Lingual Relativity

[Agent327]

Do you believe that all arrangements of letters are equally valid, and that there is no "right" or "wrong" way to use words, no "real" or "made-up" words, no "correct" or "incorrect" aspects of language? Do you believe that the cultural context is important; for example, that it's okay for inner city youths to say "dis" and "dat", but more enlightened, intelligent, middle-class suburban Dads should say "this" and "that" instead? Do you believe that there is some magical, imaginary codex of sorts that lists what arrangements of letters are lingually "right" and lingually "wrong", with a brief description of how they would be used if they were used in a lingually "right" fascion, and that this list is objectively correct? Or do you believe that, if people are not aware of such a codex, or dismiss the validity of the codex (and it seems obvious that any attempt by humans to construct or derive a list of such divine inspiration would be inherently subjective), are justified in using words that are either not in the list, or are in the list but with an attached description that differs from the way in which they are using the word?

DISCUSS.

Not all arrangements of letters are valid, obviously. (If I say: "lhhfsiu syudtfssk" you won't know what I mean.)

Lingual relativity? You mean grammar?

Mark Twain spells incorrectly for literary effect.

Some people spell incorrectly for effect - though most do due to circumstance.

 

[Moss]

I pretty much agree with what Birdjaguar has said...and must ask him, are you by chance hiring?

 

[Mise]

Yes, I think that there are correct and incorrect ways of spelling words. But when I post in chat, I often do not correct my spelling before tapping "enter".

Cultural subgroups and their "leadership" detemine what is correct and incorrect for various constituencies.

If you mean appropriate and inappropriate, rather than correct and incorrect, then I agree. Otherwise, we're just quibbling over semantics

 

[Great Librarian]

I like the evolution of language, even if it seems to be simplifying//dumbing down

Language doesn't simplify or 'dump down' over time.

 

[Great Librarian]

Can you give me an example of a word that's spelt incorectly?

Well, for the purpose of illustration, let's presume that I couldn't understand what you meant by 'spelt'. In my variant of English the word is pronounced and spelled 'spelled'. In fact, 'spelt' sounds really weird to my ears. If it impeded my understanding you, the word could be said to be spelled incorrectly from my perspective and in that context, but that's all. The word is not in any absolute way incorrectly spelled. In fact, from your perspective, the word is spelled correctly and if I said it you'd think that perhaps I was saying it weird or was saying some other word. That is, if you weren't able to figure out what it was I was talking about, which would make you rather dull.

 

[Mise]

Funny you picked up on the word "spelt", but not "incorectly". Do you think that I spelt that word incorrectly only in the context of impeding your understanding, or did I simply spell it incorrectly? Did my misspelling impede your understanding? It doesn't appear to have. And by admiting that you understand it, don't you compell yourself to claim that "incorectly" was not in any way spelt incorrectly?

 

[Captain Planet]

Funny you picked up on the word "spelt", but not "incorectly". Do you think that I spelt that incorrectly only in the context of impeding your understanding, or did I simply spell it incorrectly? Did my misspelling impede your understanding? It doesn't appear to have. And by admiting that you understand it, don't you compell yourself to claim that "incorectly" was not in any way spelt incorrectly?

Great Librarian probably didn't pick "incorectly" because that would have been too easy to have made an example of. Nevertheless, it is understood what you are writing. You're arguing with someone who has a degree in Linguistics and it has been made quite clear that what you perceive as incorrect, correct, less incorrect, or more incorrect is a poor assumption.

 

[Mise]

Someone with a linguistics degree should surely know how to spell "incorrectly" correctly.

 

[Captain Planet]

Someone with a linguistics degree should surely know how to spell "incorrectly" correctly.

I would argue someone with 13,000 posts on a forum would surely know how to make a decent argument but apparently I am incorect.

 

[Mise]

So my arguments are incorrect, huh?

 

[Great Librarian]

Someone with a linguistics degree should surely know how to spell "incorrectly" correctly.

Gosh, you've got me.

So my arguments are incorrect, huh?

Well, they're not compelling. Not that it really matters.

Funny you picked up on the word "spelt", but not "incorectly". Do you think that I spelt that word incorrectly only in the context of impeding your understanding, or did I simply spell it incorrectly? Did my misspelling impede your understanding? It doesn't appear to have. And by admiting that you understand it, don't you compell yourself to claim that "incorectly" was not in any way spelt incorrectly?

I didn't pick incorrectly, because it seemed to prove a point that you have missed ... again. As I have pointed out, spelling is only a convention, it doesn't matter how you spell something as long as we can agree that you meant something recognizable. If your spelling was wildly different from the convention it would impede communication.

You might notice that I'm not using words like 'correct' and 'incorrect'. There is simply no authority to which you can appeal to have a judgement on language use. It literally makes no sense to use the words 'correctly' and 'incorrectly' in the way you do. In fact, it seems as though it's a case of equivocation to do so.

So, no, I'm not compelled to recognize that you have spelled incorrectly incorrectly, I am compelled to recognize that you have simply deviated from convention, but not significantly so that I can't understand you.

