[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 47 KB, 828x637, 86864291_524582975102671_803322166123692032_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15151523 No.15151523 [Reply] [Original]

What's /lit/'s take on this? Unfortunately I've found few better proxies for general stupidity than an inability to properly wield written language.

Also why is the "language is an evolving organism" canard pushed the hardest by the people who have done the most to engineer it and force neologisms into coinage through the most authoritarian means available?

>> No.15151560 [DELETED] 

>>15151523
The English language is evolving. It is evolving from a beautiful monument to the power of language into a steaming pile of nigger filth.

>> No.15151575

>>15151560
Based

>> No.15151577

>>15151523
This shit is so tiresome. People seem so eager to eradicate any kind of standards that currently exist. It reminds me of an article I read recently called 'In praise of cultural elitism' which was basically about how being 'inclusive' and accepting of every persons taste in art or culture etc. is essentially saying that taste doesn't even matter. What's the point of anything when every new opinion is not met with a criticism, but instead a "well that's your opinion, and that's perfectly fine!".
I don't think being a snob is a bad thing. I would adamantly say that the idea of putting different 'levels' of art (or linguistics in the case of this thread) on the same base level is far worse.

>> No.15151639

>>15151523

>> No.15151648

>>15151523
Lmao, OP's literal who would catch on fire if he lived on France. The French can't speak English for shit, but you can't say even an "ah" on their language without ten people trying to correct you

>> No.15151655

>>15151560
English isn't even pure, retard. How many words are from Greek, Latin, German, etc? This alone proves op correct

>> No.15151676

>>15151523
read Authority and American Usage by DFW
unironically

>> No.15151708

I agree with this statement.
However many empirical sciences tend to get into long diatribes with proper taxonomy, categorization and labels.
These must be consensus.

though im not a fan of all the counter intuitive and cryptic dead language alot of scientific community uses.

Also not a big fan of the burecratic language thats rampant on legal and professional documents.

Corporate buzzwords, bleh.

Basically im wondering if theres any cognitive dissonance i have to deal with agreeing about the fluid nature of language and really agreeing with the natural language movement.
My position is,
if its a dialogue then as long as people can understand then its all good
and if its just you then finding some meaning out of what is heard.
when it comes to fluidity of language, i think its more about being clear in expressioning mental content and being concise so as not to drone on.
Though these two are sometimes at odds with each other.
When it comes to very basic commication its more about emotional states, which are regulated by hormones the unit of communication being the pherimone.
At its heart i think commnication is really about feeling the other person. And lamguage can be like a scalpel to carve a perfect picture of memtal states. But they can also obfuscate them or be used on a less authentic basis.
Language being essentially "dead" "symbols".
why semiotics is such a great thing to get lost in in liberal arts.

>> No.15151729

>>15151655
>muh purity
Do you think Greek, Latin, or German were pulled out of thin air? They too were derived from preceding languages. You stupid fucking nigger fucking retard.

>> No.15151753

>>15151523
Like most things on Twitter, it's just a cope. You ever notice how you hear "the Canon is sexist" or "proper grammar rules are racist" a lot more than you hear "Netflix 'binge-culture' is racist" or "Clickbait journalism is inherently patriachal"? Most Twitter opinioners are narcissists with powerful ressentiment towards people who can do things that are too hard for them. It's actually not much to do with sex or race, just simpletons who (unfortunately) have the chance to say something.

>> No.15151772

>>15151523
I agree that caring about grammar and spelling is for dorks but it's not for all the reasons she said besides the general idea of language being fluid.
Classic fucking radlib academic though, she has no sense of human joy. Kind of refutes her dumb self with the long list of -isms, becoming a moralizing piece of shit in much the same way as the grammar nazis she hopes to btfo.
The easy answer is "monkeying around with grammar and spelling in your writing can be fun, interesting, and more realistic"

>> No.15151805

>>15151523

"Closed-minded," not "close-minded"

>> No.15151829

>>15151729
Thanks for proving my point even more hahaha. Language changes, don't get mad bruh

>> No.15151850

>>15151805
I hope someone replied exactly this

>> No.15151874

>>15151708
Here's what I was driving at in OP. Language is fluid in the sense that it is almost a perfect example of Hayekian distributed knowledge (price signals being the other obvious one). No one person has complete command of it and it can't really be controlled by top-down authoritarian means, only bottom up organic evolution. It represents an inheritance of conceptual tools and distinctions in the world you were not previously able to make before learning the word.

