Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Earthquake Damage]

"Descriptivism" is an ideology which states that all language uses are valid so long as they convey their meaning to those familiar with them. This is, of course, absurd at its more extreme end because that would require that, say, ebonics, or chatspeak, or even 1337 be recognized as valid dialects/languages of their own.

Look, everyone!  A value judgment immediately following a description of an ideology that pretty much says "value judgments about language are silly." 

[Cthulhu]

He didn't say he subscribed to it.  In fact, he said he subscribed to the other.

[Earthquake Damage]

I didn't mean that.  I just thought it funny that those two statements were right there together.  Comedy in contrast.

[Willfor]

"Descriptivism" is an ideology which states that all language uses are valid so long as they convey their meaning to those familiar with them. This is, of course, absurd at its more extreme end because that would require that, say, ebonics, or chatspeak, or even 1337 be recognized as valid dialects/languages of their own.

Look, everyone!  A value judgment immediately following a description of an ideology that pretty much says "value judgments about language are silly." 

I realise you're trying to point out his apparent mistake to make yourself feel witty. Unfortunately, he called it absurd only at its extreme end. You will find, generally speaking, that when you follow something to its extreme you will find the end rather absurd. Do note that he did not say he was an extremist.

Sorry to take the humour out of it, but reading comprehension makes it something impossible to find funny the way you want it to be...

[Earthquake Damage]

Unfortunately, he called it absurd only at its extreme end.

Only he also insulted a significant and legitimate real world (as opposed to something that exists primarily on the internet) subculture by calling their language absurd.  Note his mention of ebonics.  Ethnocentrism much?

Here's a good question:  How many people, speaking a particular dialect in casual conversation day-in day-out, does it take before we declare their dialect legitimate?  Perhaps it's not a question of how many so much as what sort of person they are.  Maybe people who are largely poor and ill-educated (compared to mainstream U.S. culture) are incapable of developing their own dialect?  They just don't know any better, right?

Utter bullshit, that.

[Willfor]

Unfortunately, he called it absurd only at its extreme end.

Only he also insulted a significant and legitimate real world (as opposed to something that exists primarily on the internet) subculture by calling their language absurd.  Note his mention of ebonics.  Ethnocentrism much?

That doesn't make you funny, only correct. Im hear 2 pretect hoomoor atm kTEExBUY

Humour has rules*, and one of those rules is that you either have to be attempting it from a true insight.

Spoiler: * (click to show/hide)

Humor doesn't actually have any rules.

 

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Unfortunately, he called it absurd only at its extreme end.

Only he also insulted a significant and legitimate real world (as opposed to something that exists primarily on the internet) subculture by calling their language absurd.  Note his mention of ebonics.  Ethnocentrism much?

Pay attention to the structure of the sentence. "Absurd" applies to the train of thought that all dialects are valid. Really, I'd imagine quite a few people you're lumping into that subculture would be offended to have it called "their language", and I only used the term "ebonics" for convenience sake: the same applies to any "dialect" defined by being nothing more than illiteracy, no matter who speaks it.

[qwertyuiopas]

Off the topic of language specifiics(And the definition of languages), I have found it slightly irritating when a correctly spelled word is out of context, where a similar word would fit perfectly. It is a sign of someone relying on spellcheck too much(I use IE6 mostly, and it *doesn't* have spellcheck at all).

I can see how having the computer check spelling can catch small mistakes, like doubled or missing letters, before you post, but to use it when you don't know the word itself is worthless, as you may end up selecting the wrong correction, or it may not even have that word in it's dictionary. Yes, it does cover up mistakes, and make your writing easier to read, but just like translation between languages, occasionally a mistake slips through, and reveals the true source. (English has only one real word for "you", and I have read that other languages have multiple variations, each with additional implications. Seeing "thou" with a bracketed note stating the character's surprise at it's use and the implication attached, an implication not present in any English variation, clearly shows that there was a translation)

So, if you rely too heavily on your computer to check your spelling/grammar, why not try googling a word shown as an error, just in case the correction you would have selected was wrong?

[Jude]

"Descriptivism" is an ideology which states that all language uses are valid so long as they convey their meaning to those familiar with them. This is, of course, absurd at its more extreme end because that would require that, say, ebonics, or chatspeak, or even 1337 be recognized as valid dialects/languages of their own.

There's nothing extreme about the position that ebonics is a valid dialect of its own. All linguists agree on that. The fact is, there is no reason why any dialect should be considered correct, since that would require someone with the power to decide which is the correct dialect. And nobody has the credibility to make that decision.

