Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Quoting Anton <bwp@...>: > Garner's > calling " thusly " a " non-word " is gaudy haughty prescriptivism at its > most pitiful; there are plenty of completely valid, perfectly well- > formed words that have never even been used before due to the random > gaps of history, and the productivity (meaning " combinatorial freedom > and power " ) and creativity of language is what linguaphiles like > Garner should be celebrating, not denigrating. But " thusly " is neither well-formed nor an application of a productive rule, is it? You can append " -ly " to a noun to make an adverb/adjective (e.g. " daily " ), and you can append it to an adjective to make an adverb (e.g. " quickly " ), but what other words are formed by appending " -ly " to an adverb? It seems redundant. By the way, I stronglily disagree with your assertion that NT-ly is either beautiful or elegant. -- Berg bberg@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > But " thusly " is neither well-formed nor an application of a productive > rule, is it? You can append " -ly " to a noun to make an adverb/adjective > (e.g. " daily " ), and you can append it to an adjective to make an adverb > (e.g. " quickly " ), but what other words are formed by appending " - ly " to an > adverb? It seems redundant. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ asking whether it's well-formed is just begging the question, since we can only know by our native-speaker judgements; we can't refer to any external standard. the morpheme " -ly " carries the weight itself regardless of what it attaches to, and there are always " assorted other " cases in morphology. i doubt there are any rules that refer to the word classes you suggest (noun,adjective), just a morpheme and it's needs and desires, mostly just semantic constraints. keep in mind that so much of language is lexically fixed. (on that topic, note that " daily " is not an example of the productive use of " -ly " at all, and the example rubs me wrong in some other way i don't have time to think about right now.) also, the big problem here is assuming " adverb " is some unitary class, as their properties radically diverge depending on their semantic scope. i bet if i thought about it for a while i could come up with other examples of sentential adverbs (itself an overbroad classification) that could be (albeit surely awkwardly) " -ly " -ified. i'll think about it the next time i'm bored at a concert or meeting or something. this is certainly an interesting topic, but i have a feeling in the end that it just boils down to a lexical quirk about " thus " , probably not anything deep. there are probably two different competing lexical items with the same " thus " pronunciation, with some sloppy variation by speaker and register. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > By the way, I stronglily disagree with your assertion that NT-ly is either > beautiful or elegant. > > -- > Berg @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ that's okay with me as long as you keep doing it funnily. mike parker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 beat me to it, but I'll add some thoughts. I agree entirely about coining words. You'll hear no argument from me about using " kefir " as a verb or " NT-ly " as an adverb. However, I do not think such words should be in the dictionary (and I think you agree) because they are group-specific jargon, specific to far too small a group to justify dictionaryizing. But in the case of " thusly " , and really all the cases where Garner " prescribes " rather than " informs " , there is something utterly superfluous--the " -ly " . It does nothing to change the meaning. You said yourself that it's just a " nicer " option that lends " naturalness " . So you are saying that a new and distinct word should be accepted solely because it sounds better in certain contexts. This is a good example of the point of prescriptivism: good style and diction ultimately lead to more precision and concision in communication, which are undoubtedly beneficial. In the cases where you use " thus " and those where you use " thusly " , the word in question can be defined in exactly the same words, viz. " in this or that manner or way " . I anticipate your counterargument that language is full of redundancies yada yada. But in this and many cases, one of the options has connotations and pretenses associated with it---to me, " thusly " is a word characteristic of a person who doens't understand fundamentals of grammar and who is trying to sound intellectual. Garner is not a haughty prescriptivist who derives pleasure from prescribing per se. For example, under " joust " he says, <<The traditional view is that this word should be pronounced either /juhst/ or /joost/.... But almost all Americans say /jowst/; this pronunciation must be considered not just acceptable, but--because of its overwhelming prevalence, coupled with no good reason for opposing it---preferable. Let the orthoepic jousting cease.>> This is exactly what I like about Garner---he only recommends against the " norm " when there is good reason to do so. Here he is informing and not really prescribing; sure, he's offering his advice, but he's basically describing the common usage (or orthoepy, actually...just learned this cool word now!) and saying, " yeah, here's the background, but yeah. " He advises against " thusly " because at this point, it's only justified because it sounds better to some; it hasn't (yet) developed a true distinction that would warrant its *official* existence. (Of course Garner acknowledges that the word exists, his terming it a " nonword " (a term that is indeed a word, check the OED) notwithstanding.) Call it enlightened prescriptivism...or enlightened descriptivism. Like Garner, I acknowledge that due to brute force, most of the things that he and others " prescribe " against will end up becoming dictionary denizens with full word rights. But what