I do partially agree but making the language less and less expressive because some individuals can’t or won’t learn simple rules is harming for everybody else.
Literally1 no one is harmed
1and I do mean literally, in the classical sense
You just had to footnote your one line comment because of language erosion. Take that as you will.
You just
hadchose to footnote your one line comment because oflanguage erosionwriter’s autonomyNice try. Fun fact: Language prescriptivism is at best classist, at worst white nationalist behavior. Take that as you will, and have fun on my blocklist.
Wow that’s quite the abrasive response to an off the cuff remark. Have a nice life.
Still it will be hard to break to my mixed race kids that their dad is a secret white nationalist.
Descriptivism is a vestige of pre-industrial society. Prescriptivism is a necessity of universal literacy. Language evolves over time, and one of the ways in which it evolves is how it evolves. Also, if you believe in linguistic descriptivism, you are also required to believe in a descriptivist system of weights and measures, or vice versa, or you’re a hypocrite. Thank you for attending my TED talk, I am not taking questions.
???
People hate when you say this but you’re right, prescriptivism is a fucking disgusting practice and anyone who supports it needs to take a long hard look at the rest of their opinions and why they hold them.
Yes, as you know it has been historically used to exclude and marginalize groups of people, and it still is!
Rules in languages serve the same purpose as standards in engineering. Sure, you don’t have to follow them. And if you want your home’s piping to use 81/13 inch diameters, knock yourself out. But it’s a pain for everyone who will ever be involved with that mess. And a lot of people are involved in your choice of words and grammar.
You’re really comparing language to engineering
STEM brainrot take
STEM brainrot take
Gotta love a civil discussion.
I was able to clearly understand your message even though you defied prescriptive conventions by using “gotta”
Gotta love how language evolves. I’m going to fuck up so many conventions today, just you wait and see!
THEM: don’t make language less expressive
YOU: wow you just used a thing that makes language more expressive CHECKMATE
dis opinion bussin blud fr fr ong
I like you
When it comes to grammar and syntax it makes sense though. Common rules help us understand each other.
Except that we’re talking about individual words here. It’s not as if we’re saying verbs are over now or that all sentences have to be all “Shaka, when the walls fell” or something.
You could have made that point without being rude towards the entirety of the STEM community, but chose not to.
You’re in a discussion about language but unable to navigate analogy? Or even just be civil and engage in a respectful manner? Maybe sit this one out.
They don’t though, because my sentence doesn’t collapse and kill several dozen people if I don’t use the oxford comma
you’re literally making their point for them by (deliberately) misinterpreting what they meant by “harm” in a way that wouldn’t be possible if the language was more expressive
Not if I cause them harm.
Normally I say the “usage defines meaning” argument is flimsy at best and actively encourages misuse that ultimately limits the ability for precision and nuance in language. ‘Since’ isn’t causal, ‘because’ (as one can guess) is. “I’ve been sick since Thursday” means one thing, “I’ve been dice because of Thursday” means a different thing.
But then an old farmer will tell you a story about needing to buy some rubbers because they’re getting into their removed and I think, “those words don’t mean that to me.”
I’d say that having three different words for “because” increases nuance. As the link to merriam-webster’s article pointed out, you get a nuance of formality between “because” and “as”; “as” is somewhat more formal. I’m not sure if there’s another nuance between “because” and causal “since” but smart money is on there being one (if you survey the use of the two I bet you will find there are very subtle differences of usage there – there almost always are nuances of difference between supposedly synonymous words, even if they’re only differences like level of formality).
Since reading your comment I’ve noted that I don’t use since and because interchangably. I believe because puts emphasis on the reason, while the main focus when using since still lays on the thing being explained.
“I take the left here, since that route is shorter.” – (Slight) stress on the first part, the latter is “just” a justification.
– “Why do you take the right when the left route is shorter?” – “I don’t take the left because it is shorter.” Stress on the last part, it’s the main point of that sentence.
the “usage defines meaning” argument is flimsy at best
So what else does? I never understood how you can reason the objective meaning of a bunch of phonemes. If usage doesn’t define meaning, you can look up the meaning in a dictionary. But if it’s a good dictionary, it deduces the meaning of the word by its usage. There is ultimately no other way.
