Chris_Hansen said
vergari said
There is no such thing as “correct” grammar. All languages and dialects are valid, so if the wife sits around “correcting” her husband’s grammar, then she is just an arse. She is not objectively correct on anything.
Does the “no such thing as correct grammar” extend to spelling? What about word pronunciation? Beyond that, what about rules of logic? Do those exist or are there no such things as rules of logic either?
There is no such thing as correct spelling or pronunciation. “Proper grammar” and “proper spelling” and “proper pronunciation” are all inventions that have no basis in reality. These rules largely did not exist until the 17th century, when white racist het-cis men decided that they did not like specific groups of people who spoke in specific ways (usually slaves, and poor people). Hence, the bullcrap rule of “no double negatives” came up, and then certain words were said to only be able to be spelled certain ways. The reality of the situation is that until basically the 1800’s, there was no standardized spelling, pronunciation, grammar, or anything else. By then, elitist agendas formed whose entire goals were to eliminate diversity. Linguists have known and discussed this for ages. It is basically all to do with colonialism, imperialism, and racism. Also, the rules of logic differ depending on (a) what form of logic you use (for example, paraconsistent logic does not use the Law of noncontradiction); (b) how your language conceptualizes those rules (we do not conceptualize things the same way as people of other languages, this is a proven fact as well); (c) whether those rules even make sense in your respective language.
Do you think that it is improper grammar to use singular they/them pronouns, since our textbooks tell us that it is a plural and not singular (and they ignore the fact that singular they/them has been used for hundreds upon hundreds of years)? Do you think it is improper for speakers of African American English to say “aks” instead of “ask” because our grammar books say so (ignoring that ask was spelled as aks for hundreds upon hundreds of years)? Do you think that it is improper for people to say “ain’t” instead of “I am not”? Do you think that it is improper for us to use a double negative, because our textbooks tell us it is wrong (even though the double, triple, and quadruple negatives have existed since even Old English over a thousand years ago)?
If you think that anyone’s grammar is wrong, then you essentially think that their entire dialect (which has a code, grammar, and system that allows for these differences) is wrong, and therefore inferior. And it makes you racist, elitist, and probably sexist or homophobic, since LGBTQ+ people often have community dialects.
vergari said
How is it antithetical to scholarship? Scholarship is all about exploring new theories and modes of critically evaluating history, science, and more. Sounds to me like someone just doesn’t like feminism and wants to live in an echo chamber where there isn’t a magnifying glass peering at things. Let me ask, do you consider (neo) Marxism to be postmodernism?
Textual Criticism is not about finding the actual autographs. We probably never will. Textual Criticism is about coming to the most probable form that the autographs looked like. All historical studies are measures of probabilities. We don’t search out “truth”.
Because “exploring new theories and modes of critically evaluating history, science, and more” is a frivolous activity if it is not in search of the truth. Exploring new idea for the sake of exploration, and without a desire to reach truth, is definitionally pointless. It’s nothing more than a game.
“Sounds to me like someone just doesn’t like feminism and wants to live in an echo chamber where there isn’t a magnifying glass peering at things. Let me ask, do you consider (neo) Marxism to be postmodernism?”
This is the type of wind-up and question someone asks if they’ve never heard of post-modernism before Jordan Peterson. Obviously, neo-Marxism and third wave feminism are very different than post-modernism, and I have never once referred or alluded to feminism or neo-Marxism in this forum.
And, by the by, by adopting a view that there is no such thing as objectively correct English grammar, you yourself are adopting a sort of anti-realist, post-modern position.
“Textual Criticism is not about finding the actual autographs. We probably never will. Textual Criticism is about coming to the most probable form that the autographs looked like. All historical studies are measures of probabilities. We don’t search out ‘truth’.”
This is largely a semantic issue. Yes, scholarship is about the examination of probabilities, but those are probabilities in connection with the truth. So, the search is for the truth, and we seek to achieve as much of truth as is possible. This is no different than scholarship associated with gravity. I don’t think anyone would suggest that Newton was not seeking to find the truth about gravity; and what he discovered got us 99% of the way there. Then, Einstein came around and improved on Newton, and got us 99.99% of the way there (actual more).
