3 ms·

> I'm all for descriptivist language, but there's a difference between a new word or meaning coming around because people widely use it, and a common error that

by lutusp 13y ago

> I'm all for descriptivist language, but there's a difference between a new word or meaning coming around because people widely use it, and a common error that does not become right just because it became too common. "Does not become right"? Translation: "I'm all for prescriptivist language." > and a perception of correctness (or at least the absence of perception of incorrectness). Seconded. In language, there's no "right", there's only how people choose to use words. > but nigh-universally perceived as incorrect. Not by linguists.

JoshTriplett 13y ago
>> and a perception of correctness (or at least the absence of perception of incorrectness). > Seconded. > In language, there's no "right", there's only how people choose to use words. There is indeed a "right"; it's defined by the consensus of how people choose to perceive the speech and writings of others. If the vast majority of people consider something an error and a sign of a poor speaker/writer, that's something the speaker or writer should take into account, and it's something a dictionary should document: "if you use this you'll be perceived as incorrect".
- lutusp 13y ago
  > There is indeed a "right"; it's defined by the consensus of how people choose to perceive the speech and writings of others. No, that's false. The sole purpose of language is to communicate, and that only requires two people. If two very intelligent youngsters create their own private language, and if the language produces communication, how can that not be called a legitimate use of language? You're speaking as though everyone should agree on the meaning of words, and the greater the level of agreement, the more legitimate the language. If that were true, there would be one language, not thousands, and something modeled on the French Academy would be in charge. But that's fiction, not reality. > and it's something a dictionary should document: "if you use this you'll be perceived as incorrect". Dream on. Lexicographers take note of word usage. When a word is used in a consistent way in ten recognized publications, that word and/or that meaning becomes official, and is entered into dictionaries. There is no "correct", there is only how people choose to use words. More here: http://arachnoid.com/wrong/#Dictionary http://arachnoid.com/wrong/#Dictionary
  - JoshTriplett 13y ago
    > No, that's false. The sole purpose of language is to communicate, and that only requires two people. If two very intelligent youngsters create their own private language, and if the language produces communication, how can that not be called a legitimate use of language? It's an entirely legitimate use of languages, and both speakers of that language can understand each other. Doesn't mean those two speakers won't disagree on the meanings of certain words. Add a third speaker and the language will develop more nuances. Yes, language exists to communicate. Like it or not, some attempts at communication will be perceived as correct, and some will not. Assuming you speak or write in an attempt to communicate, and not just to hear yourself talk, you need to care about that perception. You talk about communication between two people; that's already sufficient to raise this issue. One person may speak or write, and the other person may hear or read, and while the second person's very flexible parsers may correctly interpret meaning, those same parsers will also generate signals like "this person seems quite intelligent" or "this person writes like a lazy teenager on a cell phone". Useful language guides will tell you not just the meanings of words, but also how those words will be perceived by your audience. When I referred to "consensus", I simply meant this kind of information about perception, scaled up to the entire population of speakers of a language, and made statistical. There's a fuzzy scale from "wrong" to "colloquial" to "dialect" to "variation" to unqualified "correct". A dictionary that said "there" is a possessive pronoun also written as "their", without commenting on correct and incorrect usage, would not be nearly as useful as a dictionary that does.
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > Like it or not, some attempts at communication will be perceived as correct, and some will not. "Correct" is not the operative term. The only criterion is whether the speaker achieves his objective. If he intends to communicate clearly, that's one criterion. If he intends to bamboozle his listener(s), that's another. The is no "correct" in language, any more than there is in evolution. And natural evolution is the closest parallel to language. Take the word "sheriff" as an example. Am I right to say "sheriff", with that spelling and pronunciation, to mean the primary legal authority in a U.S. county? Perhaps. Am I right to say "scirgerefa", and then later, "shire reeve", meaning an officer of the king responsible for maintaining order in each shire, collecting taxes and so forth? Yes again. What's the difference? Time. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sheriff http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sheriff How about "decimated"? Does it mean substantially destroyed, or does it mean reduced by a tenth? That depends ... on time and place. If you wanted to make language "correct", to meet an arbitrary standard, you would have to fight against the natural evolution of language. Lexicographers don't want to do that, and speakers don't either. Why would you?

