I swiftly herewith consign to the pit, the ignorant clowns who misconstrue "its"

The BBQ Pit
141

There is a certain gesture one performs with their hand in a restaurant to silently indicate that one would like the bill.

No one ever sat me down and taught me this gesture; it was never brought up in English class or by my parents.

No pronouncement ever came down from authorities on high saying that this was the gesture to use in a restaurant for this purpose and that others are to be proscribed.

Yet, all the same, I, and pretty much everyone else, have picked up this gesture and use it fluently, and generally manage to communicate my desire for the bill with great ease.

That’s how language works.

142

So what’s the point of having a dictionary at all? Is it just for fun?

Kin I spel n youse werds howver i wunt 2? If ever1 did thiz al th tym, wuld u b ok wth it?

Why have a dictionary to tell us how these words are commonly spelled? Why not just spell phonetically all the time? We’ll all understand each other, right?

That’s just spelling, but the same applies for use and grammar.

Do you think there are no rules of language?

LOL. I’m sure you’d be just as effective at expressing yourself here if you never took an English class. Right?

Get serious.

143

Yep. I never said otherwise. (Though I strongly dispute the idea that you were never taught anything. You learned plenty of words by asking “what’s that mean” and you wouldn’t have learned them any other way.)

But if you use the wrong hand gesture, you could get yourself beaten up and thrown out of the restaurant.

And if you use a brand new one you make up yourself, you might not be understood.

So don’t tell me there are no rules or no prescriptive aspect to them. If there are no rules, there is no language. And don’t tell me you can learn a language proficiently without a prescriptive education (which is really just description by an authority, like any education). You would not be able to have this conversation without an education. You wouldn’t know how to read your nice descriptive dictionary.

The bright line between description and prescription is a myth. That is all. I’m done for today.

144

To document popular usage.

You are free to write in whatever manner you choose so long as you accept the consequences of those actions.

Phonetic spelling has certainly not harmed languages such as Spanish.

There are rules determining how we put together sentences and form thoughts and a lot of really interesting work has been done in the field of language acquisition determining what those rules are.

To the extent that a good english class focuses on understanding the various registers and learning when to use one vs. another, yes they’re important to communicative success.

145

I told you the point of having a dictionary, in the very post you’re replying to.

What’s the point of having a topographical map, or a phone directory? You don’t have to care about the data it gives you at all. But you might.

Well, people DID spell as fancy struck them for the vast majority of human history. English spelling has only been this standardized for about 300 years, largely as a consequence of the printing press. We don’t have to have such standardized spelling (any more than we need standardize accents); it has its advantages (e.g., in being able to easily read text from other accents) and disadvantages (e.g., in being unduly difficult to learn to read and write, particularly insofar as spelling may diverge quite far from one’s own accent).

However, I’ve never denied that spelling is quite rigidly standardized. It’s a fact about humans that speech is natural and writing is artificial. People pick up fluent speech on their own with no help, just like walking. People only learn to write with training, just like driving.

Spelling is very different from general use and grammar, insofar as written language is very different from spoken language. Humans have evolved to speak and do so instinctually. Writing is a skill they must acquire.

Goddammit, I’ve answered this question for you quite explicitly several times now. Listen to what I’m saying instead of just carrying on with some caricature in your head of what you mistakenly imagine descriptivists to be.

See here and here. And here where you acknowledge my having answered this specific question.

But, I’ll make it explicit again: No, I do not think language lacks rules. I think language has rules insofar as we can observe consistent patterns of behavior among its speakers (patterns of behavior which they engage in of their own accord, without need for training or conscious reflection). These patterns shift over time, and the only way to determine what they are is empirically. They are not well correlated with the “rules” alleged by prescriptivists, which are typically devised out of thin air or mistaken logic. One can test whether an alleged rule of language really is a rule of language by comparing it to an observed corpus of speech, the same way one can experiment to determine the truth of a claim about chemistry or history.

I’d still be a fluent speaker of my native language. I’d have great difficulty reading and writing, though. But I’ve never once claimed that reading and writing aren’t artificial tasks with standardized rules. I’ve noted that since the beginning of the thread.

I am serious.

146

Amazingly (at least to me), several here have opined that such learning is unimportant and as long as a person gets his meaning across, any spelling or punctuation errors he makes are likewise unimportant.

I think this reflects the general attitude of the public. Good grammar, punctuation, and spelling don’t matter. Those who still care about them are stodgy, quaint fussbudgets who really need to stop worrying about such things. Those who point out English errors are “anal-retentive grammar Nazis,” to use the terminology of one poster here.

