# A linguist's considered view on the prescriptive vs. descriptive controversy **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [June 17, 2025, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-linguists-considered-view-on-the-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-controversy/1019735 "2025-06-17T00:47:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2025, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-linguists-considered-view-on-the-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-controversy/1019735/81 "2025-06-20T16:53:31Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Sure, but that’s only an argument against a hypothetical blanket prohibition on ever using “literally” to introduce a metaphor. Those who object to such usage in many cases are really objecting to it for a more nuanced reason. Consider a statement like “I was literally dying of thirst”. Unless you were actually near death, what does “literally” add to the expressiveness of the sentence? Isn’t “dying” hyperbolic enough without needing to be intensified? The only purpose of “literally” in a construction like this would be to assure the reader that it was **not** hyperbole. And then you have ridiculous constructions like “When I heard the news my head literally asploded!”. Say what? In all the discussions on this board about the word “literally,” you’re literally the only one I’ve ever seen express this nuanced position. And _you_ only took it after your previous “It’s always bad” position was no longer tenable. So to claim that there’s some broader nuance to the prescriptivist position is, I think, not an accurate opinion - the prescriptivist argument is that using “literally” as an intensifier is inherently in error. You’re making a different argument. In fact, what you’re describing as your own attitude towards the term is simply the descriptivist position: “it’s not inherently wrong.” Once you’ve admitted that, you’ve already left the prescriptivist camp. You think a lot of usages are clumsy or ugly is fine - but as you said, that’s an aesthetic argument, not a grammatic argument. There’s no part of the descriptivist argument that holds you can’t make _aesthetic_ judgements about language. For example: > [@wolfpup](#): > > Now compare that to something like “She was so radiantly beautiful she literally glowed” A fine metaphor, and a fine use of “literally”.. Speaking as a descriptivist, that’s an absolutely _dire_ metaphor. Grammatically fine, logically clear, but a metaphor should elevate the prose, not deflate it like a basketball in a hydraulic press. I’d take a dozen “literally asploded” over this beige turd - at least that one’s _trying_ to be interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2025, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-linguists-considered-view-on-the-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-controversy/1019735/82 "2025-06-20T17:05:38Z")
> [@CairoCarol](#): > > That’s for THIRD graders? Dammit, I wish you’d been _my_ third-grade teacher. We didn’t do anything remotely so wonderful in my third grade class. That slide deck is captivating. I can only imagine how engaging it must be when presented live. Thank you! To be fair, while I’ve used it with third graders in the past, I thought again about this year, and it was fourth graders I used it with–it works a little better with them. And I use it with advanced students. While kids at my school get a ton of phonics work, the work they get in non-orthographics mechanics of writing is in my opinion woefully inadequate, so I spend time with them on the topic. This is the intro lesson, with the goal of persuading them to take it seriously, and even to delight in it. As you can tell, it’s something I love to nerd out about. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2025, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-linguists-considered-view-on-the-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-controversy/1019735/83 "2025-06-20T17:07:19Z")
Yeah, at my school growing up, that would be around 6th or even 7th grade level, based on that vocabulary, I would think. I showed it to my 5th grader and she had trouble following (and she’s a straight-A student). You have a select group of 3rd and 4th graders there. Keep it up! ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2025, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-linguists-considered-view-on-the-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-controversy/1019735/84 "2025-06-20T17:12:44Z")
Some of the language in it is deliberately complex, especially the first couple of slides: it is designed to make language use sound as mysterious and magical as possible. In the teaching, I slow it way down and explain it carefully. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2025, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-linguists-considered-view-on-the-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-controversy/1019735/85 "2025-06-20T17:37:12Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > In all the discussions on this board about the word “literally,” you’re literally the only one I’ve ever seen express this nuanced position. And _you_ only took it after your previous “It’s always bad” position was no longer tenable. So to claim that there’s some broader nuance to the prescriptivist position is, I think, not an accurate opinion - the prescriptivist argument is that using “literally” as an intensifier is inherently in error. You’re quite correct that this was once my position, and it has since evolved. I’m proud of that. I think evolving a more nuanced position over time is