But then a good dictionary is ultimately personal, contextual, regional, and ephemeral, making it ultimately useless.
I will never recognise ‘suposably’ as a proper English word. But my children might, and so to their children, until it universally is a correct, proper word. That’s the scope of the tide of language.
Its a necessary battle between the old ways and the new, one that I know I am ever drifting to the wrong side of. When some people use the word wrong, they are wrong. When everyone uses the word wrong, they are right. The old guard dies and the new gaurd rises.
Well put. That’s not to say that dictionaries are useless. I use them alot but not in my native language since that’s where I know the words. In English, which is my second language, dictionaries are close enough to help me around most of the times. It’s like a map. The map isn’t useless because a new road is build or a cabin is no more. You can still use the map but don’t trust it over reality.
See also: ‘irregardless’. 😤
It’s not that language on a whole gets less and less expressive. Some things are more expressive, like youth language often is. Borrowing words from other languages makes a language more expressive. And even in this case: you can still say “because”. I don’t see any harm done, except in shaming people because their dialect is wRonG and less sophisticated and therefore they are less than.
Languages evolve, but you’re still allowed to have an opinion about how they should evolve.
People call it “political correctness” when you want to change things, or pedantry when you want things to stay the same or revert back.
I think it’s one of those George Carlin scenarios:
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
It’s simple: I’m the main character that the world must revolve around.
While language does evolve over time, we shouldn’t encourage unnecessary and somewhat negative evolutions of it, and especially not encourage it to change over less time.
When two previously distinct words come to have the same meaning, this can be a problem. First, older written things become less comprehensible. Few of us today could read and understand old english because so many words have changed. The evolution of language has taken a long time to get to that point, at least. But if we encourage the acceleration of this change, something which appears to be happening even without encouragement, how long will it be?
Today, we can still pretty clearly understand things written 200 years ago; some bits are confusing but for the most part it is still clear. If language change accelerates enough, in the future, people may struggle to understand something written only a hundred years ago, or even less.
The second problem is that if the word for a thing goes away, it becomes more difficult to express that concept. Consider the word ‘literally’ whose meaning has become extremely muddled. In order to express the original concept, we now require additional emphasis. There are other, more difficult to think of terms like that - a concept for which a particular word would have been perfect had the word’s meaning not significantly changed.
So when a word’s usage is corrected, do not be so quick to defend the misuse of the word through ‘language evolves!’ If people accept that ‘oops, I used that word wrong’ and then see if there is already a better word for what they were trying to express to correct themselves with, that is probably better - in most cases.
Even more notably, new words should be used when possible, if an older word doesn’t quite fit a newly emerging thing, or even a concept that has existed for some time but has not had a word to describe it precisely. One of my favorite examples of this is the word ‘cromulent’ which expresses a concept that did not have a specific word for it in common use at the time, even though the concept of ‘understandable and linguistically correct’ certainly already existed. Also consider the now common word ‘emoji’ which was coined specifically to represent this concept. This is an excellent evolution of language because it took nothing away. It arose in response to something which did not exist, and described that thing with a word created specifically for it.
That said, fighting against the evolution of language that has already happened and is far too entrenched to ever change is nonsensical. My father, for instance, insists ‘cool’ should be for temperature description only, even though that word possessed its non-temperature meaning before he was even born. Similarly, sometimes the change is resisted for bad reasons; like the word ‘gay’. In these cases, it is best not to try to fight the change, but instead embrace and encourage it.
So ultimately, when a word is used wrong, consider whether the word evolving to the way it is being used is a positive change. If it does not make things better, it’s probably best not to encourage it.
You say this like it’s a fact that the word “literally” is worse now than it was before its recent evolution. You’re reducing the entire value of a word to a metric of “clarity”/“muddledness”, but natural language has value beyond its ability to be technically precise.
It’s worse in that there is now no common way to say what it used to mean, without adding several more words, where previously one would have communicated the meaning clearly.
