Prescriptive - Descriptive (Language)

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I guess I am just not as smart as Oralloy.

That may well be, it's hard to tell, but you do have this predilection for picking up others song and dance routines and passing them off as your own.

But,

Why are you diverting attention away from the fact that you aren't willing to address your own spurious contention, yet another contention that illustrates the poor grasp you have of the subject.

Frank: You construct your sentences, JTT, based on prescriptive methodology.

My question is,

How could I, or any native speaker for that matter, construct sentences following "prescriptive methodology"?

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5277798)
Quote:
I guess I am just not as smart as Oralloy.

That may well be, it's hard to tell, but you do have this predilection for picking up others song and dance routines and passing them off as your own.

Interesting song you are singing here, JTT.

Quote:

But,

Why are you diverting attention away from the fact that you aren't willing to address your own spurious contention, yet another contention that illustrates the poor grasp you have of the subject.

Frank: You construct your sentences, JTT, based on prescriptive methodology.

My question is,

How could I, or any native speaker for that matter, construct sentences following "prescriptive methodology"?

I did address it, JTT. Have you forgotten already?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I did address it, JTT. Have you forgotten already?

No, Frank, I remember that you addressed it in your typical cowardly fashion.

But,

Why are you diverting attention away from the fact that you aren't willing to address your own spurious contention, yet another contention that illustrates the poor grasp you have of the subject.

Frank: You construct your sentences, JTT, based on prescriptive methodology.

My question is,

How could I, or any native speaker for that matter, construct sentences following "prescriptive methodology"?

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

1. Sanctioned or authorized by long-standing custom or usage.

What's up with that?

Quote:

2. Making or giving injunctions, directions, laws, or rules.

What's up with that?

Quote:

3. Law Acquired by or based on uninterrupted possession.

I can see an American's objection to that.

Quote:

4. Linguistics Based on or establishing norms or rules indicating how a language should or should not be used rather than describing the ways in which a language is used.

That's what I don't understand. It's banal. It's such a generalisation that it is meaningless. It's as if every grain of sand has to be thought of as special.

Next door neighbours and other family members use language differently. There are as many ways of using language as there are people. Describing them all would become very tiresome very quickly. Assuming one is not as mad as a hatter I mean.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

How could I, or any native speaker for that matter, construct sentences following "prescriptive methodology"?

I answered that question also, JTT. Did you forget that?

1 Reply

@spendius,

I put all the definitions in to see if you were bright enough to pick out the one that is specific to this thread.

Oh well, Spendi, we all already knew that.

Quote:

Based on or establishing norms or rules indicating how a language should or should not be used rather than describing the ways in which a language is used.

Let me try to simplify it for you.

Based on or establishing norms or rules that have no basis in reality.

The opposite, descriptive grammar, describes the ways in which a language is used. It's reality based.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You rarely answer questions, Frank. It's just part of your devious nature.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

The opposite, descriptive grammar, describes the ways in which a language is used. It's reality based.

It might well be but as I said--it's pointless. Except as a job creation scheme.

How about the table settings for a Thanksgiving dinner?

2 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5278015)
You rarely answer questions, Frank. It's just part of your devious nature.

I almost always answer every question...and have with you. But you refuse to accept answers, mostly I suppose, because you are not really looking for answers. You are looking for reasons to call people stupid, ignorant, uninformed, or liars.

Good luck with that. I am sure it serves a purpose in your life.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

How about the table settings for a Thanksgiving dinner?

You are a ******* idiot, Spendius.

Do you now need 'linguistics' explained to you?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Except as a job creation scheme.

The you ought to get rid of your descriptive grammar books. That idiot Fowler would be more than enough for the idiot Spendius.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Yes. There is a language in table settings. Are you disputing that?

Are you a prescriptivist about the matter?

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

The you ought to get rid of your descriptive grammar books.

I didn't know I had any.

Quote:

That idiot Fowler would be more than enough for the idiot Spendius.

You're unbalanced. There can hardly be a newspaper office, or library, or college without a Fowler.

