#linguistic prescriptivism

[defectivegembrain]

People are like "I can't use this word in this new scary way I don't have permission from the dictionary" and the dictionary is like "I'm literally just recording what you do and I'm constantly out of date because of your infinite creativity"

[websurfingspider]

Maybe I'm just a weirdo with Opinions™ about linguistic prescriptivism but like, I really, REALLY hate autocorrect for how it nags at people to talk a certain way in online spaces, or tells them that their language isn't "legitimate" enough to pass without a glaring red underline

[metapianycist]

languages are descriptive, not prescriptive. you can create new words. you can create new identity labels. identity labels are not set in stone with one definition forever, because language doesn't work that way.

it's also allowed for one word or one label (like trans) to have multiple valid definitions. that pluralism makes our interactions with each other far more vibrant and interesting.

prescriptivism will never affirm trans people's autonomy. and that's why i reject transmedicalism and affirm new gender labels like autigender.

[burnitalldownism]

Language is an amorphous, infinitely mutating, bastard child of itself.

You’re just boring.

[linguisten]

No one complains of the rules of Grammar as fettering Language; because it is understood that correct use is not founded on Grammar, but Grammar on correct use. A just system of Logic or of Rhetoric is analogous, in this respect, to Grammar.

Richard Whately in: Elements of Rhetoric (1828), p. 17 and in: Encyclopædia metropolitana; or, System of universal knowledge, Encyclopaedia, 1849

[defectivegembrain]

Okay I just...not going to add to the original post because it wasn't supposed to be about this and like I'm not always great at telling what counts as derailing, but I'm pretty sure this would. But I can't just let it go because I'm me. Words don't have any inherent meanings, it's largely an arbitrary connection between meaning and sound/hand sign/written symbol. The reason "I use dude as gender neutral" sucks is not because a gender neutral usage is any less "correct", it's because no matter if it's changed, the word still has gendered connotations, and you don't get to decide for others if they should be comfortable with that. It very understandably feels like misgendering for some people, and intent doesn't change that. But neither usage is more "correct" in any inherent, unchangeable way. By that logic, we'd have to say "man" is most correctly used as a gender neutral term.

[defectivegembrain]

writers stop using linguistic prescriptivism to indicate that a character is "smart" challenge

[metapianycist]

some asshole: this person used bad grammar in their post! i better point it out while telling them why their argument sucks!

me, a person aware of the classism and racism behind the establishment of a "proper" grammar: *cracks knuckles*