Prescriptivism

[Veqq]

What do you think about those articles which speak of language use in English, either they speak about grammar/spelling, things like affect vs. effect, or they speak down on word usage as being newer and thus incorrect. These grammar nazis as they often self style annoy me quite a lot, especially when they use incorrect rationing. The worst is the implementation of Latin-esq plurals for words such as octopus, which they suggest to be octopi. The issue with this is three-fold, 1 those stem from a single latin declesion, when there are 5, though I'm unsure why the 3rd is counted as one. Secondly, this comes from Greek, not latin, with the plural being octopodes in Greek. Lastly, the English pronunciation is quite removed from either version, and even if you were to accept Octopi, they are not supporting the final i to be pronounced as it would thus be, thus tis quite flawed.  In my English class, we had to learn about 30 of these plurals for an exam, but I shot it down on the first day. In retrospect though,  with my small knowledge of Latin, I think it may be that -us words do pluralise with -i.

But yea, just a random rant on Prescriptivism. For that matter, my knowledge of the classics is not up to merit, and could thus be incorrect.

[hashi]

I'm all for retaining proper spelling and can be a pain in the ass to people who can't spell or use proper grammar. But, that aside, I do think the old latinate plurals ending with -i (octopi, cacti etc) are kind of stupid. I would like to see more of the old -en suffix coming back in (like ox -> oxen). I think the -s suffix could do with a revamp in that respect, it's too easily confused with the genitive suffix and the contraction of "is". Grammar nazi's ftw

Edit: I have a further question. Does the coining of new words count towards being against the ideals of a linguistic prescriptivist? And I mean new words where a word both may or may not already exist for the intended meaning, not just when a new concept arises.

[Neqitan 2.0]

Edit: I have a further question. Does the coining of new words count towards being against the ideals of a linguistic prescriptivist? And I mean new words where a word both may or may not already exist for the intended meaning, not just when a new concept arises.

Well, at least in the case of Spanish, where we have the Academies watching us closely (=p), it all depends on the etymology of the word in question. If it's constructed on native roots, like "correo electrónico" ("e-mail"), it usually receives approval or at least it's not considered as erroneous.

But when it comes to stuff borrowed from English... like football or e-mail... They often insist on either making the spelling Spanish, "fútbol", or otherwise coin a new word by calquing (e.g. "correo electrónico"; "balompié" ("football"), from "balón-" ball, -pie "foot") or using native roots and processes (e.g. urbanización ("housing development"), from urban- "city", -iza- "conversion/dynamic effect", -ción "process").

[phaed]

Ugh, prescriptivism.

Letting these changes happen on their own is what has created all of the beautiful languages that we have today. I say we just let it keep changing as it inevitably will.

[Amikeco]

Veqq, "octopus" has actually three different officially accepted plural variants, so you can just choose the one you like best.

[邪悪歌]

I was discussing this with maggy today...
I feel that prescriptivism is best, but in order for it to work properly, the rules have to be well-defined before they can be called upon...
If a variant arises that is prevalent enough, rather than dismissing it as wrong, a new set of rules can be drawn up that includes this variant and describes it as either being an alternative form of the language, or an entirely different language altogether, depending on how pervasive the variant is to the language as a whole...