People like the shrill woman in OP pic know this and therefore pay a shallow lip service to its fluidity while knowing deep down that this presents a conflict with their conception of knowledge which cannot be reconciled - to people like her all problems are problems of not enough knowledge, and solving problems is not a delicate tradeoff between benefits and (often unforeseen) costs. They also have an ass-backwards understanding of cognition and conceptual thinking where the concept literally does not exist separate from the word / text (this is actually sometimes the case, but the concepts themselves are damn near ineradicable once birthed and can't be destroyed or modified by authoritarian attempts to engineer language).

>> No.15151882

Sounds like she has low expectations of certain classes and races.

>> No.15151913
File: 180 KB, 630x281, gerald.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15151913

>>15151523
And yet, she types her tweet with proper English. Clearly she sees some value in it.

>> No.15151915

>>15151829
I never said languages don't change. My point was that the current change that the English language is undergoing is a change for the worse. Please learn to read, you actual brain-dead nigger.

>> No.15151960

>>15151523
Agatha Christie, F Scott Fitzgerald and Einstein were all dyslexic, so its certainly not true that it equals low intelligence. And besides, perfect grammar and spelling isn't even essential for meaningful communication. According to information theory, a huge amount of the english language is redundant, meaning those mistakes don't actually have a huge effect on the transmission of information, we can still understand each other regardless. You're just being nitpicky.

>force neologisms into coinage through the most authoritarian means available?
you're right about this, though. To say language is "fluid" and then to force people to use certain terminology rather than what develops organically is just hypocritical.

>> No.15152018

>>15151523
If we're not judging people on the language they use, why am I ridiculed for using big words?
I think you're just stupid, and shouting "privilege" is the only argument you've ever used.

>> No.15152033

>>15151523
Descriptivism is just circle-jerking about how niggerspeak and Spanglish is actually just as good and functional as any prestige/standard dialect. Anyone who concedes this should leave academia.

>> No.15152039

>>15151577
why does taste matter?

>> No.15152040

>>15152018
Why are you yelling at me like I'm the one that wrote that idiotic tweet? I've been arguing against it the entire time; get filtered simp

>> No.15152042

>>15151874
Honestly I think she just pisted that to troll all the editors.

What editors do are a valuble postion to any publisher. Authors across ALL fields have had piss poor syntax, and i some cases it was the genius of the editor that carried many novels we consider classics.

Editors are to authors what nurses are to doctors.

>> No.15152071

>>15151523
I mean it's a basic fact of life. Languages evolve, vowels change, spellings change, etc. But this doesn't mean "any language system is as good as any other", or that spelling doesn't matter. A system of tribal grunts and clicks is obviously inferior to something like German or French. And a system of niggerspeak is obviously inferior to the English language as it is currently.

>> No.15152083

>>15151960
This is true to an extent but certainly you'd agree that certain ideas can't be simplified beyond a certain point. You can't genuinely argue that "scary" and "bad" can be subbed in for "ominous" and "portentious" with literally nothing lost. And when that happens on a mass level you are lowering the expectations of the minimum level of conceptual clarity required for discourse.

>> No.15152129

>>15151523
There's a proper middle ground between prescriptivism and descriptivism, where one acknowledges dialectal variation and isn't a little bitch about slang, while also acknowledging that there is a proper, commonly accepted dialect that even if it's considered classist, it's best used for academia and inter-dialectal communication. Just because there may be a classist history doesn't mean that there has to be a classist present.
Also, there are descriptivists and prescriptivists in linguistics, and prescriptivism is more common because linguists nowadays tend to be more interested in research than argumentation and trying to be grammarians.

>> No.15152176
File: 325 KB, 382x417, 1466411233182.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15152176

>>15151648
The fuck are you talking about? We love people having accents and badly pronouncing french words...

