Liberty! Equality! Lexicography!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 січ 2024
- ▶Join this channel to get access to perks:
ua-cam.com/users/steveshivesjoin
▶Philosophy Tube: "A Man Plagiarized My Work: Women, Money, and the Nation": • A Man Plagiarised My W...
▶Patreon: / steveshives
▶PayPal: www.paypal.me/SteveShives
▶Venmo: venmo.com/thatguysteveshives
▶Twitter: / steve_shives
▶Facebook: / thatguysteveshives
▶Instagram: / steve.shives
Listen to the Late Seating podcast:
▶RSS: / sounds.rss
▶Soundcloud: / late-seating
Listen to The Ensign's Log podcast:
▶RSS: / sounds.rss
▶Soundcloud: / the-ensigns-log-podcast
#lexicography #dictionaries #philosophy #politics #progressives #conservatism - Розваги
“We the people means all of us”. Should not have to be said, but these days it needs to be shouted.
Ah but those "real" Americans, as their enablers love to say have "We the people..." On the back of their trucks so desperately want to be ruled by a king, it's as if as long as their pov rings supreme it won't affect them negatively it'll just make them feel better on owning those libs, it was always weird hearing that phrase owning the libs it's as if the "conservatives" can't help but default to the need of owning people, funny how that is right?
Indeed, it's very wise stuff. And yet, my "we" doesn't include billionaires. Stuff is always tricky.
@@purplelibraryguy8729 that seems strange, to exclude someone based on how many pieces of paper with dead presidents’ pictures someone has. (I understand your viewpoint, when someone has enough power via wealth, their concept of everyday life is skewed by entitlement and privilege)
@@purplelibraryguy8729 Depends on context. If I'm at work, "we" doesn't include most people, just colleagues and customers. If I'm thinking of society, billionaires in that society are included. If I'm thinking about city design, billionaires aren't a part of that. And so on, and so forth.
"We the People" as a political institution, doesn't exist. It's a fanciful invention, a convenient tool the elite use to gaslight us into believing they have our best interests at heart, and to convince us that we live in a democracy.
The "People" simply don't exist. It's not possible for such a colossal government to represent everyone; not when there exists such a breadth of cultural and ideological diversity. They will have to narrow their gaze, and that means a lot of people will not be receiving representation. Not that representing everyone was ever their goal, mind you, or even the point.
The People don't exist, we should stop pretending they ever did, or ever can. Let's move on from self-delusion and grandiose idealism of things that can't exist. Instead of reaching for the impossible, we need to take a good, hard, look, at what's actually possible, and aim for that.
We need to dispense with the illusion that the United States (or any country for that matter) can remain in its current form and through impossible means, be molded into something just.
It's still kind of weird to me that "how about we just not be assholes?" is somehow a left-wing political stance. And this comes from people who used to demand I be respectful when I was a kid. "Always start with respect" is actually great advice for social interaction, and yet the people who used to demand that are now really upset when you're choosing to respect, say, a person's gender identity.
What does it cost a person to just not be a dick? This person you don't know wants to be addressed by "Ms." Cool. She's a "Ms." Now, I've respected someone and it cost me nothing.
They've got a different idea of respect.
You have one in which respect is treatment as a fellow agent and peer - you acknowledge someone's right to self-identify for gender, sexual preference etc.
They have an idea of respect in which it is an acknowledgment of someone's place in the hierarchy, where there are obligations based on those conventional societal relationships and self-identification has little to no role. For them, respect is a part of living within those various roles and part of that in turn is helping enforce them.
@@jeffengel2607I never thought about the difference like that. You always hear "respect your elders" but I honestly get nervous wondering how someone would respond to being told "respect your children".
Anyone else as a kid get given a pocketful of pleases and thankyous? You can give them out freely when you speak because polite people will always give you them back.
Perhaps we just need to give conservatives a pocketful of pronouns? 😂
For a lot of people historically, it's a complex divine revelation. Even seen as literally impossible, only to be aspired to.
@@aybiss Americans are strange ... though if I'm honest, if I look at the past, we had the same kind of "respect your elders" principles here in Germany. I think they mostly died with the student revolts in the late 1960s[1]. But since then, that way of thinking has been reduced a lot and, I think, is still reducing. The American concept of addressing men with "sir" is so far gone, that I never saw any of it in my whole life (almost 64) - the most was "Herr" ("Mr."). In fact, as far back as I know of, the standard military address was and is that exactly - it's "Herr Leutnant" (Mr. Lieutenant). In my youth, among adults, familiar addressing was formally invited; today, in many (most?) areas, it's simply assumed. Some people address everyone that way - even cops. (But then, our cops are not like US cops, so ...)
[1] As an aside, I believe the German death toll was one student (Benno Ohnesorg, in Berlin, June 2nd, 1967) shot by one cop (Karl-Heinz Kurras, who, it turns out, was a spy for East Germany at the time. Interestingly, Kurras' police chief, the relevant minister, and the ruling mayor of Berlin all resigned, but Kurras, due to the usual cop mangling of justice, was acquitted.)
"Don't hold me to that few minutes thing, okay?" had me checking the timeline to see if we were in for an hbomberguy length video.
