• riodoro1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    1 year ago

    I do partially agree but making the language less and less expressive because some individuals can’t or won’t learn simple rules is harming for everybody else.

      • FMT99@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        62
        ·
        1 year ago

        You just had to footnote your one line comment because of language erosion. Take that as you will.

        • Mario_Dies.wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          1 year ago

          You just had chose to footnote your one line comment because of language erosion writer’s autonomy

          Nice try. Fun fact: Language prescriptivism is at best classist, at worst white nationalist behavior. Take that as you will, and have fun on my blocklist.

          • FMT99@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            44
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Wow that’s quite the abrasive response to an off the cuff remark. Have a nice life.

            Still it will be hard to break to my mixed race kids that their dad is a secret white nationalist.

          • pimento64@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            1 year ago

            Descriptivism is a vestige of pre-industrial society. Prescriptivism is a necessity of universal literacy. Language evolves over time, and one of the ways in which it evolves is how it evolves. Also, if you believe in linguistic descriptivism, you are also required to believe in a descriptivist system of weights and measures, or vice versa, or you’re a hypocrite. Thank you for attending my TED talk, I am not taking questions.

          • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            People hate when you say this but you’re right, prescriptivism is a fucking disgusting practice and anyone who supports it needs to take a long hard look at the rest of their opinions and why they hold them.

      • bleistift2@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        39
        ·
        1 year ago

        Rules in languages serve the same purpose as standards in engineering. Sure, you don’t have to follow them. And if you want your home’s piping to use 81/13 inch diameters, knock yourself out. But it’s a pain for everyone who will ever be involved with that mess. And a lot of people are involved in your choice of words and grammar.

          • Cylusthevirus@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            1 year ago

            When it comes to grammar and syntax it makes sense though. Common rules help us understand each other.

            Except that we’re talking about individual words here. It’s not as if we’re saying verbs are over now or that all sentences have to be all “Shaka, when the walls fell” or something.

            You could have made that point without being rude towards the entirety of the STEM community, but chose not to.

          • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re in a discussion about language but unable to navigate analogy? Or even just be civil and engage in a respectful manner? Maybe sit this one out.

        • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They don’t though, because my sentence doesn’t collapse and kill several dozen people if I don’t use the oxford comma

      • Primarily0617@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        you’re literally making their point for them by (deliberately) misinterpreting what they meant by “harm” in a way that wouldn’t be possible if the language was more expressive

    • Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      Normally I say the “usage defines meaning” argument is flimsy at best and actively encourages misuse that ultimately limits the ability for precision and nuance in language. ‘Since’ isn’t causal, ‘because’ (as one can guess) is. “I’ve been sick since Thursday” means one thing, “I’ve been dice because of Thursday” means a different thing.

      But then an old farmer will tell you a story about needing to buy some rubbers because they’re getting into their tranny and I think, “those words don’t mean that to me.”

      • Sorchist@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d say that having three different words for “because” increases nuance. As the link to merriam-webster’s article pointed out, you get a nuance of formality between “because” and “as”; “as” is somewhat more formal. I’m not sure if there’s another nuance between “because” and causal “since” but smart money is on there being one (if you survey the use of the two I bet you will find there are very subtle differences of usage there – there almost always are nuances of difference between supposedly synonymous words, even if they’re only differences like level of formality).

        • bleistift2@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Since reading your comment I’ve noted that I don’t use since and because interchangably. I believe because puts emphasis on the reason, while the main focus when using since still lays on the thing being explained.

          “I take the left here, since that route is shorter.” – (Slight) stress on the first part, the latter is “just” a justification.

          – “Why do you take the right when the left route is shorter?” – “I don’t take the left because it is shorter.” Stress on the last part, it’s the main point of that sentence.

      • lugal@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        the “usage defines meaning” argument is flimsy at best

        So what else does? I never understood how you can reason the objective meaning of a bunch of phonemes. If usage doesn’t define meaning, you can look up the meaning in a dictionary. But if it’s a good dictionary, it deduces the meaning of the word by its usage. There is ultimately no other way.

        • Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          But then a good dictionary is ultimately personal, contextual, regional, and ephemeral, making it ultimately useless.

          I will never recognise ‘suposably’ as a proper English word. But my children might, and so to their children, until it universally is a correct, proper word. That’s the scope of the tide of language.

          Its a necessary battle between the old ways and the new, one that I know I am ever drifting to the wrong side of. When some people use the word wrong, they are wrong. When everyone uses the word wrong, they are right. The old guard dies and the new gaurd rises.

          • lugal@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well put. That’s not to say that dictionaries are useless. I use them alot but not in my native language since that’s where I know the words. In English, which is my second language, dictionaries are close enough to help me around most of the times. It’s like a map. The map isn’t useless because a new road is build or a cabin is no more. You can still use the map but don’t trust it over reality.

    • lugal@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not that language on a whole gets less and less expressive. Some things are more expressive, like youth language often is. Borrowing words from other languages makes a language more expressive. And even in this case: you can still say “because”. I don’t see any harm done, except in shaming people because their dialect is wRonG and less sophisticated and therefore they are less than.