5 ms·
I’d say their name the way they wanted to, because I’m not an asshole. But I don’t think that’s as much of a contradiction as you think it is. It’s a great exam
by eyelidlessness 5y ago
I’d say their name the way they wanted to, because I’m not an asshole. But I don’t think that’s as much of a contradiction as you think it is. It’s a great example of how language evolves.
- HKH2 5y agoIt's an example of prescription in language. Correcting someone's spelling/grammar is another. Whether to prescribe language or not is somewhat arbitrary at times and is determined culturally, so I don't think the argument above can be resolved.
- eyelidlessness 5y agoI know that was your point and I said I knew it in my response. But it’s not prescriptivism. It’s proscribed, and that’s different. Accepting that someone’s name is linguistically different than the rules you expect it to follow is both not being an asshole and descriptivism in practice. The fact that it’s proscribed is just a testament that it’s important to the person who prompted you to accept that particular language evolution.
- HKH2 5y agoSo it seems you are saying it only makes sense to describe prescriptivism as explicitly calling for conformity to an existing norm. There seem to be plenty of people who will argue to conserve grammar/spelling/semantics etc. I can't say their work is unfruitful, yet it does seem to be the case that language follows the habits of the majority.