Anytime a language change increases the likelihood of misunderstanding it definitely has negative effects. It may also have positive effects, but it shouldn’t be simply accepted without regard to that.
Now, disagreement on whether a particular change’s negative outweighs its positive is going to happen, obviously, but it’s important to acknowledge the bad parts exist.
It’s also important not to accept a mistake and insist that it’s fine because language changes, out of pride and desire to not be mistaken - a trend I definitely see a lot. It’s often not ‘I am using this word in a different way and have considered it’s implications’, it’s ‘I don’t want to be wrong so I will insist that I didn’t make a mistake, language changes!’
A linguist looks at an example like “literally” and says, isn’t language amazing? Words change and evolve, are created and die off, and yet everything works, people don’t stop being able to express ideas because the language got screwed up, everything takes care of itself. People were making the same complaints about words being used the wrong way 200 years ago, and a thousand years ago, thinking now we’ve lost a critical piece of the language, but it’s always fine. We have languages like French with an academy that regulates it, and we also have languages that have never been written nor taught in school. And they are all capable of expressing whatever they need to express.
Why is requiring more words inherently worse? Are languages that require more words to express an idea worse than other languages which require less words? For example, English has lots of prepositions whose meaning is sometimes instead encoded by verb conjugation in languages like Spanish (e.g. infinitives requiring “to” in English but not in Spanish). Does that difference make English worse than Spanish?
It’s not necessarily worse, I suppose. I think it is worse in this example, perhaps you don’t, and I think we can acknowledge this as a reasonable difference of opinion.
I primarily object to the seemingly common attitude acting as though it is unreasonable to consider a change in language usage bad and be opposed to it at all. The attitude that anyone objecting to a language change has the same sort of ignorance as those who don’t want the language to ever change from whatever idealized version they have. These people are ridiculous, but not everyone who opposed any particular language change is one of them.
Sure, I do think that’s a reasonable difference in opinion and I agree that it’s mostly fine for someone to dislike the way that a language is changing. I think the trouble comes in when that dislike is framed as though it comes from some position of authority or superior fluency, since it’s actually an emotional argument, not a logical argument.
Your feelings about English are valid and meaningful, but only to the exact same degree that my feelings about English are valid and meaningful. Telling someone that you don’t like the way they’re speaking is often rude, but it’s not false, because you are the authority on your own feelings. Telling someone that they’re speaking incorrectly is usually “not even wrong”, because it’s framed as a logical argument but it has no logical basis.
Well, framing it as ‘this is the currently accepted way of doing it, and according to current norms your use is wrong’ seems correct enough to me; someone can certainly be speaking incorrectly according to a certain set of norms.
It also increases the ‘friction’ somewhat, causing those who want to change things to actively push against current norms rather than argue from their own position of faux superiority, citing the changing nature of language to insist no use can ever be wrong.
And in any case it is also likely to slow down the change, which I at least think is a nearly entirely good thing. I want to still be able to read things from a couple hundred years ago, and I would similarly like those who come after me to understand the things I write without translations or aid, at least for a couple hundred years.
The problem is that there is no universal “currently accepted way of doing it”. What you’re describing is a dialect. It’s sometimes reasonable to say that a certain use is wrong in a certain dialect, but insisting that a certain use is universally wrong is just insisting that your dialect is somehow more authoritative than other dialects.
There is no absolute prescriptive authority on the English language. It just doesn’t exist at all. The common English dictionaries don’t claim to be prescriptive authorities, they claim to describe how the language is currently used. If there are any English dictionaries that claim to be prescriptive authorities (I don’t know of any off the top of my head), they’re clearly completely ignored by pretty much the entire world of actual English speakers, so their authority isn’t worth very much.
I strongly disagree that slowing down the change of language is nearly entirely good. I think it’s neutral when it’s a natural slowing caused by cultural shifts, and I think it’s strictly a bad thing when it’s a forced slowing caused by active gatekeeping from self-appointed dialect police. Language is inextricable from culture, so language change is inextricable from cultural change, so language conservatism is a form of cultural conservatism.
