conuly

Current Mood: bouncy

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

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.

From:

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.

From:

conuly

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

From:

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.

From:

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.

From:

conuly

What post did I completely ignore? I replied in the order that they appear on my most recent comments page - newest to oldest. However, if I did not see a post, I am sorry.

As for saying "I couldn't reply", I didn't say that. What I *said* is that "I am not, at this time, able to give your post the consideration it deserves". Which really means that I didn't consider the other posts as worthy as attention. Yay.

Nor was that what my comment said. My comment said: look, I can't give your reply the attention it deserves, so I'll just take note of the few things I *can* reply adaquately to right now. For example, you misunderstood my statement, it's not meant seriously. Sorry about that.

I didn't say "oh, I can't comment, so I'll put the entirety of any reply you'll get here, and you should've paid more attention". That would make no sense.

I'm not going to attempt to take up your post at this time. Despite what you believe, I am *actually* not, at this time, capable of giving it the attention it deserves. I can give that attention to *other* posts, but not to *every* post. It's very easy to look at a short post and say "look, I'm sorry, I messed up there". It's not too difficult to say "hey, I'm confused, please explain what you mean". It's astonishingly simple to say "I'm not going to answer this question, it's either irrelevant or not public information". It is, however, difficult to take a long, detailed post and give it a long, detailed reply. Since I did not wish to insult you by giving it a pretension of a reply, I answered honestly: I can't do that right now, please wait until later.