I’ve always said the dictionary is a follower not a leader, by the time a word gets added to the dictionary it’s already established widespread usage
Meh, seems cromulent.
Adequately pondiferous.
The same rules apply to gods, according to Terry Pratchet
Some of the earliest religions were just trying to figure out this whole ‘words’ thing. Describing abstracts consistently was developed over time across generations, sometimes very strictly.
It’s dangerous not to believe
I rattle my kitchen drawers at least once a week
Take my S word.
Gonna go on Countdown with the line “Dictionaries aren’t rule books, they’re record books” and fight Susie Dent.
deleted by creator
Académie Française: <<Ahem – pardon et moi?>>
You mean <<pardonnez moi?>>
“pardon et moi” means “pardon and me”. “pardonnez moi” means “pardon me” (in a polite / respectful tense).
It still works, it can mean: sorry but how do I exist if it isn’t a rulebook?
LOL you got me – I flunked French . (Please don’t tell le Académie!) 😄
Delightfully failing to be either but with a huge sense of superiority and disdain for the youth and migrants.
“Le Weekend.”
“Je suis overbooké”
Zut alors!
Try it, she’ll fuck you up with a bike chain (her weapon of choice in pub fights)
I’ve always been a big advocate of the idea that the only part of communication that matters is communication. If people understand you then congrats you’ve successfully languaged
What if people understand you, but they think you’re stupid?
Congratulations! You did the best you could…
That’s their problem. I always assume the stupid people are the ones that are so inflexible and uncreative, that they don’t understand that language is entirely an amorphous flexible human creation.
The flip side of that is that if the words you’re using are wutdownrerary, you should be told to stop using those words because by using them you make communication harder.
Does “glizzy” (e.g. hotdog) fit under this classification?
glizzy
I’ve never heard that term, and wouldn’t know what it meant.
I literally gave the definition
The problem is that people frequently use this type of argument when they are unable to spell or follow the basic rules of syntax and grammar instead of simply admitting they’re wrong.
Language does change, over time and across many cultures. It doesn’t mean that anything you write is automatically correct.
I’m a descriptivist but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t rules and that we can’t point out things still being wrong.
Descriptivism still describes rules as they’re used in the real world. Breaking those rules still subjects the speaker/writer to the consequences: being misunderstood, having the spoken or written sentence to simply be rejected or disregarded, etc.
“Colour” and “color” are both correct spellings of the word, because we are able to describe entire communities who spell things that way. “Culler” is not, because anyone who does spell it that way is immediately corrected, and their written spelling is rejected by the person who receives it. We can describe these rules of that interaction as descriptivists, and still conclude that something is wrong or incorrect.
“Culler” is not, because anyone who does spell it that way is immediately corrected, and their written spelling is rejected by the person who receives it. We can describe these rules of that interaction as descriptivists, and still conclude that something is wrong or incorrect.
Orthography isn’t really a part of grammar, so it’s easily possible for natives to make mistakes when writing that might make a word difficult to understand. It’s much harder for spoken language to be misunderstood among the population that a native grew up in, because the words they use don’t come out of nowhere (despite the old prescriptivist argument that you can even see in this thread saying “I’m just gonna call houses xytuis because any words are ok!”) Obviously now with mass communication people pick up language from all sorts of places, so you might have words be unrecognizable even within a locality.
Even so, an individual’s (native) idiolect can’t really be “wrong” to descriptivists in the way orthography can. It’d just be chalked up to differences from the local language or dialect.
It’s funny because a ton of these common errors are due in a huge part to the fact that we don’t use the native alphabet for English. Lots of stuff has to be transposed in creative ways to deal with the romanization of English.
Native alphabet?
The Latin alphabet is not the original alphabet system used for English. There are modern alternatives that have been suggested to help eliminate some of the confusion created by using a non native alphabet, the Shavian alphabet for instance would theoretically solve much of the issue.
It’s kind of what happens in other languages as well… English speakers like to quip that there are x number of dozens of ways to spell Mohammed. And for sure, in English, it probably feels that way. But there is actually only one proper way to spell it you just have to use the Arabic alphabet to do so.
https://www.daytranslations.com/blog/origin-english-alphabet/
Here is a decent explanation of some of the evolution behind the alphabet. It’s funny that a lot of what we consider special characters in modern typography are in fact actually original letters of the defunct alphabet systems. It’s been under our noses the whole time, we just don’t really teach that alot of these characters were once part of the working alphabet system. &, for instance… Was the last letter of the alphabet for some time. The story behind @ is even more interesting.
