I can't decide whether this is reductio ad absurdum or just a great big ol' strawman.
I hate arguing with the descriptivists, because they always do this. Look, just because I say that one bloody thing isn't proper grammar doesn't mean I think we should all go back to Old English. It means that THAT ONE THING, which I WAS TALKING ABOUT, is wrong. Characterizing prescriptive grammarians as stuffy pedants trying to drag the language back into the Middle Ages is unfair and uncalled-for. I am not a snob, and I am not an elitist (well, I am, but not because of this) and I am not trying to make myself out like I'm better than everyone else. I just think that the rules we have right now are perfectly good rules, and I don't see any tearing need to go changing them because they're "hard to learn" or whatever the usual argument is.
Why do those rules have to apply to everybody? Why should we all speak the same way? Why shouldn't we change the rules? They have changed before, you surely do not think this is the pinnacle of language development.
Besides, it's still illogical.
Let's say we have a language, call it Early Modern English. And Early Modern English has three (several, really, but we're trying to be simple) direct descendents - let's call them Standard American, African American Vernacular, and... um... oh, let's say Appalachian English.
So far, our family tree looks like this:
EME -> SAE EME -> AAVE EME -> AE
But one of those children becomes the standard. So we have one very popular dialect with two maligned cousins.
That does NOT mean that the people who speak AAVE or Applachian English are breaking the rules of Standard English. It also doesn't mean that AAVE and Appalachian English are "forms" of Standard American English. Instead, they're all forms of the same dialect, Early Modern English. They're all equally valid, and they're all equally diverged from the earlier form (which, incidentally, means that people changed rules that were "good enough")
Um, change "forms of the same dialect" to "descended from the same dialect".
Basically, that argument says one of two things, which I find equally silly. The first is that language should not change any more. I don't understand this. Why shouldn't language continue to change? If it's changing, that's because it is no longer meeting the needs of the speakers. The second is that people shouldn't speak any form of the language but the standard. Again, why? If people are not speaking the standard, it is because the standard is not meeting their needs. There is no logical reason to prefer one language or dialect over another (at least, there isn't so long as everybody understands everybody else), so why ask people to speak all the same one?
Honestly? I don't care how people talk. I really don't. I'll cringe if someone says "irregardless" or "orientated" or other things that aren't actually words, but I'll keep my mouth shut.
HOWEVER. If someone hands me a paper, and asks me to give suggestions, I am going to get out my red pen and I am going to make that paper's grammar roll over and OBEY ME. There's the way you write if you want your work to be taken seriously, and then there's the other way. (Oh, and as for who decides -- CMS, baby. Kate Turabian was an unappreciated goddess.)
It doesn't even have to be that the academic standard is the only right one (although I'm very partial to it). It's just the standard for the academic setting, and if you want to be a contender, you'd better live up to that standard.
i think it might have been a bit much. i pretty much agree with you, but if i had been on the receiving end of a reaming like that i think i'd be kind of upset by it :P
Were I serious, I definitely wouldn't've ended asking "when, oh when". That's just a bit much. But I do hold the less dramatic form of that argument, which is that prescriptivist linguistics is... well, pointless.
Of course, you *know* that you're the wrong one. You just don't want to admit it. That's all right. Linguani, god of all things linguistic, will forgive you. Maybe. I'll sacrifice some pasta for you.
I'm in a bit of a silly swing. I'm usually not quite this crazy.
Go on, friend me. Please? Even if you're one of those evul heretical prescriptivists, I can still find you reasonably intelligent and interesting. Pretty please?
I can't decide whether this is reductio ad absurdum or just a great big ol' strawman.
I hate arguing with the descriptivists, because they always do this. Look, just because I say that one bloody thing isn't proper grammar doesn't mean I think we should all go back to Old English. It means that THAT ONE THING, which I WAS TALKING ABOUT, is wrong. Characterizing prescriptive grammarians as stuffy pedants trying to drag the language back into the Middle Ages is unfair and uncalled-for. I am not a snob, and I am not an elitist (well, I am, but not because of this) and I am not trying to make myself out like I'm better than everyone else. I just think that the rules we have right now are perfectly good rules, and I don't see any tearing need to go changing them because they're "hard to learn" or whatever the usual argument is.
Why do those rules have to apply to everybody? Why should we all speak the same way? Why shouldn't we change the rules? They have changed before, you surely do not think this is the pinnacle of language development.
Besides, it's still illogical.
Let's say we have a language, call it Early Modern English. And Early Modern English has three (several, really, but we're trying to be simple) direct descendents - let's call them Standard American, African American Vernacular, and... um... oh, let's say Appalachian English.