seems so silly about descriptivism to me is that it's saying " doing the right thing--keeping our language as powerful, useful, and free from misunderstandings and affectations as possible--is impossible, so let's not bother trying at all. " Prescriptivism says " of course, but let's at least try to lay out some rules and advice for those people who care about style and effortless communication. " It's an uphill battle, but that does not undermine its admirable goal. And it's not as if prescriptivists by definition are putting forth their word as God (some are, to be sure, but that's an issue of the individual). Instead Garner, e.g., is saying, " hey, for those who care, I think this is the ideal way to say what you mean. " Obviously the scope of his recommendations does not reach much of the public. That alone is no reason to ignore him. Thanks for the good OT conversation. Tom > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > > OFFTOPIC: *But* because you mentioned that you're in linguistics, I > > have to give you a little beef! " Thusly " is no more a word than > > " seldomly " , or " quicklyly " , for that matter. In his authoritative " A > > Dictionary of Modern American Usage " Garner speaks thus: > > > > " Thus " itself being an adverb, it needs no " -ly " . Although the > nonword > > " thusly " has appeared in otherwise respectable writing, it remains a > > serious lapse. > > > > Now it may be that you're an extreme descriptivist and think that > any > > common crime of grammar or diction ought become law (My former > > roommate was a research assistant in cognitive science at town > > and quite the descriptivist, which runs rampant in that particular > > lab.). Well, Garner also lays out his thoughts on prescriptivism > > versus descriptivism in the introduction to said work, and he makes > a > > good case for the former. It's a great reference that I highly > > recommend if you aren't familiar with it; Lord knows my grammar, > > diction, and style have improved from reading it. > > > > Tom > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > > well, you nailed it down right there--i'm as hard-nosed a > descriptivist as they come! that's not to say there isn't a (tiny) > place in the world for (careful, scientifically informed) > prescriptivism. but language is what people say! > as far as " thusly " in particular, my feeling for a long time has been > that " thus " is prototypically used with sentential scope (i.e. as a > link between sentences, like " however " , " hence " , " therefore " , etc) > and doesn't function robustly in our current lexicon with smaller > scope (i.e. verb phrases), so using the **very** productive > morpheme " -ly " is a nicer option in these narrow scope situations, > giving it more clarity and naturalness. you'll note that i never > use " thusly " with wide scope. that's my intuition, and people's > intuition is what defines language, which changes constantly and > adapts to any context. if it feels right to me, then it is right! > and if it feels right to most people in a given speech community, > then it's the convention of that speech community. so > many " prescriptions " are actually awkward deviations from the > authentic conventions of the speech community they target. Garner's > calling " thusly " a " non-word " is gaudy haughty prescriptivism at its > most pitiful; there are plenty of completely valid, perfectly well- > formed words that have never even been used before due to the random > gaps of history, and the productivity (meaning " combinatorial freedom > and power " ) and creativity of language is what linguaphiles like > Garner should be celebrating, not denigrating. it reminds me of some > small-minded nonsense i saw a few months back where some guy > said " impactful " wasn't a word! it's kind of like someone saying > social ethics doesn't exist! you want to say something like " uh, so > do other things you might happen to dislike yourself also not *exist* > in your private fantasy version of your physical surroundings, like > polka-dot shirts or acorn flour?? Garner would probably also refuse > to confer his holy title of " word " to such beautiful, elegant, and > potentially useful words as " NT-ly " ( " we did it NT-ly to see if they > would notice the difference and offer unsolicited praise " ), " kefir > (verb) " ( " i'm kefiring my twinkies for a few weeks before that sacred > moment when i drop them into a bubbling cauldron of walnut oil " ), > etc. people like Garner want language to fit their clean little > theories, but language, like most other biological systems > (especially the other ones somehow wedged together in our three-pound > grey mushy things) are wet, dirty, messy, and could never be > delineated in the information-theoretically trivial space of a book, > or even a whole bookshelf. if language was really as simple as neat > little grade-school categories like " adverbs " , then linguists > would've gone out of business a long time ago! > well, enough of this! > mike parker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Tom: > I anticipate your > counterargument that language is full of redundancies yada yada. