Best Ever Albums

Re: How long it took for you to reach 5000 points?

SquishypuffDave — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 01:34:17 GMT

Author: SquishypuffDave

Posted: 09/15/2015 05:34

sp4cetiger wrote:

Huh. The one I usually hear is more like, "busketti".

Well sure, if you want to use the Latin.

Re: How long it took for you to reach 5000 points?

Anonymous — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 01:24:48 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 09/15/2015 05:24

SquishypuffDave wrote:

Pascetti = child's pronunciation of spaghetti.

Huh. The one I usually hear is more like, "busketti".

Re: How long it took for you to reach 5000 points?

SquishypuffDave — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 01:21:38 GMT

Author: SquishypuffDave

Posted: 09/15/2015 05:21

sp4cetiger wrote:

I don't think I've heard any of those three terms...

Pascetti = child's pronunciation of spaghetti. Its seems to be a pretty universal and timeless habit, so it could be argued that it's more deserving of a dictionary definition than irregardless.

In terms of working from a model, I recognize that the idea of a universal system of grammar is a myth, but myth is a powerful force in my life. The forces of order and chaos rage within me; neither can exist without the other.

Re: How long it took for you to reach 5000 points?

Anonymous — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 00:55:54 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 09/15/2015 04:55

permafrost wrote:

for the record, dialects aren't just "ways people over there talk" or "non-standard forms." there is no actual definable standard English that any linguist can point you to, though it's a useful rhetorical category in some situations, and putting grammar of "educated middle class people" in relief to Jamaican English or AAVE can sometimes obscure the fact that the gist of that line of argumentation is that there isn't a universally correct grammar. it's pure arrogance to think otherwise.

I know man, I'd never deign to say there is a universally standard English, and the distinction for what is considered "standard" comes from a position of either privilege or simple myopia on the part of those considering it standard. Just we all speak the same form of English, and we can understand our rules, so we might as well follow them.

Re: How long it took for you to reach 5000 points?

Anonymous — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 00:48:36 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 09/15/2015 04:48

SquishypuffDave wrote:

Honestly most of the time I do stay silent unless the other person has an interest in language. The internet is just a good place to vent.

The preschool argument was there to point out that there's more to language than knowing what the person means. If you just look at it that way you miss out on all the fun. Isn't yours actually the more reductive view?

Ah, you mean my seemingly black-and-white "part of language"/"not part of language" dichotomy. I realized as I was writing that post that I was approaching the problem like a scientist would -- there are observations/experiments and there's theory. The results of experiments are just facts, while the theory is our attempt to model those facts in a way that will help us predict future events. In this view, grammar is our theoretical model and the words people actually use are the "facts".

On the other extreme, you could view the theory/grammar as "truth" and then try to enforce that truth on the system in question. In most sciences, that's impossible (nature is the way it is), but in the case of language it's at least conceivable, because you can create language standards and try to make people adhere to them. I think this approach is problematic for a lot of reasons, not least of which being that it favors the powerful and privileged (thus my comments about ethnocentrism).

I don't think anyone here is taking a position as extreme as that latter view, so I acknowledge it's a strawman, but one erected for demonstrative purposes. On the other side, my view isn't a perfect representation of a system where the theory and experiments feed back into one another -- that is, society reacts to its ability to recognize the patterns in its own language (i.e., the grammar), so it's not a perfect analogy to, say, a physical science. So in that sense, it is reductive, yes. I'm not sure I know enough about the model you're working from to say whether it's more reductive, though.

Quote:

What are your thoughts on "pascetti"?

I don't think I've heard any of those three terms... well, maybe misunderestimate... I dunno, I tend to view dictionaries a bit like travel guides. If they don't have those words and they're common, I think that makes the dictionaries less useful. They can always note in the definition that the term is slang and shouldn't be used in a formal situation.

Re: How long it took for you to reach 5000 points?

Anonymous — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 00:47:11 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 09/15/2015 04:47

i'm bored of the conversation, as well, and I think we agree more than we disagree. i think using dialectology as argumentation against or for a grammar rule is wrong because the two are obviously separate silos within the same discipline, sure, and that they can be considered separately. i think the point sp4ce and i are trying to articulate in different ways and with different levels of investment (this is my last post ITT because i come to BEA to get away from these kinds of arguments) is that we don't think grammar rules and dialectology (or, more broadly, the social contexts in which grammar rules form, are used, and are corrected) should be separated. grammar rules and other formal elements of language are too easily and readily shaped by shifting culture and rigidity and inflexibility in adapting to these changes across the language is indicative of someone wanting to force their own essentially social view on others. though correcting someone's grammar can be fairly innocuous, it is the seed of much broader, more detrimental actions, and even without the slippery slope invoked by that, the underlying assumptions about human nature, what is and isn't universal and objective, etc. necessary to justify such actions are all pretty terrible

for the record, dialects aren't just "ways people over there talk" or "non-standard forms." there is no actual definable standard English that any linguist can point you to, though it's a useful rhetorical category in some situations, and putting grammar of "educated middle class people" in relief to Jamaican English or AAVE can sometimes obscure the fact that the gist of that line of argumentation is that there isn't a universally correct grammar. it's pure arrogance to think otherwise.