That's why prescriptivism is basically non-existent among linguists.

I believe any way of communicating a point is valid and any dialect is fine to use. I just do not think they are 'proper'. They work, but they are wrong.
Just as I feel people slightly under the age of 21 are just as well off drinking alcohol as those over 21, but I do not think it is 'proper' within the law.
Get what I mean?

But "proper" is such a vague and subjective term that it makes no sense to use it in a serious scientific discussion. If you can say that only certain types of English are proper, then why can't I say that English, PERIOD, is the only proper way to communicate? All other languages are improper.

We would have exactly the same reasonable bases for saying either of those things.

"Absurd" applies to the train of thought that all dialects are valid.

And that is a wrong opinion since all it amounts to is you saying "My way is right and you're wrong if I don't like you're way"

[Sir Pseudonymous]

That's why prescriptivism is basically non-existent among linguists.

I've noticed. All my knowledge of the division comes from watching linguists bitching about prescriptivism. Of course, most linguists I've talked to/read seem to find... "variety" in language pleasing on an aesthetic level, while ignoring the practical matters of communication.

And that is a wrong opinion since all it amounts to is you saying "My way is right and you're wrong if I don't like you're way"

*Illiteracy* is not, and should never be, considered a valid form of speech. It drastically impairs communication, and the resulting gap can only result in the further ostracization of the individuals. Trying to pass it off as "it's ok, it's just how you talk, you're special!" is not only insulting, it's actively harmful.

[Giant Snowman]

Most of the people who annoy me with bad spelling don't actually care about whether there is a 'correct' way to do it, they just want to save time. While someone using lots of abbreviations may be able to type his message in only a third of the time, it takes me at least three times longer to read. It's all right if you're fighting for your life in some online warzone and don't have time to type carefully, but otherwise it's just selfish.

So if you're asking for a favour it doesn't exactly plead for you don't spell out the word 'please' but instead use its unclean three-letter imposter. The short version of 'good luck and have fun' might have been necessary in starcraft game lobbies where you had 5 seconds to type something but it's just a bit weird elsewhere. It's nice to see at least some form of greeting I suppose.

A couple of years ago (what? more then a decade? I'm not old I tell you!), the Netherlands had a big committee to reform Dutch spelling. The idea was to make it more consistent and easier to learn but eventually they came up with so many exceptions and new weird rules that some major newspapers decided to boycott it. We're all back in limbo now I guess.

Aside from people finding ways to write faster or easier, languages also change slowly in little ways no one notices. My paper said the other day that common Dutch irregular verbs are losing their seperate second person and using the word for first person instead. Twenty years ago grammar nazis would have corrected you for doing this, but now no one notices.

Also, 'kk' is a weird personal rage button of mine. Why can't people just use 'ok'? It's got the same number of letters for crying out loud!

[Jude]

That's why prescriptivism is basically non-existent among linguists.

I've noticed. All my knowledge of the division comes from watching linguists bitching about prescriptivism. Of course, most linguists I've talked to/read seem to find... "variety" in language pleasing on an aesthetic level, while ignoring the practical matters of communication.

Well regardless of what they find appealing, the reason they reject prescriptivism is because it's baseless. It's just one person or group of people announcing that their way is the right way and everyone else is wrong. It should be obvious why this has no credibility.

*Illiteracy* is not, and should never be, considered a valid form of speech. It drastically impairs communication, and the resulting gap can only result in the further ostracization of the individuals.

I have no idea what you're talking about, as illiteracy is not a form of speech. If you don't know, it's the lack of ability to read.

Or are you using "illiteracy" as a code word for netspeak/ebonics

Also spelling is one of the few things where prescriptivism does apply somewhat. Just not all that far, because what's the correct way to spell "favo(u)r?"

[Goron]

"Descriptivism" is an ideology which states that all language uses are valid so long as they convey their meaning to those familiar with them. This is, of course, absurd at its more extreme end because that would require that, say, ebonics, or chatspeak, or even 1337 be recognized as valid dialects/languages of their own.

There's nothing extreme about the position that ebonics is a valid dialect of its own. All linguists agree on that. The fact is, there is no reason why any dialect should be considered correct, since that would require someone with the power to decide which is the correct dialect. And nobody has the credibility to make that decision.

That's why prescriptivism is basically non-existent among linguists.