a virtue, not grounds for criticism. Maybe I’m not a classical “prescriptivist” any more? In fact, is there really any such thing, or is just a caricature of people trying to promote improved literacy? > [@Miller](#): > > > [@wolfpup](#): > > > > Now compare that to something like “She was so radiantly beautiful she literally glowed” A fine metaphor, and a fine use of “literally”.. > > Speaking as a descriptivist, that’s an absolutely _dire_ metaphor. Grammatically fine, logically clear, but a metaphor should elevate the prose, not deflate it like a basketball in a hydraulic press. I’d take a dozen “literally asploded” over this beige turd - at least that one’s _trying_ to be interesting. Fine, you’re making an aesthetic judgment. But maybe take up your “beige turd” critique with F. Scott Fitzgerald, who wrote the following in _The Beautiful and Damned_ in 1922: > He literally glowed; without a word or a gesture of exultation a new well-being radiated from him and filled the little room. And I’d be interested to know what fascinating creative imagery “head literally asploded” evokes in the reader, what emotional punch it adds to the sentence. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2025, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-linguists-considered-view-on-the-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-controversy/1019735/86 "2025-06-20T18:35:04Z")
Fine writing is a combination of individual word choice and total sentence construction. “She was so radiantly beautiful she literally glowed” vs. “He literally glowed; without a word or a gesture of exultation a new well-being radiated from him and filled the little room.” The use of “literally glowed” in Fitzgerald is justified only by the expansive explanatory clause that followed. Spoken language can rely on well-constructed sentences combined with individual word choice, true. But timing and emphasis often plays a huge role. “My head literally asploded" as an exclamation can convey an enormous emotional punch in a lively conversation. Comedians know this. Listen carefully to a routine and count how many times a brief punchline that might be lifeless in other contexts benefits from a careful buildup. (Larry the Cable Guy made tens of millions of dollars just by growling “Get 'er done.” Nothing new. Radio catchphrases drew tens of millions of listeners.) I’ve argued many times that prescriptivism, even aesthetic prescriptivism, implied by my earlier Pei quote, applies only to a very narrow range of formal usage. Probably 99% of all words used lie outside that range. Casual language, whether written or spoken (or written to be spoken as in scripts), is the currency of communication. As @Johanna points out, slang, along with other forms of shortening, changing, slurring, inventing, or playing with words, is the basis for speech between normal humans. Much - most? - of the nontechnical English language is etymologically connected to previous non-seriousness. Of course there are times and places when and where using formal language is abso-fucking-lutely\* appropriate; explaining why prescriptivism is wrong to prescriptivists is one of them. \* Does nobody recognize the book about the word fuck that I asked about earlier? I need to stop the literal itch in my metaphorical brain. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2025, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-linguists-considered-view-on-the-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-controversy/1019735/87 "2025-06-20T19:34:42Z")
I hesitate to enter this thread, because the clearest message I’m getting is that, despite a life of considerable reading and writing, I apparently have no idea of what a linguist does. 😉 But perhaps against my better judgment, I will ask, is a linguist’s only concern whether the intended meaning is accurately conveyed? > [@Pleonast](#): > > Too often prescriptivists think that descriptivists are in favor of anything goes. But descriptivists aren’t even thinking about language in terms of what is allowed or better or any other judgements. Descriptivists are looking for what the usages actually are and what the patterns of usage are. Is it that descriptivists think “anything goes”? Or is it that this is not a question they ask? There was a thread recently on pronunciation. Lately I’ve encountered at least 3 people pronouncing “asterisk” as “astericks” or “asterick.” So long as I understand what they are talking about, does a descriptivist linguist opine as to whether or not their pronunciation is correct? Does pronunciation simply not matter? Or, if enough people start saying astericks, or nucular, then we should just say that’s a fine way to pronounce those words? How does that differ from “anything goes”? I acknowledge that my career in law has skewed me to focus on precise word usage and definition. And my legal work has likely affected my preferences for non-work communication. Bad example, but if someone says “astericks”, and I know the s comes before the k, I wonder if they are using some OTHER word? Or, if they do not know how to pronounce a pretty basic word, do they actually intend to use that word? Or if there is a reason they want to pronounce the word other than as it is clearly spelled. The “different” usage causes dissonance. Tho I think I know what they mean, it causes a bunch of other questions to bounce around in my tiny brain. > [@Pleonast](#): > > Basically, some people prescribe word usage (almost invariably the usage learned in their formative years) and apply opprobrium to those who vary from their prescriptions (often those with less social status). This has nothing to do with the