6 ms·

Sure, but why should people who can’t use the language properly () be an uncontested force in that evolution? () If we can’t say that “comprised of” is objecti

Sure, but why should people who can’t use the language properly () be an uncontested force in that evolution? () If we can’t say that “comprised of” is objectively wrong, then what _can_ we say about English? Should we accept “bought” as a legitimate past tense of “bring”? Sometimes people are just making a habitual mistake. It happens to me, too.

casey2 3y ago
What about it is objectively wrong? Semantics? There are plenty of words that contain 'of' in the definition, yet are used with of "Because of" being the primary example, and afaict is allowed on Wikipedia. Grammar? "Possessed of" "descended from" etc. This is also very common.
- riwsky 3y ago
  ‘Of’ is not itself the problem. The problem is that the direction has flipped from the original usage. It’s like if instead of “my book collection includes all the classics of Russian literature” people started saying “my book collection is included by all the classics of Russian literature”
kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
I accept his argument but it is tilting at windmills. Is it valid to engage in mass erasure of a historical record to suit outmoded ideas? The issue here is that an existing word has acquired a new usage and the old guard isn't happy with the change. There was once much grousing about youths failing to properly conjugate second person pronouns. Now it's anachronistic to use them.
- emodendroket 3y ago
  "You" is still around so we do still have second-person pronouns.
  - kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
    Used "incorrectly" in place of thee, thou, and thy in familiar speech.
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      Yes, I know, but we are not without second-person pronouns at all; we just no longer have separate singular and plural ones.
      - bombcar 3y ago
        Y’all is coming so you best be ready for the second person plural.
tsimionescu 3y ago
If it became common usage, yes? If most people make "a habitual mistake", then by whose authority of it a mistake? > Sure, but why should people who can’t use the language properly (*) be an uncontested force in that evolution? How do you think English and all other modern languages formed? If some authority were able to stop people who can't use a language properly from evolving it, the people on the British isles would be speaking Old Norse, Anglo-Saxon, Latin, etc. today, not English.
- stOneskull 3y ago
  the meaning of "begs the question" has changed in this way. it's just about always used "incorrectly" now.
- netsharc 3y ago
  The most fun is reading threads about cars or racing, where people say "break" when they mean "brake". Should we accept "break" to mean deceleration, or as a noun for the equipment to slow down a vehicle, then?
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    We can rather tidily solve this by saying orthography and writing systems are artificial methods of representing the spoken language which have prescriptive rules. English spelling certainly shows that it's not difficult to retain many spellings that no longer accurately reflect the pronunciation of the word, if they ever did in the first place. On the other hand, preventing grammatical changes or semantic shift in words over time is impossible. Nobody's ever managed that (perhaps we could find some exceptions among languages that are used in religious or ceremonial contexts primarily and not as someone's regular means of communication).
    - denton-scratch 3y ago
      > if they ever did in the first place It's a distinctive feature of English that spelling and pronunciation are only loosely related. It's because of the history of the language; and of the country, for that matter.
rgoulter 3y ago
> If we can’t say that “comprised of” is objectively wrong, then what _can_ we say about English? I haven't read John McWhorter's "Words on the Move", but he addresses this question there, and this review has a summary: https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2017/06/15/review-john-mcwhorters-words-on-the-move/ https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2017/06/15/review-john-mcwho... - Isolated cases of 'incorrect' usage can be considered 'incorrect'. - Widespread usage that's different would be better described as a shift in language.
- emodendroket 3y ago
  You would think it would be relatively uncontroversial to anyone who's read an older text full of "thous" and "yes" that sometimes the way English is used changes over time. That said, I think McWhorter's observation that much fulminating over language usage is sublimated classism is an astute one.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    > That said, I think McWhorter's observation that much fulminating over language usage is sublimated classism is an astute one. It's fine in general, but it can't really apply here. This is some people imagining a difference that doesn't exist and then enforcing it on other people whose identities are unknown. Social class has no role to play in the process, except that this is the same behavior that, in other contexts, hardens class boundaries. In other words, my analysis would be that people are motivated to engage in this behavior without knowing why, and the ultimate reason is to enforce class boundaries, but here they're just going with their instincts even though there isn't a class boundary to enforce.
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      I don't agree. They may not be conscious of it but the target here is people who didn't have the "right" education letting them know to avoid this phrase.
alpaca128 3y ago
> why should people who can’t use the language properly () be an uncontested force in that evolution? For the same reason people with different opinions should still be allowed to vote. Also it's not an uncontested force, you are free to vote for the "correct" use of the language by actively using it yourself in that way and trying to convince others. Just like everyone else. In 200 years people might learn "should of" in school, just like we today call that one symbol "ampersand". And they will find some new word to complain about, just like probably every generation since at least middle english did because it was all the "correct" version of the language to them.
christkv 3y ago
Do you take or make a decision ;)
emodendroket 3y ago
> () If we can’t say that “comprised of” is objectively wrong, then what _can_ we say about English? Well, a lot of things. You can't say "the baby seems drinking the milk." Even though it's perfectly comprehensible, every English speaker will agree that "the baby seems to be drinking the milk" is the correct way to express this. Avoiding "comprised of" is a "rule" where we can't identify any dialect where everyone agrees on it.

