16
(Bad linguistics) Language change is wrong, actually
(www.independent.org)
Welcome to the community about the science of human Language!
Everyone is welcome here: from laypeople to professionals, Historical linguists to discourse analysts, structuralists to generativists.
Rules:
Related communities:
Resources:
Grammar Watch - contains descriptions of the grammars of multiple languages, from the whole world.
prescriptivism is wrong, actually. descriptivism FTW.
Prescriptions and descriptions are not opposites. They're orthogonal to each other:
And prescribing is not automatically wrong. For example if I were to tell someone "don't call us Latin Americans «spic niggers», it's offensive", I am prescribing against the usage of the expression "spic nigger"; it is prescriptivism. Just like when someone proposes inclusive language.
What is wrong is that sort of poorly grounded prescription that usually boils down to "don't you dare to use language in a different way than I do, or that people did in the past". It's as much of a prescription as the above, but instead of including people it's excluding them.
Tagging @[email protected], as this addresses some things that they said.
Ironically, instead of "prescribing against," it seems like you mean proscribing.
Both "to prescribe against [thing]" and "to proscribe [thing]" are functionally equivalent in this context, at least acc. to how I use both words:
But I'd rather use the first one here due to the topic, prescriptivism.