Linguistics thread

This is our main forum. Here, anything related to languages and linguistics can be discussed.

Moderator:Forum Administrators

vijayjohn
Language Forum Moderator
Posts:27056
Joined:2013-01-10, 8:49
Real Name:Vijay John
Gender:male
Location:Austin, Texas, USA
Country:USUnited States (United States)
Contact:
Re: Linguistics thread

Postby vijayjohn » 2017-03-23, 0:55

Car wrote:That really isn't the right thread for it.

I'm afraid I don't see why not. I was simply expressing an opinion in the context of an ensuing discussion, on this thread, that was already about both politics and linguistics.
Like I said, they're not rare, just not that easy.

It's not until this quote that you used the words "not rare" (or "not that easy"), and I don't understand how you can say that deporting people from Germany is both "very difficult" and "not rare."
Yasna wrote:It's a huge political issue in Germany. Neglect it and you will face the ire of the electorate. And multiply that ire by 2 if a major terror attack is carried out by some refugees.

I know that. But I'm inclined to agree with md0 that that doesn't mean you should use this approach. I am concerned that not only will this approach not actually work, but also it will end up hurting both Germany and the refugees more than it will help either of them.

User avatar
Car
Forum Administrator
Posts:10953
Joined:2002-06-21, 19:24
Real Name:Silvia
Gender:female
Country:DEGermany (Deutschland)
Contact:

Re: Linguistics thread

Postby Car » 2017-03-23, 12:39

dEhiN wrote:
Car wrote:That really isn't the right thread for it.

It sounds better to me if you say "this (thread) really...". That made me assume you meant something in perhaps another thread or referred to some time ago, which in turn confused me for a little bit.

Thanks. We don't really make use of that distinction in German. Even though I know better, it somehow slipped into my English.

vijayjohn wrote:
Car wrote:That really isn't the right thread for it.

I'm afraid I don't see why not. I was simply expressing an opinion in the context of an ensuing discussion, on this thread, that was already about both politics and linguistics.
Like I said, they're not rare, just not that easy.

It's not until this quote that you used the words "not rare" (or "not that easy"), and I don't understand how you can say that deporting people from Germany is both "very difficult" and "not rare."

Because the process takes some time and they can appeal etc. Many who actually have to leave get to stay (even if they aren't granted asylum), but even though the number who actually get deported isn't that high compared to the number that should have to leave, it's still too much to qualify them as rare. Then you also have those who leave voluntarily after not being given asylum, which is encouraged, also financially. They also passed some new laws to make deportations easier. It's a lot more complex than that, though.

For starters you could read some of the articles here (although that category also includes articles about the US) and other German news sources also have specials like that.
Please correct my mistakes!

vijayjohn
Language Forum Moderator
Posts:27056
Joined:2013-01-10, 8:49
Real Name:Vijay John
Gender:male
Location:Austin, Texas, USA
Country:USUnited States (United States)
Contact:

Re: Linguistics thread

Postby vijayjohn » 2017-03-25, 3:05

Fataluku, a Papuan language spoken in East Timor, and Oirata, a closely related language I've been learning that's spoken on a nearby island, apparently have consonant mutations. That reminds me of Celtic languages.

IpseDixit

Re: Linguistics thread

Postby IpseDixit » 2017-03-29, 10:14

Almost every time I criticize a strict prescriptivist viewpoint on grammar on social media, I get a reply from someone written with a broken spelling, I guess with the intent of making me realize that what I'm advocating is idiotic / unfeasible or something of the sort (the funny thing is that I always understand them perfectly). I'm never quite sure what to reply though, usually I get baffled by their inability to distinguish grammar and orthography, moreover I've never really thought about what descriptivists think of spelling. Any suggestions?

User avatar
Vlürch
Posts:943
Joined:2014-05-06, 8:42
Gender:male
Location:Roihuvuori, Helsinki
Country:FIFinland (Suomi)

Re: Linguistics thread

Postby Vlürch » 2017-03-29, 11:49

IpseDixit wrote:Almost every time I criticize a strict prescriptivist viewpoint on grammar on social media, I get a reply from someone written with a broken spelling, I guess with the intent of making me realize that what I'm advocating is idiotic / unfeasible or something of the sort (the funny thing is that I always understand them perfectly). I'm never quite sure what to reply though, usually I get baffled by their inability to distinguish grammar and orthography, moreover I've never really thought about what descriptivists think of spelling. Any suggestions?

