I know! I don't get it.

I feel like the less intuitive a well-known rule is, the more frightened people are of it.

People are so frightened of violating this rule and looking ignorant that they change it, whereas everybody knows plural agreement, so they aren't scared of having a program ignore it.

It is the same with split infinitives, passive voice, "avoid 'X and me'" hypercorrection

And who/whom

Thanks for fighting the good fight; too bad it was in vain this time.

I wonder why prescriptivism used to be much more prevalent than it used to be, and why linguists have universally turned their backs on it. They say that prescriptivist rule X is bad because it does not match real usage. I find something lacking in that argument.

Err *more prevalent than it is now

For one thing, it implies there is one right way to do a language, marginalizing anyone whose dialect strays from that way.

Standards are fine, but people should be aware of the arbitrariness of the standard form.

Also, many prescriptive rules are so unintuitive in the actual grammar, that even after a century or more of knowledge of the rule, people still aren't able to follow it; it still hasn't become part of the language.

Thirdly, they are totally unscientific, ignoring facts and saying that language must follow their own internal logic for the way things should be.

What is the point of a prescriptive rule that isn't part of the language?

Okay, decent arguments. But you need to draw the line between standard on the one hand and and what counts as prescriptivist rules on the other hand somewhere. What criteria could you use for the location of this line?

Usage statistics need a random threshold, should think...

*I

You again have to look at the facts. What is the situation, what is the audience, and what is the topic? What are the agreed upon standards for that particular situation?

But do you agree that there is always some arbitrariness in the distinction?

The distinction of what?

Of standards that seem warranted and those that seem unwarranted?

Standards that most linguists would consider warranted are ones that are or were at least prevalent in some dialect of the language.

Those that were never attested in any dialect are the ones that are a waste of time, and only serve to confuse people and make language harder for people to understand.

Okay, but you need to make choices as to which dialects to include, how prevalent the standard is, etc...

I am not saying that anything someone says in a dialect should be part of Standard English.

So what about seeing language partly as an aesthetic project, just as clothing and architecture, which are always striving after a balance between utility and beauty? I know this sounds a bit sentimental, but still...

I know that this falls out of the scope of linguistics. But, outside science, linguists are not exclusively linguists.

But it's not how language works.

Really? You do not believe language can be changed by conscious effort?

It's like an organism, you can do breeding to push it in certain directions, but you can't actually design your dog.

And it is much more difficult than breeding a dog, because you can't control the population like that.

People were learning the "don't strand prepositions" rule at school for decades. Did it ever stop it?

Nice metaphor. But this breeding does work, in various degrees. Consider the prejudice against whose inanimate. I don't like this particular rule, but a few prescriptivists have succeeded in giving it some currency.

Sure, it doesn't work very often, and it is only one of the many things that influence the development of a language.

Be right back.

What do you mean? It hasn't made any ground at all.

It hasn't become anything approaching dominant in any dialect of English at any time.

The really dangerous thing about prescriptive rules is the first thing I mentioned. It gets into people's heads the idea that there is a right way to do language.

But I see "of which" a lot in educated writing?

In places where I'd write "whose".

Can you give an example?

Do you want an actual quote or a made-up example?

Any example.

Ok let me think of one.

This is a car whose tire has gone flat -> This is a car of which the tire has gone flat?

Of all the cabinets, I was rather surprised that John chose the one of which the top drawer was broken.

Oh, yes, or that. I think "whose/of which" is more difficult to avoid as a sentence gets more complex and contains more clauses and of's.

Right. This hasn't taken hold in the language any more than the "don't strand prepositions" rule.

Sure, some people avoid it trying to sound educated... but they are going against instinct.

I didn't say it was dominant, I said "some currency": am I mistaken?

OK.

And it makes the sentence harder to understand for most people.

Agreed.

I wasn't defending this rule: in fact I don't like it at all

But if a handful of presciptivists get some people to go against their instinct, it works in a way, doesn't it?

I would consider it to have worked when it becomes intuitive/instinctive in future generations.

Okay, how about this:

This can happen, but the rules I consider "stupid" aren't the kind of ones that work.

I can give you an example that is changing the language.

Okay, bring it on.

So, recently it has become insensitive to use "he" as a generic pronoun.

Incidentally, I think descriptivist linguists are changing the language as well, perhaps in a more subtle way.

So people don't want to do it.

Right. It seems "they" singular has been used for centuries, or so I read.

Well, it has risen and fallen over the centuries

I am under the impression that it is on the rise in our century?

Yes.

Ok.

Do you believe that feminism has had anything to do with its latest rise?

But the reason he is falling out of use is because of a non-linguistically intrinsic, societal motivation.

OK.

I'd call that prescriptivism, yes.