I'd never studied this topic before (Lexicography, I mean). I'm a 51 yr old white man from the rural Ozarks, with a 21 yr old step-daughter who is a trans woman (she came out to us at the tender age of 9- very brave!). This was extremely helpful to me in sorting out how I think about and relate to (and also discuss with others) sex, gender, and similar topics, in these modern times. Society is always changing, and America is going through a very stressful societal change at this point in history. Only by taking on the the very challenging task of working to understand and empathize with ourselves and others, can we have any chance of coming through these changes with a happier, healthier society. We all want to be included as part of the "We", in We The People, so let's extend that courtesy to all of our fellow Americans, as well.
Thanks for this deep dive into a new subject, Steve. Great stuff, as always!
As a French man, I can say that you are not falsly acusing us of being stuck up grammar cops... but the Jerry Lewis, I am cannot tell for everyone but I am not.😅
I assume the Jerry Lewis love must have been generational. Back in the 60s, many Americans loved his antics too, but comedy ages poorly, and very little of his work is still referenced in culture. He has a couple films that are still considered to be classics, but he's just as often to be brought up as an example of how lowbrow and goofy old comedy was. Mugging and silly voices aren't what modern comedy is based on. I assume the Jerry Lewis-loving French people were likewise people who came of age in the 60s and 70s, which wouldn't make them much different from his American fans. EDIT: Also, mugging and silly voices probably translates better than jokes based on complicated setup or timely "bon mots".
Hey Steve, long time follower here. I started watching you for the trek content but stuck around because of your ideology. Dont let the lower numbers get you down, we do appreciate you.
When someone tries to justify intolerance or injustice by quoting the dictionary I turn to my god for comfort, because as Thor teaches us, "All words are made up."
I am disconcerted to discover over the last ten years, that my “patriot brethren” are just FINE giving up the ideas of democracy. No, they want a KING. And this king reeks to high heaven.
Some languages have two words that would translate to English as "we." One word is used to indicate a group which includes the speaker but from which the addressed person is excluded, and another word indicates that the addressed person is included.
Sometimes the exclusive seems to evolve inclusivity (e.g., "nosotros" in Spanish and "nosaltres" in Catalan, both of which, etymologically, originally meant "us others").
This reminds me of how conservatives argued against gay marriage! I remember how they insisted on defining marriage a certain way and that this definition can't ever be changed, despite it having always been more complicated than they claimed it was. Now they are doing the same thing with defining genders.
The thing that always amused me is that conservatives define marriage as "one man, one woman" based on the Bible -- that whole "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" thing. They completely ignore the fact that polygamy was very common in the Bible! Abraham, the eponymous figure of all three Abrahamic religions which includes Christianity, had three wives: Sarai, Hagar, and Keturah. (Hagar was Sarai's slave but we'll roll past that one.) Genesis 25:10 et al also mention his wife 'Sarah' but that's probably an alternate spelling of Sarai and not a fourth wife.
Not surprising. Conservatism means they are adverse to change. The world changes, and their job is to keep it the same, because that's where the safety and security is, even when it turns out it's not.
Kind and caring points, thoughtfully made, as always from you. I feel like conservative US politicians will redefine things whenever it serves their purposes, but I can’t think of any examples before I’ve had coffee. I’ve seen too much of their hypocrisy in every other area.
Woke, republicans changed the meaning of woke.
Oh, there's many many MANY examples of this flip side. "Ideology." "Criminal." "Liberty." I could go further if we were talking Portuguese, but I can assure you they try to redefine words (while freezing others) just as bad here.
@@MotherofOdin Or "Critical Race Theory". Or (at least in Florida) "Slavery".
@@MotherofOdin Thank you for filling in for my under-caffeinated brain!
@@JCCyC Thank you for filling in for my under-caffeinated brain!
France covers the fees for its citizens to get degrees. A little higher taxes for this, but it’s still top notch education for everyone 🤘😉
Such is precisely the purpose of taxes in government! /gen :)
I just want to say that I thought you were great before you mentioned watching Philosophy Tube. Now I think you're better than great.
Liberté! Égalité! Lexicographie!
There was a philosopher and teacher many years ago who argued strongly for a very expansive definition of "we," one that included even people that you don't like. He lived quite a long time ago, even before English was a language, so he didn't speak English, but his words have been translated numerous times. In English translations, his concept of "The We" are couched in terms of "neighbors." He told a great story about a man who belonged to a demographic group that was near universally derided, hated, despised by the audience he was speaking to, a man who helped someone in the "In" group who found himself in serious trouble by the side of the road. The man took this someone in, fed and nursed him back to health, made sure he was looked after, etc. The moral of the story was that all people should not only include everyone else in their "We" but also love those people as they loved themselves. A very wise philosopher, I would say. His modern followers, unfortunately, don't seem to have really learned this message, simple and straightforward as it is. Honestly, I think this philosopher would be a lot more popular today than he is if so many of his followers weren't such pricks.
I think I recall a quote from Gandhi about this philosopher of whom you speak. "Your Christ, I quite like and respect. But I do not like your Christians."