>> No.15152197

>>15151523
Prescriptivism is a thing in linguistics because it's too easy to make call backs to some mostly arbitrarily defined standard dialect of a language and other similar nonsense. Linguistics as a scientific or anthropological endeavor should describe rather than prescribe, that isn't an especially radical an idea. Prescriptivists also tend to try to make retarded artificial rules like not splitting infinitives or not ending on a preposition in English.

When it comes to curating a poetic language, that's fine, it's a different thing altogether. I would also point out that the appeal to linguists as an authoritative voice goes against the spirit of descriptivism.

>> No.15152213

>>15152129
>it's best used for academia and inter-dialectal communication
No one argues anything like this. The closest thing is "up speaking" which is an interesting area, but generally the praxis of language is much maligned and frustrated.

>> No.15152216

>>15151523
>language changes
>therefore language ought to change
???

>> No.15152228

>>15152071
Why? (This question triggers the retard)

>> No.15152233

>>15152216
I'm unclear on your position.

>> No.15152242

>>15152228
Cuz Grug speak good, not like dark skin Grug. Dark skin Grug speak bad.

>> No.15152252

Coating it in SJWisms is retarded but there have been great writers who eschewed proper grammar

Lots of text communication is more fun if you fuck around a bit

Make some poetry

>> No.15152253

>>15152129
Interesting. Even if there were a classist present why would it matter though? It seems like a contrived association game; yes one should try to make one's point as concisely as possible without having to plump up every other word with a thesaurus; but why eschew conceptual clarity on a categorical level simply because it aligns with bourgeois habits, tastes and preferences?

>> No.15152269

>>15151960
>And besides, perfect grammar and spelling isn't even essential for meaningful communication. According to information theory, a huge amount of the english language is redundant, meaning those mistakes don't actually have a huge effect on the transmission of information, we can still understand each other regardless

Having standard spelling and grammar makes it a lot easier and quicker to read sentences. You quickly recognise whole words. The reason 5 year-olds read so slowly is that they don't recognise words and have to make the sound of each syllable.

>> No.15152273

>>15152253
Because classism is morally wrong--by going with "yes, there's not technically a wrong way to speak a language, there are nebulous accepted norms, and to save work here's a standardized form of language for use in various fields" one hopefully appeases the moral arguments against prescriptivism while also dealing with pragmatic arguments that a standardized form of English with clear-cut rules would benefit many people.

>> No.15152330

>>15152269
>The reason 5 year-olds read so slowly is that they don't recognise words and have to make the sound of each syllable.
This is California nursery bullshit, it's not backed up by research.

>> No.15152336

>>15151523
>canard
Please don't use this word. It's for stupid people and CNN anchors. Apart from that, you're 100% correct, as is >>15151577. Prescriptivism is the most egalitarian system imaginable, as everyone learns the same language and the same rules. Unfortunately, the liberal aspiration to equality of opportunity has long been displaced by the state capitalist desire to brute-force equality of outcome - a goal which can only ever be achieved by annihilating value.

>> No.15152338

>>15152273
>a standardized form of English with clear-cut rules
Ha ha ha

>> No.15152347

>>15151753
>Most Twitter opinioners are narcissists with powerful ressentiment towards people who can do things that are too hard for them. It's actually not much to do with sex or race, just simpletons who (unfortunately) have the chance to say something.
Indeed. I would only add that the people who sell these people political solutions to their hurt feelings are the real menace.

>> No.15152365

>>15152129
>that even if it's considered classist, it's best used for academia and inter-dialectal communication.
*is best used

>> No.15152374

>>15152197
>Prescriptivism is a thing in linguistics because the academy was run by people who deserved to be there within living memory.
ftfy

>> No.15152384

>>15152374
>>Prescriptivism is a thing in linguistics because the academy was run by people who deserved to be there within living memory.
Are you a schizophrenic?

>> No.15152386

>>15152129
>Also, there are descriptivists and prescriptivists in linguistics, and prescriptivism is more common because linguists nowadays tend to be malajusted Marxist bitches.
ftfy

>> No.15152397

>>15151960
>a huge amount of the english language is redundant, meaning those mistakes don't actually have a huge effect on the transmission of information, we can still understand each other regardless

But isn't that largely because we sort of autocorrect people's mistakes in our heads using context?

