*stretch* Personal policy here...

[conuly]

If you want to say that you think I'm wrong, it'd be nice if you could explain why. Let me clarify:

1. I think you're wrong about *issue* because you're an idiot.

This isn't cool. Don't do that, it really makes you look stupid.

2. I think you're wrong about *issue*. *wanders off*

This *may* be not-cool. Don't do this either, because you'll be met with me going WTF? at you.

3. I think you're wrong about *issue* because *completely irrelevant/untrustworthy source disagrees*.

This is just sad. Don't do that either.

4. I think you're wrong about *issue* because I've done research/a relevant source disagrees/I think you misunderstood this relevant source and it really means that/something else that makes sense.

This is good. This is useful. This is *interesting*. Go ahead, do this.

5. I think you're wrong, and I'm going to insult you now.

Don't do that either, 'k? Nobody listens to you when you do that.

So. Look at the list. Make sure you're in group four instead of one of the other groups. We'll all thank you for it.

Comments

Seen elsewhere:

[xydexx.livejournal.com]

"Rolled up newspapers don't work on me. I'm not a puppy. If you want to communicate with me and we are not yet friends, please be polite."

Re: Seen elsewhere:

[conuly]

Oh, you're *not* a puppy? *hides chew toy*

Squeaky Pony Chew Toy!

[xydexx.livejournal.com]

No, no... I'm the chew toy.

A somewhat delayed response.

[ratmist.livejournal.com]

I'm a moderate advocate of prescriptivism. This means I think most of what you say is ludicrous, and you believe all of what I say to be bigoted at worst, or culturally imperial at best. However, I'll reiterate: I'm an uninterested, moderate prescriptivist. I believe that people should always be listened to and heard through their speech, in whatever form it may take, but that this speech is not to be confused with the written language itself, which must and should adhere to rules collectively known as grammar.

I fully understand the porous nature of languages, and I love that languages change all the time, both grammatically and through speech. My research focuses in part on the written relationships between ogham (Scotti), Latin (Roman), and Latin miniscule found on early medieval monuments of the middle to late first millennium A.D. along the British Atlantic seaboard and through the Great Glen of Scotland. I actively see the changes in each script as they unfold across the landscapes, and through time.

Do I wish people were still writing in ogham, or speaking in perfect Latin? Not really. There are many political and social reasons why the languages adapted and changed, and we are not really poorer for having lost the ability to actively read or write in ogham. Do I actively encourage the continuation of languages such as Gaídhlig? Absolutely - which is one of the less practical reasons why I started learning it.

Am I a bigot to occasionally suppose one who speaks in an uneducated manner, relying partially or wholly on erroneous data (for example, the pregnant smoking woman), are in fact uneducated? No. Often, there is no inherent malice in concluding someone is ignorant or in want of a good education. You missed the point of the ridicule levelled at that woman: it is often not the way someone speaks that gives rise to such labels, but rather, what they actually said that prompts an unkind but perhaps not wholly unwarranted response as that which she received. It seems to me that you have overlooked the intellectual content of her words and her actions entirely in your crusade for compassion.

To take another example which places my values squarely within the discussion: if I chose a candidate for a job who was, in my opinion, well spoken, over someone whose speech (and its content!) indicated a lesser degree of capability for the position, would I sleep most soundly that night because I had chosen the correct person? Absolutely. Would I worry about the other candidate's ability to find a job? Yes.

Does this make me a hypocrite? Absolutely not.

You've overlooked what powerful tools descriptivism and prescriptivism actually are in unravelling the twisty kinks of languages; they are not always meant to simply exist in opposition. In excluding one for being "the tool of the oppressor" (nevermind who "The Oppressor" actually is), you betray a certain ignorance inherent in so many young scholars and enthusiasts of linguistics.

Worst of all, it appears that through looking through your journal, you consider some whose opinions stem from prescriptivism as bigots (again, as evidenced by the smoking pregnant woman). And that is why I cannot support your logic, because it is profoundly isolated from reality by being unduly steeped in the technicalities of linguistics.

Also a few things:

Shakespeare wrote in what is considered by most authorities to be the advent of Modern English.

Chaucer wrote in Early Modern.

Re: A somewhat delayed response.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

And Beowulf is Anglo Saxon. There's no such thing as "Early English". It goes: Anglo Saxon, Old E, Mid E, Early Mod E, Mod E.

Re: A somewhat delayed response.

[conuly]

What can I say, history just ain't my strong suit. *hugs* I'll assume you're right on this. Thankies.

Re: A somewhat delayed response.

[conuly]

I'm skipping past most of this. I do promise to read it more thoroughly later, but right now I'm 1. cold and 2. hungry, and therefore 3. unlikely to give it a reasoned response.

