Wordsmith.org: the magic of words

Wordsmith Talk

About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us  

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
zmjezhd #177509 06/17/08 03:16 AM
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
A solution would be to exterminate every speaker you encounter who uses the newer, deviant meaning. After a while, and with luck in evading the long arm of the law, you would live a better, simpler, and unannoying world.

Hey, now there's a good solution! In Kentucky, and possibly Texas, a valid excuse for homicide is, "He needed killin'."

Jackie #177512 06/17/08 05:52 AM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 956
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 956
 Originally Posted By: Jackie

Hey, now there's a good solution! In Kentucky, and possibly Texas, a valid excuse for homicide is, "He needed killin'."


Found this little tidbit


This brings to mind the reported exchange “many years ago between the Chief Justice of Texas and an Illinois lawyer visiting that state. ‘Why is it,’ the visiting lawyer asked, ‘that you routinely hang horse thieves in Texas but oftentimes let murderers go free?’ ‘Because,’ replied the Chief Justice, ‘there never was a horse that needed stealin!

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
 Originally Posted By: morphememedley
Objecting to word usages of others does not alone make one a prescriptivist, but the nonprescriptivist who does that is nonetheless likely to be taken by some for a prescriptivist.


This is where the word proscriptivist comes in handy. The classic proscriptivists may have a stable of prescriptions to fall back on but their motivation is in supressing usages other than those they use themselves.

 Originally Posted By: morphememedley
Dictionary.com: No results found for objectionist.


There's probably a lot of words of the form ROOT+ist that don't have primary entries.

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
D
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
D
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
When I was a prescriptivist I felt much as Hydra does about the semantic shift, which I call "smearing." After turning in my credentials and joining the de-'s, I still disapprove of the practice, preferring instead to coin a new word, though I no longer froth

A drive drive drive drive is the flight of a ball in a baseball game, the outcome of which results in an automobile trip by the all-time home-run champion to a venue in which culturally-acquired concern for the proliferation of a keychain semiconductor memory is sponsored through the profits of a lumber mill whose continued existence depends upon the legalization of dredging a shallow river intended to convey logs downstream for further processing


dalehileman
Faldage #177530 06/18/08 03:28 AM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 155
M
member
Offline
member
M
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 155
 Originally Posted By: Faldage
This is where the word proscriptivist comes in handy. The classic proscriptivists may have a stable of prescriptions to fall back on but their motivation is in supressing usages other than those they use themselves.


Then there are those who do not categorize themselves as prescriptivist or proscriptivist, and who may object to such categorization, who sustain certain usages and reject others ad hoc.

Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
oh, those folks are just bemused.

-joe (bebothered and bewildebeest) friday

tsuwm #177547 06/18/08 04:44 PM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 631
Hydra Offline OP
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 631
I've never paid all that much heed to the whole precriptivism vs descriptivism thing. I just try to use words accurately without getting too precious about it. But I do have a question for the latter camp:

Do you lot honestly accept the unintentional abuse and misuse of words without batting an eyelid? just smile magnanimously, saying to yourself: "I know what he means"? doesn't that take us all onto the slippery slope of Humpty-dumptyism?

Hydra #177549 06/18/08 05:17 PM
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Do you lot honestly accept the unintentional abuse and misuse of words without batting an eyelid? just smile magnanimously, saying to yourself: "I know what he means"? doesn't that take us all onto the slippery slope of Humpty-dumptyism?

Of course not, only the prescriptivist-damned, wild-eyed, anarchist, straw man descriptivist does that. But at the grammar maven end of the P to D spectrum, one finds all kinds of silly admonitions and ukases against many perfectly normal usages: e.g., split infinitives, preposition-ended sentences, which-that in non-restrictive-restrictive clauses, to decimate meaning to destroy. Most descriptive linguists whom I known are perfectly comfortable using Standard English and in correcting solecisms in student papers. They also don't come completely unhinged if somebody uses a perfectly grammatical ain't in informal varieties of the mother tongue, as many on the other side of the aisle do.

My real argument with the P-camp is how often they are just plain wrong in their explanations of how or why some usage or bit of grammar has come about. They use faulty logic, flights of fancy, or mistaken history to shore up their arbitrary condemnations of somebody's language. In these cases, I find myself shaking my head in disbelief: can somebody who alleges to cherish language so much but so clueless about it at such a fundamental level. One reason given, over and over again, is that "bad grammar" reduces the possibility of communication, but the thing being corrected is usually not only rather common, but oftentimes perfectly grammatically correct, and there is slight to no chance of ambiguity or misunderstanding.


Ceci n'est pas un seing.
Hydra #177554 06/19/08 12:24 AM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
 Originally Posted By: Hydra


Do you lot honestly accept the unintentional abuse and misuse of words without batting an eyelid?




I've lost count of how many times I've posted the link to this Language Log post on that subject.

On the other hand, almost everything that's said in English today is ungrammatical if you go back far enough in the history of the language. Humpty Dumpty is all of us and a word means what we all choose it to mean.

Faldage #177555 06/19/08 01:05 AM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 956
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 956
That was an interesting read, thanks for re-posting the link

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Jackie 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Statistics
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,399
Members9,182
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
Newest Members
Ineffable, ddrinnan, TRIALNERRA, befuddledmind, KILL_YOUR_SUV
9,182 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 299 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters(30 Days)
Top Posters
wwh 13,858
Faldage 13,803
Jackie 11,613
wofahulicodoc 10,577
tsuwm 10,542
LukeJavan8 9,922
AnnaStrophic 6,511
Wordwind 6,296
of troy 5,400
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site. Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.

Home | Today's Word | Yesterday's Word | Subscribe | FAQ | Archives | Search | Feedback
Wordsmith Talk | Wordsmith Chat

© 1994-2024 Wordsmith

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5