Marxism is a Modernist theory. And Third-Wave Feminism IS A POSTMODERNIST theory. The fact that you think Feminism is “very different than post-modernism” proves you have no idea what postmodernism even is. I should know, given I have a peer reviewed paper that was just accepted specifically on feminism lmao. Postmodernism was a reaction against Modernists who believed that they could form a grand-narrative of history and humanity, and the postmodernists came and were like: um, no actually you can’t and here is why, and here is how we can better understand humanity. This is what led to Third-Wave Feminist, Post-Structuralist, etc. Also they do challenge the idea that we “know the truth”, because we do not. We know approximations of it (which is what science at best comes to). They also challenge the idea that the reality we are observing is objective, and there is scientific reasons for doing so (for example… reality is not objectively seen or observed, it is interpreted through our brains and senses, and with this come biases; linguists have proven such biases on interpreting reality exist just from the way grammatical gender works).
And no, I am not adopting “a sort of anti-realist, post-modern position”. I am adopting the position of the vast majority of all linguists. There is no “proper” or “correct” grammar of English. By that logic, African American English is “improper” and therefore “incorrect” because it doesn’t abide by a completely abstract “standard English” that was created by racists with the specific intent of targeting and eliminating the dialects of poor people and people of color because they did not like the way they spoke. I am literally getting my degree in English, and I know what the heck I’m talking about. If you think there is any such thing as a “proper grammar” then it is because you’ve bought a bunch of kool-aid.
And no, probabilities have no direct connection to truth. If you think they do, then you obviously do not know why we talk in probabilities and not truth (in which case you really need to take a philosophy of science course). We approximate things as close as to reality as we assume we can get. The difference between a probability and truth is not semantic. If you think it is, then you seriously need to take an introductory class on logic.
If you think the suggestion that there are grammatical rules to the English language is “racist, elitist, and probably sexist or homophobic,” why does your own prose hew so closely to orthodox grammar? Is this not betraying your personal racism, elitism and probably sexism or homophobia?
Why do your word spellings match verbatim the orthodox spellings of those words? Are you secretly telling us you are a racist, elitist, and probably sexist or homophobe?
As for “probability,” it is simply the word we use to convey the likelihood of something being true, whether that is an event that is likely to happen in the future, or did happen in the past, an action being taken, or really any type of transaction. Truth is the word we use to describe reality or the actual state of things. So to deny that probability, i.e., the likelihood of something happening or having already happened, has a direct connection to reality or the actual state of things, rather misses the point.
Stephen said
I don’t think so.Of course not. That’s why you’re mistaken.
If a wife repeatedly corrects her husband every time he makes a grammatical or other linguistic error, she may be entirely objectively correct in correcting his mistakes. But that doesn’t mean her corrections won’t result in him being increasingly bitter and hostile over time.
Your formulation assumes the husband is too stupid to take proper instruction. I know of a couple mythicists who thought it was the only game in town until they were presented with the scholarly historical case. Of course it helped mightily that they began with the desire for their opinions to comport with reality.
The alternative is a more modest, circumspect mode of skepticism.
You mean the kind that lacks the temerity to challenge your deeply held beliefs, right?
For example, when evaluating an issue like the “historical reliability” of the gospels, rather than taking a more strident approach…
Once again you confuse cause with effect. Scholars do not begin with the assumption that the texts are historically unreliable but arrive at that conclusion through scholarly analysis of the texts.
Because “exploring new theories and modes of critically evaluating history, science, and more” is a frivolous activity if it is not in search of the truth.
What is truth?
Are you quoting Pilate here, or are you just going in on post-modernism?
Chris_Hansen said
Robert said
vergari said
“The latter have not been abandoned”
I think Bart would disagree with you here; and instead assert that the best a modern textual critic can do is to seek to arrive at the ausgang text, which Bart has rather clearly differentiated from the autograph.
Not sure where the miscommunication is here (perhaps my use of ‘the latter’ was not clear), but my position is exactly the same as Bart’s. What the Germans call the Ausgang text is exactly the same thing I meant by the earliest exemplar of the current texts. We cannot always know that the earliest exemplar is an original autograph and there are various compositional and redactional issues (cf the examples I gave above) which can never be solved by the mechanics of text criticism alone.