However, I do have... um, a few things to say.

1. The bigot comment didn't come from people calling that woman uneducated. Really, I agree, considering that she was smoking while pregnant. It came from the statement that using a double negative was a sign of mental retardation, or that it's a sign of laziness.
2. I don't actually believe in that tool of the oppressor stuff. That's why I keep a running count of how many times I've said it. It's a joke, much like my calling myself the Empress of the Universe is a joke (and people have taken that seriously too, which really shows how obscure my sense of humor is). I mean, yeah, I do want to take over the world, and I definitely don't like prescriptivism - but it's not intended as an actual statement of belief.
3. *shrugs* See, I *said* historical linguistics isn't my strong suit. I never can get all those names right in my head. How embarassing. The point, of course, still stands that Lawyer-ese isn't an example of purest English, even if my dateline was a bit skewed.
4. (You didn't say this, I think, but I will) People reading my journal really should know to take everything the same way they would if they were reading anything else. They need to do their own research. Among other things, it's more fun talking to people who know something about what I'm trying to talk about, and it helps keep me on the straight and narrow here, though I doubt my dating problems are going to go away. Alas.

I do promise to read your response more thoroughly, but now = not the time.

And a comment on ethics.

[ratmist.livejournal.com]

I posted to your journal originally because I was annoyed at the poor treatment you afforded Threnody. While it is your journal to do with what you wish, I find it disconcerting to see so many people cowed by your arrogant, erroneous interpretations of linguistics. Most alarmingly, this cowering is often followed by some polite requests for enlightenment, which you readily provide in erroneous or highly biased form.

Normally I do not comment as a stranger onto anyone's journal; it's jarring, tacky, and usually rude. It's like walking up to a table in a crowded restaurant and adding two cents to a conversation that had been quite clearly private despite its public venue. Nevertheless, sometimes people do interject their opinions to those sitting in a restaurant; similarly, I felt it was appropriate to step forward and speak honestly about your errors in both interpretations and erroneous citations. The root cause of this interjection is the lack of a scholarly, academic element missing in every post you've returned to marrog and me: ethics.

If you're going to put yourself on the line as an authority to any degree of expertise, whether amateur or expert, you must be willing to spar with those that find your ideas flawed. By ignoring my post and blithely posting repeatedly to another (check your time stamps), you fail to adhere to your own ethics as posted in your general "Personal Policy, #1-5" above. By my count, you've violated some of policy #2 and #4, and by repeatedly replying to shorter (i.e. more manageable) posts after stating you couldn't possibly do so, you violate #5.

So let's review. You've now stated, "I'm not going to comment, but here's my comment anyway: I didn't mean that - it was a joke! Nevermind, I was right anyway, because you should look up my writing before assuming anything!".

I don't think you're an idiot, and I don't think you're completely wrong in what you say and post; nothing can be wholly wrong that stems from a good heart, which I believe you have. However, you actually lose most, if not all, of your threadbare scholastic credibility, by refusing to listen to others and contradicting yourself by your actions and your words. And from glancing through your other posts, you've badly needed someone to say this to you, because you've made up or convoluted so much shit it's like you've gotten away with linguistical murder.

further to ratmist's comment

[marrog.livejournal.com]

The preservation of the English Language in its academically acceptable form is as worthy a crusade as preserving dialectic innovation and diversity. Bear in mind that those who want English to be written (and even spoken)"correctly" are not necessarily Grammar Nazis - perhaps they're just passionate about Education, and an equal opportunity in the inately prejudices world of work for all.

You campaign for all dialects to be considered equal, and I'll campaign for those who want to get by in the meantime.

Also, double negative's do make a positive, and if you'd studied the more modern theories of English symtax, you'd know that.

Re: further to ratmist's comment

[marrog.livejournal.com]

GAH!

Please excuse the misplaced apostrophe. What can I say, I'm tired...?

Re: further to ratmist's comment

[conuly]

You also misspelled syntax. /spelling nazi freak

Re: further to ratmist's comment

[conuly]

I'm certainly not stopping you... I just think more good is done by fighting prejudice than trying to fit in with it.

Also, double negatives do make a positive, and if you'd studied the more modern theories of English symtax, you'd know that.

Well, that's why I put up the poll. I'd honestly never heard a double negative meant as a positive, so the argument "it can be confusing" made little sense mihi. LJ polls aren't exactly the most scientific thing around, but I'm not trying to do anything official, so it's all good.

Re: further to ratmist's comment

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Well, to be honest, I didn't see you doing much to stop me, but that's not my point. You imply, nay state, that holding the opinion that it is better to speak correct English (for a given value of correct) than some regional/social dialect, is bigoted. I'm trying to point out not that your opinion on the subject is invalid, but that your attitude towards people who think otherwise is a little short-sighted, bearing in mind the contentious nature of your argument.

