Re: About linguistic (in)tolerance

Me: "I still think we are taking this comment of mine way, way too seriously."
I have said this a few times: here it is again. I am not making a ringing
denunciation of all non-"proper" speech styles. I never did, and never would.

Me "To answer your question: well, then, why don't we just all abandon all
speech standards. We'll just talk how we like. Coherency doesn't matter at
all. We'll take no pride in our speech, we'll just babble."

Tom Wier responded: "Um, I hate to break it to you, but this is what most
people, in most periods of history, including today, have always done.  The
very idea of "standards" of speech did not even exist until people in the
ruling classes started making one (for English anyways) about 300 years
ago.  This is not to say that standards are bad for language; they are in
fact very good, but your whole attitude was one of intolerance, as if you
have never (in your entire life) done the same thing too."

I think not. I never said the sort. I said that I am offended by
pretentious persons making up "intelligent"-sounding words. I did not say
coining new words was bad; I did not say using old words in new ways was
bad; I most vehemently protest against this continued assault on me! I
didn't say this!

I am fully versed in linguistics and linguistic theory, and if noone is
going to bother to read what I actually wrote instead of just skimming the
parts that stand out - quoting me out of context! - than I am not going to
even read these responses anymore.

"Bridges will not fall down, nor will civilizations collapse, because
someone says "faxilate.""
Please reread the thread. I did not posit ANYTHING of the sort.

"The reason why the official line of linguistics is to tolerate these
things is because they show us more clearly how human beings use language,
which is, afterall, the study upon which we focus our efforts. To try to
tell people how to use their language imposes a false restriction on it, as
language has *always* been a changing entity in human societies.  By
definition it has always changed with the times, and if people want to use
in a way that goes against perceptions of standards, that's a *personal*
problem, not a linguistic one, so let's not be attacking people here
because their language use is below some one else's perceived standards
(being that any such standards are entirely subjective, anyways).  This is
why when you corrected someone here, you got a response that was personal,
not linguistic."

1. I did not correct anyone here.
2. I did not disparage anyone here.
3. I did not attack people here because their language use is below someone
else's perceived standards (being that any such standards are entirely
subjective, anyways).
4. I did not correct anyone here. I got a linguistically-arranged assault
on a comment I made about my PERSONAL distate for certain kinds of SPEECH
ACTS - the motive of persons who are speaking to demonstrate how high and
mighty they are, how wonderfully educated and powerful and important, but
then they make basic parsing errors. How ironic it is. And then this whole
thread grew up beating me over the head for some personal insult I was
alleged to have made about some conlang person! I would not do that!

Forgive me for getting livid, but people are tarring and feathering me for
something I didn't do! Please read the thread from beginning to end, read
what I wrote, and respond to it.

Me: "All cultures have a privileged form of speech, patterns and word
choices that are considered more elegant than others. All persons
participate in influencing these preferred speech patterns, and I have a
right to have preferences."

You : "No one's taking your right away.  What we're saying here is that
while ou may have preferences, you should also know when to voice them, and
know that they are NO MORE THAN PREFERENCES.   I still have a few
prescriptivist hangups myself (like using "there's" with plural nouns; I
always use there're in those cases), but even though some people here use
phrases which I consider "bad grammar" (whatever that is), I'm not going to
tell them they're wrong or bad for using it.  Afterall, I know my belief
cannot be argued objectively, so I don't try.  They only derive from my
personal beliefs about what language should be, not from what it de facto
is (i.e., I like the forms, but it's an opinion)."

Oy bloody gevalt. I did little more than write what you just did. I always
claimed they were preferences: that is EXACTLY what my last message was all
about! I was saying that there is a formal distinction between how we
understand language as scientists and speakers. "Language" is natural, has
naturally shifting laws, and the like. No kidding. Standard English (for
example) is the language I speak since childhood, and there is no way ANY
speaker of a language can simply ignore rules that they learned and used
when speaking ENglish. There are your millions of inherited biases - in
English, we make singular and plural distinctions. This is a rule of
standard English; if I were to simply to begin to use the Old Babylonian
dual ending on body parts, then I should be beaten soundly round the head.
Oh yes, language change is natural, normal, and totally impartial - but
English has rules, even for linguists like us, and breaking those rules
will get you smacked. It's not just grammarians that'll do that. If you
start saying SHOEN as the plural of shoes (as I often do at home -
remember, I like to play with language, too?), people will yell at you.

