this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2024
732 points (96.0% liked)

Science Memes

10271 readers
2782 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 89 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

OP did you put a typo in your title to bait the prescriptivists?

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 101 points 3 weeks ago

.... Yes, I am totally that clever. 👀

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 9 points 3 weeks ago
[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 5 points 3 weeks ago

Could it be a pun on perception?

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 79 points 3 weeks ago (19 children)

they make terrible linguists too.

[–] ohwhatfollyisman@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

they should aim for "cunning" instead of "terrible".

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] SkyNTP@lemmy.ml 59 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I think there is a very fine line between prescribing language because of a world view that insists on conformity, and correcting grammer and vocabulary because being clear and understood is kinda the point of language.

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 29 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

I don't think it's that hard, the line is mainly "is this hard to understand?" If yes then correcting or discussing it is not prescriptivism, if no, then you're just being pedantic

Just take texting or internet comments for example, how many are missing punctuation? How many are using slang terms or shortenings of words? How many are straight up omitting/skipping words? How many are making liberal use of language to either express themselves or have some emotional impact? Or just don't put in the effort to do grammar

After all, I miss punctuation in this very comment as well, especially at the end of paragraphs, in addition to skipping words or making liberal use of language like "do grammar". Is that grammatically correct? Absolutely not, but you understand what I mean

Assuming informal communication, of course. Formal communication is more about being proper, and ties into cultural norms of formality etc

[–] SkyNTP@lemmy.ml 19 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

"Hard to understand?" Is a question more complex than it might appear on the surface. There are obvious examples of ambiguity in speech which lead to complete misunderstanding.

But "hard to understand?" may also satisfy the criteria of "effort to understand". Just because a message was understood does not mean the audience was able to hear it effortlessly. And that boils down to consideration.

It's a two way street. Correcting mistakes because of apparent lack of effort is probably not warranted, but a speaker is not entitled to a happy audience either

As with many online feuds, I think a lot of these problems typically arise because of a lack of operating under the assumption others are acting in good faith.

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If course, ultimately language is about (efficient) communication. And as long as that is satisfied, grammar is secondary. Like if there is ambiguity, asking for clarification is very much not pedantic

There is of course some nuance and leeway, but I still think it's fairly obvious where the line goes

But ultimately, yes, language is nuanced and constantly evolving, it's very neat though

[–] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

See, I could understand you just find despite you writing "If course", but if you try to say to me that is not a mistake simply because I could understand you, I cannot at all agree with your logic of what makes it the language "correct".

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago

I never said it makes the language "correct", more that language is fluid and there's no need to correct people

Unless a typo or spelling mistake is so common it becomes widely used, it's fair to say it's just a mistake

[–] thurmite@lemm.ee 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I know this is, like, counter to your argument, which I fully agree with, but… I am triggered by the lack of periods at the end of your paragraphs.

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

However, when you put periods at the end of stuff like text messages, it sounds almost passive aggressive, doesn't it?

It's the difference between

"Okay"

And

"Okay."

[–] thurmite@lemm.ee 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh definitely. Context is everything.

Imagine getting hit with “K.”

[–] srestegosaurio@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 weeks ago

I always punctuate everything and most people think I'm just angry. It's not that I'm a prescriptivist, I just take it as a game.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I agree completely and have nothing to add, but I felt compelled to put my username under both of yours.

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 3 weeks ago

Skyes unite

[–] luciole@beehaw.org 34 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

Prescriptivists: don't use that word, it's not in the Dictionary. It doesn't exist.

People working for Dictionary: new words? Yeah we pick whatever people say or write.

[–] sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz 19 points 3 weeks ago

Oxford English Dictionary: -adds a slang term or portmanteau in common use for years by millions of people in order to reflect the linguistic zeitgeist-

Prescriptivists: 🤬NO🤬SLANG🤬IN🤬DICTIONARY🤬

Prescriptivists from the 1800s: 🤬NO🤬USING🤬"ZEITGEIST"🤬OUTSIDE🤬PHILOSOPHY🤬

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Default_Defect@midwest.social 19 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, but loose instead of lose and too in place of to is annoying. As well as using apostrophe's on word's that end in S's that aren't possessive.

[–] Fleur__@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

I thinc u kare abowt this to much

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Why would anyone want rules and consistent applications of those rules? ANYONE could just learn any language that way. How would we keep our ability to communicate for native speakers only? It doesn't make sense.

[–] candybrie@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

You can want it all you want. It's just not reality. And pretending like it is isn't helpful to people trying to learn the language.

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

We don't have to be silly with descriptivism either. Of course languages evolve over time, but speakers also make mistakes that should still be corrected to keep language cohesive. It's the difference between change in body shape from evolution, and an isolated growth that probably shouldn't exist. We use a different word for that second one: cancer.

You gotta have both IMO. Not too rigid, not too flexible.