I've probably mixed up the wording, but the gist is there. As in many matters, I agree with both philosophers mentioned.
Amen.
Well said.
Conservative Christians ironically wouldn't even vote for Jesus.
The number of times I've seen Christian straight-up say that "neighbors" is only other Christians or other people in your immediate area just amazes me. Of course they won't say that if you ask them what it means, but watch how it shrinks when you ask them why they don't care about the plight of someone outside their circles.
The Samaritan story couldn't have made his point more clear, but even Christ knew this would happen. Gotta agree with Ghandi.
"For this people’s heart has grown callous; their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes; otherwise they might see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn back"
Wow, great moment of reflection, am I on the internet? No bashing, no capital letters, « food for thought », it feels really good, thank you for this.
"Indispensable" is absolutely right. She's a national treasure. Saw her play live and it was wonderful. Sitting two feet away from her while she's swinging a sword is quite an experience!
my happiest "word nerd" moment was when "they/them" was accepted as a singular pronoun to replace the unwieldy "his or hers"/ "him or her"/ "she or he" that I'd had to put up with for most of my writing life when trying to write documents such as bylaws, association rules and the like, and do so inclusively. When, much later, I found it had been adopted by genderfluid folks, it felt so validating.
Excellent talk.
Remember:
Roses are red, Violets are blue, Singular they predates singular you.
(*pushes up nerd glasses*) Well, akshewally, singular they goes back at least as far as Shakespeare:
"God send every one their heart's desire!" [Much Ado About Nothing, Act III Scene 4]
"There's not a man I meet but doth salute me / As if I were their well-acquainted friend." [Comedy of Errors, Act IV Scene 3]
"And every one to rest themselves betake" [The Rape of Lucrece]
Pedantry aside, I'm guessing you meant "when it got normalized into the mainstream" which 100% agree. It was a delight.
The French language is prescribed by the Académie Française - they commission and oversee the dictionaries. So their dictionaries are prescriptive, backed up by government authority. It's not like it's illegal to to use words not in their dictionary, just the dictionary is the official arbiter of meaning.
It's interesting in German, and I may not remember all the details correctly. But at the end of the 19th century, there was a movement to standardize German spelling and grammar for the then fairly new German state, which seems to have gone nowhere until one dictionary-maker, Konrad Duden, went and created a dictionary of standard German, today known as "the Duden" though the Duden publisher produces some more references under the brand name. That dictionary is produced by descriptivist rules but used - for example, for Scrabble, or for government use - in a prescriptivist way. However, the book *also* includes the German grammar rules, which were decided by the Vienna Orthography Conference and officially accepted by the federal states of Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and other states with German-speaking populations. (There's much more to say on that - if you're interested, look it up on Google and Wikipedia.)
Well, it goes a little further than that. Hasn't the Academie Francaise been pushing back against use of English-loan or English-derived words being used in everyday situations, including education, the government, and the media? English is the current "lingua Franca", but many French patriots still seem to resent losing that position, even if the term itself hasn't changed.
That's some Decree of the Council of Toulouse concerning the Bible type ordeal. Definitions are (by definition) more than the sum of the parts of the etymology. But now would be a good time to remember they felt the need to invent a cult of reason to replace Christianity.
@@KaiHenningsen Mussolini came first, then Hitler? Oof that's some dark humor
@@andrewklang809 Ironically, there are French calques of English words used in Québec, where the English words are used in France. I believe this is the case for "chien chaud" vs. "hot dog", for example.
Thank you, Steve, for being a consistent ally. You're a wonderful actor and storyteller, and as far as I can tell, a wise and critical researcher. Thank you for giving me the words to identify these prescriptive arguments and call them where I see them. This is important to me as both a writer and a trans woman.
Thanks for referencing Korzybski. I first discovered his General Semantics back in the mid-90's, and I have tried living by his dictum of "the map is not the territory" ever since. as a person who's early life was fraught with change, I grew to embrace and not fear it, and it has served me well in life and kept my mind open. That said, I honestly thought Korzybski had been all but forgotten, and it is nice to see his idea's invoked at a time when reality itself has become the most contentious I have ever seen it. So, thanks again, for a well reasoned argument and the embracing of "we" to include everyone. Sadly, this should not be a difficult concept.
The name Korzybski didn't sound familiar to me, but his quote very much did. I don't think I've heard anyone use that quote in years, but I remember it from a class I took about the history of mapmaking that used it and it has stayed with me ever since. Although I interpreted it more literally.
@@MatthewTheWanderer The quote is very well known; I had no idea it was from Korzybski, a name I know primarily from _The World of Null-A,_ sometimes written _The World of Ā,_ a 1948 science fiction novel by A. E. van Vogt. And yes, it's about General Semantics, if my memory is correct - it's been many decades, but I seem to recall that term.
I wish I could like this a thousand times! It goes to the core of our current crisis in America.
This might be one of your best pieces.
Indeed, I thought it was in a class or category of its own. (I hope that he adds more to this category soon.)
I’ve asked those that want to weaponize dictionary asking to “define woman” to “define a black male according to our entire constitution”. Strange how that term has changed since that document had been written. If that term can change, then so can others.