But I never, ever claimed to be doing that! I was talking about the
irritating nature of arrogant people who are making up words, intentionally
or not, to make themselves sound smart ... And some people on Conlang
agreed with me, so I'm not crazy here. It's irritating, and it's not the
word-construction that does it for me per se. It's the irony - English
speakers like long words, because historically long words are elite words
borrowed from French. So they are unintentionally making basic errors that
'elites' would snicker at in an attempt to make themselves more like those
elites? Don't you find that annoying at all?

Now, did I ever, ever claim any other thing was wrong? Did I not explicitly
and repeatedly, from message one, note that I was not making any other
claim? Did I not also say I like to make up words, use old words in new
ways, and not privilege any way of speaking? I'm not and was not anything
but angry at what people were saying about me. Did I get defensive? Yes, I
sure as hell did.

Me: "If there were no preferred forms of speech, there would be no languages."

"Pshaw.  Nonsense.  Languages existed long before the grammarians in the
17th and 18th centuries began to formulate standardized forms of them. What
do you think they based their standards on?  Something pulled out of the
air, ex nihilo?"

Listen, now you are pissing me off seriouslike. This is basic linguistics:
if there were no common rules between speakers, then there would be no
speech. I did NOT say anything whatsoever about grammarians, grammar-books,
or the like. I am talking about where those grammarians pulled those rules.
You and I share rules; how else could you read my messages? Are we not
using speech patterns preferred among English users? Could I say, "The man
bites the dog?" and would it mean dog-SUBJ bites-3sg man-DO? No, it
wouldn't. Prescriptive grammarians then limited English grammar to certain
forms; I do not claim this is correct nor do I believe it is correct. As
for the issue of standard English - which again, I claimed I was NOT
arguing about, although I was willing to bring it up if people wanted to
talk abou it - then you are getting into preferences. I'm not afraid to
teach English, which means prescriptive rules - in the interests of
professional communication (and so my children could get into nice schools
and get jobs, because frankly people judge you by your speech in the real
world, as much as I hate it).


"No, of course not.  All modern standards are the way they are because one
group dominated another group.  If the capitol of England had traditionally
been up north, say, in Lindisfarne (or something like that), the modern
Standard English language would be much, much different, I assure you.  It
has nothing to do with preferences, but with the practical capacity to
communicate to another person."

Hey, look! You made my point for me! Look, I'm tired of all this spleen.
Tie me up and burn me at the stake, but I'm not interested in this
one-sided barrage anymore. I thought I could make an observation on
conlang, and I got immediately stomped by the linguistic PC police - for
something I didn't say, and explicitly and repeatedly denied saying!

" Prejudice is built in. That said, there are flexibilities in preferred
speech patterns. I have no problem with most of the recent fads of speech.
I just hate people making words longer to make them sound smarter. I am
highly suspicious of attempts to convince the world that there are 'no
linguistic bases for speech preferences.'"

"Well, there are no scientific bases for cultures, but as humans we need
cultural patterns to function."

"You're confusing two very separate things:  on the one hand, there is the
matter of whether or not there are regular rules that govern language,
rules that everybody follows, though few know why.  That's one issue, and
one with which I fully agree:  people do need such rules, and in fact all
language is built on such rules, as making rules and extending paradigms is
the path of least resistance (one then does not need to memorize countless
individual forms, as rules tell how such forms are created).  Such things
are natural; people don't need anyone to tell them to use them correctly
(for example, in English the uses of the article "the" or what a plural
ending -s really signifies)."

*sigh* While venting spleen for being assaulted, I was unclear. I did say
something on a separate matter. I do apologise for confusing an already
nightmarish creation, so let me clarify what I meant here:

I was not ever talking about regular rules of language everyone knows. Lord
knows how we got here, but let me then address what you said. Yes, it's all
true. Now, back to the topic at hand, namely, the issue of relative
language: I still say that relative language functions with rules, just
like human interactions. There are a great number of ways humans can
interact, but in a culture they are limited for clarity. For example, a
handshake is a greeting in the US, but a wrestling challenge between males
in ancient Greece. OK. Now language is the same. You can have ingressives,
egressive, palatals, and the whatnot, but a language's phonemic inventory
is out of necessity for the poor speaker limited. This holds true for
grammar as well - there is crazy complexities of possibilities, but choices
are made by the 'mass of speakers' (in whatever size a 'mass' is - like my
household understands 'shoen' as 'shoe-pl.').

I was stating this in response to a textbook response by someone to
something I said about how language is infinite. Yes, but in our *real
lives* we put limits on expression for coherency. Voila! Common rules of
speech shared by a community (see disclaimer about size of community and
arbitrariness of mass of speaker).