If I had a crystal ball and I looked a couple hundred years into the future and saw people speaking the same English that I speak today, I would be terribly sad about English-speaking culture. I sure hope we have new ways to talk by then! I also think you’re dramatically understating how much English has changed in the past couple years - while English from the 1700s can mostly be deciphered by modern English speakers without a complete re-translation, it certainly doesn’t read fluently to a modern speaker, and it’s missing a whole lot of the words and structures that people use to express their modern concerns. This is all normal and natural for a natural language.
It’s not that the word “literally” is worse now. It’s that it used to represent an idea (the idea of a thing being non-figurative) which it’s slowly coming to not mean anymore.
Words map to meanings. Those mappings can shift and change over time. But if that happening leaves a particular meaning orphaned then I’d think of that as unfortunate, no?
Maybe instead of changes being “good” or “bad” it’s more like “this shift in language increases (or decreases) the total expressiveness of the language”. Would you be less up in arms at that way of putting it?
Here’s a fantastic example: sentient, sapient, and concious. These are VERY different words with wildly different meanings, but they’re practically treated as synonyms in colloquial usage. The only way to properly express them now is to use their entire definitions, and then people question why you’re being so specific or excluding certain things.
What if you just think of it as our culture putting less emphasis on the concept of “literally” and more on “figuratively”. And the evolution actually makes the language more expressive, given the things that we’re trying to express (on average).
I don’t follow… By adding the antonym you actually make it harder to express these figurative things in the same way removing contrast from an image makes it harder to resolve, so it’s less expressive than before.
I don’t agree that it decreased the total expressiveness of English, no. The modern colloquial use of “literally” is not identical to “figuratively”, or to “very”, or any other word I can think of - it’s an intensifier with a unique connotation that doesn’t have any good alternative. At worst, we have lost some expressiveness and gained some expressiveness, and there is no objective metric to decide whether that’s a “net positive” or a “net negative”; it’s just a change.
deleted by creator
Let’s not start deciding what’s positive and negative evolution of a language. We all know who gets discriminated against because of this.
gonna respond only to the first sentence because frankly shove off if you think i’m going to read that wall of text.
I assume you are of course the one who gets to decide what language changes are good and which are bad? Or are you going to give some organization the right to decide how we speak?
Honestly such a terrifying way of thinking…
If you are not going to read something, perhaps you should avoid making ignorant comments, considering that for the most part, those topics are already addressed in my posts.
If you didn’t read it, fuck off and don’t reply. I decided not to read your comment beyond that because you’re an inconsiderate cuss.
You believe that others value your time and opinion more than they actually do. If you aren’t going to read it, just scroll past
deleted by creator
I haven’t seen an argument on English grammar because yesterday
You will not be forgiven for your since
I’ll save you the trouble of looking it up:
Since as a conjunction can refer both to causation and to the passage of time […], and the mavens believed strongly that since there’s potential confusion over which meaning of since is meant, one should avoid since as a causal conjunction.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/since-as-because-usage
As a foreign learner I’ve never heard of this debate. To me, “since” simply has two meanings, like almost every other word in English.
naw that ain’t the problem it’s that I don’t like how language is taught as something completely still and unchanging when it very much isn’t
Two things.
- I agree with you 100%. Language shifts and changes over time. Sometimes in beautiful / useful ways and sometimes in ugly / detrimental ways (losing a word that was the only word that meant the thing that it meant for instance)
- If it changes based on how people use it, then why not use it in the way that you want to see it evolve. Maybe even advocate for it to evolve in the way that you see as beautiful / useful if it’s that meaningful to you.
For example, I love that we verbify stuff more these days. That’s super cool. I do it all the time because I love that active voice. On the other hand flammable and inflammable slowly becoming the same thing kinda sucks because now what word do you use when you want to say what “inflammable” used to mean? You can do it. Just not as nicely. If people evolve the language that way then fine, I’ll go along. But if language naturally changes based on usage, what’s wrong with using it the way that you want to see it become (or remain)?
Can we agree to murder all of the people who refuse to use the word “too”?
Inflammable has always meant able to inflame.
I would say it coming to mean “not flammable” would be the evolution of language here because people conflate it with the other in- prefix.