If the autograph — that is, the last edition to depart from the original author’s hands — is definitionally and ideologically out of reach, then the entire discipline of textual criticism is really an elaborate parlor game.
Not sure why you feel that way. It is still an essential discipline toward understanding the history of the text.
The distinction I’m drawing here is that scholarship cannot simply be about attaining more information; it has to be a search for the truth (even if all truths or the ultimate truth remain beyond our momentary grasp).
Not sure what you’re getting at here. Do you think those of us who acknowledge that we may never be able to arrive at an original autograph because of a variety of larger issues are no longer interested in the truth?
I find it funny he also calls me an anti-realist, for pointing out the very real reality that every Language and Dialect has a perfectly functioning grammar, and that no grammar is more “proper” than another, and there is no “proper” English, and pointing out further than the entire concept of “proper English” is largely a colonialist and imperialist invention… like… we have the textbooks they wrote. We have the letters they wrote. We know why, when, and how these rules came to be developed. Like, my position is about as realist and evidence based as they come lol.
The only way around this is to assert that there is this esoteric magical “proper grammar” which renders all other dialects inferior. “Proper grammar” is just taught in order to exterminate dialects and variety in our language, based on arbitrary rules (like “no double negatives” a rule specifically developed because rich white men did not like their usage).
“You are an anti-realist about English because you point out what every major Linguist of the 20th and 21st centuries has known for sixty years about the history of our language and how “standard English” and “proper grammar” were inventions and are used to eliminate the dialects of people of color, poor, and working class Americans from existence.”
Here is a podcast that covers some of this, by professional linguists (** you do not have permission to see this link **). As Carrie notes:
“In 1762, Bishop Robert Lowth – I think that’s how you pronounce his name – wrote a short introduction to English grammar with critical notes, and that seems to be where this rule comes from. So it’s just some dude, writing it down – okay he was a bishop, so I guess he’s not just “some dude” – one person just decides, “okay, this is a rule. I’m gonna write it down”. And it’s still around! We still obey this.”
Literally, rules of “proper grammar” were inventions by singular angsty white dudes.
Are rules of grammar for Mandarin and Hindi also racist, sexist and homophobic? or just the Western European languages?
What about grammatical rules for Navajo and Maori? Racist, sexist and homophobic, or no?
vergari said
Chris_Hansen said
vergari said
There is no such thing as “correct” grammar. All languages and dialects are valid, so if the wife sits around “correcting” her husband’s grammar, then she is just an arse. She is not objectively correct on anything.
Does the “no such thing as correct grammar” extend to spelling? What about word pronunciation? Beyond that, what about rules of logic? Do those exist or are there no such things as rules of logic either?
There is no such thing as correct spelling or pronunciation. “Proper grammar” and “proper spelling” and “proper pronunciation” are all inventions that have no basis in reality. These rules largely did not exist until the 17th century, when white racist het-cis men decided that they did not like specific groups of people who spoke in specific ways (usually slaves, and poor people). Hence, the bullcrap rule of “no double negatives” came up, and then certain words were said to only be able to be spelled certain ways. The reality of the situation is that until basically the 1800’s, there was no standardized spelling, pronunciation, grammar, or anything else. By then, elitist agendas formed whose entire goals were to eliminate diversity. Linguists have known and discussed this for ages. It is basically all to do with colonialism, imperialism, and racism. Also, the rules of logic differ depending on (a) what form of logic you use (for example, paraconsistent logic does not use the Law of noncontradiction); (b) how your language conceptualizes those rules (we do not conceptualize things the same way as people of other languages, this is a proven fact as well); (c) whether those rules even make sense in your respective language.
Do you think that it is improper grammar to use singular they/them pronouns, since our textbooks tell us that it is a plural and not singular (and they ignore the fact that singular they/them has been used for hundreds upon hundreds of years)? Do you think it is improper for speakers of African American English to say “aks” instead of “ask” because our grammar books say so (ignoring that ask was spelled as aks for hundreds upon hundreds of years)? Do you think that it is improper for people to say “ain’t” instead of “I am not”? Do you think that it is improper for us to use a double negative, because our textbooks tell us it is wrong (even though the double, triple, and quadruple negatives have existed since even Old English over a thousand years ago)?
