Yea, verily. As it was, so must it always be.
Seyla.
Writing well is largely dependent upon understanding what ‘good writing’ is; or what’s effective writing within certain constraints. Writing is not the same thing as speaking, at all. Totally different critter.
This holds true in terms of education, by the way. How many students do you remember liking grammar drills? How much attention did they pay?
Mmmmm… shibbolethtastic!
And it stays crunchy in milk!
Pshaw.
If I can take a whack at this ongoing caveman analogy:
There were once cavemen who made their weapons out of the tortured souls of the damned. There were some other cavemen who were made entirely of tacos. Still other cavemen froliced in the fields and cavorted just as you would imagine merry cavemen used to frolic. Then there were ninja vampire cyborgs with laser eyes that, like, wrecked everybody’s shit all up and it was fucking horrible good gods there were people running and being melted by evil cyborg vampire eyes o’ burnin’ burnin’ hate! Goddamn intellectuals.
Even a descriptivist would say that you have to cater your dialect to your intended audience to effective communicate with them. If that means using some form of Standard English, then that is what you do. But to then say Standard English is better than some other dialect would be wrong. Maybe it the one that is most widely used to communicate with the largest number of people, but that just means it is widely used, not that it is more corrrect than any other dialect.
Standard English can be the lingua franca of English dialects, everybody’s second language if you like.
Especially for instance in the sentence “Keep your eyes on the board.”
Does that mean that:
A) The student is being punished and has to get chalk dust in his eyes?
B) Sit in your desk, do not talk, do not look away, do not daydream, pay attention?
C) There is a board of wood. Make sure every time you write the letter I, it is on the board?
Of course, A) is ludicrous. But the use of “keep your eyes on the board” as a possible intensive means that sentence could mean either B) or C).
They… they… they’re idiomatic phrases! Run away! Run away!
Ah, it was you then, not Finn. I see. No, the audience doesn’t understand the concept. It is ambigious and “murky.” It could mean you were turned into a zygote for a day, or it could mean you were sleeping all day, studying all day, or that you were mentally retarded all day.
It only communicates the concept that you are trying to say something, it definately doesn’t convey exactly what. Its the same as making wild gestures and grunting. Primitive and inefficient.
You know what. This is my last post in this thread. I communicated with Finn and we cleared that up. I really don’t want to get into a match with a zealot on a mission. I admited I was wrong, I was ignorant and some of that was cleared up, sure. However, no amount of armwaving is going to make me accept that doctrine. So I guess in this regard, I am exactly as immune to discussion as you are. So an impasse.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Back out if you want, but we agree that my use of Zygote is almost certainly ineffective communication. That was my point–that you were caricaturing the descriptivist position.
No, they’re…they’re…puns, in your instance. Sure, there are random instances of multiple meanings of words, and in your example above, I would actually agree that to a degree the multiple meanings of I can impede communications, but is not worth it this late in the linguistic development of our language to change. As a more extreme example, words that can mean completely the opposite of themselves, for instance, “cleave” and “biannual”, are less effective at communication than some idealized language. When an idiomatic phrase can be used to mean completely the opposite of its original means, and both meanings are extant, it creates the potential for ineffective communication.
Note that I didn’t even go so far as to say that this choice of suboptimal communication was wrong: sometimes the intent is precisely to obscure the meaning. However, that doesn’t stop me from denying that linguistic evolution inevitably improves communications, not even amongst the participants in the changes.
I am not a dictionary expert, but I am fairly certain that a dictionary is not a set of rules to follow, but instead of reflection or log, if you will, of popular use.
For example, 20 years ago, the pronunciation of “often” was “offen” but if you look it up now, most dictionaries will offer both options for pronunciation.
So when someone says, “But I looked it up and the dictionary says it’s ok to say use it this way” doesn’t mean that a long-held rule isn’t being broken. It simply means that it’s been broken so many times that it’s become common usage. It’s “evolved” and I use that term very, VERY loosely.
As an editor, I can tell you that we don’t edit based on “what sounds right” because often, it’s wrong. We do follow the rules of grammar, spelling, etc., in addition to our local style exceptions. Flow is important, but secondary to the rules of English. If it is grammatically correct but still sounds wrong, we will rewrite it.
Or were you speaking in the much broader sense of time and the evolution of language?
It doesn’t mean that because every time anyone says anything, somebody’s long-held rule is being broken. For example, I’ve got a long-held rule: Everybody shut the fuck up! People break it all the time.
Folks need to realize that rules get broken, and nobody’s harmed by the breaking of someone else’s rule. As long as you communicate effectively, you’re doing what you should.
Your analogy breaks down, because in order for it to work, the turd-cavemen must be the equivalent of users of nonstandard language. A turd axe is demonstrably inferior at doing its job (cutting stuff) than an obsidian axe. Nonstandard language is demonstrably equal to doing its job (communicating concepts) compared to standard language.
That’s where the linguists come in: they can study folks’ attempts to communicate, and the efficacy of their attempts. As long as two different styles of communication are equally effective, then it’s stupid to call one style “wrong.”
canvasshoes, I want to thank you for your sparkling, original, and oh-so-cogent post. If only the exact same lame joke hadn’t been made and refuted several times already in this thread, I’d go into more detail.