casey2 3y ago

What about it is objectively wrong? Semantics? There are plenty of words that contain 'of' in the definition, yet are used with of "Because of" being the primary example, and afaict is allowed on Wikipedia. Grammar? "Possessed of" "descended from" etc. This is also very common.

riwsky 3y ago
‘Of’ is not itself the problem. The problem is that the direction has flipped from the original usage. It’s like if instead of “my book collection includes all the classics of Russian literature” people started saying “my book collection is included by all the classics of Russian literature”

kevin_thibedeau 3y ago

I accept his argument but it is tilting at windmills. Is it valid to engage in mass erasure of a historical record to suit outmoded ideas? The issue here is that an existing word has acquired a new usage and the old guard isn't happy with the change. There was once much grousing about youths failing to properly conjugate second person pronouns. Now it's anachronistic to use them.

emodendroket 3y ago
"You" is still around so we do still have second-person pronouns.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
  Used "incorrectly" in place of thee, thou, and thy in familiar speech.
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    Yes, I know, but we are not without second-person pronouns at all; we just no longer have separate singular and plural ones.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      Y’all is coming so you best be ready for the second person plural.

tsimionescu 3y ago

If it became common usage, yes? If most people make "a habitual mistake", then by whose authority of it a mistake? > Sure, but why should people who can’t use the language properly (*) be an uncontested force in that evolution? How do you think English and all other modern languages formed? If some authority were able to stop people who can't use a language properly from evolving it, the people on the British isles would be speaking Old Norse, Anglo-Saxon, Latin, etc. today, not English.

stOneskull 3y ago
the meaning of "begs the question" has changed in this way. it's just about always used "incorrectly" now.
netsharc 3y ago
The most fun is reading threads about cars or racing, where people say "break" when they mean "brake". Should we accept "break" to mean deceleration, or as a noun for the equipment to slow down a vehicle, then?
- emodendroket 3y ago
  We can rather tidily solve this by saying orthography and writing systems are artificial methods of representing the spoken language which have prescriptive rules. English spelling certainly shows that it's not difficult to retain many spellings that no longer accurately reflect the pronunciation of the word, if they ever did in the first place. On the other hand, preventing grammatical changes or semantic shift in words over time is impossible. Nobody's ever managed that (perhaps we could find some exceptions among languages that are used in religious or ceremonial contexts primarily and not as someone's regular means of communication).
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    > if they ever did in the first place It's a distinctive feature of English that spelling and pronunciation are only loosely related. It's because of the history of the language; and of the country, for that matter.

rgoulter 3y ago

> If we can’t say that “comprised of” is objectively wrong, then what _can_ we say about English? I haven't read John McWhorter's "Words on the Move", but he addresses this question there, and this review has a summary: https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2017/06/15/review-john-mcwhorters-words-on-the-move/ https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2017/06/15/review-john-mcwho... - Isolated cases of 'incorrect' usage can be considered 'incorrect'. - Widespread usage that's different would be better described as a shift in language.

emodendroket 3y ago
You would think it would be relatively uncontroversial to anyone who's read an older text full of "thous" and "yes" that sometimes the way English is used changes over time. That said, I think McWhorter's observation that much fulminating over language usage is sublimated classism is an astute one.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > That said, I think McWhorter's observation that much fulminating over language usage is sublimated classism is an astute one. It's fine in general, but it can't really apply here. This is some people imagining a difference that doesn't exist and then enforcing it on other people whose identities are unknown. Social class has no role to play in the process, except that this is the same behavior that, in other contexts, hardens class boundaries. In other words, my analysis would be that people are motivated to engage in this behavior without knowing why, and the ultimate reason is to enforce class boundaries, but here they're just going with their instincts even though there isn't a class boundary to enforce.
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    I don't agree. They may not be conscious of it but the target here is people who didn't have the "right" education letting them know to avoid this phrase.

alpaca128 3y ago

> why should people who can’t use the language properly () be an uncontested force in that evolution? For the same reason people with different opinions should still be allowed to vote. Also it's not an uncontested force, you are free to vote for the "correct" use of the language by actively using it yourself in that way and trying to convince others. Just like everyone else. In 200 years people might learn "should of" in school, just like we today call that one symbol "ampersand". And they will find some new word to complain about, just like probably every generation since at least middle english did because it was all the "correct" version of the language to them.

christkv 3y ago

Do you take or make a decision ;)

emodendroket 3y ago

> () If we can’t say that “comprised of” is objectively wrong, then what _can_ we say about English? Well, a lot of things. You can't say "the baby seems drinking the milk." Even though it's perfectly comprehensible, every English speaker will agree that "the baby seems to be drinking the milk" is the correct way to express this. Avoiding "comprised of" is a "rule" where we can't identify any dialect where everyone agrees on it.