I'll ask you again--what are you trying to say?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Who determines which instances are “idiotic” and which are “part of English?”

You?

As I've explained, many times, the people who use a language determine the rules for that language. Scientists then study how people use a language and they try, as honestly and as scientifically as possible, to describe the rules for that language.

Quote:

Isn’t the structure of your sentence prescriptive?

In fact, isn’t the structure of damn near every sentence you write, prescriptive?

Not in the least. That is the thinking of people who know precious little about language.

Quote:

You construct your sentences, JTT, based on prescriptive methodology. Aside from the time factor, the reason you would not say, "When nine hundred years old you reach, look as good, you will not, hmmm?"

You would say a variation on, “When you get to be (my age) you will not look so good.”

Why would that be?

That would be because "When nine hundred years old you reach, look as good, you will not, hmmm?" does not reflect the word order of my language or your language, Frank, which I think you are aware is English.

It could be the word order for a different language and if English was to adopt that word order, we'd all change and time would not be a factor. The new word order would pour from out mouths.

I'm not at all sure why something this simple has eluded you, Frank.

Quote:

Obviously, you need to build in some kind of rules, but what kind? Prescriptive rules? Imagine trying to build a talking machine by designing it to obey rules like "Don't split infinitives" or "Never begin a sentence with [because]." It would just sit there. In fact, we already have machines that don't split infinitives; they're called screwdrivers, bathtubs, cappuccino- makers, and so on.

Quote:

Prescriptive rules are useless without the much more fundamental rules that create the sentences to begin with. These rules are never mentioned in style manuals or school grammars because the authors correctly assume that anyone capable of reading the manuals must already have the rules.

Are you beginning to grasp the difference between a prescription and the natural rules that guide us in our use of the English language, Frank?

Quote:

No one, not even a valley girl, has to be told not to say [Apples the eat boy] or [Who did you meet John and?] or the vast, vast majority of the trillions of mathematically possible combinations of words.

But it has to be explained to Frank Apisa.

Quote:

So when a scientist considers all the high-tech mental machinery needed to arrange words into ordinary sentences, prescriptive rules are, at best, inconsequential little decorations. The very fact that they have to be drilled shows that they are alien to the natural workings of the language system.

All the millions of rules that we all have, that all children have by about age five do not have to be drilled. No native speaker, when they are operating in a natural mode, is guided by prescriptions.

Quote:

One can choose to obsess over prescriptive rules, but they have no more to do with human language than the criteria for judging cats at a cat show have to do with mammalian biology.

Hear that, Frank. Those "rules" that you memorized, the ones that gave such high standing in your class have nothing to do with the English language.

They are the equivalent of rules for judging cats at a cat show applied to mammalian biology.

If you actually had any cojones, you would stay focused on just one of these silly prescriptions and you would see that they are bogus. But honesty and being straight forward is just not you.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Fowler is, as you've already been told, terribly out of date.

The problem in reading Fowler is that one never knows which way he is going to vote. Is he going to allow a usage because it is widespread, or is he going to condemn it for the same reason? … The impression the entries give is that Fowler considers to be idiomatic what he himself uses. Usages he does not like are given such labels as 'ugly' (e.g. at historicity) or even 'evil' (e.g. at respectively).

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

I didn't know I had any.

There's a whole shitload of stuff you don't know, Spendi. It's apparent in most every post of yours.

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT...you are subscribing to prescriptive constructs in the way you fashion your sentences...and if you do not realize that, you are not nearly as informed as I suspect you to be.

But I also suspect you to be almost terminally stone-headed...and argumentative to a fault, so I figure you are never going to acknowledge that you actually do.

Your attitude toward people who use prescriptive constructs is an absurdity...and your need to belittle people with whom you converse is worthy of pity and little less. So I do pity you.

Quote:

That would be because "When nine hundred years old you reach, look as good, you will not, hmmm?" does not reflect the word order of my language or your language, Frank, which I think you are aware is English.