Re: How long it took for you to reach 5000 points?

Anonymous — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 00:27:17 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 09/15/2015 04:27

permafrost wrote:

what do you mean "the depth of meaning?" where is meaning if you take logic into a void and call it language? how does language operate without the real world of signifieds? how can you derive any meaning or understand the realities of its structure if it isn't put in the context of the real world? you still have not explained how math and logic are the same as language in this regard.

Woah woah, I never made the math to language analogy, if anything I agreed that I didn't think the two matched up. I just think that even though language is certainly derived from an anthropological point of view and personal experience and cultural context influences one's perception of the signified thus bringing in the subjective side of it all, there are still far more objective measures in that than in tracing dialects, which are based much more on historical context. Admittedly depth of meaning was an incredibly vague term that I mainly used because I was getting bored of the conversation, but what I mainly wanted to say was that the tools we use to analyze semiotic structures compared to the development of dialects are, certainly not in opposition, but different enough to warrant different conversations, and I thought Space's mention of Jamaican English as a means to prove his point that we shouldn't enforce objective rules in grammar was off base.

Re: How long it took for you to reach 5000 points?

SquishypuffDave — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 23:56:49 GMT

Author: SquishypuffDave

Posted: 09/15/2015 03:56

sp4cetiger wrote:

Come on, there's a difference between a preschool student learning to speak English and a guy on the internet using a common expression that you don't like. I already said in the post you just quoted that I'm not against helping a person correct actual misunderstandings (in the appropriate context), I'm against insisting that language have a universal form. If an expression persists that contradicts the usual logic of grammar, the fault is not in the expression, it's in your over-simplistic model of language. Both "I could care less" and "irregardless" have persisted in spoken language for decades, so they are a part of it.

Re: How long it took for you to reach 5000 points?

Anonymous — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 23:26:03 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 09/15/2015 03:26

SquishypuffDave wrote:

Re: How long it took for you to reach 5000 points?

SquishypuffDave — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 23:24:04 GMT

Author: SquishypuffDave

Posted: 09/15/2015 03:24

sp4cetiger wrote:

It may be that some of your friends and family do react emotionally to being corrected, but just don't say so.

They do react emotionally. With positive emotions.

permafrost wrote:

also, Squishy, why are you dressing up your aesthetic preferences as some moral imperative? you're almost as bad as me with my music taste. :P

Because it's fun. 😄

Re: How long it took for you to reach 5000 points?

Anonymous — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 23:05:19 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 09/15/2015 03:05

Silver wrote:

but the actual depth of meaning in something like semiotics compared to how dialects develop are two pretty distinct things, at least in my mind.

Re: How long it took for you to reach 5000 points?

SquishypuffDave — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 22:57:37 GMT

Author: SquishypuffDave

Posted: 09/15/2015 02:57

As a counterpoint, I really like the term "a whole nother". If I'd never heard it before I'd still know exactly what it meant, because it operates according to its own twisted logic. It's like a verbal magic trick with a setup and a punchline. It's expressive in a way that "another" and "a whole other" are not.

Re: How long it took for you to reach 5000 points?

SquishypuffDave — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 22:42:26 GMT

Author: SquishypuffDave

Posted: 09/15/2015 02:42

sp4cetiger wrote:

"Irregardless" and "I could care less" are very common expressions that are widely understood, so you're not really improving their ability to communicate by correcting them.

Yes you are. Language doesn't just boil down to knowing what people mean. That's a pretty low bar isn't it? I generally know what my verbally challenged nephew means, but there's a reason that people continue to learn language past preschool level. Fulfilling the bare minimum in order to communicate vs actually expressing yourself. Sentences and words are made of parts that relate logically to each other. That's why you can create new words/sentences and still be understood. If the sentence itself has an intrinsic meaning which conflicts with the intended meaning, then at the very least it will create some kind of cognitive dissonance. (Unless it's ironic, but "I could care less" doesn't work as irony either. It doesn't work as anything, except maybe as verbal dadaist art.)

