The point of the example is that I think, if history doesn’t just wipe away all traces of 21st century electronic media, future historians may look back on this period of history as the age of the busybody. There’s literally nothing you can do that people won’t tell you is wrong; there’s nothing you can eat that people won’t tell you you shouldn’t, etc.
Specifically, the most common ‘using a knife wrong’ thing I get is people telling me I should use the back(blunt) edge of the kitchen knife to scrape things off the chopping board into the pan, when in fact that is exactly what I am already doing and it’s obvious if they had just looked; people so enthused to be busybodying with their prescriptions for what other people should do, they didn’t even stop to check.
Is this in your normal life or on your channel? If it’s in normal life, then these are people you know personally, and only you know their motivations. If it’s your channel, well, like I said, some people just come up with stuff to piss others off.
That said, sometimes when I watch people doing knifework on various youtube channels, I find myself telling them that they are doing it wrong, but I am just talking to the screen, I’ve never in my life actually left a comment.
Anyway, back to how this relates to the OP. No one is being told that they can’t call the biggest bedroom room in their house the master bedroom. What is being said is that some of the people who show and sell houses have chosen to change their vocabulary very very slightly to avoid any potential offense to a client.
If someone comes in and says, “I want a house with a big master bedroom.”, then I, as a hypothetical realtor, would tell them the size of the master bedroom, the master bathroom, and the master closet. If I am talking to a potential client, and give the size of the master bedroom, and they say they don’t really like that word, I’m going to say, “Sorry, I meant the biggest bedroom.” rather than give a lecture or start an argument about how ignorant they are, and what right do they have to tell me how to speak?
Public speaking is all about understanding your audience, and it’s about crafting your vocabulary towards that audience. If you know that some words or phrases may cause confusion or annoyance, then you should avoid them, that’s just public speaking 101. If you don’t know, then when it’s brought to your attention, you should be thankful at attempts to make you a better public speaker, not angry that someone’s telling you what to do.
The internet makes things weird, because I may craft something for one audience, but that doesn’t mean that it is restricted to that audience, and others who are not a part of my target audience may be upset that I didn’t craft it for them.
To follow up, I think that history will look on this as a time when we all got connected, and didn’t know how to deal with it. It’s not people who tell you what you do is wrong, it’s an individual person or a few. Before the modern internet, you’d never have heard the criticism, and the critic never would have heard of you.
But to make this into something that is the deal of more than a handful of individuals is to ignore the overwhelming vast majority of the populace that has never heard of you, and wouldn’t care if they did.
Its that, but it’s normal for the Internet. It’s everywhere.
Exactly so. It’s nearly impossible to craft something for a global and diverse audience without pissing someone off. Even if you do predict all of the things that might possibly piss everyone off and carefully skirt around them, someone will notice that you’re being careful and will get pissed off about that.
I’m not complaining about it. I’ve more or less come to terms with it.
When I haven’t been in food service, I’ve been in customer service, and a fair amount of that as overlap.
It’s pretty frustrating when one customer yells at you for doing something a certain way, and the next customer yells at you for not doing it that way.
Huh, maybe it’s all the abuse I’ve gotten in customer facing positions that gives me the perspective that I just ignore the haters, and filter any actual useful feedback and criticism into making myself better.
The internet didn’t change people, it just lets us yell at eachother easier.
This was already of note in the late 20th century:
For people who worry about using the “right” words without potentially offending anyone, I tend to point out the tale of the old man, the boy, and the donkey.
I mean, that’s a good story to explain why you shouldn’t take the complaints of an individual so seriously that you then say that it is “people” who are saying it and that it’s become a mandate or law.
The moral of the story is that the father was a complete blithering idiot.
Innumerable modern-day actual meanings of words have started out as “flat-out incorrect usage”. See also, e.g.: “whom” in the subjective case, the semantic morphing madness of “literally”, and phrases such as “free reign”.
It’s actual usage rather than etymological “correctness” that creates modern-day actual meanings. And AFAICT there is no doubt that actual usage of the word “niggardly” as a disparaging term with racial associations devoid of its original implications of stinginess or pennypinching has created that additional modern-day actual meaning.
Apparently not enough to have discovered the existence of this more recent racially-associated alternative meaning of “niggardly”, though.
Like most linguistic prescriptivists, you approach these issues with the attitude that the aspects of words and their contemporary usage that you already know about are objective semantic facts that everybody needs to learn. While the aspects of them that you don’t happen to know about must be just other people’s “idiosyncratic” or “incorrect” or “erroneous” misuse of language.
It’s “free rein”, meaning that when you’re riding a horse, you’re not actually controlling the horse much- you’re giving it “free rein”, and letting it do what it wants.
That’s not very much different than the current usage, except for the misconception of whether it’s “rein” or “reign”.
If we’re going to have a defined language (as defined by things like dictionaries, thesauruses, speech rules and usage rules) then there are absolutely correct and incorrect definitions and usages of words, and people should know them and in large part, conform to them. And it’s not a bad thing to say that someone who doesn’t is using the word incorrectly.
We don’t and never have. Dictionaries, thesauruses, speech and usage rules describe how the language is used, and help people to learn how they are used, but they do not define how they are used.
That’s done by the people who actually use the language, and language changes.
So, where do you fall on the literal/figurative divide?
Not always. Any of those, even wiki ones, are curated by people. Sometimes common usage is simply a persistent error. Like irregardless. An inefficient and pointless error, why it started I do not know, if people thought adding the “ir” made for a better rhythm or made them sound more important. If the mistake persists for decades upon decades then perhaps they should add it but still refer that it’s “slang” or “corruption” or recognize that there is no legitimate purpose for the word. “Could of” would be another, why should we codify something just because many people make the same mistake?
‘Karen’ may not be too far a stretch for the topic, because those talking about Karens with a disparaging connotation are consciously trying to traduce someone, even if it’s not meant as a racist insult against Karen peoples. We might say it’s better avoided, except that nobody attempting to be polite would inject such language into speech—it’s deliberately there to injure.
Then we have no reason to police “master bedroom” or indeed any other language because language is just what people say and we should just let the words fly. Someone saying “master bedroom” should have no restrictions on their language despite others being offended.
People compiling or curating dictionaries who are reluctant to add in incorrect words of little value are policing in the same way that people concerned about words that offend are. Police are a part of society. We don’t need to start teaching kids in school to say “um” a lot because a lot of people do that.
What do think taking part in this thread is if not “taking time to understand unfamiliar words and phrases”?
I’m very much not a linguistic prescriptivist and never have been.
Words don’t have set meaning, they have usages. Lots of different usages and all of them can be valid at the same time.
And when you are informed about the way in which a word is being used (even if it is different to how you use it) it is up to you to choose how to react to that.
The usage of “niggardly” in the hands of some people and some contexts has a racial element. The usage of “niggardly” in the hands of others and in some contexts has no racial element at all. Both are objective semantic facts. Is that the view of a linguistic prescriptivist?