•  SkyNTP   ( @SkyNTP@lemmy.ml ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    42
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I think there is a very fine line between prescribing language because of a world view that insists on conformity, and correcting grammer and vocabulary because being clear and understood is kinda the point of language.

    • I don’t think it’s that hard, the line is mainly “is this hard to understand?” If yes then correcting or discussing it is not prescriptivism, if no, then you’re just being pedantic

      Just take texting or internet comments for example, how many are missing punctuation? How many are using slang terms or shortenings of words? How many are straight up omitting/skipping words? How many are making liberal use of language to either express themselves or have some emotional impact? Or just don’t put in the effort to do grammar

      After all, I miss punctuation in this very comment as well, especially at the end of paragraphs, in addition to skipping words or making liberal use of language like “do grammar”. Is that grammatically correct? Absolutely not, but you understand what I mean

      Assuming informal communication, of course. Formal communication is more about being proper, and ties into cultural norms of formality etc

      •  SkyNTP   ( @SkyNTP@lemmy.ml ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        131 month ago

        “Hard to understand?” Is a question more complex than it might appear on the surface. There are obvious examples of ambiguity in speech which lead to complete misunderstanding.

        But “hard to understand?” may also satisfy the criteria of “effort to understand”. Just because a message was understood does not mean the audience was able to hear it effortlessly. And that boils down to consideration.

        It’s a two way street. Correcting mistakes because of apparent lack of effort is probably not warranted, but a speaker is not entitled to a happy audience either

        As with many online feuds, I think a lot of these problems typically arise because of a lack of operating under the assumption others are acting in good faith.

        • If course, ultimately language is about (efficient) communication. And as long as that is satisfied, grammar is secondary. Like if there is ambiguity, asking for clarification is very much not pedantic

          There is of course some nuance and leeway, but I still think it’s fairly obvious where the line goes

          But ultimately, yes, language is nuanced and constantly evolving, it’s very neat though

          • See, I could understand you just find despite you writing “If course”, but if you try to say to me that is not a mistake simply because I could understand you, I cannot at all agree with your logic of what makes it the language “correct”.