•  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”.

    • Oxford English Dictionary: -adds a slang term or portmanteau in common use for years by millions of people in order to reflect the linguistic zeitgeist-

      Prescriptivists: 🤬NO🤬SLANG🤬IN🤬DICTIONARY🤬

      Prescriptivists from the 1800s: 🤬NO🤬USING🤬"ZEITGEIST"🤬OUTSIDE🤬PHILOSOPHY🤬

    • Yeah we pick whatever people say or write.

      "The framework of the language says it shouldn’t be pluralized as a mass nouns, but Becky and the cool kids got everyone saying it so it’s now a word.

      Calling someone a prescriptivist is a sad rebuttal to the worry that our language is evolving arbitrarily based on the whims of vapid influencers.

      • if you don’t want language to evolve based on the whims of vapid influencers, help steer society away from vapid influencers being influential rather than getting pissy about how people speak.

        What you’re doing is very close to complaining about poor people speaking “lazily”, and telling them to try harder, because obviously you’re the shining example of enlightened correct speech.

      • You’ve got it backward. Successful modern influencers follow linguistic trends and reinforce them, but they typically do not invent them (see the litany of words from jersey shore that never made it into the greater american lexicon) even when they try. Typically, new words arise out of necessity, efficiency, or mutual enjoyment.

        It boggles the mind to see how many armchair linguists come out of the woodwork for posts like these. As language evolves, we get new ways to express ourselves, but idiots that cannot possibly learn one new word stall that progress by just being stubborn. If anything, you should be more wary of people or groups preventing the use of new words, or re-prescribing existing words that are usually used one way popularly.

        The ONLY valid goal with language is communication and understanding - couples develop words, workplaces develop words, gaming communities develop words, and all of these groups use either existing words to mean new things, or acronym words in new ways, or even make completely new words from brand names or nonsense. Prescriptivists cannot typically handle new jargon, regardless of its use, and this makes them a laughingstock in academia and online spaces alike.

        If you can’t parse what’s being said, lurk more. The etymology of new words is just as valid as the etymology of ancient ones. It’s fine to take words on loan from another language regardless of grammatical correctness. The word “eyeball” came from “an influencer”.