It could reflect the word order of English if it weren't prescriptively ordered the way you use it.

I suspect you know that, JTT... but I also suspect you to be almost terminally stone-headed...and argumentative to a fault, so I figure you are never going to acknowledge any of it.

It is fun talking with you, JTT...although there are times when I feel something akin to regret that I so often lead you to make a fool of yourself...and that I get so much enjoyment out of watching you do so.

Let's keep at this, though. I think I can handle the feelings of regret.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

JTT...you are subscribing to prescriptive constructs in the way you fashion your sentences.

Quote:

Prescriptive rules are useless without the much more fundamental rules that create the sentences to begin with. These rules are never mentioned in style manuals or school grammars because the authors correctly assume that anyone capable of reading the manuals must already have the rules.

Are you beginning to grasp the difference between a prescription and the natural rules that guide us in our use of the English language, Frank?

Quote:

No one, not even a valley girl, has to be told not to say [Apples the eat boy] or [Who did you meet John and?] or the vast, vast majority of the trillions of mathematically possible combinations of words.

But it has to be explained to Frank Apisa.

Quote:

So when a scientist considers all the high-tech mental machinery needed to arrange words into ordinary sentences, prescriptive rules are, at best, inconsequential little decorations. The very fact that they have to be drilled shows that they are alien to the natural workings of the language system.

All the millions of rules that we all have, that all children have by about age five do not have to be drilled. No native speaker, when they are operating in a natural mode, is guided by prescriptions.

Quote:

One can choose to obsess over prescriptive rules, but they have no more to do with human language than the criteria for judging cats at a cat show have to do with mammalian biology.

Hear that, Frank. Those "rules" that you memorized, the ones that gave such high standing in your class have nothing to do with the English language.

They are the equivalent of rules for judging cats at a cat show applied to mammalian biology.

If you actually had any cojones, you would stay focused on just one of these silly prescriptions and you would see that they are bogus. But honesty and being straight forward is just not you.

You make it abundantly clear in your every post, Frank, just how dishonest you are. You make it clear just what a coward you are.

You've avoided everything that pointed up that you don't have the foggiest notion about how language works. You were in grade school, a dunce, and a dunce you remain. Oh sure, you're capable of memorizing but you're incapable of actually thinking.

You can read anything remotely scientific because you simply can't grasp the concepts. You run from situations, as you have done here, as you have always done on any language discussion, because you don't want your little gold star tarnished.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

Are you beginning to grasp the difference between a prescription and the natural rules that guide us in our use of the English language, Frank?

Hi, JTT. I was so happy to see that you posted a response to my last posting.

Yes, I understand the difference.

Are you ever going to understand that the word structure you use…is the result of prescriptive constructs? If the prescriptive constructs had been different…the word structure would be different. Ask someone who knows…they’ll tell you that I am correct.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
No one, not even a valley girl, has to be told not to say [Apples the eat boy] or [Who did you meet John and?] or the vast, vast majority of the trillions of mathematically possible combinations of words.

But it has to be explained to Frank Apisa.

I am not questioning that, JTT. I am merely observing that if the prescriptive dictates had been different...structure of sentence different be would.

Quote:

Quote:
So when a scientist considers all the high-tech mental machinery needed to arrange words into ordinary sentences, prescriptive rules are, at best, inconsequential little decorations. The very fact that they have to be drilled shows that they are alien to the natural workings of the language system.

So?

Quote:

All the millions of rules that we all have, that all children have by about age five do not have to be drilled. No native speaker, when they are operating in a natural mode, is guided by prescriptions.

Yeah, they are...but it is hidden to people who cannot see complex structures.

Quote:

Quote:
One can choose to obsess over prescriptive rules, but they have no more to do with human language than the criteria for judging cats at a cat show have to do with mammalian biology.

The truly funny thing is, JTT, that the only person in this forum who obsesses about prescriptive rules...IS YOU.

You are very obsessive. Particularly about prescriptive rules.

Quote:

Hear that, Frank. Those "rules" that you memorized, the ones that gave such high standing in your class have nothing to do with the English language.