It’s much harder for spoken language to be misunderstood among the population that a native grew up in,
Well, there’s still register switching, which is an important part of the study of linguistics. A native English speaker might freely switch between the different ways to say the same meaning, depending on context and audience (“sorry” versus “my bad” versus “apologies,” or “you’re welcome” versus “don’t mention it” versus “my pleasure”).
There are perceived formalities, common membership in different groups, unspoken social relationships and positions that are reflected in speech.
These systems can be described with rules, and we can recognize that sometimes one register is inappropriate or poorly fit for a particular situation, and that some registers have different rules of grammar.
One who culls is a culler.
“Culler” is a word, but it certainly will not be received by a reader as the same word as “color.”
True. My brain brought forward a seal clubber.
Wrong according to… who? Who is the authority? Who granted them that power? By what mechanism can one appeal their decision?
What is “correct”?
There are standards, but you can only really say something is “wrong” or “incorrect” in relation to a particular standard. You typically wouldn’t write “senator yeeted his hat lol fr” as a newspaper headline. That doesn’t follow the standards for that context. But that doesn’t mean it’s “wrong” in some universal sense.
Correct according to who? You? Lol
Fortunately, you are not the arbiter of the English language.
That’s what I was just saying to you, so I’m confused why you think that’s a rebuttal.
You said things people write aren’t automatically “correct” without defining what correct means.
You’ll be corrected by someone with enough education to believe they are correct. English speakers police the English language in a very unorganised way.
There are no appeals. Accept that you were wrong or find a reputable style guide or dictionary that supports your position and tell the person who corrected you to get lost.
New words happen, but if you can’t get the right spelling of “they’re” or “their”, “your”, “you’re” or “yaw”, “its” or “it’s”, etc or use a unique spelling of a word I can point out in a dictionary how you’re wrong
If you mismatch brackets or do odd punctuation I can point out how it looks bad or reads wrong
I’m not surprised that you’re confused
You seem to be trying to be smug after you’ve communicated badly. Additionally, your understanding of how language works is not widely accepted.
The fact that you don’t understand your argument is facile and easily undermined only highlights your lack of understanding and maturity.
Your personal opinion doesn’t count as something being “widely accepted”.
Just going to share this little gem again…
I love militant descriptivists
we love you too
As a l33+ |><|@z0r, I’m here to criticize your command of the English language.
You just described 90% of Lemmy users.
And still I maintain that “alot” is not a word.
Mine, too! I hope Allie is doing well these days.
She made a reddit comment a couple months ago
God i love alot
I’ve noticed a tendency of people to combine words that are frequently seen together: “alot”, “aswell”, “noone”, etc.
Some of these catch on, like “nevertheless” and “whatsoever”. Maybe eventually “alot” and “noone” will become standard English, too.
The way alot, aswell and noone are combining is expected given how many other words we don’t bat an eye at went the same way. “another” is the perfect example, it’s just “an other” combined.
It’s sort of the reverse of what happened to words like apron and newt.
The division and bracketing of phrases changes over time.
“An apron” is the modern usage of the word “napron”, and a newt was originally called an eute. The grammatical need for “a” and/or “an” resulted in the root word being rebracketed and changed.
I recall “noone” being taught as acceptable by my english teacher back in 2004. That being said, she’s also said some things that ended up being very wrong
Whenever someone says “Noone wanted this” I always picture a big Irishman who has a deep appreciation for stuff Internet people are against.
Apart/a part is another one.
“Apart” and “a part” are opposites, though. If you’re a part of something, you can’t be apart from it.
Yes, and increasing number of people are using the former to mean latter.
it’s all just made up. you can see old writings without spacing. or punctuation. you can’t even define what’s really a word universally. people just decided what’s what and standardized it at one point just for some consistency. that doesn’t mean things won’t change; they most definitely will.
Ampersand is another good example. “&” was considered the last letter of the alphabet for a while. Schoolchildren would recite the alphabet and finish it with the phrase “and, per se and” (“and, meaning and”).