I don't think most people think about what they write at all, especially English-speakers. But if you criticise prescriptivism and get replies like that, I wonder what would happen if you wrote something about how the vast majority of people, including highly educated experts, don't have a clue about what correct grammar and spelling are... :twisted:

Anyway, my personal view on the matter is that objectively there is a strict objective definition of what's correct and incorrect when it comes to both grammar and orthography regardless of what the language in question is, but whether being grammatically correct is socially correct or not is a completely different matter that depends on the context and varies by language.

For example, when I go on Omegle or other chat sites, simply using punctuation and capitalisation often causes people to complain about how "stuck-up" or "formal" or whatever I am. But if the other person is also using punctuation and capitalisation, that doesn't happen, and I'm pretty sure that anyone posting something like "im sry lol but u guise r to formal pls get foked" here would be instructed to at least use punctuation and capitalisation, and have their misspellings and grammar corrected; this would probably happen on most forums regardless of whether they're linguistics-related or something else, because it's public and people are less likely to be posting from their phones.

Similarly, the vast majority of Finns don't use anything reminiscent of "correct" grammar in their daily lives, but are perfectly capable of doing so in formal situations where it's expected. Although that's apparently changing, so that now most kids genuinely never learn to conjugate verbs properly or spell for shit... and on TV more and more subtitlers are Swedish-speakers whose Finnish is on the same level as a kindergartener... :x

vijayjohn
Language Forum Moderator
Posts:27056
Joined:2013-01-10, 8:49
Real Name:Vijay John
Gender:male
Location:Austin, Texas, USA
Country:USUnited States (United States)
Contact:

Re: Linguistics thread

Postby vijayjohn » 2017-03-29, 12:05

Vlürch wrote:I'm pretty sure that anyone posting something like "im sry lol but u guise r to formal pls get foked" here would be instructed to at least use punctuation and capitalisation, and have their misspellings and grammar corrected; this would probably happen on most forums regardless of whether they're linguistics-related or something else, because it's public and people are less likely to be posting from their phones.

Here? On UniLang? I'm actually not sure of any of this. We've definitely had at least one user who never used capitalization at least, and most people didn't say anything about that.

Besides, I don't see a reason to complain when one of the most famous poets in American history rarely used either punctuation or capitalization.

User avatar
Osias
Posts:9754
Joined:2007-09-09, 17:38
Real Name:Osias Junior
Gender:male
Location:Vitória
Country:BRBrazil (Brasil)
Contact:

Re: Linguistics thread

Postby Osias » 2017-03-29, 12:21

IpseDixit wrote:Almost every time I criticize a strict prescriptivist viewpoint on grammar on social media, I get a reply from someone written with a broken spelling, I guess with the intent of making me realize that what I'm advocating is idiotic / unfeasible or something of the sort

I used to get those too, years ago. I got so angry I decided to never talk about this again in social media.
2017 est l'année du (fr) et de l'(de) pour moi. Parle avec moi en eux, s'il te plait.

IpseDixit

Re: Linguistics thread

Postby IpseDixit » 2017-03-29, 12:56

Vlürch wrote:I don't think most people think about what they write at all, especially English-speakers. But if you criticise prescriptivism and get replies like that, I wonder what would happen if you wrote something about how the vast majority of people, including highly educated experts, don't have a clue about what correct grammar and spelling are... :twisted:

Anyway, my personal view on the matter is that objectively there is a strict objective definition of what's correct and incorrect when it comes to both grammar and orthography regardless of what the language in question is, but whether being grammatically correct is socially correct or not is a completely different matter that depends on the context and varies by language.


I don't see how any of this is an argument for descriptivism, quite the contrary, it seems to me quite a prescriptivist standpoint.

User avatar
Vlürch
Posts:943
Joined:2014-05-06, 8:42
Gender:male
Location:Roihuvuori, Helsinki
Country:FIFinland (Suomi)

Re: Linguistics thread

Postby Vlürch » 2017-03-29, 13:30

IpseDixit wrote:
Vlürch wrote:I don't think most people think about what they write at all, especially English-speakers. But if you criticise prescriptivism and get replies like that, I wonder what would happen if you wrote something about how the vast majority of people, including highly educated experts, don't have a clue about what correct grammar and spelling are... :twisted:

Anyway, my personal view on the matter is that objectively there is a strict objective definition of what's correct and incorrect when it comes to both grammar and orthography regardless of what the language in question is, but whether being grammatically correct is socially correct or not is a completely different matter that depends on the context and varies by language.


I don't see how any of this is an argument for descriptivism, quite the contrary, it seems to me quite a prescriptivist standpoint.

Well, yeah, I guess. My point is that although in informal contexts, prescriptivism is pointless and can as a result of social things be "objectively bad" and best avoided, in formal contexts it's pretty much always good because it allows the language's speakers to understand each other without confusion once they've learned the language, and maintains its distinctiveness, figuratively acting as a force field against alien abduction or a coup.

