How Lexicographers Think About Language | Kory Stamper | Big Think
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 жов 2024
- How Lexicographers Think About Language
New videos DAILY: bigth.ink
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive video lessons from top thinkers and doers: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you’ve ever used "y’all" in a business setting, you might be get an odd look from your colleagues but you might actually be helping the word get into the dictionary. Mirriam Webster’s Kory Stamper explains just how words end up making the jump from the popular vernacular to the dictionary. Sometimes society just keeps saying words wrong until they’re right (‘nuclear’ vs ’nuculer’). And sometimes these small decisions make a big difference. Which would explain the use of "irregardless" in the Supreme Court. Join us as Kory explains us the big difference between being a prescriptivist and a descriptivist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KORY STAMPER:
Kory Stamper, a lexicographer at Merriam-Webster, spends all day reading citations and trying to define words like “Monophysite” and “bodice ripper.” She has been doing this sort of thing since 1998, long enough to remember blue galleys, grease pencils, rubber stamps, and inter-office mail. Most recently, she’s gained some notoriety for being one of three editors who write, edit, and appear in the “Ask the Editor” video series. (Pursuant to the video series: yes, her hair changes colors, and no, she will not marry you). In addition to working on definitions and (patiently, steadfastly) answering the editorial email, she sometimes travels around the country giving talks and lectures on things that only other word nerds would be interested in.
When she is not doing the word-nerd thing, she does other nerdy things, including knitting, baking, and live sound engineering. But she will probably not bore you to death with those things here.
You can read more of Kory’s blabbing on the Merriam-Webster blog and in the Guardian, where British commentors endlessly complain on every column she has written there. She also occasionally contributes to Strong Language, a blog about foul language.
Her debut nonfiction book, Word by Word: The Secret Life of Dictionaries, was published in March 2017. Publishers Weekly called it “occasionally profane,” which is delightful. She’s working on another nonfiction book for Pantheon/Knopf, and that will also likely be occasionally profane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
KORY STAMPER: So these are two main approaches to language. There’s prescriptivism and descriptivism.
Prescriptivism is a belief that the “best practices” of English will prevail. And so you champion the best practices of English. And the idea of the best practices of English-they sort of take a very broad look at the established canon of literature and use that.
Descriptivism is another approach to language and it’s one that dictionaries use. And that is that you are a chronicler of language. You record the language as it’s used and not as you want it to be used.
So editors are prescriptivists, for instance, because they’re trying to establish a standard way of writing or a standard tone or a standard voice for a publication.
Dictionaries are a descriptivist because the goal of a dictionary is to record as much of the language as you can, and even though prescriptivists and writers and editors champion the best practices of English, the best practices of English aren’t all the things that end up in print.
So as descriptivists we sort of look at everything that makes it into print-so good, bad and ugly-and enter those into the dictionary when they meet the criteria.
I didn’t identify as a descriptivist before I got to Merriam Webster. I was a prescriptivist, because when you grow up-the way that our American educational system works-you grow up inside of this set of grammar rules. And those grammar rules are prescriptive. So when I started my job one of the first things that they said is: “You have to be willing to let go of any linguistic prejudices you have to record the language.”
So I moved from being a prescriptivist into being a descriptivist. And I still have - there are still times when I’m a prescriptivist, and there’s still times when I see a word and say, “Ugh, I don’t like it.”
But yes, I wasn’t a descriptivist before I started this job.
I think there is value in defaulting to a descriptivist view of language, because what a descriptivist’s view of language assumes is that the person you’re speaking with has an equal command of the language that you do, and that their English is just as good as your English.
And particularly in a business setting when you’re deali...
For the full transcript, check out bigthink.com/v...
I love her she's so clear and well spoken
I like it too. The vocal fry at the end of her sentences reminded me of when Stan went emo in South Park.
@@therealDannyVasquez how did "Big Think" manage to spell "Merriam Webster" wrong in the video description?
That's just depressing.
I was educated in England. Recently, when in India, some of my Indian friends told me, 'Oh Mister John, you are coming here, but we are not understanding you because you are not speaking English properly.'
Outside of American reach, they speak English far better than we do, yet we destroy it the most. Go figure.
John Bicycle your friends call you mister john? Are you sure they know you are friends ?