I do find it horrifying, however that those who are purporting to teach your child are NOT anal-retentive grammar Nazis.

147

There are rules. But one may play a game with no umpire without the game being anarchy.

The vast majority of human beings who have ever lived have done so. People have been speaking their native language fluently since pre-history. English classes, and their equivalents, are a much more recent phenomenon. And almost all the grammatical rules which govern your speech are not rules anyone ever explicitly taught you. Plenty of people manage to use the perfect progressive without ever having learnt what it is.

Writing is a different matter. It is a much more artificial task, and it’s only recently that so many people have learnt it. People only learn to read and write by explicit training in its rules. I have never denied this.

But speech is natural. Language does not need explicit training. Humans are language-using creatures, just as they are walking and eating and shitting and fucking creatures.

148

You aren’t psychic enough to divine my motivations, and the fact that you’ve misconstrued them means you aren’t smart enough to figure them out any other way. Dude.

Obviously, there has to be a distinction between flexibility and conformity. I think, however, that we have to be on the side of the “Nazis” to avoid chaos. It’s not a matter of stopping change, or even of resisting it. It’s about there needing to be a standard, and more importantly, the standard needing to be respected.

149

When in history has any society ever succumbed to disastrous linguistic chaos as a result of not enforcing prescriptivist edicts hard enough? What languages perished as a result?

150

A prescriptive dictionary is one that you need a note from your doctor to obtain.

151

None that I’m aware of. So?

Most rules, formal and informal, are not constructed in order to stave off disaster.

152

That would be a prescription dictionary.

153

Allow me to repeat the post I was replying to:

What chaos has any society ever experienced for lack of proper respect for prescriptive linguistic edicts?

There’s an empirical claim here. So bring some evidence.

(Note, for example, how I brought evidence to my claims about “reveal”, “cite”, and “service”. There’s just no reasonable way to claim “service” cannot be a verb. It’s not empirically true, and would hardly prevent any chaos either. Yet what was the reaction? “Whatever, man, you can’t seriously be defending that”. Prescriptivism has never been about facts and it’s not really about order. It’s about turning your nose up and saying “Bah, I don’t like it. You’re beneath me because you’re not using my secret handshake.”)

154

Let me put this another way: what qualifications does one need to be allowed to prescribe language rules? How do we tell who has achieved the authority to do so? How do we tell which rules we are obligated to follow and which rules are just urban legends?

155

Sigh. Not general chaos, just chaos in the use of language. Sort of like people 300 years ago using any spelling of words they pleased. Sort of like your deliberate distortion of my words.

It’s a commonplace to paint anyone who favors rules and order–in any discipline, in any context–as being snobbish and advocating adherence to those rules only out of a sense of superiority. I had expected the denizens of this board to shy away from such silly tropes, though.

156

My, aren’t we elitest?

157

Show me an example of deleterious linguistic chaos in a society which did not properly respect prescriptivist edicts… (It won’t do to just say “Oh, look! They didn’t respect prescriptivist edicts! That’s chaos!”. Point out to me how this has caused chaos. Show me how societies which respect prescriptivist edicts are better than those who don’t.)

I apologize for imputing motivations; that was unkind and unproductive. I should not have done that. But in what way does restricting “service” to be only a noun, “cite” to be only a verb, and “reveal” to be only a verb provide useful order? And what should we make of the fact that this claim does not match the way people have been speaking for 120 years?

Is there chaos in the fact that spoken language does not distinguish “its” and “it’s”? Should we attempt to instill order by only saying “the X of it” rather than “its X”, and/or “it is” rather than “it’s”?

158

Even if I am an elitist, I doubt I am the elitest elitist.

159

You have my position exactly backwards. IF and WHEN common usage overrides the prescriptive rules of language, that usage becomes de facto correct. This is, in fact, how language evolves. Lexicographers acknowledge this–after it happens, not as it is happening.

Spoken language does, in fact, distinguish “its” and “it’s”–by context. That is because given that the words are homonyms, there’s no other way to do so. We distinguish similar written words the same way. The distinction regarding erroneous written words is that the context says one thing but the spelling says another. The effect is to make the reader stumble. Lynn Truss puts it very well when she compares punctuation to etiquette. We punctuate not only to convey the sense of our words, but also to make them clearer and easier to read.

(All that said, confusing “its” and “it’s” is a spelling, not a punctuation error. But I quibble.)

160

No one prescribes language rules. They just report on what has become accepted usage. There’s no “authority” that decides which way a word is spelled; that gets decided fait accompli.