Like, if suddenly there was a decision made by some government asschuck that the past tense of "eat" was no longer "ate" but "eated", there'd be a separate language regulation committee or whatever that could say "no, fuck you". If teachers decided to allow kids to use "eated" without marking it as incorrect, the kids would still learn as adults that it is incorrect and, in the case of it becoming widely accepted as correct, that would still not make "ate" incorrect but an archaic alternative with time. Informally saying "eated" wouldn't change the status of what is formally expected and accepted. However, if said government asschuck decided that "eated" was correct and there was no language regulation committee or whatever to remind people that "ate" is still considered far more correct than "eated", "ate" would risk becoming considered incorrect and people who knew it's correct would be penalised even in formal situations for using it instead of the newly correct "eated".

Since even in English something like this would lead to problems, you know how badly it could go in languages that conjugate verbs a lot more.

IpseDixit

Re: Linguistics thread

Postby IpseDixit » 2017-03-29, 14:52

Vlürch wrote:Like, if suddenly there was a decision made by some government asschuck that the past tense of "eat" was no longer "ate" but "eated", there'd be a separate language regulation committee or whatever that could say "no, fuck you".If teachers decided to allow kids to use "eated" without marking it as incorrect, the kids would still learn as adults that it is incorrect and, in the case of it becoming widely accepted as correct, that would still not make "ate" incorrect but an archaic alternative with time. Informally saying "eated" wouldn't change the status of what is formally expected and accepted. However, if said government asschuck decided that "eated" was correct and there was no language regulation committee or whatever to remind people that "ate" is still considered far more correct than "eated", "ate" would risk becoming considered incorrect and people who knew it's correct would be penalised even in formal situations for using it instead of the newly correct "eated".


But more often than not, it's not the gov't which decides what to change in a language, it's usually the language itself that naturally mutates for some reason, so such language regulation committee would be more likely to say "fuck you people, you don't have a say in what's correct or not, we don't care if you use form X regularly and understand it just fine, it's us who dictate what's correct and what's not".

Moreover I really don't get the fuss about "eated", such a thing has already happened with "spelt" and "learnt" which became "spelled" and "learned" in AmE. And it's not that you instantly forget about the more archaic term, I think it's a process that usually takes quite some time.

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts:25540
Joined:2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name:Da
Location:Chicago
Country:USUnited States (United States)

Re: Linguistics thread

Postby linguoboy » 2017-03-29, 17:42

This works much differently in the USA than in many other countries because here education is considered the responsibility of the states, not the Federal government. The Federal government can set minimum standards for some subjects, but it ultimately does not determine what exactly is taught or how. So it would be possible for one state to decide to accept "eated" in written assignments[*] and this would have little or no effect on other states. The crucial question would be what the publishers of textbooks and standardised tests decided to do. But these are private companies, and their decisions are driven by the demands of their largest clients, which practically speaking means that certain states like Texas and California have the biggest say in what they do.

[*] Not an entirely theoretical case. Many English courses use so-called "holistic grading", which means that the grader isn't deducting a fixed number of points for each and every error. So a form like "eated" might well be ignored if it didn't detract from the overall impact of the assignment.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

User avatar
dEhiN
Posts:6828
Joined:2013-08-18, 2:51
Real Name:David
Gender:male
Location:Toronto
Country:CACanada (Canada)
Contact:

Re: Linguistics thread

Postby dEhiN » 2017-03-29, 17:48

Vlürch wrote:Well, yeah, I guess. My point is that although in informal contexts, prescriptivism is pointless and can as a result of social things be "objectively bad" and best avoided, in formal contexts it's pretty much always good because it allows the language's speakers to understand each other without confusion once they've learned the language, and maintains its distinctiveness, figuratively acting as a force field against alien abduction or a coup.

Like, if suddenly there was a decision made by some government asschuck that the past tense of "eat" was no longer "ate" but "eated", there'd be a separate language regulation committee or whatever that could say "no, fuck you". If teachers decided to allow kids to use "eated" without marking it as incorrect, the kids would still learn as adults that it is incorrect and, in the case of it becoming widely accepted as correct, that would still not make "ate" incorrect but an archaic alternative with time. Informally saying "eated" wouldn't change the status of what is formally expected and accepted. However, if said government asschuck decided that "eated" was correct and there was no language regulation committee or whatever to remind people that "ate" is still considered far more correct than "eated", "ate" would risk becoming considered incorrect and people who knew it's correct would be penalised even in formal situations for using it instead of the newly correct "eated".

