3 ms·

This article may be of interest to you; "Democracy, English, and the Wars over Usage" by David Foster Wallace: http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present

This article may be of interest to you; "Democracy, English, and the Wars over Usage" by David Foster Wallace: http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html. The relevant argument is that general consensus and what people actually use constitutes how words should be used/pronounced, as opposed to referencing laws.

jtauber 14y ago
Almost every linguist (myself included) would agree. I'm not arguing about how the word is pronounced, I'm arguing about the description of how it's pronounced.
jtauber 14y ago
I wrote a little on this topic many years ago on my blog: http://jtauber.com/blog/2008/04/30/grammar_rules/ http://jtauber.com/blog/2008/04/30/grammar_rules/
- AYBABTME 14y ago
  I'm trying to start a movement to kill the mess that are 'participe passé'. My idea is that if everybody ALWAYS accord them, then we won't have to bother whether it's with 'avoir', 'être' or whatever else. We would always put an 's' to plural forms, and forget those evil 'participe passé' rules. Join me. The more we are, the more Right we become.
wisty 14y ago
o rlly? Prescriptive grammars exits to teach poor people (or immigrants) how to speak and write like rich people. Rules are easier to teach and learn than an essentially unlimited number of examples. Some people say this is good - it makes it harder to discriminate against poor people. Some people say it is bad, because it reinforces the idea that poor people speak in an uneducated way. Let's be frank - neither side can be trusted. They aren't interested in quantitative arguments, or logic, or a rigorous historical study. They'll just line up a bunch of emotive arguments, and then claim that their side rings true (because to them, it does).
FreakLegion 14y ago
>The relevant argument is that general consensus and what people actually use constitutes how words should be used/pronounced, as opposed to referencing laws. Of course. "Let the use of words teach you their meaning," and so on. But when it comes to names, all bets are off. Names are a special case; prescription still holds sway over them. At least, I think most people would agree that you (the indefinite you) aren't wrong to correct someone who mispronounces your name. To varying extents, this is true also of the names of things.
defen 14y ago
Interesting choice of article, considering DFW himself was closer to the prescriptivist side (Sprachgefühl Necessitates Our Ongoing Tendance and all that).

jtauber 14y ago

Almost every linguist (myself included) would agree. I'm not arguing about how the word is pronounced, I'm arguing about the description of how it's pronounced.

jtauber 14y ago

I wrote a little on this topic many years ago on my blog: http://jtauber.com/blog/2008/04/30/grammar_rules/ http://jtauber.com/blog/2008/04/30/grammar_rules/

AYBABTME 14y ago
I'm trying to start a movement to kill the mess that are 'participe passé'. My idea is that if everybody ALWAYS accord them, then we won't have to bother whether it's with 'avoir', 'être' or whatever else. We would always put an 's' to plural forms, and forget those evil 'participe passé' rules. Join me. The more we are, the more Right we become.

wisty 14y ago

o rlly? Prescriptive grammars exits to teach poor people (or immigrants) how to speak and write like rich people. Rules are easier to teach and learn than an essentially unlimited number of examples. Some people say this is good - it makes it harder to discriminate against poor people. Some people say it is bad, because it reinforces the idea that poor people speak in an uneducated way. Let's be frank - neither side can be trusted. They aren't interested in quantitative arguments, or logic, or a rigorous historical study. They'll just line up a bunch of emotive arguments, and then claim that their side rings true (because to them, it does).

FreakLegion 14y ago

>The relevant argument is that general consensus and what people actually use constitutes how words should be used/pronounced, as opposed to referencing laws. Of course. "Let the use of words teach you their meaning," and so on. But when it comes to names, all bets are off. Names are a special case; prescription still holds sway over them. At least, I think most people would agree that you (the indefinite you) aren't wrong to correct someone who mispronounces your name. To varying extents, this is true also of the names of things.

defen 14y ago

Interesting choice of article, considering DFW himself was closer to the prescriptivist side (Sprachgefühl Necessitates Our Ongoing Tendance and all that).