I should also point out that everything I've written has been driven by my subjective hatred for that particular sentence. It's just so excruciatingly ugly. There are other "incorrect" expressions that I really like. Feel free to disregard my comments on that basis.

...also, is "irregardless" actually a common expression? I thought it was an occasional confusion between "irrespective" and "regardless" as Mercury pointed out. It's strange that it got into the dictionary (definition: don't say this word) when other mistake words like "pascetti", "supposably" and "misunderestimate" did not. Surely "pascetti" has a longer history of use?

Re: How long it took for you to reach 5000 points?

benpaco — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 12:33:25 GMT

Author: benpaco

Posted: 09/14/2015 16:33

sp4cetiger wrote:

WindowAbove wrote:

I could care less about grammar,

Cannot tell if meta or joke or what but can I just say

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

Re: How long it took for you to reach 5000 points?

WindowAbove — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 11:54:38 GMT

Author: WindowAbove

Posted: 09/14/2015 15:54

I could care less about grammar, in fact I care a lot if you say something wrong while being intelligent. Invalidating someone's argument due to a conventional mistake is just as bad though. I'm with both sides in this thread.

Re: How long it took for you to reach 5000 points?

Anonymous — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 11:07:10 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 09/14/2015 15:07

permafrost wrote:

have you ever talked to a linguist? linguistics is a subdiscipline of anthropology by some definitions (my institution's, for example), and when it isn't, it's at the very least regarded as a social science. there is no way to separate the formal systems humans create from the cultural conditions that spawn them.

Of course formal human systems all come from anthropological frames of reference and everything comes back to culture at some point, but the actual depth of meaning in something like semiotics compared to how dialects develop are two pretty distinct things, at least in my mind.

Re: How long it took for you to reach 5000 points?

Muslim-Bigfoot — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 11:01:50 GMT

Author: Muslim-Bigfoot

Posted: 09/14/2015 15:01

People's reaction to "I could care less" doesn't have much to do with grammar Nazism or actually linguistic prescription, I think. It's a situation like this: suppose "We know yogurt isn't black" was a common expression in a language. Suppose the point of this expression was to convey limpidity. From a linguistic point of view using it in the form of "We know yogurt is black" would be no problem inasmuch as it is common and communication is made possible by it. But people who know what this obvious expression in its original form is meant to do wouldn't be able to help but see the over-your-head aspect of using it in its new form.

Re: How long it took for you to reach 5000 points?

Anonymous — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:25:19 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 09/14/2015 14:25

Quote:

This hasn't been my experience at all, maybe because my friends and family are all linguistics nerds. Correcting or being corrected has never been confrontational or personal or anything to do with superiority. Interpreting it that way is 100% the listener's decision.

I'm not referring to anything that's determined by a conscious decision, but rather an emotional response. It may be that some of your friends and family do react emotionally to being corrected, but just don't say so.

I have a friend at work who is widely labelled as "pretentious" for constantly correcting people, but I doubt this has ever been said to his face. I really like him, to be honest, because his zealousness seems to come from a love of learning, but I admit that he can be a bit overbearing at times.

Re: How long it took for you to reach 5000 points?

Anonymous — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:20:08 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 09/14/2015 14:20

Silver wrote:

They're issues of cultural analysis and linguistic analysis respectively, which are incredibly different.

Re: How long it took for you to reach 5000 points?

Anonymous — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:02:49 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 09/14/2015 14:02

Silver wrote:

I just want to point out again there's a strong difference between dialects (which are just differing forms of language that are only given designation as "dialects" because they aren't spoken by the most powerful or privileged people who speak that language) and basic grammatical rules. They're issues of cultural analysis and linguistic analysis respectively, which are incredibly different. Correcting someone's shitty grammar isn't cutting off their means to express, it's giving them better tools with which to do so.

"Irregardless" and "I could care less" are very common expressions that are widely understood, so you're not really improving their ability to communicate by correcting them. While I probably couldn't claim that these expressions arose from a distinct subculture (or maybe they did, I have no idea), the idea that we can make clear black/white distinctions between what's the domain of grammarians and what's the domain of "cultural analysts" seems very silly to me, especially on an internet forum that features users from around the globe.

But again, it depends on context. If one of my buddies is constantly using a word in a way that's different from normal and he's not aware of it, then yeah I'll point it out to him. I'm not saying that all grammatical corrections are ethnocentric, I'm just saying that demanding a particular form of language is.