>> No.15152398
File: 63 KB, 1245x700, img.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15152398

>>15152386
>>15152129
>Also, there are descriptivists and prescriptivists in linguistics, and prescriptivism is more common
Name them.

>> No.15152400

>>15152384
No, read it again.

>> No.15152404

>>15152397
>But isn't that largely because we sort of autocorrect people's mistakes in our heads using context?
No.

>> No.15152408

>>15152398
I didn't even catch that when I posted this >>15152386
he's full of shit, descriptivists greatly outnumber prescriptivists.

>> No.15152418

>>15152384
Are you suggesting that the people who run the academy now are people who deserve to be there?

>> No.15152427

>>15152398
>>15152408
Whoops, I misspoke, I'm actually a fucking retard. Once quarantine is over, I'll organize a meeting of local linguists so they can beat me to death, as I deserve.

>> No.15152430

>>15152269
Terhes aclaulty sifnigicant effidence taht speling isnot taht ipmortant as lnog as the frist and lsat leterts are crorect.

>> No.15152435

>>15152404
Can you give an example then?

>> No.15152444

Any of you guys ever grade papers?

>> No.15152448

>>15152427
I assumed it must be a slipup, it would be a weird thing to argue.

>> No.15152496

>>15152430
Terhes aclaulty sifnigicant effidence taht kkies dsetory eveyrtnihg.

>> No.15152528

>>15152040
Why the fuck would you think I was speaking to you, when I was obviously speaking to the author of the tweet? How would I even be referring to you, when EVERYONE HERE IS ANONYMOUS, HOW DO SO MANY PEOPLE FORGET THAT

>> No.15152541

>>15151523
Language is alive, continuously evolving and growing.
There is a fine line between conserving what is useful and aesthetic, and being an autistic grammar nazi.
Intolerance and bigotry towards non-traditional expressions of language is irrational.

>> No.15152553

>>15152083
Redundancy is not necessarily about simplifying terms, its more broadly about the transmission of meaning and the extent to which that meaning is subject to distortion, like interference with a signal. If you can cut out a lot of excess information from a sentence, or if you misspell a bunch of words or make lots of grammatical mistakes, but the meaning remains the same, then that language has a high level of redundancy. Obviously subbing in different words will change the meaning, but that is less to do with the distortion of error and more to do with the lack of specificity w/r/t the terms as thought prior to transmission.

>> No.15152578

>>15152397
It's not so much that we correct the mistakes as it is the mistakes have a minimal effect on our ability to understand what is being said. Language is flexible enough that we can rearrange the letters and it still makes sense, as >>15152430 demonstrated, but that also applies to sentence structure as well.

>> No.15152583

>>15152528
I know, god if only there was a way to directly reference another anon's post, maybe even with a hyperlink back to the referent... at any rate why are you directly addressing the author of a screencapped tweet? She's not here. Do you have paste between your ears?

>> No.15152585

>>15151577
And then people complain about art not having objective qualities. It's as if expertise has died.

>> No.15152640

>>15152408
>>15152427
Oh thank fuck for that, I was worried we had some serious pseuds up in here. Good lads, carry on.

>> No.15152656

I've always found this argument a little silly. She's deriving an ought from an is.

>language changes all the time!
Yes, but should it? And why should it?

At least the prescriptivists take a position and defend it. So-called descriptivists just say that language can change and never defend whether it should, to what extent, and why others can't have an opinion on it.

>> No.15152681

>>15151676
This was assigned reading in a class I had and it's pretty based.

>> No.15152709

The current poor state of public education has fallen so far and become so normalised that the idea of raising people up is no longer feasible.

Moving away from concrete standards is a far easier way of dealing with disparities, compared to the kind of literal revolution that would be required to lift them up

>> No.15152717

>>15152656
>She's deriving an ought from an is.
No you are.

Language changes is a fact. There's no point trying to wonder if it ought based on this alone, that is what you're calling for.

Fucking idiots on /lit/ these days...