[–] Themadbeagle@lemm.ee 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I really hate the idea of saying corrected in this context. There is really no right and wrong in language iself. Standardized language is not some "correct" way to speak, but a common guide to try to help an individual be understood by more people. Someone not following standard is not wrong, just maybe difficult to comprehend due to not following convention. I think in one off mistakes that are hard to understand, it is better to thinking in terms of asking for clarification. In more consistent problems of understanding, I think explaining (which is not the same as correcting) to them a more conventional way of speaking to easy future communication is the best path.

Also equating individuals unique linguistic quirks to cancer is gross.

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

You can pick a word besides ”correct" but it means sort of the same thing either way: we are moving individual variations of language toward the collective standard.

Languages all have categories of words, general rules for how those categories are applied, exceptions to the rules, and idiomatic parts to name a few. Misconjugating a word is not evolution of language, it is a mistake. Mismatching count is also a mistake. Mixing direct and indirect object pronouns is a mistake. The risk is not "i don't understand you", it is rather that I did understand you, but what I understand is not what you mean. You can call it a "unique linguistic quirk", but if it leads to people misunderstanding you it's a mistake. And yeah, pushing mistakes under a rug of " it's descriptivism" is just as gross as any allegory to runaway cell growth.

If everyone understands you and its not a perfectly grammatically correct construction and lots of people start to use it, sure this is evolution of language. Every deviation is not that.

[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

In one sense, native speakers literally can't make mistakes (unless they're drunk/tired or stumble over a word or something like that). For example, misconjugation is not a mistake-- it could just mean that the word wasn't popular enough in their dialect to have a rigid conjugation, so usually this means that an irregular verb is falling out of use. A verb like abide is uncommon enough that its past participle form abidden has fallen out of use, and the simple past abode also has the acceptable abided, mostly because not enough people use it to maintain the same conjugations. So in a certain group of people with the same dialect, using abode is actually less effective at communicating than abided (I had to look up the conjugation for this, as I'd never heard abode outside the noun meaning home).

As for the direct and indirect pronouns (I assume you mean subject vs object pronouns), natives often use different pronouns in coordination (using an "and" to join two pronouns) than they would alone. It's very common to hear "jim and me went to the store" whereas only a tiny fraction of those speakers would say "me went to the store". Although no one would misunderstand (like they might with the verb conjugation above) a "jim and me" vs "jim and I", people can hear the difference in register, and in certain situations a less formal register is more appropriate than informal. This doesn't make those speakers wrong, and I don't think it even changes the communicated meaning, as you said with "what I understand is not what you mean."

Because no one has ownership of what's absolutely correct, a lot of this stuff falls under the purview of register, and therefore we have prestige dialects. So language "mistakes" just become another way to separate classes of people, because for a long period of history the only people with any power sounded one way, and they decided it sounded "better" than what other people sounded like. Those distinctions are less rigid these days, but I don't think we can say they've gone away entirely.

As an aside, if you'd like to discuss countable vs mass nouns, I had a bit of a dive into those when I tried to teach them to an EFL class and I'm still not sure how to explain a lot about certain aspects of the topic, but things weren't nearly as simple as I thought before I started talking about it at the front of the classroom.

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So you understood most of what I meant, but we missed slightly. I agree that irregular verbs might be misconjugated or that they may tend back toward regular conjugations (see for example "to plead" in the legal sense, or "to hang" in the execution sense), but I specifically meant mismatched count. As a stickler, I would sometimes put lack of use of subjunctive or adding it unnecessarily (though the second is pretty uncommon) in the realm of a mistake but that could be because I like it and hate to see it fall out of use.

Also yes that's what I was meaning for indirect and direct object pronouns (to/for whom vs who, or maybe more simply him/her/me vs he/she/I). Here you could also include "myself" or "themselves" or the slightly less natural sounding "themself". I was trying to craft an example of creating a misunderstanding in English but it didn't work as well as it does in Spanish for example where you can accidentally create reflexive verbs with a different meaning. I suppose though you are right: these are not mistakes a native speaker can really make because they have the knowledge that the word is changing.

For countability, I assume you mean the question of less vs fewer, and when you might pluralize words like ”water" and when you don't. That is indeed an interesting topic.

Prestige dialects are not an example of a direction I would like to go, but as a counter I really appreciate that French DOES have the French academy to decide what is proper and what is not.

Im an American, I only speak one language natively because there's not exactly a variety of spoken languages in the Midwest. Since high school though I've been "collecting" languages though and am passably conversant in a few. My wife's extended family is all in France so French has been an important skill to develop. For me, the fact is that "deviations" from the book usually result in losing track of the meaning or losing track of the conversation. English is already hard enough without adding even more irregularity, so I tend to lean in on being precise and I think it's a worthwhile effort. It is a real source of stress when the shoe is on the other foot.

[–] homicidalrobot@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago

avion gros porteur

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] beefbot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 3 weeks ago

Upvote for the perscurptivist spelling, lawl

load more comments
view more: next ›