Completely unimportant language misuses that bug you

[Kyrell1978]

Too late, Kyrell and I are already duking it out in wellymittens on your chessboard.

I am certainly down.

[Tvtyrant]

Too late, Kyrell and I are already duking it out in wellymittens on your chessboard.

Wellymittens has a chequered past.

[Kyrell1978]

Wellymittens has a chequered past.

Do you think that wellymittens has rules?

[Tvtyrant]

Do you think that wellymittens has rules?

Sure but there are tons of houserules.

[Peelee]

It also depends on if you want High British rules or Common British rules.

[Jormengand]

Really, there's something ironic about a prescriptivist playing Wellymittens. But can you rudisplork at Wellymittens?

[Peelee]

Really, there's something ironic about a prescriptivist playing Wellymittens. But can you rudisplork at Wellymittens?

No. Please do not besmirch the honorable wellymittens.

[Bohandas]

Having a common reference of correct language is the only way descriptivism can even function, but descriptivists point to that common reference being meaningless if you can correct the errors on your end...using that supposedly meaningless common reference.

The correct usage is however most people currently speak. Prescriptivism fails and is incorrect when it prescribes a usage that nobody uses (generally either due to obsession with a foreign tongue or outmoded dialect, or else for socio-political reasons, with the last category generally being the most problematic)

[LeMooseImperium]

2/3/4/5/etc. pair of ___.

[Razade]

The issue I've always found with that kind of extreme descriptivist outlook is that most of the time your ability to suss out what the speaker SAID rather than what they meant directly correlates to your own facility with a language. The argument is essentially "I'm educated enough to recognize errors and auto-correct them, therefore the error is a non-issue", leaving out the fact that if EVERYONE just spoke as they wished and relied on others to guess their meaning, nobody would be able to understand each other.

Having a common reference of correct language is the only way descriptivism can even function, but descriptivists point to that common reference being meaningless if you can correct the errors on your end...using that supposedly meaningless common reference.

Except there are no "errors" because there's no right answer. Or at least, there's no wrong one insofar as what the public groupthink has accepted. If that changes, it changes. I think when a prescriptivist can point out exactly what "correct language" actually is, codify it and send it to everyone, they'll have proven their point but so far the silence is deafening. Meanwhile the fact that language changes, evolves and words and phrases die seem to indicate that there isn't some intrinsic meaning to the words we use and that language is a bunch of labels we slap on things and those labels change.

[Kyrell1978]

I think when a prescriptivist can point out exactly what "correct language" actually is, codify it and send it to everyone, they'll have proven their point but so far the silence is deafening.

It was the textbook in every English Class you ever took.

[Peelee]

It was the textbook in every English Class you ever took.

Five bucks says two different English textbooks have two different and conflicting rules.

[Kyrell1978]

Five bucks says two different English textbooks have two different and conflicting rules.

Of course you could get that if you manipulate the year of publication, the nation in which it was published, and other variables but the overlap is tremendous and the differences could well be considered outliers. A codified list was asked for, I provided one.

[Bohandas]

Plus the textbooks' rules are generally incorrect regardless, as they tend to not match the way people speak.

[Vinyadan]

Latin was a language spoken by a tiny group of people by consensus, then they forced other people to learn their consensus. The same woth Chinese, or any other language. The rules are organic and develop in small groups and through interacting with other small groups, then one takes over due to unrelated political and economic processes and becomes the defacto language. This is why the greatest language diversity is where a language originates, like English in England or German in Germany. Expansion areas are more uniform because the consensus was dictated by a smaller group to a larger.

I just wanted to notice that the Romans didn't really force Latin on others, otherwise it becomes unintelligible why the whole Eastern half kept its local languages and used Greek for the government and between different groups. Latin simply won great prestige in the West, and people found it very useful to learn it; just to make an example, for 100 years after its conquest, taxation in Gaul gave less resources than the ones Rome spent on its soldiers stationed in Gaul. Since Roman soldiers were very rich, compared to the locals, speaking Latin meant access to a new market. So we have inscriptions regarding the association of wine merchants of Lyon that supplied taverns filled with Roman soldiers, and it's likely that similar associations existed for products like clothes, pottery, and so on. The only case I know of regarding deliberate romanization was when Agricula offered Latin courses to the children of Briton chiefs.

