you’re expecting everyone to understand and communicate in every other dialect simultaneously. That’s just an unrealistic expectation. > That's where we are already. What you propose is forcing the other tribes to speak your tribe's english. I propose everyone who desires to participate in the English-speaking world voluntarily unite and find consensus under standard English. Stop taking something personally that isn’t personal and speak the standard English so that we may all better communicate and information can more freely disseminate across more populations. Imagine if people started making the argument that correcting incorrect Python was racist/classist and people should just start forking Python if they do not like standard Python. That would be silly yet that is what you are suggesting. Obviously having a single agreed-upon dialect of Python is beneficial to everyone and it shouldn’t be personally offensive to recommend that people program in standard Python.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > It’s sloppy because it’s just a regurgitation of a talking point that has no logical basis. It definitely is not a talking point. This is a stance I have arrived at after studying linguistics, philosohy of language and psychology then doing lots of traveling and spending over a decade thinking about it, all as someone who is inclined towards engaging in language pedantry. If there are errors in reasoning, those errors are mine since it is a stance I arrived at without hearing it from other people. > How exactly would that happen? How it always happens? How much time have you spend in multi-lingual contexts? How do you think creols and slang develope? Language naturally evolves to fit the needs of people who use it. > I propose everyone who desires to participate in the English-speaking world voluntarily unite and find consensus under standard English. Who decides what is standard? Can the standard change? Is it fair to set that standard as something that one group learns at home and another group has to study and practice to use? > Stop taking something personally that isn’t personal It's hard to get more personal than the language you think in and use to talk to the people closest to you. > we may all better communicate and information can more freely disseminate across more populations. You say "we", but the "we" for whom it is easier is limited to the people that already speak the annoited "correct" dialect. > Imagine if people started making the argument that correcting incorrect Python was racist/classist and people should just start forking Python if they do not like standard Python. Programming "languages" aren't actually languages in any sense that makes your argument here have any value. Programming "languages" are actually complicated mathematical notations. Funnily enough, your example, python, actually has two versions in use. If everyone refused to use python 3 because it was "bad python" then the communtiy would have been worse off. The fundemental problem with your position is that it is inherently hypocritical, arbitrary and self-serving. You distinguish between the age of "as a lark" and "on a lark" based on an arbirary point in time. There are plenty of idioms / meanings that are younger than "as a lark" but that you hypocritically would accept as just fine. For example, you use the term "forking" in a manner that is both semantically and grammatically very new. If a word or usage arises as part of your dialect, it automatically becomes part of the "standard", but if it arises in the dialect of an outgroup then it qualifies as "incorrect english". I am not opposed to developing language standards, but those standards need to be both responsive to shifts in the language and inclusive for a wide range of dialects. Ideally you can also teach this standard without impicitly judging people as stupid and uneducated when they use their native dialect. You also need to be careful about using adherence to this standard as a gatekeeper to prevent people from having equal opportunities.