Since even in English something like this would lead to problems, you know how badly it could go in languages that conjugate verbs a lot more.

It sounds to me like you don't quite understand the difference between prescriptivism and descriptivism. Whether we're talking about formal or informal language usage, languages change over time. Of course in situations like formal contexts and regulated media (TV, newspapers, etc.) the language will naturally change at a slower rate. A prescriptivist is someone who will say, regardless of how fast or slow the language changes, that people shouldn't use the new changes but stick only to the old ways because they are "correct". A descriptivist would accept the changes.

So, from what I understand, the language use context, and the origin of a language use change, have no bearing on prescriptivism or descriptivism.
Native: (en-ca)
Active: (fr)(es)(pt-br)(ta-lk)(mi)(sq)(tl)
Inactive: (de)(ja)(yue)(oj)(id)(hu)(pl)(tr)(hi)(zh)(sv)(ko)(no)(it)(haw)(fy)(nl)(nah)(gl)(ro)(cy)(oc)(an)(sr)(en_old)(got)(sux)(grc)(la)(sgn-us)

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts:25540
Joined:2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name:Da
Location:Chicago
Country:USUnited States (United States)

Re: Linguistics thread

Postby linguoboy » 2017-03-29, 19:45

dEhiN wrote:It sounds to me like you don't quite understand the difference between prescriptivism and descriptivism. Whether we're talking about formal or informal language usage, languages change over time. Of course in situations like formal contexts and regulated media (TV, newspapers, etc.) the language will naturally change at a slower rate. A prescriptivist is someone who will say, regardless of how fast or slow the language changes, that people shouldn't use the new changes but stick only to the old ways because they are "correct". A descriptivist would accept the changes.

So, from what I understand, the language use context, and the origin of a language use change, have no bearing on prescriptivism or descriptivism.

That's not the way I've seen it work in practice. Prescriptivists may say that the rules are the rules and that's that, but they're actually quite selective about which ones they insist on. You can easily demonstrate this by trotting out examples from well-regarded authors (such as singular "they" in Jane Austen) and see them continue to condemn the things they've decided are bad but also reject usages that were considered acceptable in their day but today sound stilted and archaic (e.g. the passive progressive).

And when you do look closer at what rules they insist on, you find that provenance does matter. The more strongly they associate a certain usage with a social group which they perceive negatively (e.g. ax for ask), the more willing they are to reject it (even if, as in this case, it dates back to the very earliest stages of the language).

On balance, I think that's what bothers me the most about prescriptivism in practice. It claims to be principled (and often objective), but it's dishonest about what the principles are, since they're not as lofty as their adherents wish to believe they are.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

kevin
Language Forum Moderator
Posts:2134
Joined:2012-03-29, 11:07
Gender:male
Country:DEGermany (Deutschland)
Contact:

Re: Linguistics thread

Postby kevin » 2017-03-29, 22:34

vijayjohn wrote:Here? On UniLang? I'm actually not sure of any of this. We've definitely had at least one user who never used capitalization at least, and most people didn't say anything about that.

In English the difference may be less noticable, but in general if people don't care to use proper capitalisation and punctuation, while I don't say anything, I still find it rude. Instead of doing a little bit of additional work once while writing, they let many readers do the additional work of dealing with a text that is harder to read than it could be.

vijayjohn
Language Forum Moderator
Posts:27056
Joined:2013-01-10, 8:49
Real Name:Vijay John
Gender:male
Location:Austin, Texas, USA
Country:USUnited States (United States)
Contact:

Re: Linguistics thread

Postby vijayjohn » 2017-03-30, 0:36

kevin wrote:
vijayjohn wrote:Here? On UniLang? I'm actually not sure of any of this. We've definitely had at least one user who never used capitalization at least, and most people didn't say anything about that.

In English the difference may be less noticable, but in general if people don't care to use proper capitalisation and punctuation, while I don't say anything, I still find it rude. Instead of doing a little bit of additional work once while writing, they let many readers do the additional work of dealing with a text that is harder to read than it could be.