>> No.15152744

>>15151915
Babby mad languages change. Cry more

>> No.15152771

>>15152717
The "descriptivist" position in the OP image rests on two premises: (1) Language is constantly changing; (2) this is good/acceptable (or alternatively, that we shouldn't try to change this). This is a normative argument. Descriptivists want a non-interventionist approach to language. That is an ought. If it weren't an ought, then their responses to various prescriptivists wouldn't make any sense.

Imagine an argument that goes like this:
Prescriptivists
>I really hate when it rains
Descriptivists
>Rain is caused by clouds in the sky and you can't control the weather
In this formulation, the descriptivist response doesn't deal with the prescriptivist argument. It's only if you modify the descriptivist response that you get something responsive to the original argument:
>Rain is outside of your control and therefore you shouldn't get upset/worry about it

>> No.15152794

>>15152771
>(2) this is good/acceptable
Nope. Descriptivist is a position of non-involvement, it's passive.
>(or alternatively, that we shouldn't try to change this)
You're only saying this because you're assuming your own position of it should be changed.
>That is an ought.
No.
>Prescriptivists
>I really hate when it rains
That isn't a prescriptivist position, you do not understand what you're talking about.

>> No.15152811

>>15152129
The problem is that the 'proper' way to speak language will invariably be more complex and difficult to use, and so it will naturally sort people into a hierarchy of, roughly, linguistic intelligence. The problem is that people hold that hierarchy and 'classism' is inherently bad, which is a problem because its fundamental to the structure of reality. We don't have to change what we're doing or how language hierarchizes because we cannot, we have to adopt a metaphysical and ethical outlook that holds hierarchy to be intrinsic to reality and potentially good if the hierarchy separates people properly, according to their usefulness to society and the collective.

>> No.15152830

>>15152794
>That isn't a prescriptivist position, you do not understand what you're talking about.
Words evolve, try to keep up.

>> No.15152838

>>15152830
Cry to you mother, not to me.

>> No.15152841

>>15152794
My point is simply that prescriptivists are clearly staking out a normative position (an ought) and it's silly of prescriptivists to respond with
>hurr durr language changes all the time

>Nope. Descriptivist is a position of non-involvement, it's passive.
This is very clearly a should/ought position. You are saying that language changes and we shouldn't do anything to stop it from changing or we shouldn't do anything to preserve whatever element of it that prescriptivsts want to keep. Non-intervention as a position is still an ought.

>That isn't a prescriptivist position, you do not understand what you're talking about.
I'm not saying that this is what prescriptivists believe. I'm saying that both sides are making arguments, but descriptivists pretend that they're just stating facts. In my view, that's a chickenshit position and it's also not true. Of course descriptivists have a position: it's that we shouldn't interfere. The particular wisdom of that argument is beside the point and was not relevant to what I was saying at all.

>> No.15152849

>>15152841
>it's silly of prescriptivists to respond with
I obviously meant
>it's silly of descriptivists to respond with

>> No.15152859

>>15151523
sup my guys what y'all chatterin about?

>> No.15152862

>>15151523
She's actually correct that modern linguistics is not prescriptivist but rather descriptivist, but she also probably doesn't understand what that means. Descriptivism doesn't hold that "all grammar is equally valid" or that "spelling is racist" or anything similarly retarded, but rather just that what determines the 'correctness' of language is how that language is used by actual populations of speakers. All linguistics is by default descriptive, because language doesn't exist outside of its being used. The burden of proof would rest on any prescriptivists as to where their prescriptions came from and why such a source should be respected as a higher authority than the way people actually speak the language. It isn't difficult to conceive of certain situations when prescriptivism may actually be desirable, but more often than not, a prescriptivist attitude prefers a certain way of speaking for no good reason.

>> No.15152866

>>15152347
At the same time, it's a theoretically endless cycle. Each person who becomes convinced that their problems are political immediately becomes dedicated to influencing others.

>> No.15152870
File: 476 KB, 2299x2048, 1584645917129.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15152870

>>15152336
Why do they want equality of outcome?

>> No.15152879

>>15152039
In a subject devoted to aesthetics? Gee, I wonder.

>>15152228
Because not all syntax is equally effective at relaying or representing information.

>> No.15152886

I dont think it's racist, It's mostly just unnecessary in informal settings, such as anime websites. You fucking pedant.

