5 ms·

I know this is shocking to people but if a phrase is systematically used by native speakers, it is then part of the language. There is no notion of native speak

I know this is shocking to people but if a phrase is systematically used by native speakers, it is then part of the language. There is no notion of native speakers being systematically wrong in linguistics. It wouldn't make sense scientifically. In order to examine natural languages using the scientific method, linguists gather data (i.e. native speakers' spoken or written communication) and then analyze this (i.e. find predictive models of this data). Gathering data, then claiming the data is wrong is epistemologically unfounded. Languages simply are the way they are. This would be like gathering data from Hubble and then deciding photons are wrong because their behavior mismatch with Newtonian laws.

spacephysics 3y ago
Fully agree, same can be said about ever young generation’s slang. What “bet”, “cap”, “rizz” and others used by the younger population isn’t wrong, it’s different and an evolution of certain terms. I don’t study linguistics, but I can be sure there are terms we use today and take as normal-speak that were once the center of a younger generation’s slang vernacular. An extreme example is the word retard. Years ago in normal speak you could say “After the EPA enacted stricter emissions regulations, this initially retarded the development of sports cars until new technology was implemented” other obvious examples are the medical angle of the word. Today, you could use the word in such a way, it’s technically correct, however you’ll most likely get some odd looks. Most uses of it today are either in specific comedic circles, or derogatorily towards another person/thing/animal etc
JW_00000 3y ago
OK, but does that mean the phrase should be used as such in an encyclopedia? For instance, the word "biweekly" now means both "once every two weeks" and "twice per week". I don't mind usage of that word for those two meanings. Obviously, linguists can gather data and analyze how it's being used. They may conclude that one meaning was more favored 50 years ago and the other meaning is now. But when I'm reading an encyclopedia, I'd prefer it to avoid this ambiguous word.
- bbor 3y ago
  Does “utilize” really lead to such ambiguities? Or “comprised of”? I’d be really surprised… maybe in rare cases? I haven’t read the entire linked manifesto so maybe he has some examples!
- ghaff 3y ago
  Biweekly (and probably semi-weekly) is one of those words that should be generally avoided. It's like depending on some less obvious operator precedence rule rather than parentheses. You may be technically correct, but you shouldn't do it that way because others will misunderstand you. ADDED: I'm genuinely confused why people would disagree with this (which is in multiple style guides). I assume it's some variant of I know what it really means and, if someone else doesn't, that's their problem. But that seems antithetical to writing to communicate something to an audience.
  - fireant 3y ago
    Yes, comprised/utilize doesn't really matter because you will know from context, but biweekly is really tricky. For example "we have biweekly sprint ceremonies on monday and friday" can be very confusing.
- zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
  I only ever thought biweekly was synonymous with fortnightly
- crazygringo 3y ago
  But there's nothing ambiguous about "is comprised of", so what's the problem?
- emberfiend 3y ago
  Your example doesn't map, though. There is no ambiguity when I say "curry is comprised of beans and carrots". It's just a way of using the word that some native speakers have used their whole lives and other native speakers find jarring.
jerry1979 3y ago
Who are the native speakers in the case of Wikipedia?
- neltnerb 3y ago
  I think you have the crux of it... this person has a very long essay explaining why this change makes it more comprehensible to more readers. This is what an editor should do. What's the problem? Let them spend their time on it if they like, it seems like most times no one even notices the change. It's not being pedantic if you are doing it to improve real life readability based on real feedback, even if it seems trivial.
matteoraso 3y ago
>Languages simply are the way they are. Not necessarily true. There are authoritative guides on English (e.g. the Webster dictionary) that grammar is measured up against. In fact, the main reason we have standardized spelling instead of people just writing what seemed right is because people actively tried to enforce a right and wrong way of spelling.
- fknorangesite 3y ago
  > There are authoritative guides on English (e.g. the Webster dictionary) This is exactly wrong. Webster's is not prescriptivist; a dictionary describes a language as it is, not as it "should" be (indeed, there is no such thing).
bjourne 3y ago
It depends on whether you presume language knowledge to be descriptive or prescriptive. Neither view is right or wrong. For example, I'm a native speaker of C, yet my syntax errors are still errors.
cryptonector 3y ago
There is a tension between prescriptivism and descriptivism, and it has to do with the rate at which the language evolves. Prescriptivism resists language evolution. Decriptivism allows the language to evolve as fast as people wish to evolve it. Some rate of language change has to be accepted, but it needn't be as fast as if we rejected all prescriptivism. We each prescribe or refuse to prescribe language rules as we see fit, and thus the language evolves at some natural rate. We do need some grammar/spelling pedantry.
- Aerbil313 3y ago
  > Prescriptivism resists language evolution. Decriptivism allows the language to evolve as fast as people wish to evolve it. This is nonsense. Do you really believe language is subject to intentional human control? (Of course if a dictator comes and kills half a million people for things including changing language like it happened in my country, then it is, but this is a very rare exception.)
  - bsaul 3y ago
    langage is taught in schools and by parents. It is 100% controlled by humans. you can't learn it by yourself as a baby.
    - Aerbil313 3y ago
      I didn’t mean that. I meant evolution of language is not subject to any person’s desires or will.
      - cryptonector 3y ago
        But you and I can -by our own choices- resist some evolutions of the language and foster others. We can be anywhere from pedantic prescriptivists to outrageously innovative and everything in between. Our children, relatives, friends, and colleagues can all take cues from our stewardship of the language -- and vice versa.
  - 3y ago
anigbrowl 3y ago
That's nonsense, not all native speakers have equal verbal fluency. Certainly new words or sentence constructions can be coined for amusement or efficiency and may catch on at scale, but if there were no such thing as correctness then there wouldn't be any such concept as incoherence.
philwelch 3y ago
u are looking at this from the pov of a linguist, not an editor...u might think this comment im writing isnt "systematically wrong" or whatever but u wouldn't write a wikipedia article this way seriously tho if descriptivists had the courage of their convictions they would just stop capitalizing, there's no reason to
pklausler 3y ago
He's not correcting the usage of people chatting on street corners here. He's fixing bad usage in an encyclopedia. Good usage improves clarity. This is why editors have style guides.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  Except it's not bad usage. Even Merriam-Webster approves, it's the second definition listed, and an additional usage note validating it: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comprise https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comprise
  - pklausler 3y ago
    "Bad usage" or not depends on one's style guide. The better ones are better.
    - crazygringo 3y ago
      "Better ones are better" is meaningless because there's no objective standard. What I think is better, you may think is worse. All we can say about style guides is, "different ones are different". They reflect the needs of each publication. And Wikipedia's style guide takes no stance in this case. Also, style is about preference, not correctness. It may not be your personal preferred usage, but it certainly isn't bad usage if a major American dictionary approves.
caconym_ 3y ago
A "systematic" change in the meaning of a word or phrase means that someone used it wrong once and enough people followed them in their wrongness that it became the norm. It's reasonable to say that once a new meaning has been taken up by the majority in this way it's not wrong anymore, but there is also a broad continuum between old usages and majority uptake of new usages where some users of the language in question may reasonably object to the latter. For instance, I was once CC'd on an email thread at work where a senior leader made an obvious typo in reference to some Thing and everybody else on the thread blindly parroted it. This "alternate" usage was established and used systematically in the local context, but it led to a significant decline in general clarity and interpretability, and it was also not durable beyond the context of that thread. It was a mistake, simple as that. "Comprised of" is probably past the threshold at this point, much like "rate of speed" and "how <thing> looks like" and so on and so forth. But—and I know this is shocking to some people—"correct" use of language does have significant advantages for communicating clearly, especially in writing. Prescriptivism and descriptivism both have their adherents because neither is right or wrong in the naive absolutist sense—balance is key.

