yes, you're right and I wasn't. It is prescriptivism, not post. It's been in issue in Canada, because of the Quebec language/culture thing. Thanks.<div><br></div><div>d.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/12/19 Jebadiah Moore <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jebdm@jebdm.net">jebdm@jebdm.net</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote">2010/12/19 Darren Greer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:darren.greer3@gmail.com" target="_blank">darren.greer3@gmail.com</a>></span><div class="im">
<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>I dated a linguist once. His big claim-to-fame was speaking and writing Tolkien's elvish. He introduced me to the concept of post-scriptivisim vs. descriptivism. Those who would have new words officially monitored and approved for usage by academics, and those who would have a more organic growth based on popular usage alone. I've been a descriptivist ever since. I can't imagine a transhumanist who wasn't. </div>
</blockquote></div></div><div><br></div><div>I think the term you want is "prescriptivism", as in "prescribed". It's not necessarily about words being officially monitored (as is the case in several European countries--though sometimes this is done by bureaucrats rather than academics) as much as it is about the idea that there is some sort of right and wrong in language use. Anytime somebody says "that's not good English" or "never end a sentence with a preposition" or "ain't ain't a word" or even "learn to spell", they are demonstrating linguistic prescriptivism.</div>
<div><br></div><div>It's not quite as clear-cut a thing as you make it out to be, though, and most linguists wouldn't say that they were prescriptivists or descriptivists--it's not a political affiliation. Linguistics, as a (social) science, is descriptive in nature; in this sense, most linguists are opposed to prescription because it introduces bias. On the other hand, just as physicists aren't anti-engineering and political scientists aren't anti-government (at least all the time ;)), linguists are not all anti-prescription in general. </div>
<div><br></div><div>The problem is that without prescription, languages diverge faster. Of course, people will tend to modify their language minimally, since it decreases their intelligibility to others, but without some oversight (at least from parents and teachers) it still can happen more rapidly than is ideal. This can be especially problematic in specialized fields, and in language modalities which are less commonly used. In specialized fields, the lack of standard definitions for words, leading to decreased intelligibility across time and between groups, can greatly inhibit progress; just look at philosophy! I kid, but it is clear that this has been a motivation at least within bureaucracies and other systems which use old texts in a modern context. In these cases, while you don't usually get the specialized part of the language standardized across the majority of speakers, you do usually get a standardization within the field, so that all lawyers or bureaucrats or priests speak a standardized language variant, at least while they're doing their work.</div>
<div><br></div><div>So, what I'm getting at is that it's not as clear-cut a thing as you've implied. Of course, there are some linguists who (nominally) oppose prescriptivism in all forms, usually on the basis that it is oppressive, exclusionary, and inhibits language development; but most of these same linguists would be annoyed if you started calling them "describers" or "anti-word-dictators". I think the mainstream view among linguists is that prescriptivism in everyday language is usually counter-productive (except sometimes with regard to spelling and writing, since there is often significant random divergence there without some enforcement from teachers). On the other hand, most linguists usually favor at least a weak form of prescription in specialized fields.</div>
<div><br></div><div>(IANNAL)</div><div><br></div><font color="#888888">-- <br>Jebadiah Moore<br><a href="http://blog.jebdm.net" target="_blank">http://blog.jebdm.net</a><br>
</font><br>_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><font face="'Lucida Grande', 'Trebuchet MS', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><i>"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines."<br>
</i></font><div><font face="Georgia, Utopia, 'Palatino Linotype', Palatino, serif"><span style="line-height:26px"><span style="font-family:'Lucida Grande', 'Trebuchet MS', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;line-height:normal;color:rgb(255, 255, 255)"><span style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;font-style:italic"><span style="background-color:rgb(0, 0, 0)"><br>
</span></span></span></span></font></div><br>
</div>