3 ms·
Merriam Webster are the arch-descriptivists. If a usage is attested anywhere, MW lists it as correct. Basically, they don't believe that any usage attested anyw
by denton-scratch 4y ago
Merriam Webster are the arch-descriptivists. If a usage is attested anywhere, MW lists it as correct. Basically, they don't believe that any usage attested anywhere can be incorrect. If you want to know whether a usage is correct or not, don't ask MW.
- amanaplanacanal 4y agoCorrect according to whom?
- denton-scratch 4y agoHumpty Dumpty is not an authority on the meaning of words.
- amanaplanacanal 4y agoThat’s the thing. Nobody is. Words were not handed down from god. Language changes continuously. Notice how we aren’t speaking proto-indo-european any more?
- denton-scratch 4y agoI'm trying to avoid this conversation :-) I think descriptivism/prescriptivism is probably off-topic in this thread. Oh well - Someone upthread implied that the purpose of a descriptivist dictionary is to help readers/hearers to understand unfamiliar words, not to guide writers/speakers in correct usage. Thing is, they're all descriptivist. There are opinionated guides like Fowler (and the subject of this article! /on-topic), but I don't know of an opinionated lexicon.
- amanaplanacanal 4y agoHonestly it’s just my pet peeve. It’s like grammar nazis. I want to tell them this just isn’t how language works.
- yamtaddle 4y agoDescriptivist dictionaries aren't about giving advice on usage that best communicates, so consulting them as a usage guide is usually not the best idea. They're to help one understand unfamiliar words or usage—including common but maybe-not-great ones!—not to use as a guide to what's best. Finding a definition in a dictionary isn't enough to justify a choice, aside from confirming that one has not done something entirely novel.