No offense, dear Beckers, truly, but there was a time when the name “Becky” had a roughly similar status to “Karen”. Not meaning you, of course, but it’s true:
I love how you took a woman mentioning a topic that she’d written a paper on as both an excuse to mansplain the topic back to her, and an opportunity tell her she wasted her time writing it.
Your conclusion seems to be the result of some combination of poor exposition on my part and misunderstanding on your part. Maybe try reading again the first two sentences at the beginning of the post. There’s also a vast difference between studying and understanding how language changes – important in its own right – and contributing to its enrichment.
You think that…until the dragon gets the munchies.
I know. Just messing with you.
I have T-shirts that say, “Just being a Becky” and “Oh, That’s just Becky”
My child thought she was being cute.
That’s fine. I am fascinated by all examples of slang, however fleeting. And curse words. God damn do I love the rich tapestry of curse words. The variations of “fuck” alone. And I’m sure someone with better knowledge could explain how great memes are, as a communication phenomenon. In fact I’m willing to bet people have written dissertations on memes.
Professional lingo is not my main area of interest, but I can respect it.
Well, I mean research probably doesn’t support your claim, but even if it did, I don’t think everything that exists has to support some higher purpose, and I don’t think everything I’m interested in has to support some higher purpose.
But on a personal note, I am a serious writer. I have written fiction since I could pick up a pen, I have written academic essays and federal and corporate grants and all sorts of things. Because why? Because I love words.
And I love my language in all its variations. When I write grants, I use grant language. When I write fiction, I like my characters to speak like real people. You only learn how real people speak by listening to them. And I have to say I have a deep affection for the latter kind of language, the kind of language that signals camaraderie, a shared vocabulary, maybe a particular class or vocational background. I love how people talk to one another. And I also love how people talk to one another on the internet.
I think language needs gatekeepers, because there will always be the need for precise, technical writing - the kind I get paid to do. But it also needs people who are just fascinated by how people communicate and don’t feel the need to put a value judgment on how they choose to do so. When you talk about adding creative value to the world - well, as a writer, I think I do that. So it seems to me you are setting up a false dichotomy.
That’s why I’ll wear green so I look like a vegetable and not a snack food.
That’s fair enough, and I have no quibble with any of it, except the very last sentence. I don’t think I’m setting up a false dichotomy, but rather, defining priorities which are, admittedly, subjective. But otherwise I appreciate everything you’ve said.
I, too, love language, but again, our priorities are not the same.
All language varieties have strong associations with cultural identities. It’s one of the social functions of language. That’s what Alessan’s Romans were doing with their Latinatas. Modern society has realised the value of a standard language, but who gets to determine what that standard is? Prescriptivists are people who want their version of the language to be the standard, because it shows that their social group is in control.
You descriptivists make some wicked cool arguments, but I’m still gonna cringe at “lay” for “lie.”
I’m taking a lay-down at the moment.
I lie awake listening to the badminton players in my yard argue who’s laying a beat down on whom and who’s lyin’ about the whole dang thing.
They’re all liars when laying the facts out about the gameplay.
Ooh! A nature show about Lions.
I can empathize with, and even sometimes agree, with prescriptivists when it comes to new definitions for an existing term. Not only can it be confusing, because trust me, it is not always clear from context which one they are referring too, and, more importantly, given a few years, there will be a new batch of prescriptivists who claim that it is you who are using the term wrongly, and that it has always and must always only refer to the new usage. Which wouldn’t have been the case if the additional definition had not been accepted in the first place.
I had a high school English teacher who drilled this distinction into all his freshmen every year, and I can’t help but slightly cringe as well when it’s done in a professional or journalistic setting. But I realize that in everyday speech, it’s a distinction that few people know or care about. If it weren’t for my freshman teacher, I probably still wouldn’t know it. I’m nearly/probably an oldster now, and have no idea if it’s being taught nowadays. My kids certainly never heard of it.
You know what bugs me? Words change pronunciation when the average person pronounces it the way it looks vs the way it’s pronounced. I have to go back to my 1970s dictionary to make sure I’m not imagining that the standard pronunciation of a word has changed. Here are 3 that pop into mind:
-Prescient/prescience
-Homage
-Patina
So am I supposed to pronounce it the new way, or stubbornly cling to the way it used to be pronounce last millenium?
I think I’d understand you either way you speak them.
You will never, ever, get me to pronounce “mischievous” as “miss-CHEE-vee-us”.
shudder
I really don’t get why this basic concept seems to be missed: know the room you are in.
Even professionally we communicate differently in an audience dependent fashion, or at least should. To use my profession as an example out of familiarity - I’ll talk to a colleague about a shared case using one set of vocabulary that I would be … loath … to use with even highly educated parents, and will use different vocabulary with some parents than others. And of course how I communicate with the kids is a different set of words. And, to bring it to the complaint, there are few circumstances in which correcting someone else is socially appropriate. (Okay a partner and I may discuss things like how “non alcoholic fatty liver disease”, NAFLD, has been replaced by Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, MASLD, which was new to me!)
Bravo!
Reality is that in some contexts they are correct: their social group is the dominant group within that context. If you are of an other group and you want to be best understood and have your communication be as impactful as possible, then you are likely best off complying to those standards.
It’s a pet peeve of mine when people say “Feb-you-erry”. There’s another “R” in there.
I mean, I don’t say anything because I’m not that much of an asshole, and it’s so common. But it bugs me.