To me, it seems as if this is usually done deliberately as a kind of political statement, in which case it would seem to be about as "rude" as a political protest.

kevin
Language Forum Moderator
Posts:2134
Joined:2012-03-29, 11:07
Gender:male
Country:DEGermany (Deutschland)
Contact:

Re: Linguistics thread

Postby kevin » 2017-03-30, 9:15

Well, the core "political" statement I read from this is "I don't care about you". Of course, everyone is free to tell me that, but if you do that, don't expect me to be very much interested in communicating with you.

vijayjohn
Language Forum Moderator
Posts:27056
Joined:2013-01-10, 8:49
Real Name:Vijay John
Gender:male
Location:Austin, Texas, USA
Country:USUnited States (United States)
Contact:

Re: Linguistics thread

Postby vijayjohn » 2017-03-30, 12:18

I don't see why it has to be so personal as I don't think the message is ever intended that way. The way I understand it is rather as a statement on the necessity of capitalization in general. I mean, how many scripts even have this concept of "capitalization"? Roman script, Cyrillic script, Greek script, and Armenian script are the only ones that I can think of that do; Wikipedia says that the Coptic, Adlam, Varang Kshiti, Cherokee, and Osage scripts also have it. So basically, alphabets that were either ultimately derived from Greek script or inspired by Roman script. As far as I can tell, all other scripts are unicase.

User avatar
Vlürch
Posts:943
Joined:2014-05-06, 8:42
Gender:male
Location:Roihuvuori, Helsinki
Country:FIFinland (Suomi)

Re: Linguistics thread

Postby Vlürch » 2017-03-30, 13:30

vijayjohn wrote:I don't see why it has to be so personal as I don't think the message is ever intended that way. The way I understand it is rather as a statement on the necessity of capitalization in general. I mean, how many scripts even have this concept of "capitalization"? Roman script, Cyrillic script, Greek script, and Armenian script are the only ones that I can think of that do; Wikipedia says that the Coptic, Adlam, Varang Kshiti, Cherokee, and Osage scripts also have it. So basically, alphabets that were either ultimately derived from Greek script or inspired by Roman script. As far as I can tell, all other scripts are unicase.

Not being unicase is the defining aspect of bicameral scripts, so something would be lost if they became unicameral. Thus, it's important to not let that happen. If it happens organically with time as the people in language regulation committees are replaced by new ones that don't care about it, nobody can stop that, but it will eat away the things that make the language and/or writing system special. If it happens prematurely (eg. language regulation committees being pressured into accepting new and previously incorrect spellings or grammatical forms as correct), those things won't even be replaced by anything else, only lost.

Combined with loanwords replacing native terms, eventually it'll lead to the language going extinct because it won't be anything like it was. English has gone through this already at least a couple of times, so it isn't perceived as destructively as most other languages, and it's spoken by so many people as a first, second, third, fourth or whatever language that there's no way its previous forms will be lost completely.

Now, consider how Finnish. In spite of being a language known to exist by probably everyone in the western world, has only about 5 million native speakers (including all the dialects that aren't even entirely mutually intelligible with the standard language), and few actually learn it to the point of fluency as a second language even if they live in Finland; there was just yesterday in the news about how the number of Arabic-speakers has increased massively in recent years due to refugees. Obviously, most of them have no intention of learning Finnish to anywhere near fluency, which would be fine if they eventually moved back to Arab countries... but everyone knows that not a single immigrant ever wants to leave Europe. They claim to one day want to go back to their home countries, but they never do. As a result, more Arabic loanwords will inevitably end up in Finnish and every other language spoken in Europe, and in informal contexts grammar will be simplified to accommodate the Arab immigrants...

If the Finnish alphabet became unicameral, that would be a victory for the Arab invaders/immigrants.

User avatar
md0
Posts:8188
Joined:2010-08-08, 19:56
Country:DEGermany (Deutschland)
Contact:

Re: Linguistics thread

Postby md0 » 2017-03-30, 14:00

Relevant xkcd :whistle:
fashion_police_and_grammar_police.png

[ownflag=]http://i.imgur.com/06tHC74.png[/ownflag]
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
"If you like your clause structure, you can keep your clause structure"
Stable: Cypriot Greek (el-cy)Standard Modern Greek (el)English (en) Current: Standard German (de)
Legacy: France French (fr)Japanese (ja)Standard Turkish (tr)Elementary Finnish (fi)Netherlands Dutch (nl)

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts:25540
Joined:2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name:Da
Location:Chicago
Country:USUnited States (United States)

Re: Linguistics thread

Postby linguoboy » 2017-03-30, 14:50

kevin wrote:Well, the core "political" statement I read from this is "I don't care about you". Of course, everyone is free to tell me that, but if you do that, don't expect me to be very much interested in communicating with you.

Funny, the core political statement I get is "i'm lazy af". In fact, they've said as much when challenged. (Usually framed as blaming the interface, e.g. "i'm typing on my phone".)

In actual practice, my reaction is the same. But it's typically because their thoughts are as disordered as their orthography. I don't have much patience for stream-of-consciousness masquerading as a comment. If you want me to read what you write, for the love of language do some pre-writing.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons


Return to “General Language Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests