[OT] today's random language gripe

[Rune]

It it isn't subjective, then it must objective - meaning that it has a single definition that is not subject to human interpretation.

No language has such a definition. Language, instead, is defined by humans. People write the dictionaries and books on grammar, based upon other books and how they see the language used in practice. So, the books themselves are based upon human interpretation. In addition, the books do not all agree on all topics, meaing then that application fo the rules of language is up to human interpretation as well. I don't see how language can then fail to be subjective.

The words on the page - in terms of molecules of ink or sound waves - may be objective. But their meaning - in terms of what the writer/speaker intended to get across and what the reader/listener gleans from them - is pretty much subjective.

For reference, from Dictionary.com:

sub·jec·tive (sb-jktv) adj.
1.
1. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
2. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
2. Moodily introspective.
3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.
4. Psychology. Existing only within the experiencer's mind.
5. Medicine. Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or condition perceived by the patient and not by the examiner.
6. Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or author.
7. Grammar. Relating to or being the nominative case.
8. Relating to the real nature of something; essential

Objectivity need not mean that something has a single definition, nor that it is not subject to interpretation, but rather that it deals with something that has a concrete structure. Facts, for instance, are objective (although their presentation may not be), but that does not mean that they are correct.

I maintain that language is fundamentally objective, but it can be (and is) presented and interpreted in subjective ways. If language was completely subjective, there would be no point in learning grammar.

However, as in art, the rules of language can be broken without making the application of the language incorrect, if the person knows what they're doing.

 

[Pielorinho]

Oh, I don't mind people the verbing of nouns. It's the nounification of verbs that bugs me!

Talk about pot calling the kettle black -- "nounify" is a verb, dammit!

Daniel

 

[Praeco]

nounification

The way we add 'ization' and 'ification' to basically anything amuses me endlessly.

I imaginize new wordifcations all the time.

 

[Moxie]

The way we add 'ization' and 'ification' to basically anything amuses me endlessly.

I imaginize new wordifcations all the time.

"Verbing weirds language."

Amazing what you can learn from a comic strip!

 

[alsih2o]

Pragmatically, you have to say "from whence" because most contemporary English speakers don't have any idea what "whence" really means. It's like the optional "-m" in "whom" - you can use it if you want, but it can't be relied upon to convey meaning to 99% of the intended audience.
In very early stages, BTW, IE languages tended to treat so-called prepositional phrases more like appositive constructions. The noun that we now regard as the object derived its function from the inflection and the "preposition" was added to clarify the sense of the inflecetion, like the genitive in "whence"
conveys (in PGmc) the generic idea of the ablative (which had collapsed into the genitive by then) and the "from" is attached to clarify what particular kind of ablative it is. This is still very evident in Classical Latin. Only in later periods was the original appositive construction reanalyzed into an object phrase.

yeah, what tarchon said!

 

[Praeco]

Pragmatical-like, yo' a** got'ta say "from whence" becuz most contemporary English spaika's duzn't have no brainstorm whut "whence" tru-ly mains. It be likes da opshunal "-m" in "whom" - yo' a** kin 'esploit it if yo' a** want, but it caint be relied upon t' convey mainin' t' 99% o' da intended audience.
In real early-like stages, B-T-W, I-E languages tended t' treat so's-called preposishunal phrases mo' likes appositive construcshuns. Da noun dat we now regard as da object derived its funcshun from da inflecshun an' da "preposishun" wuz added t' clarify da sense o' da infleceshun, likes da genitive in "whence" conveys (down low, in Pgmc) da generic brainstorm o' da ablative (down low, which had collapsed into da genitive by den) an' da "from" be attached t' clarify whut particulah' kinda' ablative it be. Dis be still real evident in Classical Latin. Only in lata' puh'iods wuz da original appositive construcshun rainalyzed into some object phrase.

Jived for your pleasure.
For some reason it just seemed appropriate.

