We can just add this to the list of hills on which I intend to die:

[conuly]

Cousins aren't incest unless they're actually siblings by birth or adoption or were raised more or less in a sibling fashion. Cousin marriage is very common worldwide and throughout history, and unless you do it over and over again for generations it's not really a problem for your genes.

I'm not saying we all should boink our cousins today, but I really wish people would stop talking about how gross and squicky and incest it is when that's a far from universal opinion. Honestly, not all opinions need to be gratuitously shared. (And really, you gotta wonder what is going on when somebody feels the need to talk all about this at the very drop of a hat, which happens more often than you might think. I genuinely have no idea how I keep encountering people who just want to talk so much about how gross cousins are. It's not like I'm actively looking for things to annoy me! Trying to avoid it, in fact.)

Sooooooo... what hills do you all plan to die on?

Edit: I somehow forgot how people are. The very very biggest hill on which I will always make a stand is the basic principle that adult native speakers do not make mistakes in their own native speech. (Barring serious language-related disabilities and momentary disfluencies.) This is the very foundation of the science of linguistics, because the alternative belief, that language somehow manages to exist outside the speakers, doesn't make any sense.

So you're welcome to say that your hill is some word usage you hate, but I will fight you on that. Especially if you hate it because you think it's just immutably and objectively wrong.

Comments

[conuly]

I only agree with this in one specific instance, and that's the usage of the word "grammar" by peevists to mean "things I like and don't like".

Spelling isn't grammar. Punctuation isn't grammar. Pronunciation isn't grammar. Word choice isn't grammar... except where it is, but not in the examples I'm thinking of. And I wouldn't mind except if you're going to fucking be prescriptivist then you really need to get it right.

But otherwise, no. There are too many words which have a technical meaning that the general public doesn't know about at all - undoubtedly there are some words like that which you use that would grate on an expert's ears! - and too many of those had their non-technical meaning before the specialists appropriated it for their own purposes.

[calimac]

No. "Crescendo" is not a non-technical word that was appropriated by specialists, in which case I might agree with you. It is, in English usage, purely a technical musical term that has been misunderstood by non-specialists. They might get away with this in other usages, but when they use it wrongly in regard to music, it really grates.

[conuly]

If they're using it when referring to music then they're using it in a technical sense but getting it wrong.

However, to be clear, I don't really care if the technical usage came first or second. I just don't think technicians get to claim certain words for themselves.

[calimac]

We're not claiming it for ourselves. I'm perfectly happy to see it used metaphorically. I just want people to understand what the word means, has always meant, and - because it's encased in the literature - always will mean.

[conuly]

One of the earliest citations in literature is in The Great Gatsby. This is clearly not what it has always meant and there's no guarantee that this is what it always will mean.

[calimac]

No, that just proves that people have been using it wrongly for 50 years. If that's one of the earliest, it hasn't been very long. It's still wrong. Possibly it's the narrator using it wrongly and the author is signalling the character's ignorance. I see that kind of deliberate error in literature a lot.

[conuly]

Yeah, well, I forgot to say another hill I’ll die on is that people don’t make mistakes when speaking their own native language. If the word meant this 100 years ago and people use that meaning today then that’s what the word means.

[calimac]

Well, that's certainly not true. I make such mistakes all the time, and I correct them when they're pointed out. This one is a mistake, and I'll continue to point it out.

[conuly]

No, barring momentary disfluencies or serious language related disabilities the core principle of linguistics is that people know how to talk. This is as basic as cell theory or evolution. The alternative is to believe that language somehow exists independent of the speakers, which is obviously risible.

[calimac]

"barring momentary disfluencies"

Well, that's an enormous hole you've cut in your argument. And I would classify misusing a word because you've mistaken its meaning as such a disfluency.

Even ardent descriptivist dictionary-makers know enough to distinguish new usages from mistakes.

[conuly]

And I would classify misusing a word because you've mistaken its meaning as such a disfluency.

And you would be wrong. If an entire speech community uses a word in a particular way then that is the correct definition in that speech community. You are not the arbiter of correct usage for anybody but yourself. Words do not exist outside a speech community.