Just here to say Steve I adore your videos. Whether I agree with every point made every video or not I always love your delivery, editing (Or, thankfully, mostly lack thereof), and, strangely to some, your lack of music.
The very delightfully simplistic "Talk about a thing to the camera" is a wonderful breath of fresh air in a sea of "Jump cut, now blare music, pause for laughs, zoom in" UA-cam channels.
Keep being awesome Steve!
As a teacher, my husband used to bring a 1960s Encyclopedia to his college freshman composition classes and read the explanation listed under the heading “Woman”. It read, “See Man”. So for those of us who literally grew up effaced by language, economics, politics, education and tradition, I identify with the transgender community and offer my encouragement and support. Cultural change is slower paced than I’d anticipated when I was in my 20s. Now that I’m seventy it’s hard to focus on the gains in the face of all the persistent evils. But what I have learned is that there can be no “other”. That collective “we” in “We the people” is absolute. Social progress towards liberty and justice for all is necessarily all-inclusive. We don’t get there without MAGA. So those of us who love must evangelize those who fear and hate. Make friends, comfort and support them. Build a bridge for them. Be that bridge. It’s the only way.
I hope you meant "We don't get there WITH maga" (my capitalization for emphasis, lower case maga on purpose....).
Because, with maga, WE DON'T GET ANYWHERE!!!!
It's conservatives (MAGA) who cling most emphatically to NEVER COMPROMISE, EVER. Right there is what stops any hope of social progress so how can we progress if we include MAGA? MAGA will never cross a bridge so it's all impossible. Love all you want, but you may as well love boulders.
@@kurtisorcher797 @virginiamoss7045
We cannot get anywhere with MAGA as it is. But MAGA are roughly 15% of the population, so we're not going anywhere without these people, either.
We cannot change people, much as conservatives would like to do that. Trying to force change only drives people underground. This is true for MAGA as well. The only possible long-term solution is for MAGA people to change themselves, much as they resist that. To that end, we need to allow MAGA people to change. We need to "be a bridge" where we can. To listen and try to understand what experiences and needs drive them into the arms of the extremists, and both fill that need and be forgiving.
Yes, I know this is hard - nigh impossible. If you're burnt out, you have to take care of yourself first. But for all our sakes, I hope enough of us can do the difficult work of being empathetic to people who are severely lacking in empathy.
Full disclosure: I'm an American in Germany, with lots of family and contacts in the US. There is a similar problem in Germany with "Querdenker" voting for the AfD party.
So glad I found your channel. You're great man!
you are correct about France! when a new foreign word enters the lexicon - some examples being "computer" and "cd-rom" - which due to a prescriptivist organization named the Académie Française (which publishes the dictionaries as well), became "l'ordinateur" and "le cédérom", respectively.
CHEERS!
Here’s to updating definitions.
That dictionary debate always makes me laugh for three points:
1) Too many dictionaries are circular, woman - female - woman again.
2) Even more dictionaries try to define it by what it is not, woman =/= male
3) When they do attempt to use 'biology' they break the classification system
The first two are pretty simple, you can often find a dictionary trying to side step the whole argument by using synonyms or comparisons. When you break these arguments down, however, you always seem to find they end up as 'a woman/man is a woman/man.' Almost like trying to create a binary system for these things is not working well....
The third is the biggest issue though, because the third creates problems with classifications. To bring it back on topic, the 'biological' definition provided by most would eliminate a whole bunch of people for failing to meet either criteria. Not just those with Gender related concerns, some of those still fit into the binary system regardless, but a whole swath of others. People with Genetic, Epigenetic, diseases, and physical conditions that no longer fit into either category.
They would have to cease to exist, just so we can use this binary system.
Perhaps we just accept that the binary concept is wrong?
Oh, and if you go past humans, then biology gets more interesting:
Eggs smaller then Sperm
Sperm carries also having Wombs
Functional Hermaphrodite
Oh my...!
Thank you, Steve.
This is an excellent and very thoughtful video. Well done.
It's funny, when I was a little girl, I was told that, by definition, as a girl I must like pink (not by my mom, to her credit, but by almost everyone else). Back then and to this day, I cannot stand the color pink for the sole reason that I knew as child it had nothing to do with a being a girl. I choose what I like and don't like (now making one's own choices is definitely how I would define a girl or any human being).
Thanks for recommending Philosophy Tube! I just subscribed and look forward to watching her old videos!
There's quite a change to look forward to.
I'm always so happy when you do one of these videos. You GET it.
Thank you. I'm a fan of your channel as well as Abigail's.
Relatedly, but thrown in as spanners to provoke thought rather than being directly connected: (1) Some entries in dictionaries report not definitions proper, but referitions, i.e., rather than reporting sign-sign correspondences they report sign-entity correspondences. (2) Dictionaries of general import (e.g., the MW of the video) do not report as much on uses within specialized fields and focus instead on ordinary languages: for example, "force" has a specific definition in physics (or rather at least one), which is related to but different from the one(s) in ordinary language. (3) In some scientific contexts and in mathematics (including logic) we speak of so-called "implicit definitions" which concerns the idea that in a given context not all notions can be defined (in the narrow sense of (1)) on pain of infinite regress; consequently the system (the theory, usually, in the sense of logic, not the ordinary one!) governs meaning by giving a context.
