Command vs. expectation?
I think you chose unfortunate examples.
#1–It varies, of course, but legally speaking, murder is murder. It just happens that self-defense is considered a sufficient legal defense against the charge, so much so that somebody who kills in self-defense is usually not even charged. “Yes, I committed murder, but I had a valid reason for doing so.”
#2–The ship has long sailed on this one. “Rob” is the generic term for “illegal taking.” Details such as house occupancy, use of force, etc. are irrelevant.
Sure you can. It’s WRONG, but you can do it. People do. It’s wrong everywhere, IMO.
BTW, I have a lot more respect for teenage slang, because it’s creative, fresh, dynamic, a way to signify to a peer group, etc. The thing I am talking about is none of these things ; the process starts with people who are not the best and brightest; and it all happens in a shambling, unknowing way.
I don’t believe you are right as concerns the law in either case. In the first, you may be thinking of “homicide”. The second may have sailed (alas) among the hoi polloi, but not in a court of law.
Maybe according to your definition of descriptivism. But other people might use the word differently.
And by what process do you think the language you admire so much got to where it was in the first place? When you use the word “nice”, do you intend it to mean “finicky” or “foolish”? If not, why not?
And those people would be wrong. Words mean things. Anything does not go.
Reread the OP and see if this example fits the category.
LOL, ISWYDT. Clever.
And this has no connection whatsoever to the “language in decay” trope, no sir.
The fact is that you, like all prescriptivists, are too parochial to realize that all of your “logical” arguments are simply rationalizations as you seek to reinforce the arbitrary status quo of the form of language that you are familiar and comfortable with. People who speak against your personal preferences must do so out of ignorance. But if you are truly arguing for a superior form of language on its merits, how do you explain the fact that you never advocate a new way of speaking, a form that nobody currently uses?
Not necessary. It’s the same issue. The OP has already demonstrated a lack of understanding of what linguistics is and how language works in the real world. The language he is speaking today is a “corruption” of the language of the past. It has always been that way and it always will be that way.
I am not a prescriptivist. I have argued with many such people who insist it’s only correct to say “it is I” rather than “it’s me”, or who insist “normalcy” is not a word. Prescriptivists hate new words. I embrace them!
As for your second question: if people could be given new OSes, that would be a fine idea. But the learning curve is too steep. That is not a factor in trying to preserve a word with a unique and specific meaning rather than letting it become a mere synonym of another word with a less precise meaning. If “murder”, “homicide”, and “killing someone” all mean the same thing, the word “murder” loses its edge. I have to assume Flyer doesn’t get the chill down his/her spine that I do upon hearing that word. It’s important to have that word, or one with equivalent meaning, not just for the courtroom but in literature.
I’ll just ignore you then, if you’re unwilling to read, or incapable of comprehending (I know not which), the OP.
i have been an armchair linguist for quit some time - i am personally fascinated by the concept of whether or not language is an innate, instinctive tool, and that words are just the sounds we make to get that language out to others.
and i am enjoying this discussion btwix SlackerInc and Riemann very much. i think that i probably side more with Riemann on this, but i feel SlackerInc’s pain. no matter how you really feel about how or how fast or how much (spoken and written) language should change there doesn’t seem to be all that much anyone can really do about it. even the venerable L’Academie Francaise has not been 100% successful in preserving French; many pop culture terms have made it into the vernacular, and the sound of french has changed a great deal as well.
now to my contributions to the op:
#! nauseous v nauseated
#2 the phrase “begging the question” (not really the op, but it peeves me just the same!)
mc
What did nauseous use to mean if not nauseated?
mc
This one’s easy. To “beg the question”, as any fule kno, is to raise an obvious question and leave it unanswered. This is something people do a lot, and it’s extremely useful to have a phrase for it.
To suggest that people should reject such a useful meaning in favor of an older meaning for a logical fallacy that involves an archaic sense of “beg” seems rather stubborn. And, let’s be honest, the real purpose here is to impress people with the fact that we know the name of a logical fallacy. And so, since using Latin can make us look even smarter, there’s a way to keep everyone happy. When we want to talk about the logical fallacy, we can avoid ambiguity by saying petitio principii, which sounds even more impressively erudite.
yeahyeahyeah, i’m not out to impress anybody, it just isn’t right to my ear. “raises the question”, or “implies (nice callback) the question” sound so much better to me.
mc
and of course xkcd weighs in http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?t=86458
I don’t think “raises the question” has the same meaning, it’s a much more neutral phrase.
But “…it just isn’t right to my ear” and “…sound so much better to me” really are not arguments at all, they are simply parochialism (at least of a more honest kind than most prescriptivists). You must surely recognize that other people speak different dialects or have different stylistic inclinations, and find other ways of speaking just as natural as you do your own.
Incidentally, it’s a little ironic to reserve the phrase as the nomenclature for one fallacy by exploiting another one, the etymological fallacy.
who’s arguing? the op asks for lamentations, which implies the recognition that something is gone or changed. if you wanna say “fleeks the question” and can get enough to follow you into the vernacular. be my guest. and i will lament.
no matter how you look at it, though, “begs” isnt right; it should be “begs for”
would you say “the dog begs the bone” or “the dog begs for the bone”?
mc
Heh.