I remember when I was in gradeschool, they used to tell us that "ain't" wasn't a real word, because it wasn't in the dictionary. Eventually, it was added to the standard dictionary, and I kept wondering why it was left out for so long, when clearly, everyone knew what it meant.
It would be incomprehensible and not utilized in a manner to which thoughts are conveyed between individuals with the ability to understand one another. If they had said it was improper or that it was not recognized within an etiquette, that would have been a sound explanation but saying it's not a word is an authoritative standpoint not a corrective one.
@@LSD209What gives certain people “authority” in this sense?
Her hair color is hypnotic and amazing. I couldn't achieve that color if I tried.
I agree that a descriptivist approach is essential for dictionaries, including, of course, dictionaries of slang. But use of inaccurate language, if taken too far, can slowly break down good communication. I used to teach Arabic at a British university (and Arabic-English translation at a Morioccan university), and my PhD is in Persian Studies. Neither Arabic nor Persian is my native language, but if I had just picked up one or the other just by picking up how people use it, I would have made little progress. Arabic is heavily dependent on correct grammar: for example, you can't consiult and Arabic or Arabic-English dictionary if you don't know quite a lot about grammar, how words are formed in a complicated way out of roots, etc. And many young Iranians when writing on online sites (like You Tube) are now writing ungrammatically and making up their own spellings based on personal or local pronunciation; such writing can be difficult to read, especially since Persian (like Arabic and Urdu) does not write short vowels. In order to put those vowels in, you need to know the correct forms. Now Engllish doesn't have those problems, but in teaching good writing to students (something I have done in a British university), the prescriptive approach is necessary. Academic writing has to be precise, and sloppy spellings or incorrect usage can cause an essay or thesis to become harder to read. In recent years, as good editors for academic publcations (and to tell the truth, for fiction) fall by the wayside, I have read a lot of academic studies filled with repeated misspellings and incorrect usage, and sometimes that can lead to serious inaccuracies and misunderstandings. I have often used colloquial language in my novels, which is suitable, but never in my academic books or articles. This isn't judgemental. It's about making sure everyone is reading from the same hymn book. Without common standards, communication breaks down. If you have ever struggled to understand strong colloquial language in a very different accent, you will know that it may be hard to understand what the speaker is saying, or to help them understand you. When language is uniform, however innovative and well expressed, at least we all know what the words mean or should mean.
Overall a good video, but I disagree with the last bit. Saying "'irregardless' is wrong" isn't a moral claim any more than saying "'2+2=5' is wrong." It's a claim about whether you're using the terms of a certain domain consistently or not. It may be pedantic and counterproductive, but it's not some sort of moral accusation.
Mathematics and grammar rules are not the same though. The way we speak english is different than the way english was spoken 400 years ago, but 2+2 has always been four. The reason why she calls it a moral accusation is because there is no actual reason to call someone out for saying irregardless other than your own moral sense of what english "should" be. Again, back to the 400 years ago, the same way you would call someone out for saying iregardless you would get called out for breaking a rule that existed 400 years ago. There is no right or wrong in language, only your perception of what is right and wrong.
Actually, 2+2 isn't always 4. In quaternary math, for instance, 2+2=10. The underlying meaning might be the same, but the correctness of the formulation depends on the domain in which it is used. It's actually very similar to language in that sense.
However, I think that's beside the point. My point was that Ms. Stamper is equivocating on the words "right" and "wrong." I agree with you that the statement "'irregardless' is wrong" is, at bottom, an expression of how one personally thinks English ought to be spoken, but just because we use the word "ought" doesn't necessarily make it a moral claim. There are different usages of the word "wrong" and I think this one is more akin to "incorrect" or "mistaken," rather than "immoral."
Andrew Cooper okay I understand, I misunderstood your original argument.
1) If proper phonetic usage of a word is not important, why does a dictionary include it?
2) Why should someone get a pat on the back for doing something incorrectly?
If improper usage is widespread it's not time to accept it, it's time to correct it. If your boat is more than half full with water, don't give water majority control...
I like this person 🙂
The words authentic and genuine come to mind 🙂
Informative. Thanks :)
big think lighting person, please make sure your white silo background is no more than 2 1/3 stop brighter than your key, and please, please use some flagging on both sides in back as close as possible without entering the frame to tame your light bleed.
