72 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

> 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. There isn't. At least not in any objectively recognisable way. You (and I mean you specifically) can obviously look at a new use and say "this is a new meaning" or "no, this is an error", but that's a subjective judgement and others would think otherwise. It is as impossible as being given a copy of a movie and being asked, by only inspecting the movie, to tell if this was copied from a legal DVD or downloaded from a torrent. Just look at the verb "to troll (on an internet forum)". It comes from the practise of trolling in fishing, where you tie a bait to a cord and drive your boat around, drawing the bait through the water and waiting for some fish to take it. A lot of people, however, connect it with the race Troll, thinking of it as the practise of a big, nasty creature coming out from under and bothering people. That's not helped by calling the people who do it "trolls". Was the original, fishing term wrong? Was the person who coined the name Troll for a race of fantasy creatures wrong? Were the people who connected trolling with Trolls and subsequently called trolls "trolls" wrong? For bonus points: if two words are written the same and pronounced the same, can they be different words, or are all their meanings different meanings of the same word?

JoshTriplett 13y ago
> You (and I mean you specifically) can obviously look at a new use and say "this is a new meaning" or "no, this is an error", but that's a subjective judgement and others would think otherwise. Hence me talking about "widespread". If the consensus of the vast majority of people says that a usage is incorrect, then a helpful dictionary should properly document that that usage will be perceived as incorrect. Writing "there" when you mean "their" or "they're" usually produces a sentence that can be understood in context (our language parsers are remarkably resilient), but will make the writer look like they either don't know or don't care, and will create a strong negative impression in those who read it. Dictionaries should document widespread usages, even incorrect ones. Dictionaries often attach information to meanings like "archaic" or "frequently misused as" or "frequently confused with". For example, a dictionary can and should add a note to "their" saying "frequently confused with they're and there". There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But as long as the vast majority of people consider sentences like "there sentence structure needed some work" incorrect, a dictionary should not claim that "there" is a possessive pronoun without attaching the caveat that anyone reading it will consider it incorrect. (This response applies to several replies.)

JoshTriplett 13y ago

> You (and I mean you specifically) can obviously look at a new use and say "this is a new meaning" or "no, this is an error", but that's a subjective judgement and others would think otherwise. Hence me talking about "widespread". If the consensus of the vast majority of people says that a usage is incorrect, then a helpful dictionary should properly document that that usage will be perceived as incorrect. Writing "there" when you mean "their" or "they're" usually produces a sentence that can be understood in context (our language parsers are remarkably resilient), but will make the writer look like they either don't know or don't care, and will create a strong negative impression in those who read it. Dictionaries should document widespread usages, even incorrect ones. Dictionaries often attach information to meanings like "archaic" or "frequently misused as" or "frequently confused with". For example, a dictionary can and should add a note to "their" saying "frequently confused with they're and there". There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But as long as the vast majority of people consider sentences like "there sentence structure needed some work" incorrect, a dictionary should not claim that "there" is a possessive pronoun without attaching the caveat that anyone reading it will consider it incorrect. (This response applies to several replies.)