Thanks!
Nicely done, Mr. Shives. I believe this is one of your best.
This was a wonderful video!
I bought a dictionary over 40 years ago and in the introductory pages it featured two essays on the prescriptivist vs. descriptivist perspectives. I've forgotten who wrote the latter, but the former was written by William F. Buckley (shocking, eh?). Anyway, that's the first time I was aware of these two perspectives. In those days I definitely leaned toward the prescriptivist philosophy but today am on board the descriptivist. Having said that, however, it should be noted that the descriptivist approach is just that, an approach, by which *I* mean *we are always approaching* tomorrow. We do not "arrive" at a new definition just because someone introduces a new usage, but rather, we arrive when at some undetectable moment we develop a consensus on a new definition.
Although the conservatives are being either ignorant or disingenuous when they turn to their preferred dictionary definitions and attempt prescriptivism, they *are* one part of the society that gets to debate the meaning of words. History shows that conservatives are almost always on the losing side of these debates, but they probably do serve a purpose that is of some value. Namely, by forcing debate and slowing down the development of the consensus, they make it more likely that the consensus eventually achieved is a real one, and not something (ironically enough) prescriptivized by one side of the debate.
Steve, I always knew you were a smart guy (your Trek videos are enough to prove that) but this was just was whole new territory (at least from what I've seen). Hope to see more of this.
I love that you've essentially implied that conservatives are society's devil's advocate. Frankly I couldn't agree more.
@@RenegadeChain Agreed, and (as I think you've implied) this applies to a lot more than just the meanings of words.
@@RenegadeChain
The problem is, if thats all they were, I'd actually respect conservatives and their way of thinking, but they sadly arent so benign and I feel that they only ever do harm to society. Throughout all of human history, its always been the conservative thinkers that held people back, kept us all locked in some pathetic status quo, and in order to really move forward, we need to delegitimize the ideology in the public consensus, and switch from "conservative and progressive" to two different forms of progressivism I feel.
One side can still be that devil's advocate, but their job is instead to determine how best to move forward with positive changes, where the other side is coming up with said ideas in the first place. This allow both sides to discuss any given change in society while neither is immediately advocating to keep things the same just for the sake of it. If they do reject a change, at least they do so under a notion of "maybe this isnt a good idea just yet, if at all", and not some ridiculous notion of traditionalism.
@@ramenbomberdeluxe4958We think it really comes down to open-minded vs not. Some people come to a debate to hear points, reasoning, objections, and to come out of that debate with a changed perspective.
Others come to merely attempt to push their own point of view, with no intent on considering others. These people are not serious participants in the debate, and shouldn't be welcome, nor trusted, to genuinely try to further our collective decision making.
If only we could come up with a safe way to separate the two.
@@mugemobi I think you are correct, Mugemobi. And while one side may have more close minded people than the other, *both* sides are plagued by close-minded people in their ranks.
just wanted to drop by to say thanks for suggesting Philosophy Tube's video
Hey! I have that dictionary too! Mine is red hard cover with gold inlay. Had it for over 20 years. Still use it when I need it. My favorite part is it has all the curse words too.
Compared to most YT, 13 minutes qualifies as "a few".
I put this video down, headed out to start the car, and a country song immediately started bemoaning the changing meaning of words. "A screw was a screw," "coke was a coke" etc.
Wow, fantastic Steve, thanks.
I wish everyone could see this video. I think it could change minds. Which is something I rarely say.. about minds anyway.
I've learned about the concepts of prescriptive and descriptive in my first year of college (in that time we were talking about grammar and how languages evolve). And ever since I've been telling people about these concepts every time someone says that there is a "right" and "wrong" way of doing something that different people do differently. Like for example, speaking a language. When someone says that people from lower classes speak "incorrectly" and "they should follow the grammar rules" I tell them "What grammar are you talking about, prescriptive or descriptive?" and then proceed to tell them how even prescriptive grammar changes throughout the years according to the usage of the language by the people and how even the most intelectual people don't follow the prescriptive grammar's rules all the time, specially when speaking. And since I've majored in language and literature in the best university in my country people usually are open to listening to what I have to say in this matter so I use it to continue the conversation and open their minds about different people in different situations and how everyone and all experiences are valid and beautiful in their own ways, including their own vernacular and grammar.
I was surprised to learn how many of English's grammar rules come from attempts to Latinize the language.
there is a difference to lexicographs and users of a language. A lexicograph should always be descriptive and be understand as such. But a user of a language is almost by necessity at least to some degree prescriptive. What lexicographs describe is the opinion of the language users about what the words of a language mean, and how they are to be used. by speaking a language and listening to it people automatically form those opinions. And those are not just opinions. Everyone who uses a language has a stake in how the language develops. Because if you speak a language you have an active interest, that the things you have to say are well understood in sat language.
Food for thought. Thanks! Adding prescriptive and descriptive to my lexicon.
beautiful and profound message - thank you and happy new year
Very well said!
My BIL once told me that "language is like riding a surfboard."