>> No.15152889

>>15152841
>You are saying that language changes and we shouldn't do anything to stop it blah blah blah
Not every action or inaction is an ought. Taking a step back and keeping yourself uninvolved to DESCRIBE something does not require moral compulsion, it may be done for moral reasons but that is incidental. To PRESCRIBE some course of action or way of thinking to someone is inherently moralistic, it's telling people how they should act or think That's the difference and why your argument is bunk..

>> No.15152896

>>15152879
>syntax
You're using words you don't understand again.

>> No.15152900

>>15152578
Reading broken fucking English is a pain the ass to read/listen to. After a while, it literally becomes fatiguing
t. Canadian

>> No.15152907

>>15152862
But every word that's used and is heard immediately either introduces them to a new word or entrenches the use of an old word and so all language is fundamentally and passively perscriptivist at the same time. The dualism of descriptivism and perscripitivism can be boiled down to a monism composed of both

>> No.15152908

>>15152900
haha I knew I had to write a garbled sentence in a thread about grammar, I suck dicks lol

>> No.15152916

>>15152900
No need to put yourself down so much, Canadians speak English at an almost acceptable level.

>> No.15152936

>>15152907
>But every word that's used and is heard immediately either introduces them to a new word or entrenches the use of an old word and so all language is fundamentally and passively perscriptivist at the same time.
Fucking pseuds.

>> No.15152947

>>15151523
This is prescribing what "an actual linguist" is. Of course, it goes without saying that this person is mentally deficient.

>> No.15152952

>>15152936
You're an idiot

>> No.15152955

>>15152889
>Taking a step back and keeping yourself uninvolved to DESCRIBE something does not require moral compulsion, it may be done for moral reasons but that is incidental. To PRESCRIBE some course of action or way of thinking to someone is inherently moralistic, it's telling people how they should act or think
But that's not what the OP image is about. She's not just saying we should sit back and enjoy the ride. She's saying people who disagree with her hate minorities and their position is therefore bad.

If your argument is just that there are people out there who want to describe how languages change and they represent the total set of all descriptivists, then fine. But that's not what's happening in the OP image, and that's not representative of the various debates about languages.

I think that >>15152862 has a reasonable position, that descriptivists say that usage determines correctness. So slang and various cultural dialects are correct so long as they are understood by the people who use them.

But I think that your position, that inaction isn't a normative position, is untenable.

>> No.15152977

>>15152955
>But that's not what the OP image is about. She's not just saying we should sit back and enjoy the ride. She's saying people who disagree with her hate minorities and their position is therefore bad.
She's also not a linguist or a descriptivist. Try not to try and infer ideas like this from what idiots on twitter write, you'll get nowhere useful.

>> No.15152995

>>15152955
>that descriptivists say that usage determines correctness
I'd also say that's where I disagree (mildly) with that comment, although it's good elsewhere. I'm tired so I don't know if I'll write a proper explanation around this, but it's not a bad comment/description of this sort of thing.

>> No.15153007

I don't really understand the woke concept of ableism, to me it seems obviously worse to not be able to do things that people can do normally. I understand disability activists wanting to be treated like normal people and not condescendingly but in what world even with ramps in all public spaces is not being able to walk just as good as being able to walk.

>> No.15153015

>>15152977
Well, I was responding to the image in OP in my initial comment. I'm not sure why you felt the need to shadowbox, but I hope you had fun.

>>15152995
I would be happy to be corrected. I was just trying to give a quick summary for the purposes of argument. I can't say I have very strong opinions on any of this, though I am a stickler for rules in formal writing for work, etc.

>> No.15153048

Perscriptivism is not about enforcing rules. Yes, in prescriptivism, the rule is focal. Meaning will happen when a proposition can be related to a rule. For example, if you read a sentence where the verb is not conjugated correctly, you still get meaning because what would be proper is understood.

>> No.15153076

>>15151523
This shit is insulting to me, you’re literally saying you think we’re too stupid to speak proper or form coherent thoughts.
t. black

>> No.15153078

>>15152900
Okay but these are all subjective experiences of reading, they have nothing to do with the actual challenge of reading broken English itself, which is really not that hard, unless you're retarded, obviously. Complaining about it doesn't change the fact that spelling really isn't an impediment to communication (within reason, obviously, but English is particular here in that it has a high level of redundancy).