spacephysics 3y ago

Fully agree, same can be said about ever young generation’s slang. What “bet”, “cap”, “rizz” and others used by the younger population isn’t wrong, it’s different and an evolution of certain terms. I don’t study linguistics, but I can be sure there are terms we use today and take as normal-speak that were once the center of a younger generation’s slang vernacular. An extreme example is the word retard. Years ago in normal speak you could say “After the EPA enacted stricter emissions regulations, this initially retarded the development of sports cars until new technology was implemented” other obvious examples are the medical angle of the word. Today, you could use the word in such a way, it’s technically correct, however you’ll most likely get some odd looks. Most uses of it today are either in specific comedic circles, or derogatorily towards another person/thing/animal etc

JW_00000 3y ago

OK, but does that mean the phrase should be used as such in an encyclopedia? For instance, the word "biweekly" now means both "once every two weeks" and "twice per week". I don't mind usage of that word for those two meanings. Obviously, linguists can gather data and analyze how it's being used. They may conclude that one meaning was more favored 50 years ago and the other meaning is now. But when I'm reading an encyclopedia, I'd prefer it to avoid this ambiguous word.

bbor 3y ago
Does “utilize” really lead to such ambiguities? Or “comprised of”? I’d be really surprised… maybe in rare cases? I haven’t read the entire linked manifesto so maybe he has some examples!
ghaff 3y ago
Biweekly (and probably semi-weekly) is one of those words that should be generally avoided. It's like depending on some less obvious operator precedence rule rather than parentheses. You may be technically correct, but you shouldn't do it that way because others will misunderstand you. ADDED: I'm genuinely confused why people would disagree with this (which is in multiple style guides). I assume it's some variant of I know what it really means and, if someone else doesn't, that's their problem. But that seems antithetical to writing to communicate something to an audience.
- fireant 3y ago
  Yes, comprised/utilize doesn't really matter because you will know from context, but biweekly is really tricky. For example "we have biweekly sprint ceremonies on monday and friday" can be very confusing.
zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
I only ever thought biweekly was synonymous with fortnightly
crazygringo 3y ago
But there's nothing ambiguous about "is comprised of", so what's the problem?
emberfiend 3y ago
Your example doesn't map, though. There is no ambiguity when I say "curry is comprised of beans and carrots". It's just a way of using the word that some native speakers have used their whole lives and other native speakers find jarring.