When writing whatever you choose to write, one is forced to accommodate to the masse so that your writing is comprehensible so esoteric words are shunned. In the end, the most popular word or saying is the correct word, this does however cause a lack of creativity in our writing styles but it certainly makes the language easier to grasp. It's essentially knowing common saying and practices in the English language which can be done easily since our language is very optimised and relatively easy.
The point of language is: if people can understand you, that's more than enough. You can have spelling mistakes, grammar mistakes, pronunciation mistakes, as long as people get the point you're making, you've achieved the goal of language.
great video
2:23 "that their English is just as good as your English." I think the word your looking for instead of "good" is "valid"
What do you think about the fact that prescriptivists often use the work of descriptivists (i.e. dictionaries) to maintain their position?
Hi y'all!!! I'm Merriam Webster of the SS. As you may have heard, I'm in charge of rounding up all the grammar rebels on the Internet. LOL!!!
2:19 - 2:31 I clearly can't take this approach online, since most of the people on the internet can't string a _word_ together, never mind a sentence.
Then the end of the video show up, where she pretty much says that all of the stupid people who come up with stupid words and makes them popular should be allowed to dictate the evolution of language.
#CashMeOutside #ThisIsEvolution #DoYouTrulyBelieve? #HashtagsAreDumb #MD5anyone?
"An equal command over language..."
Please, do go on. I'd love to hear more on this "equal command" and how one side has a belief of equal command. From my perspective, it seems that you believe that some individuals possess a position of command and others do not. However, I find it more logical that this thought has never even crossed most people's minds and won't. It's more likely that their pronunciation is a reflection on factors such as, the region they were raised, the people they spent the most time around, the way it was taught to them, and not from a position of being right or wrong. They understand that although others may pronounce words differently than they do, that it's ok because we still understand what each other are trying to convey. So, just like speech, it would be both beneficial and wise for you to realize that not everyone thinks the same way either. Some think that other's have a funny or different way of pronouncing words, while people such as yourself think that others pronounce things incorrectly or not appropriately. I have more I'd like to say but this isn't the best location to bring awareness on a level that's effective to bringing change.
She's saying that there is no "right and wrong". That's the whole point of descriptivism. I think she framed it in those terms because people who use non-standard English (or "bad" English from a prescriptivist point of view) are often seen as speaking "incorrectly" by people who use standard or "good" English. Like she said in the video, this is the view of language people are taught to have in school and the view that many people are most familiar with. Whether or not you agree with it (as a descriptivist , I do not), the idea that some native speakers have a "better" command of their language than others exists and is taught to us in school, work, and life. She is not saying that "others pronounce things incorrectly or not appropriately". She's just referencing this commonly-held belief to explain descriptivism in a prescriptivist world. The belief "that some individuals possess a position of command and others do not" is a prescriptivist claim. This is what she is arguing against.
It seems like you are denying people have prescriptivist views of language. Even if many people don't personally believe that someone who speaks differently from them speaks "bad" English, we have to acknowledge that the use of non-standard language has long been criticized by prescriptivist school and professional environments. Acknowledging prescriptivism does not make you a prescriptivist. Denying it does a disservice to people who use non-standard English who actually have been criticized for their speech in these settings.
Irregardless as a word isn't "wrong", but it's a double negation; It's the opposite of regardless.
I also want to know how many words make up the language that the dictionary uses only for definitions.
Through tears of laughter, like everyone else.
Being a descriptivist doesn't make you deaf. Just an apologist for ignorance.
very tolerant.
I am of agreeings.
I to,
She describes how I‘m feeling right now
Couldn't agree more with her thoughts
"Educational system" - a descriptivist.
When in doubt, just say atomic!
THANK YOU for teaching me that ending a sentence with vocal fry is more annoying than purple hair.
Words matter. It's how we define and know things. To say that all things are correct is just - wrong. Some things are clearly more true than others.
To say it's wrong to correct someone for saying or spelling a word wrong is akin to saying- there is nothing to teach kids. All the words and all spellings are OK. Why bother with educating children at all? Might as well give them all trophies for participating in creating gibberish.
How daft do you have to be to see some things are _clearly_ wrong? Encouraging people to be wrong is _not_ tolerance of diversity it’s ignorance wrapped in ill-defined kindness.