Actually, they do...although you are correct they are decorations. The papal vestments are decorations also...and truly have nothing to do with being a pope...but to suggest they have nothing to do with the pageantry is absurd...just as your suggestion that prescriptive rules have nothing to do with the English language.

It is entertaining to hear you continue to rave about this, though. So don't stop.

Quote:

They are the equivalent of rules for judging cats at a cat show applied to mammalian biology.

You really are overusing that, JTT. Think of something new.

Quote:

If you actually had any cojones, you would stay focused on just one of these silly prescriptions and you would see that they are bogus. But honesty and being straight forward is just not you.

Ahhh...you are calling me a coward and a liar here. My guess is you are in an excited state because you have. Enjoy it. Some of us prefer to have sexual partners for that sort of thing.

Quote:

You make it abundantly clear in your every post, Frank, just how dishonest you are. You make it clear just what a coward you are.

Ohhh...again. My, your arm must be tired.

Quote:

You've avoided everything that pointed up that you don't have the foggiest notion about how language works. You were in grade school, a dunce, and a dunce you remain. Oh sure, you're capable of memorizing but you're incapable of actually thinking.

Give it a rest...or continue to make a clown of yourself. Choice is yours.

Quote:

You can read anything remotely scientific because you simply can't grasp the concepts. You run from situations, as you have done here, as you have always done on any language discussion, because you don't want your little gold star tarnished.SignatureOver 200 times we [the USA] have put our forces into other countries to force them to our will. We've been in the business of being a country for about 200 years. We've spent fifty years at war, - John Stockwell

Wow...a segue for the ages. You are one of the greatest fun people any forum has ever had at its disposal.

Thank at you For that Do I.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Read some prescriptive poppycock, Frank. Don't worry, I'll help you with the parts that you don't understand, though they be voluminous.

==================

Popes and prophets
February 12, 2013 @ 5:24 pm· Filed by Geoffrey K. Pullum under Prescriptivist poppycock, Usage advice, singular "they"

Professor Heinz Giegerich has pointed out to me that in the wake of Pope Benedict's resignation of his position at least two BBC reporters have been referring to the next pope, whoever that might be, using singular they. I don't have specific word-for-word quotations, but (apparently) reporters have been using phrases like The next pope will find that they…, or Anyone who expects the cardinals to elect them, and so on. Further evidence (to be added to evidence like the case of "They are a prophet") that singular they is not motivated solely or necessarily by ignorance or indecision about which gender is appropriate. The next pope, whoever they may be, will surely be a man, so the pronoun he would be appropriate and unobjectionable. But we have no idea which man, so singular they also feels entirely appropriate, contrary to what all the dumb usage pontificators say. Like Frank and Roberta

Neil Kelley (to whom thanks are due) emailed me to say that he heard what appeared to be another instance of singular they in a discussion of popes on NPR's Morning Edition. Curiously, in this case there was no ambiguity to either the identity or the gender of the pope in question (Celestine V). Nevertheless:

Linda Wertheimer: "Wasn't there a resignation of a pope whose name was Celestine, Celestine the fifth? What happened to them?"

"Them" apparently means "the pope in question, whoever it was". You can hear it around the 1:45 mark here.

Meanwhile Karl Narveson told me that he once got an email at work explaining the absence of an upper manager who was mourning the sudden death of his father. The sender was moved to share the following advice: "If you still have your father, be sure to tell them you love them."

It's all the same phenomenon: when the antecedent is similar enough semantically to a quantifier expression and the pronoun functions as a bound variable ("if you still have the X such that X fathered you, be sure
to tell X that you love X"), singular they/them feels grammatically acceptable, even if (as here) in retrospect it is a little bit odd that it should be used in preference to he/him.

February 12, 2013 @ 5:24 pm · Filed by Geoffrey K. Pullum under Prescriptivist poppycock, Usage advice, singular "they"

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4475#more-4475

1 Reply

Prescriptive - Descriptive (Language)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know