jerry1979 3y ago

Who are the native speakers in the case of Wikipedia?

neltnerb 3y ago
I think you have the crux of it... this person has a very long essay explaining why this change makes it more comprehensible to more readers. This is what an editor should do. What's the problem? Let them spend their time on it if they like, it seems like most times no one even notices the change. It's not being pedantic if you are doing it to improve real life readability based on real feedback, even if it seems trivial.

matteoraso 3y ago

>Languages simply are the way they are. Not necessarily true. There are authoritative guides on English (e.g. the Webster dictionary) that grammar is measured up against. In fact, the main reason we have standardized spelling instead of people just writing what seemed right is because people actively tried to enforce a right and wrong way of spelling.

fknorangesite 3y ago
> There are authoritative guides on English (e.g. the Webster dictionary) This is exactly wrong. Webster's is not prescriptivist; a dictionary describes a language as it is, not as it "should" be (indeed, there is no such thing).

bjourne 3y ago

It depends on whether you presume language knowledge to be descriptive or prescriptive. Neither view is right or wrong. For example, I'm a native speaker of C, yet my syntax errors are still errors.

cryptonector 3y ago

There is a tension between prescriptivism and descriptivism, and it has to do with the rate at which the language evolves. Prescriptivism resists language evolution. Decriptivism allows the language to evolve as fast as people wish to evolve it. Some rate of language change has to be accepted, but it needn't be as fast as if we rejected all prescriptivism. We each prescribe or refuse to prescribe language rules as we see fit, and thus the language evolves at some natural rate. We do need some grammar/spelling pedantry.

Aerbil313 3y ago
> Prescriptivism resists language evolution. Decriptivism allows the language to evolve as fast as people wish to evolve it. This is nonsense. Do you really believe language is subject to intentional human control? (Of course if a dictator comes and kills half a million people for things including changing language like it happened in my country, then it is, but this is a very rare exception.)
- bsaul 3y ago
  langage is taught in schools and by parents. It is 100% controlled by humans. you can't learn it by yourself as a baby.
  - Aerbil313 3y ago
    I didn’t mean that. I meant evolution of language is not subject to any person’s desires or will.
    - cryptonector 3y ago
      But you and I can -by our own choices- resist some evolutions of the language and foster others. We can be anywhere from pedantic prescriptivists to outrageously innovative and everything in between. Our children, relatives, friends, and colleagues can all take cues from our stewardship of the language -- and vice versa.
- 3y ago

anigbrowl 3y ago

That's nonsense, not all native speakers have equal verbal fluency. Certainly new words or sentence constructions can be coined for amusement or efficiency and may catch on at scale, but if there were no such thing as correctness then there wouldn't be any such concept as incoherence.

philwelch 3y ago

u are looking at this from the pov of a linguist, not an editor...u might think this comment im writing isnt "systematically wrong" or whatever but u wouldn't write a wikipedia article this way seriously tho if descriptivists had the courage of their convictions they would just stop capitalizing, there's no reason to

pklausler 3y ago

He's not correcting the usage of people chatting on street corners here. He's fixing bad usage in an encyclopedia. Good usage improves clarity. This is why editors have style guides.

crazygringo 3y ago
Except it's not bad usage. Even Merriam-Webster approves, it's the second definition listed, and an additional usage note validating it: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comprise https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comprise
- pklausler 3y ago
  "Bad usage" or not depends on one's style guide. The better ones are better.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    "Better ones are better" is meaningless because there's no objective standard. What I think is better, you may think is worse. All we can say about style guides is, "different ones are different". They reflect the needs of each publication. And Wikipedia's style guide takes no stance in this case. Also, style is about preference, not correctness. It may not be your personal preferred usage, but it certainly isn't bad usage if a major American dictionary approves.

caconym_ 3y ago

A "systematic" change in the meaning of a word or phrase means that someone used it wrong once and enough people followed them in their wrongness that it became the norm. It's reasonable to say that once a new meaning has been taken up by the majority in this way it's not wrong anymore, but there is also a broad continuum between old usages and majority uptake of new usages where some users of the language in question may reasonably object to the latter. For instance, I was once CC'd on an email thread at work where a senior leader made an obvious typo in reference to some Thing and everybody else on the thread blindly parroted it. This "alternate" usage was established and used systematically in the local context, but it led to a significant decline in general clarity and interpretability, and it was also not durable beyond the context of that thread. It was a mistake, simple as that. "Comprised of" is probably past the threshold at this point, much like "rate of speed" and "how <thing> looks like" and so on and so forth. But—and I know this is shocking to some people—"correct" use of language does have significant advantages for communicating clearly, especially in writing. Prescriptivism and descriptivism both have their adherents because neither is right or wrong in the naive absolutist sense—balance is key.