5
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2026
5 points (100.0% liked)
Linguistics
2332 readers
40 users here now
Welcome to the community about the science of human Language!
Everyone is welcome here: from laypeople to professionals, Historical linguists to discourse analysts, structuralists to generativists.
Rules:
- Instance rules apply.
- Be reasonable, constructive, and conductive to discussion.
- Stay on-topic, specially for more divisive subjects. And avoid unnecessary mentioning topics and individuals prone to derail the discussion.
- Post sources when reasonable to do so. And when sharing links to paywalled content, provide either a short summary of the content or a freely accessible archive link.
- Avoid crack theories and pseudoscientific claims.
- Have fun!
Related communities:
- !linguistics_humor@sh.itjust.works
- !languagelearning@sopuli.xyz
- !conlangs@mander.xyz
- !esperanto@sopuli.xyz
- !japaneselanguage@sopuli.xyz
- !latin@piefed.social
Resources:
Grammar Watch - contains descriptions of the grammars of multiple languages, from the whole world.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I think there are two different sorts of “prescriptivism” that need to be distinguished.
One is based on the idea that every language has a single ideal form that must be elucidated by experts and imposed on the rest of the language community. This was never a real part of linguistics—it’s a popular misconception from people imagining that linguistics is an extrapolation of grade-school grammar.
But the other form of “prescriptivism” is just fluent speakers correcting people acquiring the language when they perceive a mistake—this is a natural function that occurs in all language communities, starting with parents teaching their children. And it’s a necessary function: learning is orders of magnitude more efficient when the learner has both positive and negative examples.
The problem comes when speakers miscategorize speech in other dialects as incorrect examples of their own dialect, and attempt to correct them accordingly.
The latter comes from a place of good, but it's still misguided. If the message was understood, then it was good enough to not need a "correction" to it
Eye urgree, ass lng ass yu Ken rid thz wy dos eet madder howl iz zpelt?
To go back to my metaphor, the difference between someone going "you should use a 2.4mm posidrive for that 2.4mm posi-head screw" when a 2.5mm will work, and someone going "you should use a hammer, not the back of your screwdriver, to hammer a nail"
Like, former one is not gonna affect anything and it's being pedantic, the latter one you're actually being helpful.
Ain't nobody gonna decipher your nonsense
I understood it just fine. Does that make it good English?
~~Excuse me sir, are you impugning my English?~~
Xkus mi sar, arr yoo impunning mai Englees?
Don't be daft