Yes, but there is a definate difference between one native speaker saying something one way, and 10,000 native speakers saying it another. The argument is saying that both are right, when that is patently silly. Linguistic studies or not.
But if the talking 8’ fish tells them its ok, I guess I should bow out and accept what is fish.
Actually, asking if you were coming from a competing school of linguistics or whether yours is the understanding of someone who’s not studied the field. Many things can be counterintuitive, and concepts in linguistics are no exception. I was trying to figure out where you’re coming from, and what level of understanding I can assume you have.
Um… it’s not any of those, I’m afraid. Although if you haven’t studied linguistics, then you making pronouncements would indeed be an appeal to authority fallacy.
It’s not a fallacy to ask whether or not someone has an understanding of what they’re talking about or not. Notice, I didn’t even suggest he was wrong because of any lack of education (although he is wrong), I simply asked if he had training in linguistics so I knew where to approach the debate. As I said, it was an honest question.
Why, want to see my transcripts? :rolleyes:
But it’s nice that you claim something is a fallacy, and then turn right around and do it to me. That’s neat.
The most common mistake for a novice is to confuse an academic meaning of a word with the general meaning of a word. Grammar may mean one thing to linguists, but it does not erase or substitute the meaning of grammar to copyeditors and school teachers. And while it might be fair to say that scolding someone for their use of grammar when they are among friends, it is quite another to say that no grammatical mistakes exist in a cover letter that accompanies a resume. It’s more complicated than that. Just as meanings of words change within certain circles, so do rules of grammar.
What I meant to say is…
I didn’t claim anything was a fallacy. I asked you a question. Your deflection of the answer tells me all I need to know.
No, No, No. There are many versions of this, yes, but that isn’t the one I am making.
The one I am making is this: Authority says “A is B” because I say it is, who are you to say otherwise. AkA comparison of certification.
A layperson can be right, and asking me to see my credentials is a sly way of discrediting me through better qualifications. An argument isn’t right becaue you say it is, it is right or wrong based ENTIRELY on the merit of the argument. Not because you say it is.
It may be defined as what native speakers do, but it is not defined as what **a ** native speaker does, or there would be no such thing as grammar; or rather, there would be as many grammars as there are speakers. This was the point of my objection to grelby when he said it.
Finn, you’re first cite seems to be a non-starter, if you give credence to it’s concluding statement. Bolding mine.
I have not worked my way through the second one yet.
So Finn, my ad hominem aside, why exactly do you go that extra distance from many speakers, to “a” speaker? How does this benifit linguistics, in acedemics or in the private sector? How can you make such a leap that has seriously demented implications?
I mean, I was hardcore prescriptionist years ago, I have butted heads on this topic with you before, though you probably don’t remember. Yours and Left Hand of Dorkness’ point of view has changed my perspective somewhat (I definately agree that language should evolve and change, but not on a indivudual level), but this goes off the deep end right into looneyville.
How can you account for this?
An example of an objectionable bit from your quote:
So, according to this author, English for centuries survived and thrived without a baseline by which language was judged as correct or incorrect. For a brief period of less than a century, the cultural elite clung to such a baseline and managed to persuade most English speakers that it was a useful experiment. By the latter half of the century, developments in political theory and the birth of linguistics as a formal cognitive science had made it clear that this “baseline” was superstitious nonsense. And this baseline is a good thing? Somehow, referring to the too-distant past of Shakespeare is a fallacy, but referring to the semi-distant past of the pre-WWII twentieth century is perfectly reasonable?
It is ridiculous.
Absolutely not. After our last such go-round, I referred you to The Language Instinct. I’ll refer you to that book again: it offers a theory of language instead of a recipe for language, and as such is far more persuasive to me. It is Stephen Gould, not Emily Post.
John’s probably a blowhard, but if we assume that he’s not, then of course Camille is in danger of being shot. Ed is clearly asking the question with the literal meaning of literally, and John can clearly understand that and is answering the literal question. Again, this is a natural, intuitive distinction that humans make, because humans are really, really good at using language.
[/quote=Steve Wright]
if i wuz to rite like this! wiv non?standurd speling an punktuashion, by the strict descriptivist standard proposed by some in this thread, I’d be using standard English
[/quote]
Nonsense, and again, you’re thinking that the Pagans worship Satan. Descriptivists say that standard English is a clearly-defined form that’s not better or worse than, for example, AAVE.
I don’t like. Would you like to give me a cite for that as any descriptivist’s definition of Standard English?
Point to one such quarter. One, I ask you. One quarter where language is disintegrating. On the contrary, language today is more homogenous than it has ever been before in history.
