Posted: 3/10/2012 4:06:49 PM EDT
and what gives them the right to change them?  Just look at The Constitution. What was proper grammer and spelling back then is way wrong today. |
|
Quoted:
and what gives them the right to change them?
Just look at The Constitution. What was proper grammer and spelling back then is way wrong today. It's still better than the total lack of punctuation and capitalization of modern times... __________________________________________________________________ Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.3.2) (and the original thread). «nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus» |
|
Quoted: The Oxford English Dictionary people. incorrect. dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. OP, you've stumbled into a very complex topic. probably the single most influential idea right now is wittgenstein's concept of the language-game. the short, short version is that the meaning of a word is how it is used in language. language evolves though usage. in a living language, words are subtly changing meanings all the time––consider how far removed from each other are the classical and contemporary meanings of 'liberalism'. this is specifically why the medical profession uses latin: it is a dead language, and thus we can go back to the 'final' definition to ground the meaning of the term. if you're really interested, check out http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/#Lat or just point your browser towards 'philosophy of language'. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Oxford English Dictionary people. incorrect. dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. OP, you've stumbled into a very complex topic. probably the single most influential idea right now is wittgenstein's concept of the language-game. the short, short version is that the meaning of a word is how it is used in language. language evolves though usage. in a living language, words are subtly changing meanings all the time––consider how far removed from each other are the classical and contemporary meanings of 'liberalism'. this is specifically why the medical profession uses latin: it is a dead language, and thus we can go back to the 'final' definition to ground the meaning of the term. if you're really interested, check out http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/#Lat or just point your browser towards 'philosophy of language'. 1) I was kidding––in much the same way that op's question seems a "non-serious" to an outside observer 2) One of the criticisms leveled at the OED people is that (their) dictionary appears to attempt to be prescriptive 3) I've taken a phil. of language class 4) The OED wasn't around when the constitution was being drafted 4 (two "4s" for extra emphasis powah) I was kidding |
|
Probably the most interesting class I ever took was an intro to linguistics class that I took to fulfill a humanities requirement. Languages are filled with unwritten rules that we don't consciously think of but intuitively know. For example, think of a balloon that is red and large. Which sounds right? "Big red balloon" or "red big balloon?" Pretty much all native English speakers will say that "big red balloon" sounds right and "red big balloon" sounds wrong, even though both phrases have identical meanings. There is an unwritten rule that size goes before color, and it feels awkward to say color before size. I guess I'd say that language "rules" are made by the community of speakers of that language. Nobody decided that size goes before color but somehow through the evolution of the English language it came to be that way. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The Oxford English Dictionary people. incorrect. dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. OP, you've stumbled into a very complex topic. probably the single most influential idea right now is wittgenstein's concept of the language-game. the short, short version is that the meaning of a word is how it is used in language. language evolves though usage. in a living language, words are subtly changing meanings all the time––consider how far removed from each other are the classical and contemporary meanings of 'liberalism'. this is specifically why the medical profession uses latin: it is a dead language, and thus we can go back to the 'final' definition to ground the meaning of the term. if you're really interested, check out http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/#Lat or just point your browser towards 'philosophy of language'. 1) I was kidding––in much the same way that op's question seems a "non-serious" to an outside observer 2) One of the criticisms leveled at the OED people is that (their) dictionary appears to attempt to be prescriptive 3) I've taken a phil. of language class 4) The OED wasn't around when the constitution was being drafted 4 (two "4s" for extra emphasis powah) I was kidding hell––then you know more about it than i do.  that was always on of the courses that i wanted to take, but couldn't squeeze in. my exposure to PoL came by way of epistemology. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Oxford English Dictionary people. incorrect. dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. OP, you've stumbled into a very complex topic. probably the single most influential idea right now is wittgenstein's concept of the language-game. the short, short version is that the meaning of a word is how it is used in language. language evolves though usage. in a living language, words are subtly changing meanings all the time––consider how far removed from each other are the classical and contemporary meanings of 'liberalism'. this is specifically why the medical profession uses latin: it is a dead language, and thus we can go back to the 'final' definition to ground the meaning of the term. if you're really interested, check out http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/#Lat or just point your browser towards 'philosophy of language'. 1) I was kidding––in much the same way that op's question seems a "non-serious" to an outside observer 2) One of the criticisms leveled at the OED people is that (their) dictionary appears to attempt to be prescriptive 3) I've taken a phil. of language class 4) The OED wasn't around when the constitution was being drafted 4 (two "4s" for extra emphasis powah) I was kidding hell––then you know more about it than i do. that was always on of the courses that i wanted to take, but couldn't squeeze in. my exposure to PoL came by way of epistemology.
Haw haw haw, what a cool story bro––I dropped the epistemology course to take the phil. language course because of a time conflict. I never got around to taking it afterward. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: hell––then you know more about it than i do. that was always on of the courses that i wanted to take, but couldn't squeeze in. my exposure to PoL came by way of epistemology.Haw haw haw, what a cool story bro––I dropped the epistemology course to take the phil. language course because of a time conflict. I never got around to taking it afterward. then start typing, man––give us an answer! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
hell––then you know more about it than i do. that was always on of the courses that i wanted to take, but couldn't squeeze in. my exposure to PoL came by way of epistemology.
Haw haw haw, what a cool story bro––I dropped the epistemology course to take the phil. language course because of a time conflict. I never got around to taking it afterward. then start typing, man––give us an answer! I can't log into OED from here to give the OP an example based explanation about some of the words that might be germane to him (ie, related to the second amdmt.) |