science of linguistics, despite their sometime use of linguistic terminology. To those who’ve studied and experienced multiple languages and cultures, prescriptivists look provincial and incurious. There’s nothing wrong with using language in a particular way, it’s the expectation that any particular way is inherently better or worse than any other. I’m not sure I perceive the opprobrium as the intent. Instead, I see it more as: > [@wolfpup](#): > > …to get a population more literate and able to speak and write more fluently and with greater style and elegance … Not singling out **Pleonast**. Just that those 2 posts made points I thought I understood enough to respond to. Like I said, not at all a linguist. More interested in evolution and brain function - in the past couple months read The Language Instinct and Proust and the Squid. Thanks for making me think. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2025, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-linguists-considered-view-on-the-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-controversy/1019735/88 "2025-06-20T19:49:09Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > You’re quite correct that this was once my position, and it has since evolved. I’m proud of that. I think evolving a more nuanced position over time is a virtue, not grounds for criticism. Maybe I’m not a classical “prescriptivist” any more? In fact, is there really any such thing, or is just a caricature of people trying to promote improved literacy? I didn’t criticize you for changing your mind, I objected to you co-opting the descriptivist position and claiming that it’s actually been the prescriptivist position all along. “There’s nothing inherently wrong with using ‘literally’ as an intensifier, but it’s a bit of a cliche, and you can probably find a better word,” has always been the descriptivist position. It’s the position you used to argue against until people threw enough Fitzgerald quotes at you that you couldn’t defend it anymore. I’m also objecting to you trying to define “prescriptivist” as “people trying to promote improved literacy,” with the implication that descriptivists are somehow opposed - or at least, disinterested - in that goal. The problem with prescriptivists isn’t that they want to improve literacy; everyone wants that. The problem is that their methods are terrible for achieving that goal. > [@wolfpup](#): > > And I’d be interested to know what fascinating creative imagery “head literally asploded” evokes in the reader, what emotional punch it adds to the sentence. Oh, it’s a terrible metaphor. That’s sort of the point of the comparison. “She was so radiantly beautiful she literally glowed,” conveys very little actual information, and it does it using two cliches that mean the same thing. In what way is she beautiful? Earthy? Elegant? Elfin? Some other adjective that begins with “e”? All it tells us is that the narrator finds her attractive, but we don’t know anything about the narrator, so that’s limited information. It’s also very passive. There’s no action or movement. Which is not exactly a flaw - sometimes passivity is the right choice for what you’re trying to express - but taken as a context-less sentence, it’s boring. Nothing’s happening, there’s just a woman, radiantly glowing. “My head literally asploded,” exceeds that mostly by making fewer errors. It uses half as many cliches, and it certainly contains dynamic imagery. And “asploded” implies something about the character of the narrator - they’re the sort of person who thinks that sort of thing is cute. Whether you find that annoying or endearing is an aesthetic choice, but at least it tells you _something_ about the speaker. The Fitzgerald quote is, of course, on an entirely different level from either. It’s dense with information. We learn a lot about the protagonist: his state of mind (good), his personal magnetism (his state of mind radiates from him), his environment (a little room), and his past (his current mood is recently acquired). The use of “glowing” and “radiating” is expansive instead of redundant; instead of trying to qualify a word by using its own synonym, he’s stating a condition, then describing the condition in an independent clause, using a synonym to avoid repetition. The sentence as a whole is energetic, despite the protagonist explicitly not doing anything. You can feel the excitement his presence has on other people, which makes the sentence itself exciting to read. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2025, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-linguists-considered-view-on-the-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-controversy/1019735/89 "2025-06-20T19:53:17Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > Bad example, but if someone says “astericks”, and I know the s comes before the k, I wonder if they are using some OTHER word? Or, if they do not know how to pronounce a pretty basic word, do they actually intend to use that word? Or if there is a reason they want to pronounce the word other than as it is clearly spelled. The “different” usage causes dissonance. Tho I think I know what they mean, it causes a bunch of other questions to bounce around in my tiny brain. Pronunciation is notoriously variable at any one time, and changeable over time. “Ax” was the way that the word indicating a request or question was pronounced in early [English](https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/12/03/248515217/why-chaucer-said-ax-instead-of-ask-and-why-some-still-do), and these days, many people pronounce “Mary,” “merry” and “marry” the same way (in some parts of the United States, if you want to borrow a writing implement, you ask for an “ink pen” - because the word for the writing implement and the word for something that holds a hair into a bun are pronounced the same way). I’m not a linguist, but I’d say that linguists are interested in: The patterns of change in grammar, pronunciation, word use and other characteristics of language over time and place The interaction between social status or cultural identification and language features (see this [study](https://web.stanford.edu/class/linguist62n/labov001.pdf) about how department store staff adjust their pronunciation to the status of the expected customers). ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2025, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-linguists-considered-view-on-the-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-controversy/1019735/90 "2025-06-20T20:25:08Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > I apparently have no idea of what a linguist does. I’ll take that as my failure to explain clearly and try to do better. Linguists study the way language works like physicists study the way forces and particles work. The subfields include historical linguistics, the study of how language changes over time; phonetics (which uses physics) and phonology, the science of speech sounds; pragmatics, the study of how people talk to each other in real-life situations; syntactics, analysis of the deep structure of sentences; sociolinguistics, the function of language in society and vice versa; computational linguistics, which builds computer models to analyze the workings of language. Theoretical linguistics tries to explain what language is, while applied linguistics studies how linguistic knowledge can be put to use, e.g. in teaching. Then there is philology, the oldest branch of language studies, which is the interface between linguistics and literature. > [@Dinsdale](#): > > is a linguist’s only concern whether the intended meaning is accurately conveyed? The interesting thing (_I_ think) is not _whether_, but _how_ and _why_. In cases where meaning is accurately conveyed, we want to know what factors and processes brought that about. If meaning is lost, we want to know how that happened. You see? ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2025, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-linguists-considered-view-on-the-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-controversy/1019735/91 "2025-06-20T20:40:13Z")
So if linguists are not concerned with “prescriptions”, does that mean that no one else ought to be? Are there no “standards” for proper usage? Is it not of value to say, “If you want your meaning to be understood by x audience, you might wish to follow such and such pronunciation/usage practices”? Is there no “standard” usage against which variations are measured? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2025, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-linguists-considered-view-on-the-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-controversy/1019735/92 "2025-06-20T20:42:48Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > So if linguists are not concerned with “prescriptions”, does that mean that no one else ought to be? Sure, that’s what grammar teachers are for. Linguists aren’t grammar teachers, they’re scientists. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2025, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-linguists-considered-view-on-the-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-controversy/1019735/93 "2025-06-20T21:16:19Z")
OK. So are linguists or grammar teachers better authorities as to the best/proper language usage? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2025, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-linguists-considered-view-on-the-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-controversy/1019735/94 "2025-06-20T21:31:41Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > Is it not of value to say, “If you want your meaning to be understood by x audience, you might wish to follow such and such pronunciation/usage practices”? That’s what the usage and style guides frequently mentioned above are good for. There are bazillions of them. Nobody on any side is neglecting the issue. The point that descriptivists make is exactly that the process is not black and white and cannot be reduced to simple rules, hence guides instead of commands. > [@Dinsdale](#): > > Is there no “standard” usage against which variations are measured? I always in these discussions bring up “good writing,” which is the writing normally seen in books and newspapers and magazines and suchlike. Almost all of the posts in these and similar threads will fall under the heading of “good writing.” It does communicate well, although not always perfectly. However, there is no “standard” usage; rather that a variety of styles and personal choices go into “good writing.” Like any skill, it is something learned by practice and becomes better with experience. Great writers will expand the bounds of “good writing” sometimes in ways that are absorbable by others and sometimes in ways too idiosyncratic to be widely used. “Rules” do not aesthetically improve writing, although they may eliminate the flaws that impede communication or are looked down upon by a self-appointed superior class (see Pei above). One of my favorite examples comes from the 1960s. As mentioned above, the descriptionist Webster’s Third Unabridged dictionary, the first thus, drove the prescriptionist crowd apeshit, mainly because it labeled certain words with neutral terms rather than “used only by low-grade illiterate morons.” (OK, an exaggeration. "[T]he dictionary did apply the labels _slang_, _substandard_ and _nonstandard_, but in the view of critics, not often enough and with insufficient disapproval, and did away with the labels “improper” and “illiterate.”) Other publishers saw an opportunity, in particular American Heritage. They also published _American Heritage_ magazine, edited by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Bruce Catton, and so tony that it came out in hardcover so people could save every issue on a bookshelf. The guy who ran the company, James Parton, hated what Webster’s did and after failing to buy their company to bury the thing decided to put out his own “proper” dictionary. So that no one might doubt the authority of his labeling, he turned to a “usage panel” of about 100 well-known writers and academics and had them vote on whether some controversial usages were permissible, assuming there would be overwhelming unanimity on the answers. There wasn’t. Instead, significant percentages, sometimes majorities, approved of every one. The dictionary sold well and was well-regarded, despite Parton’s meddling to dispute his own panel, but the notion that a single standard for good English existed was forever extinguished as a good argument for usage. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2025, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-linguists-considered-view-on-the-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-controversy/1019735/95 "2025-06-20T21:32:28Z")
> [@Andy\_L](#): > > many people pronounce “Mary,” “merry” and “marry” the same way About 17% of Americans pronounce Mary, marry, and merry as entirely distinct words. 57% pronounce them all the same. The remaining 26% pronounce two of the three words the same. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2025, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-linguists-considered-view-on-the-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-controversy/1019735/96 "2025-06-20T22:01:44Z")
Thanks. I knew it was many - and hundreds of millions of people would count as such. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2025, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-linguists-considered-view-on-the-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-controversy/1019735/97 "2025-06-20T23:26:44Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > So are linguists or grammar teachers better authorities as to the best/proper language usage? What is “best”? What is “proper”? I teach kids what is _standard_. I also teach them to recognize that’s what I’m doing, and not to mistake standard for best or proper. If you’re giving a sick burn to some loser on Fortnite, Queen’s English is neither best nor proper. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2025, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-linguists-considered-view-on-the-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-controversy/1019735/98 "2025-06-21T00:47:15Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I’m also objecting to you trying to define “prescriptivist” as “people trying to promote improved literacy,” with the implication that descriptivists are somehow opposed - **or at least, disinterested** - in that goal. But then we have … > [@Pleonast](#): > > But **descriptivists aren’t even thinking about language in terms of what is allowed or better or any other judgements**. Descriptivists are looking for what the usages actually are and what the patterns of usage are. (Emphasis mine in both quotes.) Maybe we should be more precise about what we mean by terms like “descriptivist” and “prescriptivist” before demonizing imaginary caricatures and contradicting ourselves. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2025, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-linguists-considered-view-on-the-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-controversy/1019735/99 "2025-06-21T00:55:41Z")
That first edition of the _American Heritage Dictionary_ was remarkable in so many ways. I was lucky my parents got it as soon as it came out; I was 10. They had already been subscribers to _American Heritage_ for years, so we were the early adopters. Calvert Watkins introduced me to the Proto-Indo-European people, and I was permanently hooked. The Usage Panel was a nice innovation. The AED 1st ed. sported some adventurous etymologies too. Their explanation of _mumbo jumbo_ as Mandinka _ma-ma-gyo-mbo_, magician who makes the troubled spirits of ancestors depart (_mā-mā_, grandmother + _gyo_, trouble + _mbō_, leave.). Ishmael Reed was so impressed he reproduced that etymology as the frontispiece for his novel _[Mumbo Jumbo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbo_Jumbo_(novel))._ ---
**Author:** ![Xocomil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xocomil/32/14927_2.png) [@Xocomil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xocomil)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2025, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-linguists-considered-view-on-the-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-controversy/1019735/100 "2025-06-21T03:21:09Z")
Your position on this is akin to being upset with entomologists for not being concerned with which is the prettiest butterfly. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-linguists-considered-view-on-the-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-controversy/1019735.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-linguists-considered-view-on-the-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-controversy/1019735.md?page=6)