Oh dear–a student made a dumb argument trying to get a better grade? Forgive me–it does indeed appear that civilization is collapsing!
Since we’re measuring our linguistic creds here, allow me to say that I’m a hobbyist, but I worked my way through college as a writing tutor, and I was a damned good one. Once you drop canards about some sort of glorious Right and Wrong language (which many students recognize are bullshit), you can talk to students about the uses of Emily Post grammar, about the necessity of recognizing the audience and whoring your language out to the audience’s whim. And then when you get past those unpleasant necessities, you can get into the passionate power of language, that is, to the communication.
Over and over in these threads I say that the proper use of language is to communicate. Over and over the prescriptivists pooh-pooh this idea, acting as if somehow using commas in all the right places is the important thing.
It’s not. The etiquette of grammar is sometimes useful, and it’s a tool that the powerful, versatile writer has at her disposal. But it is only one tool, and it is not the most powerful. And the good writer recognizes which rules are useful and which ones are not; and the good writer learns when to discard a stupid rule.
The good reader, on the other hand, learns to read carefully and pays attention to context. The superstitious reader whines about the use of “literally” in more than one fashion, acting as if it’s breaking some objective rule when objectivity in language is far more complicated than the superstitious reader imagines.
Daniel
We all know that your name is Daniel. Why does this information need to be appended to every post?
I suppose that is the bone of contention, if there is to be just one. I don’t buy it.
Yes you did, and I have been remiss in not following through. I promise to read it before we butt heads again. At least about this. 
Well, the prescriptivist in the cite we are talking about seems to agree with you. (Bolding mine)
A “language” is any set of conventional symbols, and rules for their arrangement, that one user of the language employs **to place thoughts in the mind of another ** user of that language. Keep firmly in mind that definition: a set of conventional symbols and rules for their arrangement.
(Sorry, some of these are out of order… I tried to put them all into one post)
Contrapuntal: I think there may be some confusion, let me try to straighten it out. Right after the part you bolded, they go on to say
“but when applied to statements and statements about statements, they significantly alter the meaning of the utterance or sentence they are applied to from level to level.”
The denotation of a word never changes, but the semantic value of the sentence in which it’s situated does. In the OP’s example, ‘literally’ has the same denotation, but the value of the sentence has changed from ‘in actual fact’ to ‘metaphoricaly’. As such the word has been used with two different connotations, even though the ultimate denotation is unchanged.
I’m not sure I understand your question. Truth is its own reward. Should we pretend that there is such a thing as Absolute Direction because relativity has ‘seriously demented implications?’
“That is precisely the function of common sense, to be jarred into uncommon sense.”
-Eric Temple Bell, Mathmatics: Queen of the Sciences
Actually, I don’t remember, but thanks for reminding me. And:
Yay! Thank you, that’s what I was asking. It’s a totally different debate if I’m talking to a competing school of linguistics rather than someone for whom I’ll have to define all my terms. Ya know?
Can we kiss and make up now? 
By saying that there has always been great debate about what makes sense, and what is nonsense, and men once thought it was looney to think we could put a man on the moon.
My comparisions to relativity are, I believe, rather apt. There is no One Correct Grammar, there are merely a number of competing grammars within various sub-groubs of a linguistic community.
Okay, now this is just getting silly. I do feel that you are wrong, but that has nothing to do with your training. As I already said:
Now, I’ll point out that after I went to the trouble in the original question to point out that it was an honest one… well, if I was just pretending it was honest in order to start a fight, it’d be trolling. And I’m not a troll. I was asking whether you’d studied linguistics because I wanted to know if I should approach this as someone else with a competing school of thought, or a layperson. Nothing more, nothing less. And I already said that, anyways.
What exactly is this difference, other than various sizes of communities which use various dialects?
Actually, denying that both are right is patently silly. Valid languages and dialects have been created and shared by no more than two individuals, and this has happened many times. I can provide cites if you wish. . There is no one singular language known as “English”, although there is Standard English, (or Standard American English if you’d prefer) which is a prescriptive grammar. It’s certainly useful, especially if you want to get a job in most places, but it’s not any more ‘correct’ than any other dialect.
It’s kind of like arguing against relativity, because you ‘know’ that ‘only one direction can be up.’ Sometimes, the truth is counterintuitive.
The most common mistake of the uneducated is to assume that their limited knowledge is accurate and complete. The lay person will tell you, with total certainty, that the earth moves around the sun. Someone trained in relativity will tell us that any point you pick can serve as the center of Universe with everything else moving around it, it’s all about inertial systems. If the uneducated person then continued his argument in the teeth of the facts, there really isn’t anything to do other than smile and nod.
