You know what I don't like?

[conuly]

People who say "don't use this or that construction because it's not a word".

If it's not a word, you'd better damn well be prepared to tell me what, exactly, it is. Because the people saying that don't ever say it for real non-words (like gosht for ghost, or wahooni), only for neologisms that they, personally, don't like. Don't argue. Just smile and nod unless you have a decent rebuttal. Thank you.

*sits and waits*

Comments

[toastedtuna.livejournal.com]

If it's not a word, can't one reasonably assume it's something nonsensical?

For example, my sister drives me up the wall with the word 'supposably'. She says it all the time, and I've told her it's not a word. "You're mixing 'supposed' with 'probably'. The word you seek is 'supposedly'." I think this explanation is adequate, however, she thinks I'm full of shit and keeps saying 'supposably' even though it's not a word.

Sometimes it simply does not matter if a person provides explanation for 'not a word' corrections.

[conuly]

No, sometimes it doesn't :)

But usually, I hear it when they're saying "I don't know much about linguistics, so I assume that the standard dialect is the only correct one, and everything else is wrong. So youse (or y'all, or ain't, etc.) isn't a word because I say so". And that's just not true.

In fact, much to what I assume is your dismay, in another two generations "supposably" is almost guaranteed to be "a word", included in the dictionary and everything.

[toastedtuna.livejournal.com]

Ugh! Yep, you're probably correct in that assumption! Who would have thought we'd have 'ain't' in the dictionary?

Honestly, I can't figure out where that one originated. 'Aren't' is a contraction word so it makes sense, but 'ain't'? What the hell?

I agree with you---'because I say so' isn't good enough. Just because it's spoken means nothing.

[conuly]

Ain't was originally amn't (am not). It's perfectly valid, in the am not place. I loves me my etymology!

Please note that, as a linguisticly minded individual, I eschew prescriptivist linguistics as the tool of the oppressor (7)*, and thus cannot complain about lexicographers doing their job and recording English as it is spoken. Please also note that my moral stand against prescriptivism does not, in any way, hinder my ability to tell other people how not to speak. I'm a person of many contradictions.

I agree with you---'because I say so' isn't good enough. Just because it's spoken means nothing.

*shifts* Well. Um. *glances* You're a new friend. I don't want to be my normal self until you know me better. Some people get upset. *buries herself in her sociolinguistics text for this term*


*_{I'm keeping a running count of how many times I've said that since I adopted it as my motto.}

[toastedtuna.livejournal.com]

What are you TALKING about? It's your journal, be yourself!

Honestly, if we have to censor ourselves in our own journals, then what's the point of keeping one?

[conuly]

*grins* No point, I guess. But I hate being upsetting on the first day, especially when I ought to be in bed.

[literalgirl.livejournal.com]

*chuckle*

:-)