I’m getting a cross-over Steve? 😀 I enjoy both y’all’s channels immensely, thank you both for all that you do! ❤️
You got my thumbs-up as soon as you name-dropped Abigail Thorn. Also, as an autistic person, it’s easier on everyone if we can all agree on the meaning of words, so I do get a little zealous in insisting that people use words to mean what I was taught they mean by the dictionary, or my teachers (eleventy-billion years ago, so good luck with that, self). But not to the point of complete inflexibility, and not to hurt anyone.
There is a middle ground to be found I think. Words DO have accepted meanings. And at the same time, words are always evolving, because that’s what words do. It’s often more challenging for neurodiverse folks (*raises hand*) to deal with the uncertainty inherent in that second part. I understand wanting the words to just mean what they mean, dammit! But trying to dictate that words stay static in meaning forever is a losing prospect, and doomed to failure, eventually.
I fancy myself something of a poet, on occasion, and when I am writing poetry, I am VERY particular about the exact words that I am using. It’s sort of like I am painting a picture with words, and the words are my paints. Different ones are like slightly different shades. But even paint colors change over time, and eventually don’t look like they did when the painter originally created the work. We can try to conserve them, and to understand the meaning as we believe the artist meant it to be. But some change over time is inevitable.
Hope that made some sense. :)
As you framed up the usage pattern of prescriptivism, I realized David Bowie happened to have captured the driving logic behind it, back in 1997: "I don't want knowledge! I want certainty!" - from the track Law (Earthlings on Fire)
Thanks for this fresh, articulate take on this issue.
This has given me a lot to think about. Thanks, Steve! A future suggestion, if you don't mind--how about a video about the philosophical connotations in Star Trek? Or, perhaps in comics?
Well said! Thank you.
I agree with you completely. Left alone, people outside the majority demographic here almost always assimilate and just, feel like Americans. This is what makes a strong national identity. My only concern with this video is that conservatives have been eroding the meanings and impact of words in ways that promote doublethink and dilute logic & critical thinking. I think a certain amount of prescriptivism is necessary to resist that. There is no such thing as "alternative facts!"
Really good stuff. Thank you.
I don't agree with the definition of female as "opposite of male". First of all it depends on 'male' to be able to describe it, which makes it a derivative of male, almost like the "rib-thing" in that book. The choice of the word 'opposite' seems inherently antagonistic. Something, we probably don't need more of from the misogynistic circles who propagate antifeminism at every turn.
Secondly, it's still binary, which at this point seems reductive, if one considers the varying degrees of non-binary people.
How would I categorise it, then? No idea. I'm just a plain old hetero, who doesn't actually know how it feels to be anything other than what I am. So, it's not my place to put a stamp on something that doesn't belong to me. I'd say let the person in front of me decide what and if they want to be labelled as when dealing directly with them. For all the self-centered people out there: It doesn't affect your life. It's not a lot work. It doesn't cost you anything. Just do that tiny bit for the rare occasion you run into someone who is a little bit different from you. They are human beings after all. Might want to treat them as such.
I liked hearing your voice in Jessie Gender's video about Star Wars on Nebula. I've followed you both for a while so when I heard you read a quote I was like "Hey I know that voice!" I know this has nothing to do with either video but I wanted to give some engagement and I don't have a thought on this because I haven't finished the video yet.
Thanks
This is a great way to think about this. Prescriptive vs descriptive!
Yazzz Great vid
Unbelievably awesome video.
Oh, and all of this said. Can we please all agree that literally does not mean figuratively.... Like, we can at least discourage the alteration of accepted use of words due to complete ignorance.
If I'm saying Continent when referring to a country because I think Continent refers to what a country is, please stop me, don't let me redefine Continent to mean Country.
I remember a while back when they added the definition of "figuratively" to "literally". It always used to piss me off when people would say something like "I literally did this thing", but meant the opposite. "You mean figuratively?" But yeah, if enough people use it that way, no matter how much it pisses you off, that's how language and dictionaries change. Get over it. In my case, it was just about a word being used as slang, in the case of trans people, it's about a lot more than that.
Good one, Steve.
The history of the English dictionary is pretty interesting. A bunch of smarty pants types got together & wanted to standardize English spelling which was all over the map & make a record of all the words in common usage. So it was both prescriptive (spelling & definition) & descriptive (a list ) I don't know how much is taught in English class in public schools anymore but I remember learning sentence structure, how to break a word down into syllables & sound it out, prefixes & suffixes, alphabetizing, etc. We also learned the difference between *connotation* & *denotation*. Words have a literal meaning as well as an emotional/psychological impact. ( There is a reason some people prefer numbers & math which they claim don't lie the way words do.No ambiguity with numbers I guess?) Anyway, it's an old trick to cherry pick or site the definition you prefer from the dictionary. Common usage most likely won't align with scientific or mathematical usage. The word "theory" comes to mind...
As you reference, it's a question of change. At least as I conceptualize it. When change is anathema, then it is easy to rationalize change or the things that are causing change as being "evil."
The irony, of course, is that modern conservatives are using their wariness of change to push change; just in the opposite direction. They've become reactionaries.
