If only people could accept that English being a living language isn’t just about the past, but words are changing now, and that’s OK.
This is for the people who gouge their own eyes out when they hear people say “unalived”; the people who (suspiciously) insist on the clinical definition of pedophile; and “it’s called a magazine actually” gun-brains.
I always find it amusing when people are arguing their perscriptivisim is the actual descriptivism. Part of how the language changes is precisely based on objections to word usage and lack of understanding. Those very objections are what give words character. They became part of the descriptive usage of the word. People can agree that yes it is a word in the linguistic sense while also arguing that it’s a dumb word or a dumb usage. Reinforcing normative usage only is perscriptivisism in a silly outfit.
If only people could accept that English being a living language isn’t just about the past, but words are changing now, and that’s OK.
This is for the people who gouge their own eyes out when they hear people say “unalived”; the people who (suspiciously) insist on the clinical definition of pedophile; and “it’s called a magazine actually” gun-brains.
I think your first two examples couldn’t be worse.
Also this post is a fake. So there’s that.
I always find it amusing when people are arguing their perscriptivisim is the actual descriptivism. Part of how the language changes is precisely based on objections to word usage and lack of understanding. Those very objections are what give words character. They became part of the descriptive usage of the word. People can agree that yes it is a word in the linguistic sense while also arguing that it’s a dumb word or a dumb usage. Reinforcing normative usage only is perscriptivisism in a silly outfit.
No, no — see, skibidi is actually a valuable addition to the English language.
What does it mean, you ask?
…
That’s right, it sure does. Have meaning, that is.