Okay, I think I've figured out what I want for my BSG icon....

[conuly]

*points to the leftmost deleted scene*

"What is President Roslin's position on the income tax?"

...

"It's a legitimate question!"

"I don't believe the president has articulated a position on the income tax, but I'm sure she will once she finds the tax forms."

I mean, I can see why it was deleted, but... *giggles* Something about clueless journalists and Billy's First Press Conference is just amusing me right now.

Comments

[conuly]

Indeed, that very fact, that the sort of speech generally practiced by those in power is close to prescriptive standards, appears to be a strong reason to take prescriptive linguistics seriously.

The people in power all tend to dress alike as well. What does that mean, that there's one "right way" to dress, and the others are wrong?

The reason the people in power speak alike is because that style of speech is associated with the people in power, just like three-piece-business suits are. There's nothing inherently better about the speech, it's just that this style has been adopted by those in power.

If some revolution happened, and all the people in power were put out of power, and instead we were ruled by AAVE-speaking people, pretty soon the "standard" would be our new prestigious dialect, AAVE.

[damyx.livejournal.com]

I don't think the issue is superiority, just utility. Prescriptive linguistics are useful, which makes rejecting them dangerous.

[conuly]

Well, again, you'll note that I never said I dislike the idea of a standard.

Please explain to me how the idea that one form of a language is inherantly superior to another form of that language is useful.

[damyx.livejournal.com]

Please explain to me how the idea that one form of a language is inherantly superior to another form of that language is useful.

It's useful because it takes into account the fact that one language, in relation to another can:
- be easier to formulate complex sentences
- be easier to understand
- have greater semantic precision

etc.

[conuly]

- be easier to formulate complex sentences

That's not true.

- be easier to understand

Any language/dialect is easier to understand when it's your native tongue. Other than that, it falls apart. I fail to see how "himself" is supposed to be easier to understand than "hisself".

- have greater semantic precision

That's not true.

Honestly, I'm not sure how you made it through intro linguistics without learning this....

[bridgetester.livejournal.com]

Also, language changes over time. New prescriptive grammar must be constructed in order to avoid outdated linguistic rules.

This cannot be avoided by "forcing" everyone to agree to the same rules, because even the language of the people in power changes.

[damyx.livejournal.com]

Of course. That's where the descriptive elements come in. I just don't think that it's flatly one or the other that provides a properly useful structure of the way language works.

[conuly]

Well, you're perfectly free to take this view up with the writers of my linguistic textbooks. I'd be glad to know that everything I've learned so far is wrong.

[conuly]

Seriously, though. When you explain why you find prescriptivism "useful", or even explain why it explains how language works, I'll listen. So far, you haven't said anything that I haven't already accounted for by saying:

1. I didn't say the idea of a standard is wrong, I just said it isn't more correct than any other form of the language.
2. Yes, we need a way to communicate, this is why God invented lingua francas, but technically this need could be filled by using IALs such as Esperanto or Ido. At any rate, the idea that "we need a standard" doesn't mean that "the standard is correct".