I greatly appreciate your insistence on standards -- and yet, I feel that there is a healthy balance between "anything goes" and "we must preserve what has always been". I also am certain that a wider knowledge of the history and evolution of languages would help anyone to analyse these issues more clearly and honestly. For example, regarding "nuclear" vs. "nuculure" -- This is a phenomenon that occurs throughout languages, not just English. Two adjacent sounds in a word are reversed -- it happens all the time, in all languages. The English word "horse" used to be "hros", but people began to switch those two sounds, and then it became accepted. So, in short, languages evolve and change -- it's an ongoing process that can't be fought. However, I agree on the importance of the observance of some standards with regard to morphology (nice when the logic and reason of a word's structure is apparent) and usage (the richness to be found in the subtle connotations of words, and the contrasts among synonyms). And yet, still, on the other hand, experimenting with language can yield more interesting results than sticking to rules, so... We should keep an eye and a critical mind toward language usage -- but perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to fasten the chastity belt onto the mouths of those using the language ;) Let's encourage those practices that foster growth of richness and expressive capability (more reading of and writing about classical works will help tremendously, but we need innovation too).
白貓 wow, such clear expression of your thoughts and a Chinese username, it breaks my stereotypes. God speed kind person 🙂
Ha, at the end she still says that "*irregardless* isn't appropriate in formal writing, which is true" as if it's a law or scientific fact. All prescriptive rules are arbitrary at their core. :) What **is** true is that many people consider it inappropriate in formal writing.
1) 2+3=6 is wrong, but that doesn't make it immoral, it's simply a statement of fact.
2) The flip-side of descriptivist relativism is that language is meant to communicate. If I play the caterpillar and say "xyzzy" is pronounced "Bob" (mind the capital!) and means "13.5" when I'm speaking to one person but I tell another it means "very hungry" the descriptivist simply smiles and nods and logs the usage, whereas it would be more useful to say "Hey, bub, that's really confusing, could you be clearer?"
When you describe how something is used, you are prescribing how it should be used.
I really hate how people use the phrase hold down the fort when they are talking about holding the fort. It's like they have an inflatable bouncy fort on a windy day and you are afraid it will fly away.
Holding down the fort is in the context of preventing it from being taken over by others due to being vacant. Holding the fort is in the context of repelling an attack.
Two somewhat different usages, no?
@@SafeTrucking No. Both means repelling attack, but one is grammatically wrong. Then a whole nation embraced the one with the wrong grammar.
@@Fanouriou LOL! That's not how grammar works, mate :). Sadly, the US lexicon has had a long history of creating a more poverty-stricken language: "dumbing down" the rich variation across the English-speaking world, so it's not too surprising you wouldn't see the subtle difference in meaning. That's cool, though, thanks for the yarn.
@@SafeTrucking All languages have that. it's usually a strange translation. My guess from early settlers multilingualism.
I work in a mental health facility where we may hold down a mental patient. Or you may hold down a ballon about to escape on a windy day, or a carpenter might need to hold down a plank until he could hammer a nail into it.
But you don't really need the down part on holding the fort, holding a job. It's just a quirk that doesn't really add anything.
I won't say it's dumbing it down.. If it was dumbing it down I wouldn't mind it as much. Dumbing it down would be like the americans calling it a "sidewalk" while the rest of the english speaking world calls it a "pavement". But calling it a sidewalk makes sense, "It's the walk on the side" It's a sidewalk. Perfectly sensible. I just find phrases like holding down a job/fort strange since the down doesn't really add anything.
@@Fanouriou Holding down is a passive construction, it conveys the idea that the fort is empty: that it needs someone to sit in it while the usual occupant is away. Holding the fort on the other hand is more active, conveying the idea that there is some active problem to be dealt with that the boss would normally take charge of, but can't.
It's subtle, I agree, but that's English :).
Grammar. The difference between knowing your sh*t and knowing you're sh*t.
It allows misinterpretations of words to change the meaning of words. If someone doesn't understand the word "atom" now we should be using the new misunderstood definition because some people aren't educated in the meaning. Using this approach means we can no longer build scientific knowledge because common misunderstanding now becomes the meaning rather than its original usage for which the word and the literary universe were founded.
This linguistic fallacy suggests just because language has evolved this way, it should continue to do so. Despite philosophy, science, and math REQUIRE consistency and not redefinition based on misunderstanding.