Webster himself was, I believe, a prescriptivist, as was Samuel Johnson before him; but the Merriams seem to have been more descriptivist, as have their successors. There was a dictionary called "American Heritage" that tried to be a prescriptivist competitor to Merriam-Webster.
I think prescriptive is important to prevent political shenanigans. Changing words is an effective way of whitewashing. But it does go both ways.
I do believe that eventually we will have to separate societies. We already have our own journalists for each political orientation. Dictionaries will be likely, as academics already have conservative journals.
Eventually every pillar of society will have a left and right wing version.
From one word person to another, this should cover the shipping too.
Excellent
The fundamental problem with dictionary definitions is that _our internal "definition" of a word isn't verbal._ Growing up, we don't learn what a word means by memorizing a verbal definition of it*. We learn what it means by observing how others use it, and contrasting that with how related words are used. Our mental representation of words consists of semantic fields and prototypes, not sentences explaining their meaning. "Translating" that internal representation of a word, that intuition, into a concise verbal definition for a dictionary is always a limited and imperfect process.
*outside of specialized technical terms, whose whole purpose is to be maximally precise and unambiguous where everyday language isn't. And even there we're typically given examples to help us internalize the meaning.
Going back to the basic prescriptive versus descriptive debate, I’d argue that this is not a binary choice; both are important. If people don’t agree on what words mean or even know what is meant when someone else uses a word in a different meaning, then communication breaks down. This is why when you look at most legislation, there’s a section near the beginning which defines how key words are used in the legal text to avoid the ambiguity of alternate meanings.
As far as I am aware, the French have a national institute that is specifically tasked with keeping the language "clean" and "pure" by creating French words for foreign terms and such.
My country (Germany) has the "Duden". A dictionary from a central institute, that is not tied to the government. Its a mix of prescriptive and deskriptive. It tells you what words to use and in what way, but it is regularly updated to keep it up to date with the actual current use of the language (within reason).
For search purposes, it is called the _Académie Française._
A fine essay!
Dear Steve, hope you know I'm a long term subscriber and friend Dude, - came for the Star Trek & stuck around for the socialist & leftist conversations! Nice Work :)
I do sometimes wonder why I watch your vids that seem intent on re-educating those of my opposite way of thinking, & at the same time can't imagine a right wing thinker is ever going to hear your stuff... whilst I just feel like I'm being told off!
Personally, I'm thinking Gender & Immigration Politicking are exactly that - employed to separate when we know we aren't.
I fear engaging with shallow nonsensical conversations drags us all down to playing only to the room (obsfucation/presdigitation)
That said, I might sleep better if UK politics weren't so intrinsically linked to US foreign policy.
Live Long & Prosper
Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination x
As an aside, Google tells me that the Oxford English Dictionary is the most authoritative of English dictionaries. It is not merely descriptivist, but historical, giving the time when a word meant this, that and the other thing.
Personally, and this is very much aside, my favourite examples of meanings changing are terror and horror. They mean similar things; terror is the fear you feel when you anticipate some bad experience, and horror is the fear you feel when you experience it. Terrify and horrify also mean similar things. Terrific and horrific are opposites. Why? I blame advertising.
Now, you can raffle off that dictionary.💯🖖🏽
It's funny how I was just having this discussion. Specifically we were talking about how the US does not have an officially mandated language nor does out language have any official governing body. Certain organizations do. The military requires that you speak English when in duty and conduct official communications with it, outside of translators and business with foreign militaries. Aviation and maritime law both require English, which is also an international agreement, but it has to be written as such by the US because we don't have a general requirement for it. Words change meaning overtime, pronunciation changes. We tend to blanket a lot of that as an accent when, in some cases, it should be called a dialect. Appalachian English is definitely distinct enough from Boston English that calling them accents is absurd when we acknowledge the dialects of Mexico and Spain when they are just as dissimilar. People are belittled for saying "aks" by the same people who can't agree on how "caught" is pronounced. People are taught rules of the language which simply don't and have never existed. Dangling prepositions, split infinites, and so on. Again by people who both use them while saying you shouldn't and then rebuff the idea that any word could shift meaning. People act like grammar cops when they are grammar vigilantes at best.
Miriam Webster only have a monopoly on American English dictionaries.
Of course, for Concservatives "we" is a rather narrow view of the world
The French people live in a country deeply marked by a rigid class mentality. The upper bourgeoisie, the heirs of the old aristocracy and the middle bourgeoisie have a very clear tendency towards conservatism. The French language suffers from the same bias. There are therefore different registers of language: at the top of the scale is the polished register, immediately after comes the sustained register, then the common register, then the colloquial register, then the popular register and finally the vulgar register. It's not just a question of the type of vocabulary used, but also of conjugation, spelling, syntax and usage. The way in which we express ourselves, whether orally or in writing, immediately places the speaker on the social ladder in the eyes of the interlocutor. The Académie française, a sort of club of pretentious old men in disguise, among whom a few old ladies of the same ilk have recently slipped in, has wrongly set itself up as the conservator and arbiter of the French language. But despite their efforts and the support they receive from the right-wing press, the language evolves and changes as it always has. In the meantime, to find a job in a context of galloping unemployment and the destruction of public services and social security, you'd better master bourgeois French or you'll be turned down.