Also, whether or not dialects of the "working/lower/uneducated" classes are products of their lack of education is I think an arguable point. You say that they aren't. I say there are numerous sources to support both sides. However, let me make one other point:

Those who grow up with boad dialects (I myself spoke much broader Scots than I do now) consciously lose them to become better thought of. This is true.

But speaking for myself, my dialect also changed because I became aware that certain phrasal constructions were plain grammatically wrong. There's a difference between saying "doesnae" for "doesn't" and saying "I seen you" for "I saw you". One of them is lexical, and the other a grammatical inconsistency characteristic to the dialect. For one, I would be considered to have a broad accent. For the other, I would be considered to be lacking in education. And I would be.

My evidence? The speech of my own Grandfather, an eighty-year-old speaker of broad West Coast Scots. He still speaks dialect, despite having been an English teacher, and his accent has the former feature.

He doesnae huv the latter. Because it's wrang.

Re: further to ratmist's comment

[marrog.livejournal.com]

I'd honestly never heard a double negative meant as a positive.

I forgot to address this, though I have only one thing to say: You're either lying, or your research has been yet more limited than I thought.

Seen elsewhere:

[xydexx.livejournal.com]

"Rolled up newspapers don't work on me. I'm not a puppy. If you want to communicate with me and we are not yet friends, please be polite."

Re: Seen elsewhere:

[conuly]

Oh, you're *not* a puppy? *hides chew toy*

Squeaky Pony Chew Toy!

[xydexx.livejournal.com]

No, no... I'm the chew toy.

A somewhat delayed response.

[ratmist.livejournal.com]

I'm a moderate advocate of prescriptivism. This means I think most of what you say is ludicrous, and you believe all of what I say to be bigoted at worst, or culturally imperial at best. However, I'll reiterate: I'm an uninterested, moderate prescriptivist. I believe that people should always be listened to and heard through their speech, in whatever form it may take, but that this speech is not to be confused with the written language itself, which must and should adhere to rules collectively known as grammar.

I fully understand the porous nature of languages, and I love that languages change all the time, both grammatically and through speech. My research focuses in part on the written relationships between ogham (Scotti), Latin (Roman), and Latin miniscule found on early medieval monuments of the middle to late first millennium A.D. along the British Atlantic seaboard and through the Great Glen of Scotland. I actively see the changes in each script as they unfold across the landscapes, and through time.

Do I wish people were still writing in ogham, or speaking in perfect Latin? Not really. There are many political and social reasons why the languages adapted and changed, and we are not really poorer for having lost the ability to actively read or write in ogham. Do I actively encourage the continuation of languages such as Gaídhlig? Absolutely - which is one of the less practical reasons why I started learning it.

Am I a bigot to occasionally suppose one who speaks in an uneducated manner, relying partially or wholly on erroneous data (for example, the pregnant smoking woman), are in fact uneducated? No. Often, there is no inherent malice in concluding someone is ignorant or in want of a good education. You missed the point of the ridicule levelled at that woman: it is often not the way someone speaks that gives rise to such labels, but rather, what they actually said that prompts an unkind but perhaps not wholly unwarranted response as that which she received. It seems to me that you have overlooked the intellectual content of her words and her actions entirely in your crusade for compassion.

To take another example which places my values squarely within the discussion: if I chose a candidate for a job who was, in my opinion, well spoken, over someone whose speech (and its content!) indicated a lesser degree of capability for the position, would I sleep most soundly that night because I had chosen the correct person? Absolutely. Would I worry about the other candidate's ability to find a job? Yes.

Does this make me a hypocrite? Absolutely not.

You've overlooked what powerful tools descriptivism and prescriptivism actually are in unravelling the twisty kinks of languages; they are not always meant to simply exist in opposition. In excluding one for being "the tool of the oppressor" (nevermind who "The Oppressor" actually is), you betray a certain ignorance inherent in so many young scholars and enthusiasts of linguistics.

Worst of all, it appears that through looking through your journal, you consider some whose opinions stem from prescriptivism as bigots (again, as evidenced by the smoking pregnant woman). And that is why I cannot support your logic, because it is profoundly isolated from reality by being unduly steeped in the technicalities of linguistics.

Also a few things:

Shakespeare wrote in what is considered by most authorities to be the advent of Modern English.

Chaucer wrote in Early Modern.

Re: A somewhat delayed response.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

And Beowulf is Anglo Saxon. There's no such thing as "Early English". It goes: Anglo Saxon, Old E, Mid E, Early Mod E, Mod E.