The East however was very proud of its traditions and was also far richer than the West, which meant that it didn't need Latin to sell its goods, while Greek had massive prestige among both local and Roman elites, so it was much cooler to speak Greek than Latin.

[Knaight]

It was the textbook in every English Class you ever took.

The English language is somewhat bigger than a textbook - they can cover a small sample at best, and that's before getting into the various contradictions between said textbooks (which is hardly going to take deliberately manipulating variables).

[Kyrell1978]

The English language is somewhat bigger than a textbook - they can cover a small sample at best, and that's before getting into the various contradictions between said textbooks (which is hardly going to take deliberately manipulating variables).

The codified grammar rules are there. If you are looking for vocabulary then you need to add to that the Unabridged English Dictionary. Also, without manipulation you're not going to find nearly as many discrepancies as you might think. There will be some differences between dialects (English, American, Australian, Etc.) but the actual grammar rules are pretty standard (even between dialects), just like there are some slight differences in the Spanish spoken in South America, Central America and Spain; however, the grammar rules apply to all of the dialects.

[Peelee]

Of course you could get that if you manipulate the year of publication, the nation in which it was published, and other variables but the overlap is tremendous and the differences could well be considered outliers. A codified list was asked for, I provided one.

I contend that two books published in the same year, in the same region, by authors in the same circles and with equivalent degrees, could have contradicting rules on basic grammatical structure, such as whether or not a sentence could end in a preposition.

Professors can't even agree on how a math textbook should be laid out, English simply has no chance at textbook consistency.

[Knaight]

The codified grammar rules are there. If you are looking for vocabulary then you need to add to that the Unabridged English Dictionary. Also, without manipulation you're not going to find nearly as many discrepancies as you might think. There will be some differences between dialects (English, American, Australian, Etc.) but the actual grammar rules are pretty standard (even between dialects), just like there are some slight differences in the Spanish spoken in South America, Central America and Spain; however, the grammar rules apply to all of the dialects.

Which unabridged dictionary - they also routinely conflict? More than that any term that have that also exists as technical jargon will conflict with said technical jargon, and technical jargon that doesn't match common jargon is likely to simply be omitted. Again, the language is bigger and more complex than you'll get in a couple of books.

What this can get is a particularly complex pidgin language based on English. Said pidgin language is obviously a pale shadow of actual English, deeply lacking in functionality.

[Yuki Akuma]

The point at which English becomes a language that prescriptivist linguists can classify and dissect to come up with a perfect set of rules for every useage case will be the point at which nobody speaks English any more.

Prescriptivism applied to a living language is nonsense. Go learn Latin if you want to tell people they're speaking it wrong.

[Rynjin]

The point at which English becomes a language that prescriptivist linguists can classify and dissect to come up with a perfect set of rules for every useage case will be the point at which nobody speaks English any more.

Prescriptivism applied to a living language is nonsense. Go learn Latin if you want to tell people they're speaking it wrong.

wrong are pointless. is linguistic right answer! serve rules no you there purpose not

[Yuki Akuma]

wrong are pointless. is linguistic right answer! serve rules no you there purpose not

Nice straw man you built there! That'll keep the crows off your crops, for sure.

Okay now that I've gotten that snark out of my system: there is a difference between the ideals "English has no rules and it's pointless to apply any ever" and "rigid prescriptivism is nonsense because the way people talk changes every day to fit all sorts of different situations".

[2D8HP]

It was the textbook in every English Class you ever took.

I don't remember any grammar rules in any textbooks I had (Berkeley Unified School District, California in the 1970's and '80's).

Can you recommend one?

[Razade]

It was the textbook in every English Class you ever took.

I was just talking about definitions of words, not grammar or anything like that but since you wanted to take it there. Others have already pointed out that grammar isn't agreed upon even in basic textbooks, I don't think I need to demonstrate further how fatuous the comment was but let's take for instance the gender neutral They. When I was in school I learned that when you're referring to a single person whose gender you don't know that instead of using He you should use They.

That was in middle school. When I went to high school I was marked off for that because They isn't singular (it can be), it's plural. I was then told to use "he" when I wasn't certain the gender of the speaker/intended person. Or It.