I believe any way of communicating a point is valid and any dialect is fine to use. I just do not think they are 'proper'. They work, but they are wrong.
Just as I feel people slightly under the age of 21 are just as well off drinking alcohol as those over 21, but I do not think it is 'proper' within the law.
Get what I mean?

But "proper" is such a vague and subjective term that it makes no sense to use it in a serious scientific discussion. If you can say that only certain types of English are proper, then why can't I say that English, PERIOD, is the only proper way to communicate? All other languages are improper.

We would have exactly the same reasonable bases for saying either of those things.

Ok. I think I have a better hold on your point of view...
In the end it makes sense and you are right in your own way. But I still feel you can apply your logic to anything. Since there is no supreme force mandating anything to be right or wrong. So int he end, I still hold that while you may be right in a way, your argument is still silly.
It does not take in to account the desire for organization and order. People intentionally set standards, rules, regulations, laws, customs, etc. with the purpose of making things 'better'. I can ask you, why are you writing in 'English' right now? It is possible English is the only language you know, but if not, why not write in another language?
That is a legit question that I'd like you to answer, at least in your head. You don't need to answer here because I'll answer it for you in a bit:
Firstly, I just did a quick scan of the forum guidelines (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=27009.0). At no point did I find the word English. Admittedly I didn't just read it word for word and I do not have them memorized, but I am willing to bet the guidelines do not dictate English as the required, or even preferred language of the board. So... why do you/others write in English? If I came on here and started writing in Slovenian, how many people do you think would understand my messages? or if I wrote in my jibberish I used before? Not many. But, English is no better or worse than Slovenian, as you say! So why do I choose English?
Because more people will understand my message.
Period.
Now I take that exact same reason, and shift it into the confines of a single language: why are people encouraged to use a single 'English'?
Because more people will understand my message.

If I write a message to a group of loyal crazies that reads "Shoot John". I suspect some of them may shoot John for me. If I write to the same group, but it reads: "Shoot, John". I suspect John will start shooting. That little comma all of a sudden saved John's life. Now, I can take those same messages and put them in the context of a firefight against bad all named Nancy, with a lot of Johns on my side. If, during the course of that firefight, I write messages encouraging my side to continue shooting, and one reads "Shoot John!", it is entirely likely and possible that the recipients understand my intended encouragement message and do not shoot John, but rather John starts shooting.

Notice how the audience and situation changed the same message's perceived meaning? So while I understand, within specific contexts it is OK to forgo grammar and write "Shoot John!" with the intend of having John understand you want him to start shooting and not get shot at, at the same time in different contexts it is not acceptable, for John will get shot. At this point you need to consider we are on the internet. We are not a wholly like-minded group. So there is no way to be sure of how "Shoot John" will be interpreted. I would take that as an order for me to begin shooting at John in most contexts, because thats what it says in Standard Written English.
Theres that Standard written English I keep bringing up again! What exactly is that!? It is the method used to create order, understanding, and organization without reliance on context. It allows everyone to be certain their intended message will be properly understood by the recipient. It is the same reason you write in English. Sure, writing 'Guten Tag!' carries the exact same meaning as 'Good Day!' but despite that some people may fail to take away the meaning. Just like a passing use of 'Tag!' by itself is still commonly understood to be a short form of good day, but out of context all it means is day. and someone (perhaps a novice German speaker) could be confused and interpret the speaker as shouting "Day!" at them.
This is all the same reason we all drive on one side of the road. To create order and common understanding. We could drive on whatever side of the road we please, then as needed, make lane changes when other cars are encountered. I can tell which direction a car is going so I know whether it is coming at me or going away and therefore I know whether we need to make a change to avoid collision, therefore why bother dictating driving on the right is 'proper'? Why not left?  It is a silly and arbitrary rule pulled out of someone's ass. Why do you drive on the right side and respect need for the 'grammar of the road'? Obeying that 'grammar of the road' is beside the point. I speed all the time, yet I understand to reasons for speed limits. Not everyone is a capable driver and, sadly, many are horrible and would kill themselves or others if given the chance to drive at any rate they please. Just as not everyone can understand intended written or spoken messages and may walk away with the wrong perception of your message. Thats why you adhere to standards. I drive on the right on private property and I'm sure you do too.

Also spelling is one of the few things where prescriptivism does apply somewhat. Just not all that far, because what's the correct way to spell "favo(u)r?"