If you think that anyone’s grammar is wrong, then you essentially think that their entire dialect (which has a code, grammar, and system that allows for these differences) is wrong, and therefore inferior. And it makes you racist, elitist, and probably sexist or homophobic, since LGBTQ+ people often have community dialects.
vergari said
How is it antithetical to scholarship? Scholarship is all about exploring new theories and modes of critically evaluating history, science, and more. Sounds to me like someone just doesn’t like feminism and wants to live in an echo chamber where there isn’t a magnifying glass peering at things. Let me ask, do you consider (neo) Marxism to be postmodernism?
Textual Criticism is not about finding the actual autographs. We probably never will. Textual Criticism is about coming to the most probable form that the autographs looked like. All historical studies are measures of probabilities. We don’t search out “truth”.
Because “exploring new theories and modes of critically evaluating history, science, and more” is a frivolous activity if it is not in search of the truth. Exploring new idea for the sake of exploration, and without a desire to reach truth, is definitionally pointless. It’s nothing more than a game.
“Sounds to me like someone just doesn’t like feminism and wants to live in an echo chamber where there isn’t a magnifying glass peering at things. Let me ask, do you consider (neo) Marxism to be postmodernism?”
This is the type of wind-up and question someone asks if they’ve never heard of post-modernism before Jordan Peterson. Obviously, neo-Marxism and third wave feminism are very different than post-modernism, and I have never once referred or alluded to feminism or neo-Marxism in this forum.
And, by the by, by adopting a view that there is no such thing as objectively correct English grammar, you yourself are adopting a sort of anti-realist, post-modern position.
“Textual Criticism is not about finding the actual autographs. We probably never will. Textual Criticism is about coming to the most probable form that the autographs looked like. All historical studies are measures of probabilities. We don’t search out ‘truth’.”
This is largely a semantic issue. Yes, scholarship is about the examination of probabilities, but those are probabilities in connection with the truth. So, the search is for the truth, and we seek to achieve as much of truth as is possible. This is no different than scholarship associated with gravity. I don’t think anyone would suggest that Newton was not seeking to find the truth about gravity; and what he discovered got us 99% of the way there. Then, Einstein came around and improved on Newton, and got us 99.99% of the way there (actual more).
Marxism is a Modernist theory. And Third-Wave Feminism IS A POSTMODERNIST theory. The fact that you think Feminism is “very different than post-modernism” proves you have no idea what postmodernism even is. I should know, given I have a peer reviewed paper that was just accepted specifically on feminism lmao. Postmodernism was a reaction against Modernists who believed that they could form a grand-narrative of history and humanity, and the postmodernists came and were like: um, no actually you can’t and here is why, and here is how we can better understand humanity. This is what led to Third-Wave Feminist, Post-Structuralist, etc. Also they do challenge the idea that we “know the truth”, because we do not. We know approximations of it (which is what science at best comes to). They also challenge the idea that the reality we are observing is objective, and there is scientific reasons for doing so (for example… reality is not objectively seen or observed, it is interpreted through our brains and senses, and with this come biases; linguists have proven such biases on interpreting reality exist just from the way grammatical gender works).
And no, I am not adopting “a sort of anti-realist, post-modern position”. I am adopting the position of the vast majority of all linguists. There is no “proper” or “correct” grammar of English. By that logic, African American English is “improper” and therefore “incorrect” because it doesn’t abide by a completely abstract “standard English” that was created by racists with the specific intent of targeting and eliminating the dialects of poor people and people of color because they did not like the way they spoke. I am literally getting my degree in English, and I know what the heck I’m talking about. If you think there is any such thing as a “proper grammar” then it is because you’ve bought a bunch of kool-aid.
And no, probabilities have no direct connection to truth. If you think they do, then you obviously do not know why we talk in probabilities and not truth (in which case you really need to take a philosophy of science course). We approximate things as close as to reality as we assume we can get. The difference between a probability and truth is not semantic. If you think it is, then you seriously need to take an introductory class on logic.