The words got mashed together over time and the word “ampersand” was born.
“Per se” means “in itself”, so it’s a shorter way of saying “also the word ‘and’ itself”.
I always imagine Peter Noone of Herman’s Hermits whenever someone does that.
“Noone thinks I have a lovely daughter.” Yes, Mrs. Brown. Noone does.
No body writes noone as one word because there’s a similar word written that way.
I think spellings and punctuation are still valid. Mostly. Ignore variations between English and Americanese.
In not the Americans’ fault that the English decided to butcher their own language after the US kicked them out
The spelling differences are actually mostly due to Noah Webster standardising what he saw as pure Anglo-Saxon English without corruption by French princelings.
Hah, that makes sense.
England and all its former colonies (except the American ones) agree on the language, and the only odd one out - the United States feels it is unique among former colonies and its parent nation as the sole owner of the most correct version of English.
Seems likely /s
I know this is all a joke, but Canada doesn’t share the UK’s… proclivities with language
Frankly this wouldn’t be a problem if it weren’t for “another”
Which some who use “alot” consider as two words.
I feel like that sort of misses the point. That really has to do with how we transcribe verbal speech into written. “A lot” is absolutely a phrase, I don’t imagine you’d disagree with that.
That has to do with the definition of what a word even is (an open problem!). “Alot” is clearly made up of two separate units, but so is “anyway”. I think a lot of people don’t like this one because it’s simply unnecessary. You need “anyway” to show that the two words are not stressed separately, but treated as one unit, whereas with “a lot” this is already obvious (“a” is almost never stressed).
Also has to do with English spelling just being bad, generally.
One thing I learned as an information technology engineer: language is a tool for communication. As long as the sender can send its message unobstructed and as long as the receiver receives and understands the message as intended, the information transmission can be considered a successs.
Just remember that language is an imprecise tool, and all too often the actual intended meaning that one is trying to convey, will get misunderstood.
End prescriptuhvist speling! We haf nuthing to loose butt hour wigly red underlyns!
Ow. What did I do to you?!
If you think that’s bad, never try reading FEERSUM ENDJINN.
This reads like it was written by an ork from Warhammer 40k
I prefer Excession. There’s no amount of minds talking or new names of minds that is too much for me.
That hurt to read… Kudos!
undalihnz
Would you look at the time? Loose butt hour.
I dig the variety of topics on this comm, and I super appreciate how it doesn’t get STEMlordy at all.
It’s all connected. :)
That said I feel like when people are referring to whether or not something “is a word” they’re referring to whether not is has seen historical/widespread usage, not “has somebody ever just decided it meant something, somewhere, at some point”
most often it’s said to dismiss people. AAVE gets a lot of that. but it’s used to mock and dismiss young people too by the “back in my day” crew.
I know who AvE is; who’s AAVE?
African American Vernacular English… what’s AvE?
AvE is a YouTuber.
While that’s correct and all, it still irks me when somebody uses a word that has a shorter, older variant. (Gives side-eye to orientated)
orientated
Is this common in American English? I don’t think I’ve ever seen the word oriented double handled like that. Irregardless, it slew me
At least with orientated it kind makes sense because orientation is the process of orienting, so to have done the process would be to be orientated in a weird way but irregardless will always irk me because the ir and the less make a double negative, making the meaning as written ‘with regard’ which just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Like if somebody misunderstood a sentence with a double negative we would call them wrong but because it’s a single word they get to change the entire language, regardless of its structure and rules? Seems kinda bogus to me.
You can double for intensification. Language isn’t maths, you cannot count negations to reach meaning.
Never seen it here.
I’m a native US English speaker. I would only ever say
oriented. As a kid, not knowing the “correct” form, I got corrected for sayingorientated. I watch content from a lot of countries and do hear at least some British English speakers usingorientated.“Orientated” is reasonably common in British English, I think. I remember thinking someone had misspelt it the first time I saw “oriented” written down.
Great post, I offer my most enthusiastic contrafribularities.
I agree, a perfectly crommulant statement from a Word Warrior.
I’m anaspeptic, phrasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused you such pericombobulation.
Once upon a time there was a lovely little sausage called Baldrick
Have you considered medial advice from a lingual artificer?