A disfluency is an output that the speaker, upon making it, agrees is not correct. For example, if I am speaking to one child and call them by their sister's name, that's a disfluency. I know that I used the wrong name. Or if I plan to say "I'll go to the store" but I stutter and say "I'll, uh, I'll go to the... um... the gro - I mean the store" then that's a disfluency. I meant to say one thing but I got tripped up on my own words.

This is not "my argument". This is the foundation on which science rests. And since you're big on technical speech, that's also the definition of the word "disfluency" we're working with. You're welcome to have another private definition, but that's not the one in widespread usage and it's not the one I'm using. We can very carefully agree that a person, upon learning a new word, might use it in some novel definition that nobody else understands, which is what happened to you here - but once a word is widespread in a speech community then whatever definition they agree upon is what they agree upon.

[calimac]

You're welcome to have another private definition ... And you would be wrong. This is not "my argument". This is the foundation on which science rests.

People may have another definition of "crescendo." But they would be wrong. This is not "my argument." This is the foundation on which music rests; this is what the word "crescendo" actually means. This is not an argument about language in general, and I would not apply it broadly; it's a maintenance of a technical term.

There are plenty of cases where a speaker agrees that an output is not correct, but the evidence that convinces them is external, not an immediate internal realization. Call it a disfluency or not, I don't care, but the principle is the same: the output is not correct. And when the incorrect output is a misuse of "crescendo," I will be there to provide the external evidence. That's what I mean by a hill to die on.

[conuly]

But not everybody is a musician. You can say that a musician, composer, conductor, teacher or student is using a technical term is wrong. However, you have no authority to say that about the rest of us.

> And when the incorrect output is a misuse of "crescendo," I will be there to provide the external evidence.

“You’re wrong” is not evidence.

[calimac]

It is still useful for them to know this. If they want to use it incorrectly, they will know that it is incorrect. And they will be enlightened.

The evidence is not my say-so. If necessary, I will carry around a music dictionary.

[conuly]

The dictionary is not evidence either. I’m sorry. The evidence is usage, and that speaks for itself.

Words do not exist in dictionaries, and they don’t exist in the ether. They only exist in people.

[calimac]

Now you're being obtuse. People consult dictionaries all the time. Why? To understand the meaning of words.

[conuly]

Sure, but the dictionary will always be behind the times. And it's not an arbitrator of right and wrong - which any lexicocographer will tell you!

The job of the dictionary is to record the definitions of words, not to pick and choose which ones you like and which ones you don't like.

[calimac]

Oh yes you can.

I just got a contribution to the journal I edit that used "crescendo" incorrectly.

I alerted the author to this. He changed it.

I can't prevent people from misusing the word, which I guess is your point. But gently informing them that they'll look like illiterate fools if they do can be a powerful motivator.

And that's what I meant by saying that this is a hill I will defend to the death.

[conuly]

You have a very strange definition of “gently”.

[calimac]

Funny, I thought you believed that words meant however people used them.

But yes, it is possibly to gently inform people of difficult home truths, without being brutal. People do that all the time.

[conuly]

No, I believe that words mean what we collectively agree they mean. You're entitled to your own niche definitions, of course, but you can't expect others to agree with them.

And if many people use a word in a way, and agree that's a correct way to use it, then they won't believe others will judge them for that use - they just think it's not worth arguing with you.

[calimac]

But this is not a niche definition of 'crescendo' nor merely a technical one. It's widespread, though perhaps you were ignorant of it. Every person I've ever met who knows what 'crescendo' really means is irritated by its misuse. And I've corrected many people over the years, and they're not merely not inclined to argue with me. No, they thank me for the information and promise to do better. You see, they're not 'agreeing that's a correct way to use it,' they're misusing it in ignorance, and now they know better. You're the only person who's ever made a case out of it with me, and I have no problem getting people to argue with me if they disagree. They don't disagree on this one.

[conuly]

You can look to Kory Stamper for an example of my point, by the way. When she talks about words being "real" or not you can just sub in definitions being "correct" or not. It's basically the same thing.

[siderea]

Hmm. I rather extremely disagree with you and think you have made a grave logical error, but given how passionate you are about this particular hill, I don't know if you welcome being argued with about this.

[conuly]

Nesting is failing me. Which one of us are you replying to and is it me?

(And if it is, arguing fruitlessly about this is actually a top ten hobby of mine so long as it doesn't lose me too many friends. But you might want to ask if it's worth your time, because believe me, I will never ask that.)