4 ms·

> Once something like that happens it's usually on the way to becoming grammatically correct, I wouldn't call that correct. Just "accepted". Accepting inconsis

> Once something like that happens it's usually on the way to becoming grammatically correct, I wouldn't call that correct. Just "accepted". Accepting inconsistent grammar makes it more difficult to communicate, not less so.

_delirium 12y ago
None of English is correct by that standard: it's a hodge-podge of a language with inconsistencies down to the root. Hence the prescriptivist grammarians of the 19th century who tried to Latinize its grammar, reasoning that English might be improved by grafting a foreign but regular logical structure onto it. But they mainly succeeded in introducing further irregularities, throwing some Latinate bits into the mix.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
  > it's a hodge-podge of a language with inconsistencies down to the root. We fix that one inconsistency at a time. This man is doing his part, despite all the naysayers. I don't really give a shit about things like split infinitives but if you've ever seen a person struggle with speaking on a subject without the vocabulary to do so, you know how much it cripples them. Grammar is the same way. Why do descriptivists think it's ok to force everyone to invent language on the spot when people are in dire need?
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    It's the other way around. Descriptivists think that you can't force people to not invent language on the spot. Rather, they think languages cannot be prevented from changing.
jordigh 12y ago
Correct and accepted are the same thing. There's no Platonic perfect language. Whatever the majority thinks is good language is good language. Sometimes a minority with high social status is able to convince the plebes that their language is more correct too, but the plebes will still speak their language as they please whenever the elite minority aren't listening.

4 ms·

> Once something like that happens it's usually on the way to becoming grammatically correct, I wouldn't call that correct. Just "accepted". Accepting inconsis

by NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago

_delirium 12y ago
None of English is correct by that standard: it's a hodge-podge of a language with inconsistencies down to the root. Hence the prescriptivist grammarians of the 19th century who tried to Latinize its grammar, reasoning that English might be improved by grafting a foreign but regular logical structure onto it. But they mainly succeeded in introducing further irregularities, throwing some Latinate bits into the mix.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
  > it's a hodge-podge of a language with inconsistencies down to the root. We fix that one inconsistency at a time. This man is doing his part, despite all the naysayers. I don't really give a shit about things like split infinitives but if you've ever seen a person struggle with speaking on a subject without the vocabulary to do so, you know how much it cripples them. Grammar is the same way. Why do descriptivists think it's ok to force everyone to invent language on the spot when people are in dire need?
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    It's the other way around. Descriptivists think that you can't force people to not invent language on the spot. Rather, they think languages cannot be prevented from changing.
jordigh 12y ago
Correct and accepted are the same thing. There's no Platonic perfect language. Whatever the majority thinks is good language is good language. Sometimes a minority with high social status is able to convince the plebes that their language is more correct too, but the plebes will still speak their language as they please whenever the elite minority aren't listening.