That’s literally how accents and dialects work. People in a bubble developed different linguistic shifts. To them, and to to broader world as a whole, they are speaking a correct form of English, and yet some thick accents are practically unintelligible to people who haven’t practiced hearing the accent. We only recently began worrying about being understood beyond our narrow in groups. For the majority of history, these “bubbles” are just what we called cultures.
That explains why the ten thousand years of recorded history is filled with random violence and wars, but the point that I’m making is that things like Dictionaries and Encyclopedias and other written records should decide what is correct. They do indeed adapt over time when they have deemed things have sufficiently changed to update the definitions.
Just like how scientists decide what is science, historians decide what is history, so too should linguists decide what is proper use of a specific language.
who cares what people think? we’re all going to die anyway, just use the words you want to use to say the things you want to say. whether or not you align with a stranger on the internet is only as relevant as you want it to be.
Wouldn’t that philosophy accelerate the corruption of language, not just across generations, but spreading separation amongst us in the present, until we’re just barking beasts lost without even any sound pretense of shared meaning communicated?
I’m going to disagree here on the basis that this logic leads to bubbles of people thinking they’re right when they’re not even close to a majority.
That’s literally how accents and dialects work. People in a bubble developed different linguistic shifts. To them, and to to broader world as a whole, they are speaking a correct form of English, and yet some thick accents are practically unintelligible to people who haven’t practiced hearing the accent. We only recently began worrying about being understood beyond our narrow in groups. For the majority of history, these “bubbles” are just what we called cultures.
That explains why the ten thousand years of recorded history is filled with random violence and wars, but the point that I’m making is that things like Dictionaries and Encyclopedias and other written records should decide what is correct. They do indeed adapt over time when they have deemed things have sufficiently changed to update the definitions.
Just like how scientists decide what is science, historians decide what is history, so too should linguists decide what is proper use of a specific language.
Dauntingly compelling advert for RP for the whole world. O_O
Everyone on mid-atlantic “accent”.
Or how long until “mid-pacific” chinglish?
For world peace.
O_O
We’re just getting to the oldest linguistic debate. Is a linguist’s job to describe, or to prescribe? I lean very heavily towards describe.
who cares what people think? we’re all going to die anyway, just use the words you want to use to say the things you want to say. whether or not you align with a stranger on the internet is only as relevant as you want it to be.
Wouldn’t that philosophy accelerate the corruption of language, not just across generations, but spreading separation amongst us in the present, until we’re just barking beasts lost without even any sound pretense of shared meaning communicated?
If they’re making a mistake in public and it leads to repercussions for all of us, better to correct their mistake.