If you think the suggestion that there are grammatical rules to the English language is “racist, elitist, and probably sexist or homophobic,” why does your own prose hew so closely to orthodox grammar? Is this not betraying your personal racism, elitism and probably sexism or homophobia?
Why do your word spellings match verbatim the orthodox spellings of those words? Are you secretly telling us you are a racist, elitist, and probably sexist or homophobe?
As for “probability,” it is simply the word we use to convey the likelihood of something being true, whether that is an event that is likely to happen in the future, or did happen in the past, an action being taken, or really any type of transaction. Truth is the word we use to describe reality or the actual state of things. So to deny that probability, i.e., the likelihood of something happening or having already happened, has a direct connection to reality or the actual state of things, rather misses the point.
Because I was trained to use it, as most people have it drilled into their brain. The fact you call it “orthodox” as well rather proves my point. Orthodoxies are arbitrary. Having been trained, indoctrinated, and forced by our systems to use “orthodox” grammar and spelling is not proof I am elitist, sexist, etc. It is proof that my own dialectical ways of spelling were forcibly removed. Also there is no single “English language” which has only one specific set of rules. If you think there is, then you deny the reality of other dialects.
Here is the Cumbrian dialect. This is an English dialect that is spoken in Cumbria:
This is perfectly grammatical, and 100% perfectly English. If you disagree, then you are just anti-reality. Here is another video where a black person talks about the (very real) fact that if people don’t talk the way white colonists did, that they will face discrimination (hence why people don’t use their native dialects of English):
Me not using my native dialect, is not proof of anything. But you defending elitism is. Nice try, but your lack of any intellectual nuance is only made staggeringly clear when you say things like that. That is like saying Native Americans are racist for having been forced to give up their languages.
I use “orthodox English” because if I don’t I will lose my scholarships, fail college, and more, because we perpetuate this racist, sexist, and homophobic system. I use it because I had to in order to survive.
I’d add, if you think any language has set immovable rules, I suggest you actually read Old English texts. Spelling is different, grammar is different, and even the way they write the letters is different in Old, Middle, and early Modern English. Because none of those things have “correct” forms. “Proper English” was an invention that does not exist. Hence why no one speaks with “proper English” according to textbooks.
——–
Likelihood of something being true, according to what? Reality? Reality according to whom? None of us experience reality the same way. We have no direct observation of reality. Reality we observe through indirect means (our imperfect senses, which are never perfectly translated into information by our brains). We never have any direct access to reality… hence why we cannot say anything is true that we observe. We can only say it is highly likely to varying degrees, based on a consensus of observations and experiments.
Chris_Hansen said
vergari said
Chris_Hansen said
vergari said
There is no such thing as “correct” grammar. All languages and dialects are valid, so if the wife sits around “correcting” her husband’s grammar, then she is just an arse. She is not objectively correct on anything.
Does the “no such thing as correct grammar” extend to spelling? What about word pronunciation? Beyond that, what about rules of logic? Do those exist or are there no such things as rules of logic either?
There is no such thing as correct spelling or pronunciation. “Proper grammar” and “proper spelling” and “proper pronunciation” are all inventions that have no basis in reality. These rules largely did not exist until the 17th century, when white racist het-cis men decided that they did not like specific groups of people who spoke in specific ways (usually slaves, and poor people). Hence, the bullcrap rule of “no double negatives” came up, and then certain words were said to only be able to be spelled certain ways. The reality of the situation is that until basically the 1800’s, there was no standardized spelling, pronunciation, grammar, or anything else. By then, elitist agendas formed whose entire goals were to eliminate diversity. Linguists have known and discussed this for ages. It is basically all to do with colonialism, imperialism, and racism. Also, the rules of logic differ depending on (a) what form of logic you use (for example, paraconsistent logic does not use the Law of noncontradiction); (b) how your language conceptualizes those rules (we do not conceptualize things the same way as people of other languages, this is a proven fact as well); (c) whether those rules even make sense in your respective language.