Using this particular linguist's approach we can no longer have a body of knowledge and science because it's ok for the intellectually stunted to commandeer any meaning into mythological folklore.
Ever read 'The Tyranny of Words?'
This was a decent video but I disagree. People can speak however they choose but I don't subscribe to the idea that incorrect pronunciations should be formalised, which incidentally is why we have formal and informal speech/writing.
Well that's one argument and I agree it's important for the evolution of language. However, one of the major reasons we don't speak "archaic" English is because modern English was formalised, when the bible was translated into English and previously heterogeneous dialects were unified. I don't think every single informal phrase or pronunciation should be officiated in a dictionary until it gains wide spread informal usage among large segments of society.
Since you're concerned with correctness... It's "choose" not "chose." You misused the semicolon; those are not two independent clauses. "The Bible" is a proper noun.
Thanks for pointing those out. Perhaps, you'd like to be my UA-cam comment editor ;p and keep pace with all those other prestigious writing professions.
I do not mean for everybody to be perfect in every setting but I agree and espouse this sentiment:
Petar Stamenkovic
"Words matter. It's how we define and know things. To say that all things are correct is just - wrong. Some things are clearly more true than others.
To say it's wrong to correct someone for saying or spelling a word wrong is akin to saying- there is nothing to teach kids. All the words and all spellings are OK. Why bother with educating children at all? Might as well give them all trophies for participating in creating gibberish.
How daft do you have to be to see some things are clearly wrong? Encouraging people to be wrong is not tolerance of diversity it’s ignorance wrapped in ill-defined kindness"
Couldn't have said it better myself.
There is definitely a case to be made for standardised spelling and pronunciation. However, there are many holes in the English language that are being filled by informal speech. The word y'all is one, the contraction of 'I am going to' to 'ima' is another which may some day become an actual future tense (eg. 'I marun' for 'I am going to run'). Not to mention English spelling which is an absolute nightmare. There is often a crossover period where an official 'correct' way of saying something is accepted alongside an unofficial 'incorrect, but better' way. And often these incorrect versions are accepted into the dictionary to become formalised, often under the tag of slang, before eventually being used enough to justify dropping the tag.
I don't think anyone's expecting every different phrase, word, or spelling to be considered correct, but if something gains enough traction among the population, and is understood by many, then that is the language, and to describe that is the job of a lexicographer.
Is your argument that if one can't write perfectly there's no point in even trying?
Is it about the same to ever touch a curb while driving and driving with your eyes closed?
it's fallacious to compare a misused semicolon with "nucular".
Othering - that's a new one on me
I want to know all the words that are defined in the dictionary but are never used to define another word.
I'm not sure what side is she on ?
Did she mean that being prescriptivist is good in some places and other bad
aswell being descriprivist is good in other places, right ?
being in one style is bad ? is this what she means?
So "there english is just as gud as ur english"? Are you sure about that?
That sentence is problematic and difficult to understand because we have spelling standards. Descriptivism isn't saying that we should ignore standards to the point of not being able to communicate, but rather to not say that something is incorrect when it's actually perfectly understandable.
That answer depends on your definition of "perfectly understandable". For two reasons. 1:My message was perfectly understandable and you understood it, 2: It's very common for people to make mistakes that result in ambiguities or misunderstandings. For example, when people incorrectly say "I could care less" they are literally saying the opposite of what they mean; which doesn't pass my definition of "perfectly understandable".
Descriptivism is surrendering to the ignorance. It's choosing not to fight because it's more popular to just say "ok, keep saying nucular, I guess we'll have to accept that", instead of saying "stop using words you don't understand, you twat". It's answering the progressive destruction of education with a "Meh. Who cares".
1: I actually had to read that original sentance twice to get it, so it's obviously not perfectly understandable.
2: That one actually bugs me a little bit too, but that's besides the point. If someone says "I could care less" and you don't immediately understand them, then yeah, that's a problem regardless of whether or not you're
a descriptivist. If there's actually a problem with the communication then the question becomes if you're speaking the same language. If an English speaker and can't understand someone, even descriptivists will agree that that other person isn't speaking English (because that's the very definition of a lanugage).
Point is that the other person will still be speaking a perfectly correct language, even if it's not the same English as you are speaking, as long as someone else can understand it.