Making gender-neutral he into a sort of a taboo is causing they to step in and fill the gap.

If you consider that to be prescriptivism, then there is a case that is significantly impacting the language — they could really be the only option after enough generations.

So how do you feel about that, subjectively?

Agreed, it is a strong case.

But at the same time, the language ultimately fills in this gap in a way you can't completely control

Feminists suggested brand new neutral pronouns, and they didn't take hold at all.

Subjectively, I am split. I don't think there is anything inherently inferior about they, so I don't mind going that direction.

On the other hand, he doesn't have anything inherently wrong with it either.

But overall, it's okay. I don't mind this change.

Another question. Suppose a prescriptivist rule that was hardly known outside educated circles. Suppose most of your friends considered it a sign of being educated and all such blah blah, even though they were sometimes struggling with it themselves. Would you teach this snobbish rule to your children, knowing that it might perhaps make small a difference to their social and professional prospects?

*a small difference, so a small but possibly significant one

Well, it depends on the rule. But certainly for some "educated" rules, I would teach my child that with the awareness of what it is and what its value is, much like the different way you present yourself at the workplace or at a job interview.

For example, the word data used to be plural, but these days most people treat it as a mass noun.

So in normal speech I would say "this is good data".

I would do the same. But merely telling your child that the rule was not based on science and that they should just make their own choice is a bit unfair in my opinion.

Not "make your own choice"

Know your audience and their expectations, and use your language wisely

Agreed.

I was raised to the saying that you need to know the rules before you can decide whether to break them.

Anyway, for data, I will use "the data are" in academic writing, simply because I know that some people might frown on "data is".

As a classicist, I think I am allowed this pedantry even in speech.

Or even during an academic talk actually, I will try to say "data are".

OK.

But at least data as plural has been attested in people's language.

Another interesting example:

Sometimes, it seems a bit unfair when I see linguists say "it's all fine" when they would stick to an exclusive rule themselves.

Well... no linguist would tell you "data is" is ungrammatical.

Most linguists I know would simply say "data is" is acceptable because most people say it, and leave it at that.

Well, yes, it is acceptable in almost every situation.

And it is never ungrammatical — just socially avoided in a certain context.

I like to give someone an estimate of the level of acceptance of several variants among several circles, though this is not always possible, because I might lack data.

This can be very useful.

But if someone asks advice for practical use, which I think is often the case, the social context should be part of answer - but I think you already agreed to that.

*the answer

If someone asks, say "is it okay for me to say 'where's the library at?'" I'm not going to say, "yes this is grammatical and so you should use it whenever you want, and anyone who things it sounds bad is an idiot."

Hehe, right.

I sometimes get the feeling that many linguists would say just that.

I think sometimes it comes off that way when people don't have their terminology squared away.

You mean as in "substandard"?

Standard/nonstandard vs. casual/formal vs. grammatical/ungrammatical

Right.

'Ungrammatical' means a very specific thing to a linguist. If something is ungrammatical, nobody would ever say it, unless they make the occasional one-off speech error.

And then you have people who enforce prescriptive rules often referred to as grammarians, so things get messy

I find it important to translate jargon to a practical context when possible. The merit of jargon is mostly conciseness; but it is fine to use more words if there is no lack of space or time.

I attempt to do so... I am just saying that if you have the impression that some linguists come off a certain way, it might be because they were sloppy about jargon that caused a misunderstanding.

Or weren't clear about the scope or context in some way.

True.

Are there expressions or words that you stopped using at a later age when you found out that some people objected to them?

Objected in what way?

Could be several ways: "ungrammatically", "discriminatory", "not done", etc...

I stopped saying "mint!" as an alternative for "awesome" when our family moved to a different part of the country, because people thought it sounded stupid.

Hehe good example.

But, for some reason, I refused to stop saying "soda" even though everyone in my new home said "pop".

I hated "pop".

I still hate "pop".

Pop... I don't think I have ever heard that.

I can imagine where it came from.

They say "pop" almost exclusively around the Great Lakes.

And down through Iowa and that area

I will remember that if I ever visit the New World.

And in the southern US, they say "coke"

Coke for any "sparkling" beverage?

Yes.

Odd.

I joke that the closer you are to the central offices of Coca-Cola, the more likely you are to say "coke" for everything

They are based in Atlanta.

Interesting... I imagine there is so much work to be done in dislects by linguists.

Haha OK.

Yes.

Check out this fascinating page sometime: popvssoda.com

I still think people are being too hard on prescriptivists.

I don't think so.

Because of the bad that comes from it.

Jesus! A cool map that is. The "other" dots are still quite frequent.

Now I am going to be mean: look at what non-prescriptivism did to your spelling and your measurements.