It's kinda funny that Sweden imported a king from France and apparently the idea for The Academy of Language, too. Svenska Akademien sets the rules over the Swedish language and also accepts new words into their official word list.
It's interesting how so baked in the gender binary is that it's even in dictionaries. I suppose being descriptive, it has to cover *all* options, and I guess a binary-defying description of female in there exists (I suppose "having a quality (such as small size or delicacy of sound) sometimes associated with the female sex" fits best?) but still a little disappointing. Where does that leave our non binary pals? And more importantly to me, while I agree that for some the binary is useful and comfortable, this adherence to the binary has the effect of taking this descriptivist view and making it a prescriptivist one.
We think woman and female(in this sense) are binary terms, so we are going to see binary definitions. The definitions in relation to human gender should read more like "A person who identifies as".
But that when we lookup gender(in the sense of human identity/behavior), we shouldn't be landing on a binary definition. And this is when we should see it referencing other spectrum friendly words, including non-binary, fluidity, plurality, etc.
Those words all deserve their own entries that should all respect the fact that there is nothing binary about any of them, including feminine and masculine.
What I like to tell people when they act like a grammar Nazi, "If there was a right way to talk, we'd still be speaking Old English." I might switch that out to Proto-Indo-European.
Guess it's also a case of spot the difference: US and The , v, US vs Them.
The struggle between living life as prescriptive/descriptive is pervasive in our attempts to make sense of life in all its aspects. We seem to need some guideposts in order to make SOME generalizations. A sense of (false) security. But I have always maintained (maybe because I'm a linguist and this dichotomy is a kind of underlying debate - between grammarians and linguists) - that RELIGION should always come from a descriptive approach. As soon as you start prescribing, you must eat crow (or fight a lot). If we could just let go of our need for some sort of false security, we just might learn exponentially faster and evolve. Language evolves. Knowledge evolves. Cultures evolve. And our search for ultimate meanings should also evolve. Otherwise, we do not.
The huge problem with Descriptivism is that language is a contract. We agree on syntax, meanings, the way sentences parse out, etc. It's nonsense to think that some random rattlings make the new frmr of the social compact that is language.
Language evolves, but pretending the gross misuse is valid... it's anarchy.
The print version defintion of female I noticed said sex not gender. That is pretty self explanatory if you understand how Biologist use the word.
"Descriptivism" vs "Prescriptivism" really feels like comes down to the basic way a person wants to view how the world should work: Pluralism vs Uniformity, Flexibility vs Literalism, Innovation vs Tradition. If someone claims to support democracy, they should be opposed to fixed, authoritative rules. After all, there was a time when many non-white people weren't considered "people", so there goes that initial definition of "woman". Things change, usually for the better, as more and more voices are added to the discussion.
'Ceci n'est pas une pipe'.
Applause.
Having been born Catholic (yes you can be born Catholic if you were promised to be raised within the religion so you mother could marry a non-Catholic inside of a church), I find it ironic that religious people can't conceive of the idea of renouncing your gender identity, changing your name and dressing according to your new choice. It is a requirement of the priesthood and the abby that every single priest or nun does this. It has been a requirement for over 1,700 years. Perhaps it is not ironic, perhaps it is just pure hypocrisy but that seems unlikely as religious people have never been known for either phenomenon.
Websters have english dictionaries "sewn up?!?!?" Have you heard of Oxford?
What do you mean, "Conservatives don't like revision"? See: Florida, § slavery.
The English language has changed since we left England.
In Spanish the Royal Academy of the Spanish Language is really prescriptive but ends up being a descriptive in their definitions.
🍻
Korzybski's statement that the word is not the object it represents made me look at Sesame Street in a different way. In that program, words are often illustrated as behaving like the thing they represent. The word "grow", for instance, will be depicted increasing in size like a growing plant, the word "horse" will be depicted running around and neighing like a real horse, etc. I wonder if this method of education did not have harmful side effects in shaping how people conceptualize the world around them, causing a sort of magicthink to arise and taint how they expect the world to behave in response to whishing, praying or hoping. Just a thought.
Sesame Street wasn't a guide to reality. It was a introduction. By necessity, its goals had to be aimed at children and simplified. It couldn't define anything absolutely simply because reality is dynamic, and so is our propensity to be comfortable with change. Some people embrace uncertainty and flourish testing boundaries. Others fare less well, and cling to certainties simply because it's easier and less demanding. Consequently, there is an ongoing tension ever present. And sometimes what perspective one has is shaped by very concrete things. Even philosophy in a very broad sense was shaped by environment. We can see this by comparing Greek and Chinese ancient philosophies. Greece was a small region, mountainous, and surrounded by the sea. Life was precarious on land or at sea. Wealth and power was accrued by war, and conflict shaped their framing of reality. Contrast that with Chinese philosophy that was more in flow with nature rather than fighting it. It's environment was more based around fertile tributaries of rivers. More agriculture, and working in harmony with nature. Working with change, rather than fighting or trying to control it. Different strokes for different folks, extends to even how we see reality.