Re: A somewhat delayed response.

[conuly]

What can I say, history just ain't my strong suit. *hugs* I'll assume you're right on this. Thankies.

Re: A somewhat delayed response.

[conuly]

I'm skipping past most of this. I do promise to read it more thoroughly later, but right now I'm 1. cold and 2. hungry, and therefore 3. unlikely to give it a reasoned response.

However, I do have... um, a few things to say.

1. The bigot comment didn't come from people calling that woman uneducated. Really, I agree, considering that she was smoking while pregnant. It came from the statement that using a double negative was a sign of mental retardation, or that it's a sign of laziness.
2. I don't actually believe in that tool of the oppressor stuff. That's why I keep a running count of how many times I've said it. It's a joke, much like my calling myself the Empress of the Universe is a joke (and people have taken that seriously too, which really shows how obscure my sense of humor is). I mean, yeah, I do want to take over the world, and I definitely don't like prescriptivism - but it's not intended as an actual statement of belief.
3. *shrugs* See, I *said* historical linguistics isn't my strong suit. I never can get all those names right in my head. How embarassing. The point, of course, still stands that Lawyer-ese isn't an example of purest English, even if my dateline was a bit skewed.
4. (You didn't say this, I think, but I will) People reading my journal really should know to take everything the same way they would if they were reading anything else. They need to do their own research. Among other things, it's more fun talking to people who know something about what I'm trying to talk about, and it helps keep me on the straight and narrow here, though I doubt my dating problems are going to go away. Alas.

I do promise to read your response more thoroughly, but now = not the time.

And a comment on ethics.

[ratmist.livejournal.com]

I posted to your journal originally because I was annoyed at the poor treatment you afforded Threnody. While it is your journal to do with what you wish, I find it disconcerting to see so many people cowed by your arrogant, erroneous interpretations of linguistics. Most alarmingly, this cowering is often followed by some polite requests for enlightenment, which you readily provide in erroneous or highly biased form.

Normally I do not comment as a stranger onto anyone's journal; it's jarring, tacky, and usually rude. It's like walking up to a table in a crowded restaurant and adding two cents to a conversation that had been quite clearly private despite its public venue. Nevertheless, sometimes people do interject their opinions to those sitting in a restaurant; similarly, I felt it was appropriate to step forward and speak honestly about your errors in both interpretations and erroneous citations. The root cause of this interjection is the lack of a scholarly, academic element missing in every post you've returned to marrog and me: ethics.

If you're going to put yourself on the line as an authority to any degree of expertise, whether amateur or expert, you must be willing to spar with those that find your ideas flawed. By ignoring my post and blithely posting repeatedly to another (check your time stamps), you fail to adhere to your own ethics as posted in your general "Personal Policy, #1-5" above. By my count, you've violated some of policy #2 and #4, and by repeatedly replying to shorter (i.e. more manageable) posts after stating you couldn't possibly do so, you violate #5.

So let's review. You've now stated, "I'm not going to comment, but here's my comment anyway: I didn't mean that - it was a joke! Nevermind, I was right anyway, because you should look up my writing before assuming anything!".

I don't think you're an idiot, and I don't think you're completely wrong in what you say and post; nothing can be wholly wrong that stems from a good heart, which I believe you have. However, you actually lose most, if not all, of your threadbare scholastic credibility, by refusing to listen to others and contradicting yourself by your actions and your words. And from glancing through your other posts, you've badly needed someone to say this to you, because you've made up or convoluted so much shit it's like you've gotten away with linguistical murder.

further to ratmist's comment

[marrog.livejournal.com]

The preservation of the English Language in its academically acceptable form is as worthy a crusade as preserving dialectic innovation and diversity. Bear in mind that those who want English to be written (and even spoken)"correctly" are not necessarily Grammar Nazis - perhaps they're just passionate about Education, and an equal opportunity in the inately prejudices world of work for all.

You campaign for all dialects to be considered equal, and I'll campaign for those who want to get by in the meantime.

Also, double negative's do make a positive, and if you'd studied the more modern theories of English symtax, you'd know that.

Re: further to ratmist's comment

[marrog.livejournal.com]

GAH!

Please excuse the misplaced apostrophe. What can I say, I'm tired...?

Re: further to ratmist's comment

[conuly]

I'm certainly not stopping you... I just think more good is done by fighting prejudice than trying to fit in with it.

Also, double negatives do make a positive, and if you'd studied the more modern theories of English symtax, you'd know that.

Well, that's why I put up the poll. I'd honestly never heard a double negative meant as a positive, so the argument "it can be confusing" made little sense mihi. LJ polls aren't exactly the most scientific thing around, but I'm not trying to do anything official, so it's all good.