I wish Napoleon had had the courage to force upon us 20-hour days and 100-minute hours.

And 100-second minutes.

Well, measurements and spelling are a different thing. If you don't learn to spell or to measure, you won't know how to do it. But the only way to keep a person from becoming a native speaker in some language is to chain them up alone in a basement.

But for the metric system, I'll give you that — the US system is confusing.

Except for one thing. Our Fahrenheit measurement is better for weather, and I will hold that opinion until my last breath.

"Know how to do it": why is wrong spelling different from wrong grammar?

Like I said, language is something all cultures do everywhere. But for most of the existence of language, there were no writing systems. Most of the world's languages have no writing system.

Haha, well... I think the most important sharp boundary to be aware of is that between normal roads and horrific car accidents...

So you think prescriptivism is OK as long as it is limited to phenomena that exist only in writing?

Spelling is a calculated skill that you have to acquire through study.

So it is a synthetic thing already.

Hmm... but is equally vulnerable to snobism and useless rules...

So if someone says, "to" should be spelled differently from "too", there is nothing linguistic to fall back on to justify it or condemn it.

I snobism even a word?

It is if you said it! :)

Damn you.

Haha, actually I think the word is snobbishness.

I don't think linguistics has anything to say directly about practical rules in language. It only comes up to support or destroy argument used with rules.

*destroy the arguments

What do you mean by "practical rules"?

If I say that it is idiomatic to say "no friend of mine", it doesn't matter at all what linguistics have to say about it.

*has

Damn.

What is wrong with "no friend of mine"?

Nothing: it just cannot be either defended or attacked by linguistics, only described.

So linguistics is basically irrelevant when teaching or learning a rule, except to support or detract from an argument that supposedly supports a rule.

Well, I guess that is the same thing as saying that a biologist can't defend or attack a certain animal, and decide whether that animal is built right.

Exactly.

But it is because the "built right" question is meaningless.

But when a breeder thinks his dog is superior because it has a better-isolating fur, the biologist can confirm or deny that.

It is meaningless to biologists, but not to dog owners.

So it is not right for biologists to criticise dog owners for calling their dogs built right.

But the rules we are talking about are more like someone coming in and saying, "all birds should fly so, e.g. ostriches have something wrong with them."

Haha.

If prescriptivists make linguistic assertions, it is only his duty if a linguist corrects them.

But linguists have done a lot in the area of first and second language acquisition, in ways that make these educational systems better

for example.

Absolutely true.

In many cases, they are undoing damage done by prescriptivists.

But that doesn't mean that they don't teach anything prescriptive to language learners.

But I had a foreign friend who was taught "U" variants by his ESL instructor, and another, Dutch, friend of mine decided to correct him because he felt that a foreigner should learn only simple, standard language.

"U" variants?

As in U versus non-U.

university?

universal?

Upperclass: you know this article by Nancy Midford (sp?)? It exists in any language, I think.

I haven't heard of the term "U", although I don't do sociolinguistics. But I understand what you mean now.

I found the wikipedia article on it.

I am not saying everybody should learn it, absolutely not, it is not worth the trouble. But correcting someone for fear of being "abnormal" is not the way to go I think.

And I feel that that is also part of anti-prescriptivism.

Well, I think it would be your Dutch friend who is being prescriptive.

Indeed; but I think he felt he was being anti-prescriptivist because he thought the foreigner had been influenced by prescriptivism.

Oh I need to go, time to make dinner.

It depends on the whole story. If the person only learned the U-version, and wasn't made aware of the whole language, that's bad.

Okay, well, interesting discussion.

Maybe other people will happen across it and chime in.

No, the foreigner brought it up himself, because he knew exactly what he had been taught, and my hypocritical friend ridiculed him, even though he used most U variants himself.

Yes, that would be cool. It has been a please. Bye!

Bye!

*pleasure, arg.

Hello

grr..

Why does "Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" make sense?

Buffalo can be a noun for an animal, a place name (the city of Buffalo), and a verb ("to buffalo" = "to intimidate, to confuse"). The word for the animal also happens to look the same in the plural, i.e. buffalo. By using these different, but identical-looking forms in different places, you can construct a sentence using only the word "buffalo".

If I replace the uses of "buffalo" as an animal with "bison", and if I replace the verb "buffalo" with "confuse", it might help you to parse the original sentence.

First, let me say that you are missing a "buffalo" in your original sentence.

Now here is a version with replacements:

"Buffalo bison, (that) Buffalo bison confuse, confuse Buffalo bison.

Read more here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

Well, I see there has been no lack of definitive explanation in here.

That "buffalo" sentence doesn't even sound difficult to parse to me anymore, I've heard it so many times.

I think I once read it and gave up. Still a nice piece of work, in a way.