by lutusp 13y ago

JoshTriplett 13y ago

>> and a perception of correctness (or at least the absence of perception of incorrectness). > Seconded. > In language, there's no "right", there's only how people choose to use words. There is indeed a "right"; it's defined by the consensus of how people choose to perceive the speech and writings of others. If the vast majority of people consider something an error and a sign of a poor speaker/writer, that's something the speaker or writer should take into account, and it's something a dictionary should document: "if you use this you'll be perceived as incorrect".

lutusp 13y ago
> There is indeed a "right"; it's defined by the consensus of how people choose to perceive the speech and writings of others. No, that's false. The sole purpose of language is to communicate, and that only requires two people. If two very intelligent youngsters create their own private language, and if the language produces communication, how can that not be called a legitimate use of language? You're speaking as though everyone should agree on the meaning of words, and the greater the level of agreement, the more legitimate the language. If that were true, there would be one language, not thousands, and something modeled on the French Academy would be in charge. But that's fiction, not reality. > and it's something a dictionary should document: "if you use this you'll be perceived as incorrect". Dream on. Lexicographers take note of word usage. When a word is used in a consistent way in ten recognized publications, that word and/or that meaning becomes official, and is entered into dictionaries. There is no "correct", there is only how people choose to use words. More here: http://arachnoid.com/wrong/#Dictionary http://arachnoid.com/wrong/#Dictionary
- JoshTriplett 13y ago
  > No, that's false. The sole purpose of language is to communicate, and that only requires two people. If two very intelligent youngsters create their own private language, and if the language produces communication, how can that not be called a legitimate use of language? It's an entirely legitimate use of languages, and both speakers of that language can understand each other. Doesn't mean those two speakers won't disagree on the meanings of certain words. Add a third speaker and the language will develop more nuances. Yes, language exists to communicate. Like it or not, some attempts at communication will be perceived as correct, and some will not. Assuming you speak or write in an attempt to communicate, and not just to hear yourself talk, you need to care about that perception. You talk about communication between two people; that's already sufficient to raise this issue. One person may speak or write, and the other person may hear or read, and while the second person's very flexible parsers may correctly interpret meaning, those same parsers will also generate signals like "this person seems quite intelligent" or "this person writes like a lazy teenager on a cell phone". Useful language guides will tell you not just the meanings of words, but also how those words will be perceived by your audience. When I referred to "consensus", I simply meant this kind of information about perception, scaled up to the entire population of speakers of a language, and made statistical. There's a fuzzy scale from "wrong" to "colloquial" to "dialect" to "variation" to unqualified "correct". A dictionary that said "there" is a possessive pronoun also written as "their", without commenting on correct and incorrect usage, would not be nearly as useful as a dictionary that does.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > Like it or not, some attempts at communication will be perceived as correct, and some will not. "Correct" is not the operative term. The only criterion is whether the speaker achieves his objective. If he intends to communicate clearly, that's one criterion. If he intends to bamboozle his listener(s), that's another. The is no "correct" in language, any more than there is in evolution. And natural evolution is the closest parallel to language. Take the word "sheriff" as an example. Am I right to say "sheriff", with that spelling and pronunciation, to mean the primary legal authority in a U.S. county? Perhaps. Am I right to say "scirgerefa", and then later, "shire reeve", meaning an officer of the king responsible for maintaining order in each shire, collecting taxes and so forth? Yes again. What's the difference? Time. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sheriff http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sheriff How about "decimated"? Does it mean substantially destroyed, or does it mean reduced by a tenth? That depends ... on time and place. If you wanted to make language "correct", to meet an arbitrary standard, you would have to fight against the natural evolution of language. Lexicographers don't want to do that, and speakers don't either. Why would you?