/lit/ - Literature

This stuff used to annoy me, but:
1. Just get a physical dictionary published ideally before 2015
2. Anyone who willingly adjust their vocabulary to the newspeak is identifying that they are worthless without me having to do the vetting.
3. Over time, people that subscribe to this nonsense will succumb to the slippery slope and limit their own range of thoughts to such a degree that I’ll be able to exploit it.

>>21376355
The complete and utter elimination of cultural marxists and reversal of demographic trends which would include the mass murder or mass deportations of Black people and hispanics
That is to say, nothing can be done to stop it get used to it white boy lol

>>21376355
>what can be done to stop this
English doesn't have a central final authority to appeal to. As a result, any group or organization can declare their expertise and lay out their authoritative vision of lunacy.
Solutions?
1. Ditch English for French.
2. Global thermonuclear war.
3. Existential counter-kink scenario. An alien invasion of a sexy all female anthropomorphic ratfolk femdom interstellar empire. That's probably the most likely to succeed option.

>>21376390
I see your logic, but what of the children learning grammar in grade school based on this. This will be the grammar they learn, No doubtedly at some point they will be unable to read the english of today in the same way i have trouble reading Æthelberht . If freedom is the ability to say 1+1=2 , how can the taste for logical consistency ever be acquired, are they all doomed to be some criminals slave?

>>21376404
sounds like Satans hegelian dialectic to me, wont this solve itself once voltaires warning on the fate of fiat inevitiably comes for the individuals who claimed to know the story of moses but enact a population control agenda anyways?

>>21376413
could i in theory take the kings english and start my own set of immortals? why has no one done this?

are you sure no 3 just wont lead to a lexicon consisting fully of declensions of 'uwu' I dont see sex inslavement as being particularily hydrating to the grammar?

On this specific matter, I don't think people know what they mean.

>>21376462
>start my own set of immortals? why has no one done this?
Good question. I'm not aware of a reactionary English grammar guide/dictionary group of PHDs one might join. Still, have a look around. I wouldn't be surprised if such exists. Otherwise, hey, be the change, etc.
>I dont see sex inslavement as being particularily hydrating to the grammar?
Oh ye of little vision. Try some Visine,

>>21376497
>,
Freudian typo slip highlights a potential problem with reactionary grammar internet defense force death squads.
But, hey, that's just another reason to roll with #3.

>>21376511
I am very guilty of the crime of substituting etymological definition with phonetics, what sounds good too the feels, which is why i've spent the last 2 years trying to dig myself out of it

I'm still having trouble seeing how cohorting oneself with lovers of ball gags would be conducive to flourishing a logically consistent language, unless i suppose in desparation one discrens minute differents in gagged moans to be new verbage

seems a waste of the time the creator took in making the human tongue do all its crazy things, even at the cost of causing many choking deaths

>>21376566
waste of the tongue*

>>21376569
>ERROR!
Exactly. See what I mean?
Only one choice is more forgiving and productive.

>>21376596
is there not a distinction between rectification and codification of an emergent error?

i dunno anon, seems like alot of manmade horrors beyond comprehension aboard the ratfolk femdom spaceship, i dont see it being a net positive to the english language

>>21376355
>breaking apart at the seems
>seems
>>21376566
>a logically consistent language
Doesn't exist and never has.
>>21376447
>learning grammar in grade school based on this
This isn't grammar but semantics (or, more precisely, a dictionary definition, which can but does not necessarily succeed in describing the semantics of the word).

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

>>21376674
>breaking apart at the seems
>seems
>>21376566
see i told you i have a deeply engrained sence of phoneticism in my language, i'm sitting hear litterally vocating it in my head as I type, and my fingers have little persuasion towards the correct morpheme.

>Doesn't exist and never has.
Most languages at least get their suffix's and prefixes down towards the compounding of their grammar, Latins fully productive case system is what i point to towards a more logically consistent langauge.

But no, the moderne english'd tongue takes it a step further in its divorcement from the kings. To understand has become semantically to comprehend when its building blocks are to 'stand under'. Somehow aweful and full of awe are opposites, and now we have PhD level linguists satisified that female points to woman and woman points to female infinite can kicking loop.

I point to the above statement, its torture to loop kids on this doublethink and punish and reward their acquiesence to such illogicality. -man is a suffix wiktionary it is no separate -woman suffix without breaking that into wo- -man

>"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
Watching the linguistic degenerate over the past decade is like watching the children of Pinocchio pay their sins from their trip to pleasure island

>>21376355
They’re doing it for purely ideological reasons obviously. We’re at a point where people are attempting to use language to run cover for delusions and negations of basic facts, such as that men can never be women and vice versa.

The sort of amusing irony here is that, typically, progressives have pushed descriptivism in lexicography, not prescriptivism, which they’ve traditionally viewed as stodgy and conservative. But now progressives are using dictionaries to engage in prescriptivism with words relating to transgender people or race. Normal people don’t use “woman” to refer to a man pretending that he is a woman and who is merely a mutilated man and whose delusion everyone is putting up with for the sake of politeness. As such, it can’t be said that “woman,” in the way it presented here, is descriptivist because it’s not how people use the word or what they mean by it.

>>21376355
No dictionary is an authority on our language. No style guide or publisher or university either. You too easily bow to what random people claim is correct form. You panic because you think this is a real thing.

>>21376984
>Most languages at least get their suffix's and prefixes down towards the compounding of their grammar, Latins fully productive case system is what i point to towards a more logically consistent langauge.
You are a braindead child with no knowledge of language or logic. Nothing you said means anything but a vague sentiment you cannot substantiate.

Let me tell you, anything said in any language is inherently idiomatic. It makes sense as far as you bend and twist reasoning to your favoured feelings of coherency or incoherency. Or, in your case, simply familiarity.

I have an issue (not about pc shit or whatever) with words & phrases that become archaic for no reason. For instance, why is "thenceforth" seldom used now? It sounds better, is a single word, and has fewer syllables & letters than "from them on" or "from that point forward". Makes no sense, and there are many such cases.

>>21377144
>They’re doing it for purely ideological reasons obviously. We’re at a point where people are attempting to use language to run cover for delusions and negations of basic facts, such as that men can never be women and vice versa.
True, /lit/ needs to read pic related.

>>21376355
Spanishchads... We won. English is on the retreat. South America is rising. The Hispanosphere has not been infected with terminal woke.

It's #ourtime.

>>21379057
They're taking your language down too. People are going to start saying niñe instead of niño or niña.

>>21378992
>words & phrases that become archaic for no reason.
Fashion.
A regional dialect may simply come to dominate other contenders.
Words and phrases become associated with hated groups. Is it French? Is it popular with the higher classes? Low class/lowbrow refusal to use these takes time to force change, but such change from below is a thing in the English language. Most would say that's a feature, not a flaw. The problem as you allude to is we are left with the clear results of this pruning while loosing track of process.
Philologists are very good a piecing together the original process most of the time, especially so for the post-Gutenberg era. We're mostly not ignorant of the whys.
As for the processes of today, one can try meeming things new, or back from the dead, but it's a crap shoot.

>>21376355
What do you even hope to accomplish? You'll never be let anywhere near the positions of power (primarily meaning the media here) that you could use to steer English back towards normalcy, and you won't achieve some bottom-up revolution either, because as you know, demography is destiny, and demographic stats are not exactly in the favor of the old style of English.

You are completely powerless. There's nothing you can do about it except make peace with the fact of change. It will happen regardless of what you and the other five people who dislike it think of it.

>>21376355
>seems