So far, our family tree looks like this:
EME -> SAE EME -> AAVE EME -> AE
But one of those children becomes the standard. So we have one very popular dialect with two maligned cousins.
That does NOT mean that the people who speak AAVE or Applachian English are breaking the rules of Standard English. It also doesn't mean that AAVE and Appalachian English are "forms" of Standard American English. Instead, they're all forms of the same dialect, Early Modern English. They're all equally valid, and they're all equally diverged from the earlier form (which, incidentally, means that people changed rules that were "good enough")
Um, change "forms of the same dialect" to "descended from the same dialect".
Basically, that argument says one of two things, which I find equally silly. The first is that language should not change any more. I don't understand this. Why shouldn't language continue to change? If it's changing, that's because it is no longer meeting the needs of the speakers. The second is that people shouldn't speak any form of the language but the standard. Again, why? If people are not speaking the standard, it is because the standard is not meeting their needs. There is no logical reason to prefer one language or dialect over another (at least, there isn't so long as everybody understands everybody else), so why ask people to speak all the same one?
Honestly? I don't care how people talk. I really don't. I'll cringe if someone says "irregardless" or "orientated" or other things that aren't actually words, but I'll keep my mouth shut.
HOWEVER. If someone hands me a paper, and asks me to give suggestions, I am going to get out my red pen and I am going to make that paper's grammar roll over and OBEY ME. There's the way you write if you want your work to be taken seriously, and then there's the other way. (Oh, and as for who decides -- CMS, baby. Kate Turabian was an unappreciated goddess.)
It doesn't even have to be that the academic standard is the only right one (although I'm very partial to it). It's just the standard for the academic setting, and if you want to be a contender, you'd better live up to that standard.
i think it might have been a bit much. i pretty much agree with you, but if i had been on the receiving end of a reaming like that i think i'd be kind of upset by it :P
Were I serious, I definitely wouldn't've ended asking "when, oh when". That's just a bit much. But I do hold the less dramatic form of that argument, which is that prescriptivist linguistics is... well, pointless.
Of course, you *know* that you're the wrong one. You just don't want to admit it. That's all right. Linguani, god of all things linguistic, will forgive you. Maybe. I'll sacrifice some pasta for you.
I'm in a bit of a silly swing. I'm usually not quite this crazy.
Go on, friend me. Please? Even if you're one of those evul heretical prescriptivists, I can still find you reasonably intelligent and interesting. Pretty please?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
I thought it was funny. I didn't think it was too over the top, but it may invite confrontation.
no subject
I hate arguing with the descriptivists, because they always do this. Look, just because I say that one bloody thing isn't proper grammar doesn't mean I think we should all go back to Old English. It means that THAT ONE THING, which I WAS TALKING ABOUT, is wrong. Characterizing prescriptive grammarians as stuffy pedants trying to drag the language back into the Middle Ages is unfair and uncalled-for. I am not a snob, and I am not an elitist (well, I am, but not because of this) and I am not trying to make myself out like I'm better than everyone else. I just think that the rules we have right now are perfectly good rules, and I don't see any tearing need to go changing them because they're "hard to learn" or whatever the usual argument is.
no subject
Why do you say it's proper?
Why do those rules have to apply to everybody? Why should we all speak the same way? Why shouldn't we change the rules? They have changed before, you surely do not think this is the pinnacle of language development.
Besides, it's still illogical.
Let's say we have a language, call it Early Modern English. And Early Modern English has three (several, really, but we're trying to be simple) direct descendents - let's call them Standard American, African American Vernacular, and... um... oh, let's say Appalachian English.
So far, our family tree looks like this:
EME -> SAE
EME -> AAVE
EME -> AE
But one of those children becomes the standard. So we have one very popular dialect with two maligned cousins.
That does NOT mean that the people who speak AAVE or Applachian English are breaking the rules of Standard English. It also doesn't mean that AAVE and Appalachian English are "forms" of Standard American English. Instead, they're all forms of the same dialect, Early Modern English. They're all equally valid, and they're all equally diverged from the earlier form (which, incidentally, means that people changed rules that were "good enough")
no subject
Basically, that argument says one of two things, which I find equally silly. The first is that language should not change any more. I don't understand this. Why shouldn't language continue to change? If it's changing, that's because it is no longer meeting the needs of the speakers. The second is that people shouldn't speak any form of the language but the standard. Again, why? If people are not speaking the standard, it is because the standard is not meeting their needs. There is no logical reason to prefer one language or dialect over another (at least, there isn't so long as everybody understands everybody else), so why ask people to speak all the same one?
no subject
HOWEVER. If someone hands me a paper, and asks me to give suggestions, I am going to get out my red pen and I am going to make that paper's grammar roll over and OBEY ME. There's the way you write if you want your work to be taken seriously, and then there's the other way. (Oh, and as for who decides -- CMS, baby. Kate Turabian was an unappreciated goddess.)
