4 ms·

I feel like that fits well with my theory of language. Besides, how would you go about constructing a slang dictionary? Many of these words and terms and defin

I feel like that fits well with my theory of language. Besides, how would you go about constructing a slang dictionary? Many of these words and terms and defined informally at best, and constantly contextually redefined at worst. Any attempt to create a static slang dictionary is going to be constantly under assault from the shifting landscape of language around it. I don't think there is any better example than the word "literally" in the last 20-25 years. In the mid-90's, it meant a very specific thing. Now, it's very different.

tokai 3y ago
Incidentally the results for 'literally' are horrible on UD.
- distortedsignal 3y ago
  I kinda disagree. I think that this pretty well encapsulates how the word is used nowadays. Just the top few: - Who f-ing knows anymore? First, it meant factual, and now it means fictional. - used to describe something that actually happens or exists. - A good way to show that you are a[n overly-dramatic person]... - Truthfully actual. Not figuratively. Used when not b-s-ing or by fake cats pretending not to. I think this gives a good cultural cross-section of what the word means. If you want a (heh) literal definition of "literal", there are other "more professional" dictionaries, but if you want how people actually use the word, I think that UD gives a pretty good reference to how it's currently used. Language is chaotic, and that's a good thing! If it weren't, it would mean that thought and culture were stagnating (hot take, but I think I can back it up). I think that my disagreement with your opinion is that you're a prescriptivist linguist, while I'm a descriptivist linguist. My preferred dictionary is one that describes how the word is currently used in its common cultural form. For obvious reasons, these are basically impossible to keep up to date. If I'm reading your philosophy correctly, you would prefer a more static, well described language. French is probably as good an example of a prescriptivist language that I could think of off the top of my head. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_Fran%C3%A7aise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_Fran%C3%A7aise for more on that. I don't think either of us is "correct", but I think that each dictionary is useful in a specific place. If you're trying to write formal communication, then a prescriptivist dictionary is the best choice. However, if you're meeting a new person and you don't understand what they're saying because they use a word in a new or unexpected way, then a descriptivist dictionary is probably better.
  - tokai 3y ago
    You're mainly discussing against something you are imagining. The purpose of my post, with my opinion on UD, was not to discuss lexicography. You seem eager, but I'm sorry I have nothing to add.
    - distortedsignal 3y ago
      Hey - I think you have a lot to add! Don't sell yourself so short. But I understand that you're not interested in the discussion. Sorry that I assumed that you were. Hope you have a great day!

tokai 3y ago

Incidentally the results for 'literally' are horrible on UD.

distortedsignal 3y ago
I kinda disagree. I think that this pretty well encapsulates how the word is used nowadays. Just the top few: - Who f-ing knows anymore? First, it meant factual, and now it means fictional. - used to describe something that actually happens or exists. - A good way to show that you are a[n overly-dramatic person]... - Truthfully actual. Not figuratively. Used when not b-s-ing or by fake cats pretending not to. I think this gives a good cultural cross-section of what the word means. If you want a (heh) literal definition of "literal", there are other "more professional" dictionaries, but if you want how people actually use the word, I think that UD gives a pretty good reference to how it's currently used. Language is chaotic, and that's a good thing! If it weren't, it would mean that thought and culture were stagnating (hot take, but I think I can back it up). I think that my disagreement with your opinion is that you're a prescriptivist linguist, while I'm a descriptivist linguist. My preferred dictionary is one that describes how the word is currently used in its common cultural form. For obvious reasons, these are basically impossible to keep up to date. If I'm reading your philosophy correctly, you would prefer a more static, well described language. French is probably as good an example of a prescriptivist language that I could think of off the top of my head. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_Fran%C3%A7aise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_Fran%C3%A7aise for more on that. I don't think either of us is "correct", but I think that each dictionary is useful in a specific place. If you're trying to write formal communication, then a prescriptivist dictionary is the best choice. However, if you're meeting a new person and you don't understand what they're saying because they use a word in a new or unexpected way, then a descriptivist dictionary is probably better.
- tokai 3y ago
  You're mainly discussing against something you are imagining. The purpose of my post, with my opinion on UD, was not to discuss lexicography. You seem eager, but I'm sorry I have nothing to add.
  - distortedsignal 3y ago
    Hey - I think you have a lot to add! Don't sell yourself so short. But I understand that you're not interested in the discussion. Sorry that I assumed that you were. Hope you have a great day!