11 ms·

I also like how several linguists attempt to call out this usage as wrong: > deemed prescriptively incorrect (Routledge 1864:579 in D. Ross 2013a:120; Partridg

I also like how several linguists attempt to call out this usage as wrong: > deemed prescriptively incorrect (Routledge 1864:579 in D. Ross 2013a:120; Partridge 1947:338, Crews et al. 1989:656 in Brook & Tagliamonte 2016:320). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription You can't really reign in language.

foldr 1y ago
The people they’re citing are either authors of usage guides or linguists who are simply noting that the usage has been deemed incorrect by some of the former.
orwin 1y ago
If a modern linguist call any usage as wrong, I would ask for his diploma and check if I have to close his university, because clearly they shouldn't teach linguistics 101, let alone bring someone towards a PhD. Linguistics is descriptive, not prescriptive.
- bigstrat2003 1y ago
  Then linguistics is worthless. Descriptivism can't actually tell you anything; all someone can say is "yep, you sure are using that word that way". Fortunately prescriptivists still exist despite people's best efforts to give it a bad name.
  - orwin 1y ago
    Linguistics can explain why and how the language evolve, who caused this evolution. I don't know any modern linguist (as in doctor in linguistics) who ever wrote 'you should say this and not that', because all of them knows that languages change. The only 'prescriptivists' are bad philosophers and English majors.
  - briangriffinfan 1y ago
    How can you learn about how people spoke and the patterns that dictate how that changed over time if all you care about is what is considered technically correct at the moment?
School-Cotton 1y ago
Linguists don’t say varieties are right or wrong (even though they might have private aesthetic opinions like everyone else). That would be like a biologist saying dogs are the correct version of mammals and cats are wrong and/or don’t exist.
- menage 1y ago
  Biologists actually say the opposite of that! https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cats-are-perfect-an-evolutionary-biologist-explains-why1/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cats-are-perfect-...
  - MarkusQ 1y ago
    Just because someone has a degree and a job in the field doesn't mean they understand how science works. Prescriptive biology is even sillier than prescriptive linguistics.
    - mcphage 1y ago
      I think her tongue is planted firmly in cheek.
- simiones 1y ago
  There do exist prescriptivist linguists, who do exactly that: they try to divine "correct" from "incorrect" usage of language.
  - School-Cotton 1y ago
    > There do exist prescriptivist linguists That is not true, at least in mainstream serious academia. Prescriptive linguistics doesn’t exist any more than prescriptive biology or astronomy.
    - simiones 1y ago
      Maybe in the USA. But bodies like the French Academy and many similar ones in other countries very much do issue opinions on correct grammatical (and vocabulary) usage. And members of these institutions are very much considered the top of their field in their countries.
unscaled 1y ago
These are not linguists doing that. No self-respecting linguists will waste time doing prescriptivism. These are two linguistic articles about this constructs that are quoting amateur language usage manuals. The oldest one is a boys magazine[1] published in 1864 discussing "the Queen's English"[2]. The newest one (Crews et al.) seems to be an obscure usage manual for writers[3]. As demonstrated here, "try and" is older and more "original" than "try to", if not contemporary with it. Any other reason why would "try to" be more "correct" cannot even make sense as anything more than a purely uneducated opinion. When you dig deep into most examples of perspectivism you'll usually run into the same story too. "Incorrect" forms often predate the "correct" forms and are often employed by respected writers (such as Shakespeare and Jane Austen). And even if they don't, there isn't really any scientific ground to brand one form as incorrect. Linguists do not generally engage in linguist prescriptivism. As far as I'm concerned (and I believe most linguists would agree), this is stylistic opinion at best and pseudoscience at worst. Still, it's not linguists can do anything to stop amateurs from publishing prescriptive language usage manuals, so you'll always have people who claim that "try and" or "ain't" or "me and my friend went for a walk" are incorrect. [1] https://www.victorianresearch.org/atcl/show_periodical.php?jid=261 https://www.victorianresearch.org/atcl/show_periodical.php?j... [2] Yes, this is Edmund Routledge whose father is the namesake of the present scholarly publisher, but they were just publishing popular books back in the 19th century. [3] https://www.amazon.co.jp/-/en/Frederick-Crews/dp/0070136386 https://www.amazon.co.jp/-/en/Frederick-Crews/dp/0070136386
tigen 1y ago
*rein in Some things like this are nevertheless generally known to be wrong despite usage
- tomsmeding 1y ago
  Though you also can't reign, in language.
DonHopkins 1y ago
And this is why I cringe whenever somebody tries to defend Perl's syntax by perlsplaining "But Larry Wall is a linguist!"