 

[Negative Zero]

Re: Re: [OT] today's random language gripe

wow! i didn't expect this much debate! lol i kinda figured no one else would care

If you're going to criticize people for their spelling/grammar mistakes, you might consider checking your own spelling and capitalization. I'm not saying I really care, but it would make your argument more meaningful.

actually, i wasn't criticizing anoyone's spelling or grammar "mistakes". i thought i'd said as much. i was criticizing ignorance. (and perhaps the lack of desire to learn better.) my spelling is a LOT better than it was (you should have seen me in grade school!) but my typing skills leave a lot to be desired. like i said in my first post: "once or twice and i'd assume it was a typo, heaven knows i make enough of those."

Yeah, Neg. A person who doesn't capitalize the personal pronoun "I", or the first word of a sentence, is hardly in a position to criticize others. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle

as for the capitalisation; yeah, i know better. i choose to write this way for various reasons, speed (realative term ) being one of the major ones. i'm a big fan of personalising stuff, language included. but not of ignorance.

language is defined by its use. ... griping about the evolution of language is like griping about the weather evryone does it but noone does anything about it

perhaps. but use can still be wrong. and anyone still has the right to be ticked by something percieved as "wrong." what you're (now there's the other one! "your" and "you're", sheesh!) saying can just as easily be applied to anything else. if a group of people suddenly started driving the wrong way down one way streets, would the driving rules suddenly change for them? nah. rules are rules. you either follow them, or you're wrong.

...However, I fear that this attitude will eventually breed laziness such that many people will no longer be capable of communicating on deeper levels.

ditto. what he said.

Affect or effect. Grr. Learn it. ...

you mean like being affected by the effect? *sigh* yep that's another one.

... Mute point. ...

surely you mean moot point old boy?

I have a great dislike for people who speak in MTV Hip Hop speak once they are over the age of, say, 17. ...

right there with you! and i AM black. what ticks me off even more is those who do it under 17. in fact i just had a similar discussion in my house. i heard one of my cousins "teaching" this niece to mispronounce there are "thurr". this really annoys me i have no problem with using slang/vernacular at all. in fact i use it fairly regularly. but if it's all you know, then it bugs me.

I'm with Clay and everyone else who said language is defined by use. Language, after all, IS use. ...

funny, i always thought language was used

... English is one of the most devilishly difficult languages to spell (as any foreign learner or English-speaking schoolchild will tell you). ...

you're right, it is. i have no problem with ignoring mistakes made my people whose first language is not english. but for those not in that bracket ...

What about those of us who really could care less?

i've got you all covered. i refer you to the last sentence of my first post:
"nothing to see here, keep moving."

well now, this was fun!
in closing, i'd like to add for all of those who insist that language changes constantly:
you're absolutely right. language does change over time. and until it does change, all of those people who misuse words will STILL be wrong!

~NegZ

 

[jaults]

Apstrophes are for anyplace I choose to put them. Please just stop using them, then. Poor little apostrophes.

    Gah! That pisses me off to no end. And it looks like I'm not the only one...

Jason

 

[DerianCypher]

I agree with randomling

while grammatical errors are annoying, if english isn't your first language they can be forgiven. English is definately one of those languages with more exceptions to the rules then there are actual rules. Heck, even people with english as their first language are given exceptions.

DC

 

[Hardhead]

i'm a big fan of personalising stuff, language included. but not of ignorance.

It seems to me, you're a fan of personalizing(1) language, so long as no one else does it.

You manage to break commonly accepted grammatical conventions every single sentance. If someone else thinks that "no one" works better as a compound word, then they're personalizing their own speach. Remember, "cooperate" used to be hyphenated (it still is in England)! However, all those "ignorant" people kept writing it as a compound word until, y'know what? It's not hyphenated anymore. Honestly, get off your high horse. If you can't even bother to capitalize letters, I think you can forgive someone that writes "no one" as a compound word. If enough people do it, it'll become the standard.


1. Since misspellings bother you so much, I should point out that it's spelled "personalize," not "personalise," unless you're from England, which you're not.