"On the other hand, there is the matter of whether or not there is a
*right* way to talk -- and this is much much different from what you've
been discussing above.  This involves whether or not one must use "shall"
or "will" with certain personal pronouns.  This involves not using "split
infinitives" (of course, no such thing has ever existed in English, the
grammarians to the contrary).  Such things are matters of _style_, of
subjective usage, which some people centuries ago arbitrarily said were the
correct forms (whether because they, the upper class, used them, or because
they were modelled, usually falsely, on other languages like Latin,
perceived to be "better", somehow).   None of this refers to how language
ever really functioned (language, you will remember, is simply the sum
total of all intelligible usages for a certain speech community; yes, yes
this is a simplisitic definition, but it'll do for the sake of the argument
now)."

Hey! Look! We have agreed all along.

"This is not to say that such subjective standardization is *bad*; as I've
said, much to the contrary.  No speech form, whatever the case, can be bad.
 But there is nothing about its form, inherently, that makes it a better
communicator of ideas, except that it provides a neutral dialect.  That's
all, and that is the only reason why any standard should be taught in
school.  Lest you think I'm shooting myself in the foot here, no, I'm not:
just because *a* standard is good, that doesn't mean any *one* standard is.
 So, if you try to tell someone that their speech is bad, there is every
bit as much reason for them to say the same about yours.  Whatever the
"Standard" is, it's only a social construct."

As they say in Chinese, you are setting a straw dog before heaven - you are
saying exactly what I think. I'm not arguing against this! I never said
anything like what you are arguing against!

Me: "Deaf persons in Honduras make up their own linguistic rules and play
by them; no-one who speaks can do so without rules. To pretend that persons
have no prejudices against certain speech-patterns or word uses is not a
mature position to take. You can disagree with my dislikes, but then you
are merely stating that YOUR rules are better than mine."

You: "Again, we're talking about two fundamentally different types of
rules. I'm talking about the kinds of stuff people do instinctively,
whereas you have been arguing for the legitimacy of proscriptive,
"here's-what's-best" rules.  I'm *describing*, you're *prescribing.*"

Help, help, I'm being oppressed! Seriously, though - I know. I wasn't
arguing for the legitimacy of prescriptive rules. I was SAYING prescriptive
rules is how language functions. We are prohibited from using any but the
rules we know. Remember, though, that I am not advocating static speech,
because as I said in previous messages very explicitly, people can and do
break rules all the time, and thereby can create new rules. You may get
b*slapped for saying youse, but that doesn't mean that it won't become
normative in the future. I recall saying in my *first* message that people
in the future no doubt would consider me a prig for disliking words like
"transportate," but that as a speaker I contribute to the communities of
speech I live in and help shape language usage. Therefore, I am allowed to
feel distaste for arrogance-coinages, pretentious coinages. It's ok. It's
allowed. I know all about linguistics, but that doesn't change anything
about how language functions.

And again, so you think I'm not shooting MYself in the foot, let me
reiterate: I make up new words, use nonstandard grammar, and play with
meanings all the time. I substitute punny words, I use a homonym or
near-homonym in place of a proper word, and I love language play - I'm a
conlanger, right?

"Again, this is a personal problem, not linguistic.  Please, if you want to
discuss someone's personal problems, please email them, but don't make
everyone on the list experience the personal grief you suffer just because
someone happens to use a word in a pretensious way.  This has nothing to do
with the objectives of the list, so let's keep it offlist."

God. I was not talking about anyone! What kind of a monster do you think I
am? Look, I use longer words all the time. I make up words, and I don't
correct others for speech errors. I wasn't talking about any person here,
and I wasn't making the arguments you are pillorying me for. So can you
forgive me for these sins? I was cranky about this before, but now I'm just
fatigued - I'm tired of defending myself for the bad things I am supposed
to have done!


"Well, as others have already commented, you come off sometimes as a little
intolerant.  If you don't mean this, we'd like to know, but the appearance
is the same, nonetheless."

Hey - so I'm cranky about stupid word-usage by people self-aggrandising.
Convict me. I wasn't the only one on conlang to admit to finding that
irritating, although others simply observed they prefered being able to
label the idiots in the office. I can't think of any other context in which
I have been referred to as intolerant. I am personally in no position to be
intolerant, as I am 1.queer  2. gender-confusing 3. Buddhist  4. mixed-race
  5. write erotica and science fiction (you write what!?!)  6. a conlanger
7. work at a BGLT nonprofit and 8. want to be a biological anthropologist
and linguist. I certainly didn't mean to seem oppressive ...

BB

*********
"You know what I blame this on the breakdown of? Society!!"
        - Moe, "The Simpsons"

Everyone thinks I'm psychotic, except for my friends deep inside the earth.

Only 281 shopping days left before the end of the world.

James E Johnson, 1920-1999