foldr 1y ago

The people they’re citing are either authors of usage guides or linguists who are simply noting that the usage has been deemed incorrect by some of the former.

orwin 1y ago

If a modern linguist call any usage as wrong, I would ask for his diploma and check if I have to close his university, because clearly they shouldn't teach linguistics 101, let alone bring someone towards a PhD. Linguistics is descriptive, not prescriptive.

bigstrat2003 1y ago
Then linguistics is worthless. Descriptivism can't actually tell you anything; all someone can say is "yep, you sure are using that word that way". Fortunately prescriptivists still exist despite people's best efforts to give it a bad name.
- orwin 1y ago
  Linguistics can explain why and how the language evolve, who caused this evolution. I don't know any modern linguist (as in doctor in linguistics) who ever wrote 'you should say this and not that', because all of them knows that languages change. The only 'prescriptivists' are bad philosophers and English majors.
- briangriffinfan 1y ago
  How can you learn about how people spoke and the patterns that dictate how that changed over time if all you care about is what is considered technically correct at the moment?

School-Cotton 1y ago

Linguists don’t say varieties are right or wrong (even though they might have private aesthetic opinions like everyone else). That would be like a biologist saying dogs are the correct version of mammals and cats are wrong and/or don’t exist.

menage 1y ago
Biologists actually say the opposite of that! https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cats-are-perfect-an-evolutionary-biologist-explains-why1/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cats-are-perfect-...
- MarkusQ 1y ago
  Just because someone has a degree and a job in the field doesn't mean they understand how science works. Prescriptive biology is even sillier than prescriptive linguistics.
  - mcphage 1y ago
    I think her tongue is planted firmly in cheek.
simiones 1y ago
There do exist prescriptivist linguists, who do exactly that: they try to divine "correct" from "incorrect" usage of language.
- School-Cotton 1y ago
  > There do exist prescriptivist linguists That is not true, at least in mainstream serious academia. Prescriptive linguistics doesn’t exist any more than prescriptive biology or astronomy.
  - simiones 1y ago
    Maybe in the USA. But bodies like the French Academy and many similar ones in other countries very much do issue opinions on correct grammatical (and vocabulary) usage. And members of these institutions are very much considered the top of their field in their countries.

unscaled 1y ago

These are not linguists doing that. No self-respecting linguists will waste time doing prescriptivism. These are two linguistic articles about this constructs that are quoting amateur language usage manuals. The oldest one is a boys magazine[1] published in 1864 discussing "the Queen's English"[2]. The newest one (Crews et al.) seems to be an obscure usage manual for writers[3]. As demonstrated here, "try and" is older and more "original" than "try to", if not contemporary with it. Any other reason why would "try to" be more "correct" cannot even make sense as anything more than a purely uneducated opinion. When you dig deep into most examples of perspectivism you'll usually run into the same story too. "Incorrect" forms often predate the "correct" forms and are often employed by respected writers (such as Shakespeare and Jane Austen). And even if they don't, there isn't really any scientific ground to brand one form as incorrect. Linguists do not generally engage in linguist prescriptivism. As far as I'm concerned (and I believe most linguists would agree), this is stylistic opinion at best and pseudoscience at worst. Still, it's not linguists can do anything to stop amateurs from publishing prescriptive language usage manuals, so you'll always have people who claim that "try and" or "ain't" or "me and my friend went for a walk" are incorrect. [1] https://www.victorianresearch.org/atcl/show_periodical.php?jid=261 https://www.victorianresearch.org/atcl/show_periodical.php?j... [2] Yes, this is Edmund Routledge whose father is the namesake of the present scholarly publisher, but they were just publishing popular books back in the 19th century. [3] https://www.amazon.co.jp/-/en/Frederick-Crews/dp/0070136386 https://www.amazon.co.jp/-/en/Frederick-Crews/dp/0070136386

tigen 1y ago

*rein in Some things like this are nevertheless generally known to be wrong despite usage

tomsmeding 1y ago
Though you also can't reign, in language.

DonHopkins 1y ago

And this is why I cringe whenever somebody tries to defend Perl's syntax by perlsplaining "But Larry Wall is a linguist!"