Spelling of words is more often than not, tied to pronunciation of words. You do realize American English and British English are spoken differently, right? That results in different spellings. The American English, from common usage evolution, changed. The Standard Written English changes with time to match common usage. 'u's come and go in words like flavor and color just as the pronunciation of those words changed. Pronunciation unrelated spelling oddities are usually tied to 'spelling rules' that help in spelling a word once you understand the 'rules' (grammar). This allows me to know I spell 'neighbor' with an 'ei' as long as I know the grammar rule 'i before e except after c except when it sounds like a'. So anytime I run into that situation I know how to spell the word! This consistency benefits understanding and order.
So, while you do have an argument that arbitrary rules are ... well, arbitrary. You need to understand that said rules are helpful to people newly thrust into the context, be it someone weak with the language or someone that doesn't know whether to shoot at John or watch John shoot.
This is why (most) websites have the copyright info at the bottom and the main navigation at the top or left. Consistency. Context independent (a new internet user, for example) users will not benefit from main navigation on the left more than they would with it on the right, but the consistency allows regular users to have a better understanding of how to navigate and they will perform better, despite the fact that navigation on the left or top is a purely arbitrary decision. Just as that new user will benefit from links being clearly labeled as portals to a new section ('Click to send email'), while the experienced user may have understanding enough to perceive that image of a mailbox to be a link to send an email.

tl;dr.

EDIT:
perfect example of a possible misunderstanding due to poor grammar or spelling:
thread title: "This back fired spectaculary". A non-native English speaker may interpret that as meaning 'This reverse side shot spectacularly'. And expect to see someone's back shooting a gun, or  perhaps a story about a fart, or the rear turret of a space ship or something. Because their grasp of the language failed to immediately realize the author accidentally wrote two words instead of one: 'backfired'. Thats all with the spelling error aside.

[Jude]

That's a pretty ridiculous argument tbh.

There is a form of English called "Standard English" which people are expected to use in formal writing, but even that varies and doesn't have a complete, comprehensive set of rules, and nobody can make the argument that it's more "right" than other forms of English

All your examples of how miscommunication can be harmful are completely contrived and unrealistic, and the fact is miscommunication can happen just as well even if two people are speaking exactly the same dialect. The driving analogy is even more absurd because words do not have the same power to maim and kill people as two-ton chunks of metal moving at 60 mph

And finally you still didn't establish that there is one right way to speak English, which is the position you took in the first place and the one I'm arguing against

[Goron]

That's a pretty ridiculous argument tbh.

There is a form of English called "Standard English" which people are expected to use in formal writing, but even that varies and doesn't have a complete, comprehensive set of rules, and nobody can make the argument that it's more "right" than other forms of English

Please inform me of another form of English, then. Since you seem to have a list of them available. If you can present another uniform English and an argument as to why your arbitrary standards are better than Standard Written English's arbitrary standards, than I will join you in your quest to speak that language. I personally only know of one English- but obviously you are smarter than me.

All your examples of how miscommunication can be harmful are completely contrived and unrealistic, and the fact is miscommunication can happen just as well even if two people are speaking exactly the same dialect. The driving analogy is even more absurd because words do not have the same power to maim and kill people as two-ton chunks of metal moving at 60 mph

Wow, I apologize for choosing examples that were intentionally extreme in order to make sure the point got across. I assumed you were intelligent enough to understand the point I was making, and possibly understand how it applies in 'more realistic' situations. Shame on me for not assuming you'd take my examples as the only possible times miscommunication can occur due to improper grammar. I should have been more clear that I was using extreme examples off the top of my head in order to make a point, and that you would need to use your own brain to translate how that point applies in everyday communication.

And finally you still didn't establish that there is one right way to speak English, which is the position you took in the first place and the one I'm arguing against

Standard Written English is proper English.
How many times do you want me to write that? Yeah, its arbitrary and not enforced by the will of god. But its all we got. If you can come up with a better consistent, organized standard for English then go for it! But right now thats the best option available since it is widely accepted, used, and it covers every aspect of the language. And, please do not continue trying to force words in my mouth that I claim there is only one way to write in English. I make the claim there is a 'proper' way to write in English. Whether you choose to use it or not is up to you. Obviously I do not write in proper English, look at my posts for evidence. But I understand I am not writing with proper grammar. If I were writing a formal, or important message I'd be sure to adjust myself to use only proper grammar.
If/when you write/wrote a cover letter for a job, or perhaps and application to a school, I will assume you used Standard Written English? If not, please let me know and I'll apologize for assuming. If you did, then please explain to me how you can argue Standard Written English is not proper when you yourself use it?