This hypothetical situation probably becomes a question of language vs dialect continuum, which is a really difficult question to tackle.
Also, did you miss the point where she in the video states that there are many nuclear physicists who say "nucular". They obviously understand the word, probably better than most people. Anyway, that's not really an argument just something I wanted to point out.
is every "big think" video starting with the words "so, ah ..."? I remember hearing these words every time 🤔
nice video tho :-)
I take Oklahoma for granted.
Saying "nuc-ular" and "ya'll", getting dressed means putting on a hat b/c waking up should only take 10min, and public urination means outdoors w/ penis, and never out of sight of a church where someones always willing to interpret ancient holy books into a clear socio-political message to follow. It's OK.
Notice the speaker, Kory Stamper, starts the video starts with "So, uh...." She also uses a lot of vocal fry (glottalization), also known as "growling speech," which I find fairly annoying.
dam you guys bring smart people in every single video. love it :)
An important distinction is being left out: the difference between being informal and being ignorantly incorrect. "Y'all" is fine. It's simply a combination of "you" and "all". It's informal, but there is nothing incorrect about it. "Irregardless" is different. Like other erroneous words, it's made up out of confusion and then repeated without thought. It must be corrected. To learn to say "regardless" does not require a person to abandon his/her identity.
irregardless has the same meaning of regardless in speech but the opposite meaning if taken for face value. seems like it would breed ambiguity in more than just a few settings. i don't like it, it just seems irresponsible to use it
Nonsense. She has already contradicted herself in admitting that certain informal language conventions are not appropriate for certain activities. Judgement of language differences occurs automatically - people who share common experiences and values use similar language. For me at least, the most strongly felt objections to linguistic differences are around firstly inconsistency - eg Aluminum, and secondly pronunciation which appears inconsistent with orthodox spelling, and thirdly inconsistent with current grammatical rules. Of course language changes over time, and also between difference places and social settings. People who pay attention to this know how to adjust their language accordingly. We all have different ways of speaking, in different social situations etc, and for most of use we can adapt our language to suit that specific social situation where we feel it is necessary to our goals, how we wish to be perceived etc.
This has nothing to do with diminishing a person's experience or identity. If a person cannot judge how to conduct themselves in various social situations, according to the conventions and value systems of those particular cultures, their performance might suffer unless it is so strong in other areas, or they are so articulate and skilled in argument that they can shut down any criticism and overcome any negative perceptions arising from their non-conformity. If you are effective and/or influential, people will overlook your differences, and might actually start to be influenced eg. adopting those differences as part of the culture.
OTOH if people just tolerate your differences because of some vague self-imposed self-censoring notion of pluralism, chances are people will not change their underlying beliefs, or worse still, culture will disintegrate, identity will become meaningless, and conventions will become so bloated and self-contradictory that they become unsustainable. Command of language and communication efficacy rely on convention, even when they are in contrast to those conventions.
A+ for effort
This video had a nice message at the end--especially important for those of us who would identify as prescriptivists
Are you kidding? That's a horrible message. It pretty much sums up to letting stupid people continue to make up stupid words, make them popular, and giving them permission to dictate the evolution of language.
I never understood how "y'all" is almost always exclusively identified as Southern.
Because most people who say that are actually from the South. It's that simple.
Omg this comment section is just toxic
I'm more of a prescriptivist (with some slang exceptions), so reading comments can be a nightmare for me.
can she be more pacific
I could never get a degree in language arts. All languages are derived from music since music and maths are the only true universal languages! The theory is called phonology and Leonard Bernstein is the creator and taught his theory at Harvard. I am 99% positive his theory is correct, it's just a shame that he never proved his theory. But that's ok because I'm collecting the research and data right now in hopes to prove his theory for a noble prize. A descriptionist is the only true form for accurately recording and assessing language. Words should be used based on their definition only because connotations can only be applied based on the pitch and intervals of the frequencies in which someone speaks one words. I can say the same words using different inflection, pitch and intervals and the meaning will come across be completely different to the listener. To me this proves that music is the root of all meaning behind speech. If I use a minor third interval to say thank you it will come across as I'm not sincere and possibly spiteful. Please watch Leonard Bernstein's lectures from Harvard, they are all on UA-cam! I don't understand why more people haven't realized this obvious relationship?