It doesn't even have to be that the academic standard is the only right one (although I'm very partial to it). It's just the standard for the academic setting, and if you want to be a contender, you'd better live up to that standard.
no subject
*feels vaguely silly*
And don't tell me you said that. I feel silly as it is.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Were I serious, I definitely wouldn't've ended asking "when, oh when". That's just a bit much. But I do hold the less dramatic form of that argument, which is that prescriptivist linguistics is... well, pointless.
no subject
no subject
Of course, you *know* that you're the wrong one. You just don't want to admit it. That's all right. Linguani, god of all things linguistic, will forgive you. Maybe. I'll sacrifice some pasta for you.
I'm in a bit of a silly swing. I'm usually not quite this crazy.
Mmm..pasta!
Re: Mmm..pasta!
Here, I'll ask one more time....
PlZzZzZ???????!!!!!!!!!11111
Re: Mmm..pasta!
no subject
I thought it was funny. I didn't think it was too over the top, but it may invite confrontation.
no subject
I hate arguing with the descriptivists, because they always do this. Look, just because I say that one bloody thing isn't proper grammar doesn't mean I think we should all go back to Old English. It means that THAT ONE THING, which I WAS TALKING ABOUT, is wrong. Characterizing prescriptive grammarians as stuffy pedants trying to drag the language back into the Middle Ages is unfair and uncalled-for. I am not a snob, and I am not an elitist (well, I am, but not because of this) and I am not trying to make myself out like I'm better than everyone else. I just think that the rules we have right now are perfectly good rules, and I don't see any tearing need to go changing them because they're "hard to learn" or whatever the usual argument is.
no subject
Why do you say it's proper?
Why do those rules have to apply to everybody? Why should we all speak the same way? Why shouldn't we change the rules? They have changed before, you surely do not think this is the pinnacle of language development.
Besides, it's still illogical.
Let's say we have a language, call it Early Modern English. And Early Modern English has three (several, really, but we're trying to be simple) direct descendents - let's call them Standard American, African American Vernacular, and... um... oh, let's say Appalachian English.
So far, our family tree looks like this:
EME -> SAE
EME -> AAVE
EME -> AE
But one of those children becomes the standard. So we have one very popular dialect with two maligned cousins.
That does NOT mean that the people who speak AAVE or Applachian English are breaking the rules of Standard English. It also doesn't mean that AAVE and Appalachian English are "forms" of Standard American English. Instead, they're all forms of the same dialect, Early Modern English. They're all equally valid, and they're all equally diverged from the earlier form (which, incidentally, means that people changed rules that were "good enough")
no subject
Basically, that argument says one of two things, which I find equally silly. The first is that language should not change any more. I don't understand this. Why shouldn't language continue to change? If it's changing, that's because it is no longer meeting the needs of the speakers. The second is that people shouldn't speak any form of the language but the standard. Again, why? If people are not speaking the standard, it is because the standard is not meeting their needs. There is no logical reason to prefer one language or dialect over another (at least, there isn't so long as everybody understands everybody else), so why ask people to speak all the same one?
no subject
HOWEVER. If someone hands me a paper, and asks me to give suggestions, I am going to get out my red pen and I am going to make that paper's grammar roll over and OBEY ME. There's the way you write if you want your work to be taken seriously, and then there's the other way. (Oh, and as for who decides -- CMS, baby. Kate Turabian was an unappreciated goddess.)
It doesn't even have to be that the academic standard is the only right one (although I'm very partial to it). It's just the standard for the academic setting, and if you want to be a contender, you'd better live up to that standard.
no subject
*feels vaguely silly*
And don't tell me you said that. I feel silly as it is.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Were I serious, I definitely wouldn't've ended asking "when, oh when". That's just a bit much. But I do hold the less dramatic form of that argument, which is that prescriptivist linguistics is... well, pointless.
no subject
no subject
Of course, you *know* that you're the wrong one. You just don't want to admit it. That's all right. Linguani, god of all things linguistic, will forgive you. Maybe. I'll sacrifice some pasta for you.
I'm in a bit of a silly swing. I'm usually not quite this crazy.
Mmm..pasta!
Re: Mmm..pasta!
Here, I'll ask one more time....
PlZzZzZ???????!!!!!!!!!11111
Re: Mmm..pasta!