And even then, to what convention might I be appealing to make that judgement (well, it's actually that one codified in dictionaries)? There are all sorts of different writing conventions used online. Do you suppose that short hand would employ an incorrect spelling of English words? It's certainly not always recognizable as English. Or txt spk? I hope you're starting to see how ridiculous it is for you to throw 'correct' and 'incorrect' around when discussing the spelling of words.

 

[Mise]

Well, that's an interesting opinion. But ask any good parent whether its important for their children to spell correctly and they will answer, "yes, it's important for children to spell correctly, and I help my children correct their spelling." I suppose these people are wrong too.

A lot of your post does nothing to contradict my argument, as I have already stated that there are situations where it is more or less acceptable or even appropriate to spell words incorrectly, such as (to use your examples) online, short hand or txt spk. It seems you simply refuse to use the word "incorrect", preferring more a contrived description ("deviated from convention, but not significantly so that I can't understand you").

Besides, whilst I might be willing to accept that your opinion may be at least internally consistent (and, for the sake of argument, accept that those good parents who claim to correct their children's spelling are either using "correct" as shorthand for "un-deviate from convention", or are wrong about there being a correct spelling at all), I just don't see why I should believe that your opinion is correct. For a start, it's awfully convoluted. Surely it's easier to say that there is a correct way of spelling things, but in certain situations it may be appropriate or acceptable to spell incorrectly?

Oh, and the authority I tend to refer to when correcting my spelling is the Oxford English Dictionary. I'm quite happy to defer to linguistic experts on the matter of correct spelling.

 

[Great Librarian]

Well, that's an interesting opinion. But ask any good parent whether its important for their children to spell correctly and they will answer, "yes, it's important for children to spell correctly, and I help my children correct their spelling." I suppose these people are wrong too.

A lot of your post does nothing to contradict my argument, as I have already stated that there are situations where it is more or less acceptable or even appropriate to spell words incorrectly, such as (to use your examples) online, short hand or txt spk. It seems you simply refuse to use the word "incorrect", preferring more a contrived description ("deviated from convention, but not significantly so that I can't understand you").

Besides, whilst I might be willing to accept that your opinion may be at least internally consistent (and, for the sake of argument, accept that those good parents who claim to correct their children's spelling are either using "correct" as shorthand for "un-deviate from convention", or are wrong about there being a correct spelling at all), I just don't see why I should believe that your opinion is correct. For a start, it's awfully convoluted. Surely it's easier to say that there is a correct way of spelling things, but in certain situations it may be appropriate or acceptable to spell incorrectly?

Oh, and the authority I tend to refer to when correcting my spelling is the Oxford English Dictionary. I'm quite happy to defer to linguistic experts on the matter of correct spelling.

Oh, whatever. Use words however you like. Throw out the bloody book! It's not as though they mean something specific at all, ever. And when they do and the concept is being explained, of course it's a convoluted opinion and so much for it. Appeal to an OED for all matters of spelling, for surely as experts the editors of the OED have had that divine knowledge of correctness of spelling in English passed onto them through the ages

 

[Mise]

Thanks for being so patient in explaining your opinion. Whilst I naturally disagree with such a contrived formulation, it's always interesting to hear unconventional viewpoints.

 

[LucyDuke]

Mise: Dis is a verb, too.

I don't think I'll buy "correct use of incorrect spelling". How do you mean correct? (After all this! )

I'm not as lenient on writing as I am on speaking, and I don't object to a separate set of standards for the two. Speech is a natural faculty, writing is more contrived, so it's not unreasonable to have some extra rules about it. Hiccups in writing aren't as forgivable as hiccups in speech. No communication failure, but a slight communication fluke.


Birdjag: It's possible I've missed my point. Actually, I think you're right. I don't like the bad rap that ghetto-talk gets, I don't think it's fair, but in this case, it's not going to work.

 

[Mise]

@Lucy:
I mean "correct" as in... "correct spelling"! Sorry I'm not sure how else to describe it, other than by citing those good parents again, who correct their children's spelling.

By the first correct I mean "appropriate" or "acceptable" or "forgiveable" or whatever. Not correct, but still okay. Sometimes it's okay break the speed limit.

 

[gangleri2001]

Errmm. I'm too stupid to really want to understand this. Sorry

Don't worry. This thread is stupid by itself.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I pretty much agree with what Birdjaguar has said...and must ask him, are you by chance hiring?

Not at the moment, but thanks.

If you mean appropriate and inappropriate, rather than correct and incorrect, then I agree. Otherwise, we're just quibbling over semantics

Yes I think we agree.

Birdjag: It's possible I've missed my point. Actually, I think you're right. I don't like the bad rap that ghetto-talk gets, I don't think it's fair, but in this case, it's not going to work.

"Fairness" is a whole different issue and how a group or nation might increase it is thread in and of itself.

 

[Agent327]

Mise: Dis is a verb, too.

Dis(s) is not a verb; it's used as a verb though. (But it can also be used as a noun.)

 

[LucyDuke]

Mise, I dunno where to go with that. I don't think the ivory tower codex is the "right" one, is all. I used to! But there's no way to make good sense of top-down language.

Dis(s) is not a verb; it's used as a verb though. (But it can also be used as a noun.)

How about you go ahead and explain why?