Should we reintroduce "thou" so it's possible to unambiguously differentiate between singular and plural second-person pronouns? (Ironically enough, most hardcore prescriptivists would frown on people using "y'all" instead of "you" when referring to multiple people, even though it's strictly more effective at conveying meaning!)
As someone who uses "y'all" and someone who believes in making language more effective, yes, I'd be in strong favor of people starting to say "thou" again.
Maybe we should condense the inflections of "To be" so that instead of saying "I am", "You are" and so on we just say "I is" "You is" etc.
That wouldn't make English more effective, it'd just make it easier to learn.
haroldbkny
11mo ago
While I don't know the history of "ask" vs "aks", I do also tend to find a lot of stuff like this in descriptive linguistic spaces, which is something that annoys me that I did not include in my original post.
Often when I see someone committing a prescriptive faux pas by questioning certain misuses of language, I see many people rush in to tell that person they're wrong.
Don't you know that use of the singular "they" in English is correct and ancient? Shakespeare used to use the singular "they". The same goes for use of "literally" as an emphasis. And we've always been at war with Eastasia.
I'm not personally equipped to argue back at these people, because I don't know enough of linguistic history, but something just feels like it could be wrong, like they may be misrepresenting history. But I have no way of knowing.
Maybe it was used, but was it "proper"? Must we defend any language simply because it was used at some point in history?
haroldbkny
11mo ago
Linguistics is descriptive, not prescriptive, doesn’t mean that there’s no such a thing as a grammarian.
Yes, you're right. I had forgotten, but the term my college acquaintances used to call me was a prescriptive gramarian when they wanted to tell me to die in a fire. So my main point should be that I think it's okay to be a prescriptive gramarian.
I would probably agree with you, though certain things that muddy the meaning of language make my blood boil (like "literally").
To me, you don't sound like a fence sitter, because IME, non prescriptivists are ironically very prescriptive about others being non-prescriptive.
Take a look at this reddit thread for an example. Anyone defending the concept of a correctness of language seems to have to use a lot of apologetics up front, and the replies to these people tend to be "no, youre wrong".
How do people here land on the subject of "prescriptive linguistics"? I personally find myself getting irritated at people putting down prescriptive linguistics. For the past 10 years, anyone who tells someone they're not using certain words correctly gets shut down as a prescriptive linguist. I'm reminded of an SSC post
Calling someone a rent-seeker is sort of an economist’s way of telling them to die in a fire
I feel like the same applies for "prescriptive linguistics", it's basically a cudgel, a way of telling someone to die in a fire.
Charitably, people justify this argument by saying that linguistics is a descriptive science, so there's no place to be prescriptive. In their mind, linguistics is meant to just describe how people use language, not tell people how to use it.
Uncharitably, I think this sounds like a general push towards post modernism, a pushback on the notion that there's any correct way to do anything. They're not just against prescriptive linguists, they're against prescriptive anything.
In an anti-prescriptivist mindset, someone may use prescriptive linguistics as a cudgel to shut down alternate ways of expression, and (of course) enforce colonial and white supremecist standards on unprivileged minorities. This especially comes up in conversations about double negatives, which are commonly used in various low-class English variants, like ebonics.
I might push back on anti-prescriptivists by saying, many people who try to enforce grammar rules not a linguistic scientists, but people who are trying to enforce sense in their worlds. Therefore, they're not prescriptive linguists; they're not even linguists! They're people living in the world and using language as a tool, and they want that tool to be as effective as possible.
It's not their sacred duty to simply understand language no matter what, so don't call them a prescriptive linguist. When I tell someone not to use the word "literally" as emphasis, it's because I'm finding that the word literally is less useful than it used to be, and I want to combat that. Nowadays there is no word that accurately works in as an antonym for "figuratively"; the meaning is muddled and unclear because people have watered down the definition of literally to be something else.
I also sense there may be political aspects to the use of the word "prescriptive linguistics". relating to Noam Chomsky's history in the field and his political affiliations, but I don't know enough about that to comment. I'm interested if anyone here has info on this.
haroldbkny
11mo ago
You have a point. But there are many variables. Like @ControlsFreak says, I've never even considered pots of water as a weapon, or even throwing them. I have no clue what this particular woman could or could not do. And water can have a weird sloshing effect which fights you when you try to move it quickly.
haroldbkny
11mo ago
I don't know much about biblical stuff, but to me, that sounds like the sort of thing someone would say before going on a holy war, or before trying to kill a demon. It reminds me of the Exorcist:
I cast you out! Unclean spirit! In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ! It is he who commands you! It is he who flung you from the gates of Heaven to the depths of Hell!