>> No.15153097

>>15153048
Sounds like perscriptivism needs a better ad campaign.


I think we should call it foundational lingustics instead. Prescriptive sounds too authoritarian.
But if you an illegal immegrant, learning classroom english might be a good place to start?

>> No.15153127

>>15152870
Who is this qt 3.14?

>> No.15153147

>>15153097
>Prescriptive sounds too authoritarian
Maybe that's because it's the right word to describe it, prescriptivism literally rests upon anterior writing ;)

>> No.15153468

Classic left wing motte-and-bailey argument. Add in your insane socjus bullshit to your pet area, then when called on it retreat to something easily defensible that very few people will disagree on (language change). Pretend you've "won" the argument that includes your left wing bullshit.

>> No.15153587

>>15151523
human language, like computer language, serves a utilitarian purpose best when its usage and interpretation are standardized.

>> No.15153604

I love correcting the grammar mistakes of stupid people and watching them get irritated about it.

>> No.15153670

>>15151523
Descriptivism is objectively the superior mindset because we're speaking a bastard language derived from a bastard language derived from a bastard language derived from a bastard language derived from a bastard language derived from a bastard language derived from a bastard language derived from a bastard language derived from a bastard language derived from a bastard language derived from a bastard language derived from a bastard language. Prescriptisivim can only have the moral high ground if we're speaking the language of God, which we most certainly are not.

That being said, the average person is too stupid to even be called fluent in their own language.

>> No.15153870

>>15151523
Language is just fancy squiggles on a medium that look pretty inside our brainholes.

>> No.15153889

>>15151523
I'm a prescriptivist for others and a descriptivist for myself, where I dab on randoms with my epicstyle linguisticness while they stumble to feel my vibes, unaware of my cool grasp over the lingo, fampai

>> No.15153893

>>15152233
not him, but just because languages changes doesn't mean it is a requirement that it must change

>> No.15153981

People here correct basic spelling or grammar mistakes instead of actually arguing against what someone is saying but that's fine as long as it's just banter

>> No.15153999

>>15151523
>doing things correctly is racist and sexist
>sexist
as a woman i'm seriously offended. fuck these mouthy whores. they don't speak for me and they need to be bitchslapped. I WILL PULL THAT NOSERING STRAIGHT THE FUCK OUT

>> No.15154000

>>15152870
We are all equal so we all deserve the same is how the logic usually goes in my experience.

>> No.15154012

Stop talking like niggers. That's not my "take," that's my humble opinion.

>> No.15154029

>>15152033
Thanks, came here to say this

>> No.15154036

>>15153127
me

>> No.15154056

>>15151676
https://genius.com/David-foster-wallace-tense-present-democracy-english-and-the-wars-over-usage-annotated

?

>> No.15154279

linguistic prescriptivism makes perfect sense when you're talking about formal writing
nerds correcting the grammar of shitposts and shit is mad gay though

>> No.15154297

Any recc on becoming a prescriptivist chad?

>> No.15154326

Don't really know enough to have an opinion on it myself, but I read DFW's review of a usage book that went into it and he seemed to have an educated opinion that I felt I agreed with

https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~drkelly/DFWAuthorityAndAmericanUsage2005.pdf

>> No.15154329

>>15151523
Being against linguistic prescriptivism is itself prescriptivist, since prescriptivist behaviours are ostensibly a natural part of human language behaviour.

>> No.15154517

who cares about how people talk, it's about how they read/write

>> No.15154527

>>15152197
>retarded artificial rules like not splitting infinitives or not ending on a preposition in English
fuck you bitch

>> No.15154539
File: 5 KB, 263x191, dfw10.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15154539

>>15154517
>who cares about how people talk, it's about how they read/write

>> No.15154563

Keep imagining someone writing a research paper in AAVE

>> No.15154587

>>15154563
Would be an interesting read for the first few papers

>> No.15154588

Being a picky jerk about semantics.

These certainly aren't the same people who throw a hissy fit when I call someone 'black', no?