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ great! that saves me so much work! redundancy and superfluity are the bedrock of the human mind, and the mind is the bedrock of society and culture... three (3) cheers for superfluity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i enjoyed reading the rest of your post; thanks! i think almost anybody would agree with your general thoughts on prescriptivism, but that's really only about written language (and its spoken versions, distinct from natural spoken language), such a tiny tiny little system that piggybacks somewhat rudely on language-language (=speech)... maybe like a backseat-driver... mike parker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Good point. Redundancy is certainly the bedrock of human thinking helps communication immeasurably. However, I feel that there's good redundancy and bad...but enough on this subject already, I'm tired! Suffice it to say that in speech diction matters far less than in writing. From one perspective, it's again the redundancy issue. For example in speech, you could say " a big cow " and emphasize the word big while stretching out your arms, but to convey the same degree of precision (not particularly precise, of course) in writing, you'd need to say " very large cow " or " enormous cow " or " a cow as large as my armspan " . So style matters much more in writing, but it still matters. And I really object to your use of " backseat driver " here; we're not talking about cars or driving here, so what the hell??? Bad style, man. > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Tom: > > I anticipate your > > counterargument that language is full of redundancies yada yada. > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > > great! that saves me so much work! > > redundancy and superfluity are the bedrock of the human mind, and the > mind is the bedrock of society and culture... > three (3) cheers for superfluity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > > i enjoyed reading the rest of your post; thanks! i think almost > anybody would agree with your general thoughts on prescriptivism, but > that's really only about written language (and its spoken versions, > distinct from natural spoken language), such a tiny tiny little > system that piggybacks somewhat rudely on language-language > (=speech)... maybe like a backseat-driver... > > mike parker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 > And I really object to your use of " backseat driver " here; we're not > talking about cars or driving here, so what the hell??? Bad style, man. > > mixed metaphors float the engines of our minds! to forsake them would be starvation for our internal white-noise generators! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 --- In , " lucientj " <cassiusdio@g...> wrote: > > But what seems so silly about descriptivism to me is that it's > saying " doing the right thing--keeping our language as powerful, > useful, and free from misunderstandings and affectations as > possible--is impossible, so let's not bother trying at all. " Descriptivism is not saying that. The job of any scientist in any field, including linguistics, is to observe, record, report and theorize about the object of study, not to decide what it _ought_ to be. Can you imagine an anthropologist going to Asia or Africa to study a primitive tribe and deciding how she thought the local culture could be improved, then trying to convince the natives to change their system of music, style of dress, religious beliefs, etc? This would be a big no-no in the field of anthropology, and it is no less so in descriptive linguistics. The descriptive linguist's job is to report as accurately as possible what a language _is_, not what he thinks it should be. > Prescriptivism says " of course, but let's at least try to lay out > some rules and advice for those people who care about style and > effortless communication. " It's an uphill battle, but that does > not undermine its admirable goal. Descriptivism and Prescriptivism aren't different and conflicting philosophical views of the same thing, or even different approaches to the same end. They're different activities. Each has a different goal. One could be a Prescriptivist and have no disagreement with what a Descriptivist does, and vice versa. One could also be both at the same time, that is to say that one could be involved in both fields, not that they aren't different activities. Exactly what each is, is right in its name. Descriptive linguistics _describes_ what a language is, and prescriptive linguistics _prescribes_ what it ought to be, at least for those who believe in, and are interested in, changing it in the first place. In fact, it could be said that the Prescriptivist can't even begin her job until first the Descriptivist's report on the language she wishes to change is on her desk. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 > > In fact, it could be said that the Prescriptivist can't > even begin her job until first the Descriptivist's > report on the language she wishes to change is on her > desk. :-) Actually I should have written " ...wishes to change, or prevent from changing... " . Prescriptivism more often than not involves trying to _halt_ language evolution, not initiate it, at least any thought to detract from effective communication. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 In a message dated 11/5/03 11:45:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, cassiusdio@... writes: > But in the case of " thusly " , > and really all the cases where Garner " prescribes " rather than > " informs " , there is something utterly superfluous--the " -ly " . It does > nothing to change the meaning I just thought I'd share this definition from Websters Unabridged: " IRONIC: a., ironical. " Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 In a message dated 11/6/03 1:16:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, liberty@... writes: > Descriptivism and Prescriptivism aren't different and > conflicting philosophical views of the same thing, or > even different approaches to the same end. They're > different activities. Each has a different goal. One > could be a Prescriptivist and have no disagreement with > what a Descriptivist does, and vice versa. One could > also be both at the same time, that is to say that one > could be involved in both fields, not that they aren't > different activities. Exactly what each is, is right > in its name. Descriptive linguistics _describes_ what > a language is, and prescriptive linguistics _prescribes_ > what it ought to be, at least for those who believe in, > and are interested in, changing it in the first place. > In fact, it could be said that the Prescriptivist can't > even begin her job until first the Descriptivist's > report on the language she wishes to change is on her > desk. :-) > So basically what you are saying is a " Descriptivist " is a scientist and a " Prescriptivist " is a guy who gets paid too much? Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 > > So basically what you are saying is a " Descriptivist " is a > scientist and a " Prescriptivist " is a guy who gets paid too > much? Oh you're trying to get me into trouble you big tart! :^D I was trying to make a point _without_ making any value judgements. Depending on how you want to look at it, a prescriptivist could be looked upon as trivially as a style consultant, a wedding planner, Miss Manners, etc. At the other extreme, they could be regarded as " language engineers " , and as important as, for example, the engineers that design and insure the efficiency and safety of the highways and freeways that we all use. Language is used and created collectively, something like the public streets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 I agree, they don't conflict at all. The way I see it, those who are studying the language--linguists--are by nature descriptivists. What bothers me is when descriptivists suggest that any sort of grammatical, dictional, or stylistic prescription is wrong. lLikewise, a prescriptivist--a language " expert " --should not suggest that their prescriptions are the only correct way of speaking or writing. They should give their reasons for so prescribing, but not pretend to be giving out the Gospel truth. As long as you take prescriptivists' prescriptions for " proper " usage and descriptivists' descriptions of " standard " or " common " usage with a grain of salt, everyone should be happy. Tom > > > > But what seems so silly about descriptivism to me is that it's > > saying " doing the right thing--keeping our language as powerful, > > useful, and free from misunderstandings and affectations as > > possible--is impossible, so let's not bother trying at all. " > > Descriptivism is not saying that. The job of any > scientist in any field, including linguistics, is to > observe, record, report and theorize about the object > of study, not to decide what it _ought_ to be. Can > you imagine an anthropologist going to Asia or Africa > to study a primitive tribe and deciding how she thought > the local culture could be improved, then trying to > convince the natives to change their system of music, > style of dress, religious beliefs, etc? This would be > a big no-no in the field of anthropology, and it is no > less so in descriptive linguistics. The descriptive > linguist's job is to report as accurately as possible > what a language _is_, not what he thinks it should be. > > > Prescriptivism says " of course, but let's at least try to lay out > > some rules and advice for those people who care about style and > > effortless communication. " It's an uphill battle, but that does > > not undermine its admirable goal. > > Descriptivism and Prescriptivism aren't different and > conflicting philosophical views of the same thing, or > even different approaches to the same end. They're > different activities. Each has a different goal. One > could be a Prescriptivist and have no disagreement with > what a Descriptivist does, and vice versa. One could > also be both at the same time, that is to say that one > could be involved in both fields, not that they aren't > different activities. Exactly what each is, is right > in its name. Descriptive linguistics _describes_ what > a language is, and prescriptive linguistics _prescribes_ > what it ought to be, at least for those who believe in, > and are interested in, changing it in the first place. > In fact, it could be said that the Prescriptivist can't > even begin her job until first the Descriptivist's > report on the language she wishes to change is on her > desk. :-) > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 Good analogies! > judgements. Depending on how you want to look at it, a > prescriptivist could be looked upon as trivially as a > style consultant, a wedding planner, Miss Manners, etc. > At the other extreme, they could be regarded as " language > engineers " , and as important as, for example, the engineers > that design and insure the efficiency and safety of the > highways and freeways that we all use. Language is used > and created collectively, something like the public streets. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 Hey I really love your sense of humor, and you are skillful wordsmiths, but will you join a linguistics board and argue the merits of grammar elsewhere, OR stay on topic for this board? I need to learn about food! -(grouchy tonight) Blair > > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Tom: > > > I anticipate your > > > counterargument that language is full of redundancies yada yada. > > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > > > > great! that saves me so much work! > > > > redundancy and superfluity are the bedrock of the human mind, and the > > mind is the bedrock of society and culture... > > three (3) cheers for superfluity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > > > > > i enjoyed reading the rest of your post; thanks! i think almost > > anybody would agree with your general thoughts on prescriptivism, but > > that's really only about written language (and its spoken versions, > > distinct from natural spoken language), such a tiny tiny little > > system that piggybacks somewhat rudely on language-language > > (=speech)... maybe like a backseat-driver... > > > > mike parker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 > Hey I really love your sense of humor, and you are skillful > wordsmiths, but will you join a linguistics board and argue the > merits of grammar elsewhere, OR stay on topic > for this board? I need to learn about food! > -(grouchy tonight) Blair I guess we should have labelled them " O.T. " . :-( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.