It sounds pretty threatening to me, but I haven't watched the video, so I don't know her tone.
haroldbkny
11mo ago
Good point. I worry that this incident is going to end up like the Harambee incident, where everyone and their mother suddenly claimed to be experts on gorilla behavior and have very clear understanding of the precise limits of a gorilla's strength within a day of the event happening.
haroldbkny
11mo ago
if you have more questions this is quite a fun exchange
Cool, I've got a few more questions.
The people on the board might be 'unaccountable and stupid' but they're still acting on that maximization principle.
I mean, to some extent. There are of course local maxima, and they may be maximizing over the next week. But what about beyond that? The head of that board that releases that statement looks unaccountable and stupid, which should, in theory, reduce others' ability to trust him in future years. Whereas by staying silent, he gets no such potential reputational damage.
If you told me that all boards don't really look beyond 1 week in the future, well, I don't have evidence to contradict you, because in my personal experience, the ones I've worked with have been very short-sighted. However, I would have hoped that there are at least some (hopefully more than just some) organizations that actually think about things on a longer-term scale.
Meanwhile, looking at it the other way, what would happen if a board made no such statement when there's a dead man walking? Does their statement do anything to actually help the situation? By keeping their mouths shut, would they get the best of both worlds, assuming the stock doesn't immediately tank just because they failed to make a statement that they don't actually believe anyway.
Also, talking about Cheatle, I don't think there's any stock involved, so what's at stake for the Secretary of Homeland Security to keep his mouth shut instead of endorsing her?
Moving past the humble brag
Hah, sorry. I guess it is a humble brag, but I think I meant it to be more self deprecating, like how could I have done as well as I have given I have no tolerance for or understanding of company politics. There's a lot of politics going on around me, and I mostly ignore it, somehow.
I'd go on for 3 paragraphs if you're interested
Definitely interested, I'd love to understand anything about this more than I do.
but really it's not a mystery why the board doesn't tank the stock on the off chance the principle survives
Doesn't the stock still tank one week later? And doesn't that make every person on the board (or at least the head of the board) unaccountable and stupid, that they said one thing and reversed so quickly? Couldn't they just say nothing in the meantime instead?
haroldbkny
11mo ago
To press on this further, it just seems strange to me. But I am someone who (despite my years and success in big tech) considers himself to be organizationally illiterate. I get by without thinking deeply about organizational politics for the most part.
Some specific questions: Why would a board make such a statement, if they're just going to retract their support in a week? Do individuals lack foresight? Or are they pressured to do it by someone? If so, who? Are there times when boards make these statements and actually mean it?
I mean, yes, but also no, a person wielding a weapon can charge in and close distance before the bullets put them down.
As seen on Surviving Edged Weapons (on Red Letter Media).
haroldbkny
11mo ago
The fact that they need to state that he has their backing is strong evidence that he probably shouldn't have their backing
Ah, I see, thanks for the clarification! That makes sense.
haroldbkny
11mo ago
That's good to know. I still may not risk it, though, I have pretty low threshold for stuff like this getting to me.
haroldbkny
11mo ago
“woe to him who has the full backing of the board—he is a dead man walking.”
I'm not sure I really understand this. Can you explain it?
haroldbkny
11mo ago
This is quite the thread. I won't watch the video since I really don't want to see a video where someone dies. Depending on how it's shown that sort of thing can be horribly haunting, and I wouldn't expect real police bodycam video to be pulling any punches.
So all I have to go on are people's descriptions from this thread, and I keep going back and forth. People can't seem to come to consensus on whether it's extremely obvious that she was just joking and thus did not deserve to be shot or whether it's obvious she was acting weird and threatening. Same for the timing of the water being thrown vs the shots fired. Then, on top of all of that, there's more philosophical disagreements about whether it's more or less okay to endanger officers, or the degree to which officers should defend themselves.
If the mostly reasonable people here are this split on the interpretation of events, then I'm afraid it'll be 100x worse in the general public.
Omg, I would love a way to distinguish between reflexive and non-reflexive possessive pronouns. I really face that problem all the time when I'm trying to write extremely succinct reports of technical details to senior leadership. And the only way around the problem is to make it wordy-er. And in the worst, case, you didn't even think to distinguish up front, and you realize after the email was sent that it's confusing or could have multiple meanings.
I'm generally in favor of useful features.
More options
Context Copy link