Interesting video on language

[Cow Poke]

Oh, he delved deeper into language than that.

Also interesting that you imagine there's alot of difference between the written and spoken word.

There most certainly can be when we are writing formally, like doing a term paper or dissertation or something.
But every day language is often way different than how we write.

Maybe that's the problem - she assumes that because we are "writing" here - it must be "term paper quality", though many of us write (here) more like we talk in normal conversation.

[Cow Poke]

As it was primarily dealing with the spoken word, including forms of what are often considered incorrect usage e.g. "of" instead have, "aks" and ask as well as pronunciation e.g. covert, coVert, COvert, not really a great deal. It is correct that language cannot be preserved unchanged as the French Academy has tried to do, but when it comes to purely written communication language has to be clear and accurate because the additions of tone, inflection, body language are not present.

And uppity ferrerners need to stop pretending they know more about our language than us here native speakers.

[Ronson]

Instead, descriptive linguistics acknowledges that language evolves naturally over time, with new words, meanings, and usages emerging in response to the needs and practices of its users.

A recent example is use of the word "nauseous". I was taught in school to never say "I'm nauseous" because it was basically the same as saying "I'm nauseating," and that was not my meaning. So, I avoided that and always said "I'm nauseated".

However, come to find in recent years that the improper usage was so widespread that it has become the norm. Now I can say "I'm nauseous" without implying that I make people throw up!

nauseous.jpg

[Mountain Man]

There most certainly can be when we are writing formally, like doing a term paper or dissertation or something.
But every day language is often way different than how we write.

Maybe that's the problem - she assumes that because we are "writing" here - it must be "term paper quality", though many of us write (here) more like we talk in normal conversation.

The fact is you dont evn need propper speling or corect grammer 2 sucessfuly cunvay a specifik idea.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

From a descriptive standpoint, it's important to recognize that language is a dynamic and ever-changing system, shaped by the usage of its speakers rather than fixed rules. While it's true that written communication lacks the nuances of spoken language such as tone and body language, this does not imply a need for strict adherence to prescriptive rules in writing. Instead, descriptive linguistics acknowledges that language evolves naturally over time, with new words, meanings, and usages emerging in response to the needs and practices of its users.

Considerations of "correct" or "incorrect" usage in language are often based on arbitrary standards that may not reflect the full diversity of linguistic expression. Variations like "of" instead of "have" or the pronunciation of words like "covert" in different ways are examples of the natural variation and creativity inherent in language.

While clarity and accuracy are important in communication, descriptive linguistics suggests that these can be achieved through an understanding of how language is used in context, rather than through rigid adherence to prescriptive rules. This approach allows for a more inclusive and holistic view of language, recognizing and celebrating its diversity and adaptability.

More Googling.

[CivilDiscourse]

More Googling.

Irrelevant statement, googled or not, it doesn't change the point.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The fact is you dont evn need propper speling or corect grammer 2 sucessfuly cunvay a specifik idea.

The grammar in your example is quite correct, only the spelling is non standard. However, the meaning of what you wrote remains perfectly clear.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Irrelevant statement, googled or not, it doesn't change the point.

New words and meanings are not the issue. Written language has to be clear and understandable otherwise there is little point in writing. Mountain Man's example showed that. Yes the spelling is non standard but what he wrote is perfectly understandable. The same applies to Geoffrey Willan's character Nigel Molesworth.




'

[Mountain Man]

The grammar in your example is quite correct, only the spelling is non standard. However, the meaning of what you wrote remains perfectly clear.

grammer propper neaded is not

[CivilDiscourse]

New words and meanings are not the issue. Written language has to be clear and understandable otherwise there is little point in writing. Mountain Man's example showed that. Yes the spelling is non standard but what he wrote is perfectly understandable. The same applies to Geoffrey Willan's character Nigel Molesworth.




'

No, it IS the issue. More oftener than not your grammar nazi'ism on this forums tends tobe only an issue of you trying to inject confusion into an issue that is clearly understood by others. Clarity is often NOT achieved by your behavior, and instead distraction and derailment is. Your grammar nazi tendencies do more harm than good, and actually interfere with communication rather than improve it.

Its why I set boundaries on you when it came to the "definition game" you used to play (you stopped doing it after the boundary was set. That boundary required you to provide a good faith attempt at using context and intuition to determine the correct definition BEFORE any request for clarification would be entertained. Why? Because answering a question of "When you say <X> do you mean <Y>?" can further productive communication. If <Y> is off slightly, I can clarify my definition and move forward. If <Y> is accurate, we can move forward. Simply saying "What do you mean by <X>" just leads to a derailment, and I'll note, you rarely if ever tried the good faith approach. Confirming to many that your requests for definitions were not actually attempts at clarification but instead just distractions.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

grammer propper neaded is not

Even with the mis-spellings Yodaspeak remains comprehensible.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No, it IS the issue. More oftener than not your grammar nazi'ism on this forums tends tobe only an issue of you trying to inject confusion into an issue that is clearly understood by others. Clarity is often NOT achieved by your behavior, and instead distraction and derailment is. Your grammar nazi tendencies do more harm than good, and actually interfere with communication rather than improve it.

Its why I set boundaries on you when it came to the "definition game" you used to play (you stopped doing it after the boundary was set. That boundary required you to provide a good faith attempt at using context and intuition to determine the correct definition BEFORE any request for clarification would be entertained. Why? Because answering a question of "When you say <X> do you mean <Y>?" can further productive communication. If <Y> is off slightly, I can clarify my definition and move forward. If <Y> is accurate, we can move forward. Simply saying "What do you mean by <X>" just leads to a derailment, and I'll note, you rarely if ever tried the good faith approach. Confirming to many that your requests for definitions were not actually attempts at clarification but instead just distractions.

I ceased asking your for definitions because it was a waste of time. You prefer to be vague which prevents anyone pinning you down on your usage.

[Mountain Man]

Even with the mis-spellings Yodaspeak remains comprehensible.

point exactly my

[CivilDiscourse]

I ceased asking your for definitions because it was a waste of time. You prefer to be vague which prevents anyone pinning you down on your usage.

Given that you rarely, if ever, attempted to provide good faith effort as requested, It seems to me that the most likely explanation is that you found your "game" no longer worked. The "best" effort you gave was to simply give the three dictionary definitions of "opinion" in a discussion of censorship, one of which was the legal term, and was obviously through context of the discussion not relevant to the discussion, showing that you weren't actually making a real good faith effort at using context to understand.

As pointed out many times, you are often focused on irrelevant definitions, at the expense of the larger picture. If someone called 911 and complained that an 18-wheeler had overturned and was causing a pileup, you would be insisting that they focus instead on the fact that "Actually, the truck only had 16 wheels, not 18." That sort of behavior does not clarify communication, or further resolution. It creates confusion over an issue that is irrelevant. Its why Rule #1 is never assume that you are posting in good faith. You've shown time and time again, that you frequently post in bad faith.

[Sparko]

I ceased asking your for definitions because it was a waste of time. You prefer to be vague which prevents anyone pinning you down on your usage.

"I ceased asking you for definitions"

y/w