Actually, it does. What those copyeditors and such are talking about it not the ultimate grammaticality of a statement, but whether or not it sounds right to them based in whatever dialect they’re using. In other words, the gramaticality of a statement is determined and re-determined by informants based on their native dialect/language. Or to put a finer point on it, the editors and teachers and such are stating the relative grammaticality of a statement.
Pfffft. Your text is right here, no real reason to claim it says anything other than what it does. You claimed that my answer to him was equivilent to an answer of ‘no’ as to having studied logical fallacies. If you were just babbling and didn’t mean anything by it, I understand. If not, who do you think you’re fooling now?
And you can ‘learn’ whatever you want from my refusal to deal with snarky bullshit. I don’t feel the need to give you a listing of my courses, especially when you’re tone of ‘voice’ is rather obnoxious.
You’ll have to excuse my “obnoxiousness,” it’s just that I find self-styled experts to be tiresome.
As a side note, studies have shown that when educators focus on prescriptive grammar, prescriptive grammatical errors stay high or even rise in their students’ papers. But when educators focus on polished clear writing, and don’t even mention gramatical constructs, their students papers have fewer prescriptive grammatical errors. I have all my textbooks from gradschool packed up, but maybe I can swing by the storage place in the next few days so I can cite those studies for y’all.
cricetus: ~shrugs~
What is “polished clear writing,” if not “writing that adheres to prescriptive grammar”? I mean, I can see that teaching grammar on contextless sentences is boring to students, but it isn’t really about teaching grammar – the teacher is teaching grammar in both cases – it’s just about finding authentic ways to teach grammar.
So you agree with me. Good.
Ok, you are as off your rocker as a certain poster that changed his name and is not currently posting on this board.
Ok, you win. The giant fish is right, and one person that pronounces a word wrong isn’t really pronouncing a word wrong, but is merely reversing the polarity of the hypertextual grain of the subconsious, or some other wacky tech-speak.
Sure, nice way to rationalize your youth when some English teacher gave you a bad grade.
Here’s the thing. Your assertion that ITR had made a “flat out false” statement hinged on this –
Note that you said words are multiordinal, not statements. You might as well say that “not” changes meaning when placed before “black” rather than “white.”
As an aside, I find the use of “never” as an example of a word that can have infinite meanings ironic.
And you know I love ya. But in a good way. So don’t ask me to kiss and make up. (I kinda love Lefty too.)
Sure, but you have to realize that that leaves us with no clear way to define “grammatical error”. Okay, so a usage is “wrong” if one person uses it and ten thousand others reject it. How about if 5,000 use it and 5,001 reject it? Does the same usage stop being “wrong” at the moment when the 5,001st person accepts it? If not, how can we unambiguously distinguish correct from incorrect usages? What is the exact point at which a grammatical error becomes a linguistic change?
The real point of a statement like “a native speaker cannot make a grammatical mistake” is just to show how tricky these concepts are and how hard it is to make precise and accurate rules about them. And to drive home the fact that correctness is ultimately defined by usage.
Mind you, as I said, I’m in the prescriptivist camp myself when it comes to grammatical correctness: I think it makes sense to have a standardized set of rules and to try to maintain them where possible. (For one thing, it makes it a hell of a lot easier to maintain a continuous literate culture over hundreds of years when linguistic change happens slowly in written language. I like the fact that I can frequently read a Sanskrit or Latin text from 1800 with no more difficulty than one from 1200 or 700 or -100. I can read English texts from 1800 or 1500 or (sorta) 1300, but before that? Forget it.) I am not giving up on the strict use of “literally”.
But the anti-prescriptivist linguists do have a point when they say that “correct” and “incorrect” are ultimately ill-defined and somewhat arbitrary terms when it comes to describing usage. They are not insane or clueless when they make that point, even if we don’t always have to take their advice when it comes to accepting usages we don’t like.
Nah. I was with you on a number of your remarks, but this is inaccurate. Prescriptivists do care about communication, which is why we prize unambiguous usage. Saying that Ed and John must somehow naturally know which of the opposite definitions of “literally” each of them is using is kind of a cop-out. Sure, sometimes they’ll figure it out accurately, but sometimes they won’t. To claim that ambiguity is simply not a problem because “humans are really, really good at using language” is to deny that such misunderstandings actually occur—and we see every day that intelligent, linguistically competent native speakers do misunderstand one another.
As we speak, ordered from Amazon. And it’s being shipped from NC. Coincidence? You decide.
I find it fascinating that you are able to divine what “we all know.” How do you do that?