(…) the mavens believed strongly that since there’s potential confusion over which meaning of since is meant, one should avoid since as a causal conjunction.
I see what you did there, Merriam Webster.
People also tend to forget that dictionaries were compiled for the sake of selling them for profit.
Dictionaries aren’t the be all end all of a language.
If something accurately communicates an idea, then it has done its job. You can argue for accuracy, but at the end of the day, fuck off.
I don’t think you can put this at the feet of BIG DICTIONARY.
Dictionaries are generally descriptivist and don’t preach. It’s style guides and individual angry language weirdos who preach.
I think it’s funny when people use the dictionary like it’s some perfectly unbiased and authoritative source, rather than a compilation of how people use words
Sometimes if you’re going to have a conversation you need to agree on what a word means. If there’s any ambiguity, I’m going to refer to the dictionary so we can continue our conversation, not whatever you or I decide a word means. The dictionary should be the common ground on which we speak when we disagree, because anything else is madness.
It’s useful, but more often than not, people tend to use the dictionary to shut down disagreement
Depends on what the disagreement is. If the disagreement is purely due to two parties misunderstand each other as they’re running on different definitions then it makes perfect sense. You can’t have a discussion if you aren’t discussing the same thing.
You would pull out a dictionary instead of just asking them to clarify?
Holy shit we’ve really started going after big dictionary now as well? What’s next, big water?
Don’t go dragging Nestlé into this
Someone compared dictionaries to maps. If the map shows a street that’s unusable or doesn’t show a street that’s clearly there and leads to your goal, don’t trust the map over reality. The map needs an update and so do dictionaries
a lot of them were made for national pride (not English ones necessarily)
But even the differences between British and American English are in part out of the national need to separate from each other. English was standardized around the time of the American independence and the first American dictionary was oriented at the British one, later the same guy made a different one to set American spelling apart. Words for Granted made a podcast episode about it.
Have you ever met someone who’s actually paid for a dictionary in the last several decades? I don’t think there’s a global conspiracy trying to sell them to people lol, you can access most for free fairly easily.
I don’t know of any dictionaries that try to teach you the King’s correct English. But people still point to them as if they do.
Seriously, be open to new interpretations! Don’t loose your head over something minor.
Don’t loose your head
Now imagining someone telling a squad of archers to LOOSE!!! except the arrows are all tipped with little heads.
i’m not that passionate about this lol, it’s less of the difference between since and because and more of the fact that language is being taught as being something completely concrete.
I might have phrased it poorly, I’m agreeing. Endeavoring to enable a language your familiar with to be as malleable its able to be, theirs nothing more commendable.
Are you fuckin trying to wind me up 🤨
Agreed, we should of kown this.
I think english evolves faster than other languages or at least it has evolved a lot in the last centuries, at least in my limited experience. I can understand old german and medieval spanish with just minor issues… old english? No thanks
People huffing and puffing about other people not using words the way they expect: “God this wind is terrible, we need to abolish wind or at least make it blow in a different direction”
it’s half satire and half serious. I’m not seriously that passionate about this.
As in, it’s serious when a counterpoint can be refuted, and it’s satire when it can’t?
no i’m willing to admit when im wrong and the other person is right im not a bigot
Easy way to spot somebody who’s never tried to learn another language
i have
Nuh uh!
Language also evolved differently in different regions and culture groups. Here in Louisiana we have much more French terms in average usage than other regions on the US. That doesn’t mean that us using those term like “Laissez les bons temps rouler” is wrong at all ( and I do support voice removal of people that disagree) you can’t control language because it develops to fill what it is needed for. In some regions conscience speech in important, in others more descriptive language is needed.
Language shouldnt be an authority defined thing, its defined by the speakers
In France there’s an actual committee that’s there to decide which words come and go from the language (l’Académie Française).
Nobody gives a fuck, in fact I think these days they’re mostly just playing catch up by adding the words that get used the most that year.
Quebec is even funnier, not only do they have their own l’acacademie, they have one that considers their Parisian counterparts to be soft and liable to accepting “Anglo corruptions”
Prescriptive grammar is wack.