Grammar in the English language isn't codified in any lawful way any more than saying "pass out" instead of "go to sleep" is regulated. Language is a living thing and it evolves alongside culture. It's lkike trying to make pure breed dogs. Sure they look nice but they'll die out in time from inbreeding. Perscriptivism is to language what the AKC is to canines.

[Yuki Akuma]

Perscriptivism is to language what the AKC is to canines.

This is great. 10/10

[Kyrell1978]

I contend that two books published in the same year, in the same region, by authors in the same circles and with equivalent degrees, could have contradicting rules on basic grammatical structure, such as whether or not a sentence could end in a preposition.

Professors can't even agree on how a math textbook should be laid out, English simply has no chance at textbook consistency.

I have never had an English (or Spanish for that matter) textbook flat out contradict and earlier textbook, I have had them go into more depth and show a more nuanced rule than previously taught. Using your example of prepositions, ending a sentence in a preposition is wrong in formal academic writing (it still is) so they teach you to not do that. Later, when the curriculum gods decide that you are ready to learn that there are nuanced levels of formality in language, they then teach you that it is okay in some circumstances to use, but not in others. Also, yes the rules have changed over time, and some of that is necessary, but to insist (as some on here are) that rules don't matter whatsoever ( i.e. "there are no "errors" because there's no right answer") is intellectually dishonest.

[Razade]

Can I also point out the absolute hilarity in pointing to text books (which are created and published by committee and then approved of and disseminated by committee at least here in the US) as an argument against the motion that language is wholly created by, and enforced by, committee?

Hell, the argument about the comma before an and is still raging with no end in sight other than the cop out "you do you boo".

I have never had an English (or Spanish for that matter) textbook flat out contradict and earlier textbook, I have had them go into more depth and show a more nuanced rule than previously taught. Using your example of prepositions, ending a sentence in a preposition is wrong in formal academic writing (it still is) so they teach you to not do that. Later, when the curriculum gods decide that you are ready to learn that there are nuanced levels of formality in language, they then teach you that it is okay in some circumstances to use, but not in others. Also, yes the rules have changed over time, and some of that is necessary, but to insist (as some on here are) that rules don't matter whatsoever ( i.e. "there are no "errors" because there's no right answer") is intellectually dishonest.

Well since I said it, I'd hate to be called a liar on the internet. You reading into that statement (there are no errors because there's no right answer) doesn't mean that you can use language however you like. Everyone else seemed to have understood what I meant by that. I could be pithy and point out the irony there as well but I think I've been sarcastic enough. I meant, since there is no right answer. There is no intrinsic rightness to using a comma before an and or not, that doing so within the bounds of accepted parlance isn't "wrong" any more than not doing so is "right".

The rules of language are made up and the points don't matter.

[Yuki Akuma]

Oh hey there's a "completely unimportant language misuse that bugs me": the idea that you shouldn't end a sentence with a reposition is simply nonsense I will not put up with. What is that rule even for? There's no impact on the meaning if you put a preposition there. You know exactly what I'm saying, and I've ended every single sentence in this post with a preposition! Except that (and also this).

[Rockphed]

I contend that two books published in the same year, in the same region, by authors in the same circles and with equivalent degrees, could have contradicting rules on basic grammatical structure, such as whether or not a sentence could end in a preposition.

Professors can't even agree on how a math textbook should be laid out, English simply has no chance at textbook consistency.

My department at university changed textbooks for about 5 years and then changed back because, among other things, they didn't like how the new textbook was formatted.

[2D8HP]

I was just talking about definitions of words, not grammar or anything like that but since you wanted to take it there. Others have already pointed out that grammar isn't agreed upon even in basic textbooks, I don't think I need to demonstrate further how fatuous the comment was but let's take for instance the gender neutral They. When I was in school I learned that when you're referring to a single person whose gender you don't know that instead of using He you should use They.

That was in middle school. When I went to high school I was marked off for that because They isn't singular (it can be), it's plural. I was then told to use "he" when I wasn't certain the gender of the speaker/intended person. Or It.

Grammar in the English language isn't codified in any lawful way any more than saying "pass out" instead of "go to sleep" is regulated. Language is a living thing and it evolves alongside culture. It's lkike trying to make pure breed dogs. Sure they look nice but they'll die out in time from inbreeding. Perscriptivism is to language what the AKC is to canines.

You're right @ Razade and that's a problem with English.

I think the solution c'est pour nous de parler français et obéir à l'académie!