5 ms·
A dictionary lists all the words people use. It does not curate the words people should use. Therefore, a words presence in a dictionary is not proof of anythin
by dqpb 4y ago
A dictionary lists all the words people use. It does not curate the words people should use. Therefore, a words presence in a dictionary is not proof of anything other than the word has been used before.
- School-Cotton 4y agoWhether people “should” use a particular word is your subjective aesthetic judgment.
- YurgenJurgensen 4y agoThe purpose of language is to communicate. Adding words which mean exactly the same thing as existing (shorter) words consumes cognitive resources without enhancing the language's ability to communicate. Therefore, objectively, people shouldn't use them.
- oefnak 4y agoYou use hard words to say simple thing. This cost a lot of mind power. Why?
- rzzzt 4y ago"Sometimes words, you no need use but need need for talk talk." There are prescriptive and descriptive schools of linguistics, with one trying to gently nudge/direct/drive/correct the use of a language, while the other concentrates on documenting it as it happens in the wild.
- School-Cotton 4y ago> There are prescriptive and descriptive schools of linguistics That’s not true. There are no “prescriptivists” whatsoever in the modern science of linguistics.
- rzzzt 4y agoInteresting to hear! What happened to those guys?
- School-Cotton 4y agoWhat guys? Did they ever exist? Can you name a prominent “prescriptivist linguist”? I’m pretty sure there was never a “prescriptivist school” of linguistics, or if there was it was never mainstream. There have been prescriptive grammarians of course but AFAIK they never called themselves “linguists”.
- rzzzt 4y agoThis is definitely my ignorance showing, so you'll have to bear with me, but what is the difference between grammarian and linguist? I did find a linguistics course note which does seem to indicate that such a debate existed, even if in the past: https://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/ling001/prescription.html https://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/ling001/prescription.html
- YurgenJurgensen 4y agoI have no idea what your point is here. Which, I guess, proves mine.
- School-Cotton 4y agoSo you’re categorically against the existence of synonyms?
- YurgenJurgensen 4y agoThere are very few true synonyms. Most have some cases where you'd want to use one or the other.
- andylynch 4y agoOne might say such word choices are ungood.
- dqpb 4y agoIs it subjective in this case? There is a logic to how this word is constructed: regard-less means without regard. Irregardless violates that logic: ir-regard-less, not without regard?
- School-Cotton 4y agoIt’s true that you can’t logically predict the meaning of “irregardless” from its smaller components. However, that’s true of virtually all words. Ones where the etymology makes the meaning obvious are the exception. Human languages aren’t math or programming languages; you can’t apply the same kind of logic to them.