All we have today is descriptive dictionaries, so they do map well to popular usage. My comment on this matter was that usage only shapes definitions because we no longer have prescriptive dictionaries. You then asked about the authority of a prescriptive dictionary. Now you are going back to descriptive dictionaries. I’ve already addressed that. We have descriptive dictionaries today, and they do map well, reactively, to usage.
Oops! I’ll buy that. I think they also study English to discuss linguistics in the context of whatever “rules” are in fact useful; however, in terms of linguistics, your comment, and your conclusion, you wanted me to guess what linguistics has to say on the determination of a word’s meaning.
Linguistics is not concerned with prescription, so read or talk to people and you are done.
When people ask about the meaning of a word, they are looking for an answer for a purpose. If “Bad” or “Super bad” can be used to mean “good” or “cool,” then we determine by context the meaning of the word. So…so what? It’s slang; but there is really no need to label it as slang unless it is scrubbed against some system of determining meaning. If a word means anything you choose it to mean, then there is no discussion to be had.
Now, sometimes, we need to know what a word means just so we can have a discussion. The etymology of the words imply and infer, (according to etymonline.com–for what that is worth), show these words as having separate and distinct meanings. Today, the fourth definition of infer is imply. There is now no way for me to state what I mean, or if looked at another way, no way for me to be wrong if I use one term instead of the other. This is certainly due to misuse. To confuse matters, if I say that you inferred something with a comment, would I possibly infer something from you comment also, or should I then say that I implied something from your inference?
Allowing the “living language” theory in this instance is not a productive change.
Purblind comes from “pure blind.” The term has since come to mean something less than pure blind. Words can change their meaning. Fine. The problem is that now, all that Latin you learned in high school is defenestrated. We can extrapolate that we will continue to lose the meaning behind prefixes, so we can no longer read a new word and know by such road signs as prefixes and suffixes, what the word means.
Sooner or later we have to ask, “What is the impetus behind a word’s change in meaning.” If it is slang, then cool. No biggy. Will you look at a single instance of a word’s change in meaning and conclude that we have only confused matters with no real benefit to the language? If not, we are back to my prior conclusion that there is no discussion. Anything is proper any time.
Then I would have to ask, "Why learn English in school? What “rules” are we learning? We can say whatever we want! Then you might say that we have to learn something to communicate at all…but we don’t really need to learn rules to communicate. We naturally learn language.
In Formal speech, we do find a set of people interested in prescriptive rules. These are the people who ask such questions for a reason. They want to speak to a more formal audience. It is understandable that an article from a law review going to publication would be more interested in Formal speech. The Formal audience is interested in reading and speaking Formal English…sometimes. If you are promoting descriptive English to these people, you are not addressing the issue, and you are not helping further the dialogue.
Here again, we are talking description and usage. This needs no discussion, but yes, today’s dictionaries are descriptive, and reactive. You had asked about prescriptive dictionaries, and now you are going back to descriptive dictionaries. I am aware that today’s dictionaries describe how the language is used.
Listen to songs and conversation. That’s usage. You may conjugate the verb “To Be” as “I be, you be, he be, she be, it be, we be, they be” and you would be “correct.” I here it from time to time. “I be goin’ to the sto.” OK. It’s correct in terms of usage no matter the audience. It simply doesn’t address rules of grammar, or the logic behind the rule, or the people who need to follow certain prescriptive rules, and why that need exists. By the same token, usage does not address logic behind the preservation of a definition, or the resistance to the acceptance of a new definition.
(This is a wonderfully contentious BBS. You can say, “Gee, it’s a lovely day today” and get a fight going! I’m not completely sure everyone here would agree that 2 + 2 = 4 – and that’s a matter of definition!) May you have many, many happy pie-fights here!)