I kept looking at her hair during the entire video...
othering?
Cash me owside, how bow dah?
Standards are being lowered. Relativism is bad for society.
I'm not awfully concerned if someone says "nucelar", but maybe that's because I'll likely not notice it in a conversation. When it comes to "irregardless" however, I'm ready to take more of a stance, because it's not just subtly changing how a word is said and perhaps eventually spelled, it's adding something onto the word that it utterly nonsensical. It sounds like some who wants to speak fancy and who likes to make their words sound long and eloquent, without actually understanding what they're doing. "Irregarless" is a double negative. At least most people who say stuff like "ain't no one" seem to know it's a double negative and say it as a bit as a joke, irregardless seems to be used by people who are trying to talk well. I think it's within reason for me to be annoyed with that.
Make the blinding backgrounds go away, Mommy.
grammar is immoral, but nucular is depraved
So descriptivists stay woke of grammer changes while prescriptivists yearn for days of yore.
maltliquor87 grammar
Did you even watch the video?
Does not be a lingua fascist. Its the way I want to rite.
If you are asking me, then the answer is yes. Basically, descriptivists are liberal-minded when it comes to language. Due to them some dictionaries have thrown in the towel and now ''flaunt' is treated as an alternative spelling and pronunciation of ''flout'''.
Prescriptivists are conservative in terms of language. They will tell you that you cannot,for example, write 'forebearance''' instead of ''forbearance'' or ''forego'' instead of 'forgo'''.
"Woke"? What does that even mean in this context? Languages need an anchor, the "conservative" point of view, or else we run the risk of all words becoming meaningless. That's not to say that language does not change or mutate over time nor needs to be recognized. Words are supposed to have a set range of meaning or else we would never be able to communicate. She's talking about the perspectives on how language changes and why the two perspectives balance the difference between an unchanging language and one that changes so quickly everything loses meaning.
I just think we need top do a hard overhaul of the English spelling system so it makes consistent sense.
libertarians are descriptivists or prescriptivists? they are not on the left or right side of the board
How would a descriptivist view the grammar of Donald Trump's incomplete and incoherent sentences?
Unbelievable ....
Axe me anything.
Spelling be
She looks like elon musk
Matej Vrzala truth
So just because someone failed to learn the academically correct way to speak a language, we should just shrug it off and accept it as their "experience"? Sorry, I call BS on this one. This just encourages the metaphorical race to the bottom with people caring less and less about language rather than striving to master it.
Not to mention I suspect the person in this video has a different agenda: getting people to accept contemporary bastardized versions of words certain groups are attempting to redefine. Like how supposedly only white people can be racist or only men can be sexist, because by their "experience" it only counts if you have power (never mind being racist/sexist is about how you regard others, not whether you are able to oppress them).
This channel has seriously been going downhill. I thought they'd learned from the Bill Nye backlash, but apparently not.
Is anyone striving to master language though? Most people don't really give a fuck, and rightly so since they can speak the language absolutely fine anyway. Only people who care are the ones who want to care, and they'll still very much be able to master language.
While your second point is certainly possible, I feel like you're failing to take into account that basically all dictionaries are descriptivist. Are you saying that all lexicographers have a political agenda? Seems unlikely.
That's the point - they aren't striving and they should be. Accepting their laziness as being just part of the game only encourages such behavior when it should be shamed. The ones worth keeping feel the heat and try harder, which is how you can tell the ones that aren't worth keeping when they just keep sitting in their own excrement rather than giving it an honest try.
Do you feel like the average human has an obligation to learn good use of language? If so, why?
Ponzai Andersson yes, and because language is how we communicate - without communication a civilization is far harder to build and grow.
Alright, but I don't feel like there's anything in a descriptivistic perspective that makes that difficult. A descriptivistic perspective might make it easier for masses to communicate, since groups of people will use whatever they find best in whatever situation they're in, and whenever there's dissonance between groups, a dictionary can fix that right up. That's much easier than forcing every single person to memorize "this is how you should speak, even though that's not how you actually do it".
I think the important part here is realizing that if you force everyone to learn a standard english, nearly everyone has to learn two variants since their own dialect is probably going to differ in some places from the standard dialect.
"Mirriam Webster" will never be the correct spelling. It's Merriam! Lol!