Do you think that it is improper grammar to use singular they/them pronouns, since our textbooks tell us that it is a plural and not singular (and they ignore the fact that singular they/them has been used for hundreds upon hundreds of years)? Do you think it is improper for speakers of African American English to say “aks” instead of “ask” because our grammar books say so (ignoring that ask was spelled as aks for hundreds upon hundreds of years)? Do you think that it is improper for people to say “ain’t” instead of “I am not”? Do you think that it is improper for us to use a double negative, because our textbooks tell us it is wrong (even though the double, triple, and quadruple negatives have existed since even Old English over a thousand years ago)?
If you think that anyone’s grammar is wrong, then you essentially think that their entire dialect (which has a code, grammar, and system that allows for these differences) is wrong, and therefore inferior. And it makes you racist, elitist, and probably sexist or homophobic, since LGBTQ+ people often have community dialects.
vergari said
How is it antithetical to scholarship? Scholarship is all about exploring new theories and modes of critically evaluating history, science, and more. Sounds to me like someone just doesn’t like feminism and wants to live in an echo chamber where there isn’t a magnifying glass peering at things. Let me ask, do you consider (neo) Marxism to be postmodernism?
Textual Criticism is not about finding the actual autographs. We probably never will. Textual Criticism is about coming to the most probable form that the autographs looked like. All historical studies are measures of probabilities. We don’t search out “truth”.
Because “exploring new theories and modes of critically evaluating history, science, and more” is a frivolous activity if it is not in search of the truth. Exploring new idea for the sake of exploration, and without a desire to reach truth, is definitionally pointless. It’s nothing more than a game.
“Sounds to me like someone just doesn’t like feminism and wants to live in an echo chamber where there isn’t a magnifying glass peering at things. Let me ask, do you consider (neo) Marxism to be postmodernism?”
This is the type of wind-up and question someone asks if they’ve never heard of post-modernism before Jordan Peterson. Obviously, neo-Marxism and third wave feminism are very different than post-modernism, and I have never once referred or alluded to feminism or neo-Marxism in this forum.
And, by the by, by adopting a view that there is no such thing as objectively correct English grammar, you yourself are adopting a sort of anti-realist, post-modern position.
“Textual Criticism is not about finding the actual autographs. We probably never will. Textual Criticism is about coming to the most probable form that the autographs looked like. All historical studies are measures of probabilities. We don’t search out ‘truth’.”
This is largely a semantic issue. Yes, scholarship is about the examination of probabilities, but those are probabilities in connection with the truth. So, the search is for the truth, and we seek to achieve as much of truth as is possible. This is no different than scholarship associated with gravity. I don’t think anyone would suggest that Newton was not seeking to find the truth about gravity; and what he discovered got us 99% of the way there. Then, Einstein came around and improved on Newton, and got us 99.99% of the way there (actual more).
Marxism is a Modernist theory. And Third-Wave Feminism IS A POSTMODERNIST theory. The fact that you think Feminism is “very different than post-modernism” proves you have no idea what postmodernism even is. I should know, given I have a peer reviewed paper that was just accepted specifically on feminism lmao. Postmodernism was a reaction against Modernists who believed that they could form a grand-narrative of history and humanity, and the postmodernists came and were like: um, no actually you can’t and here is why, and here is how we can better understand humanity. This is what led to Third-Wave Feminist, Post-Structuralist, etc. Also they do challenge the idea that we “know the truth”, because we do not. We know approximations of it (which is what science at best comes to). They also challenge the idea that the reality we are observing is objective, and there is scientific reasons for doing so (for example… reality is not objectively seen or observed, it is interpreted through our brains and senses, and with this come biases; linguists have proven such biases on interpreting reality exist just from the way grammatical gender works).
And no, I am not adopting “a sort of anti-realist, post-modern position”. I am adopting the position of the vast majority of all linguists. There is no “proper” or “correct” grammar of English. By that logic, African American English is “improper” and therefore “incorrect” because it doesn’t abide by a completely abstract “standard English” that was created by racists with the specific intent of targeting and eliminating the dialects of poor people and people of color because they did not like the way they spoke. I am literally getting my degree in English, and I know what the heck I’m talking about. If you think there is any such thing as a “proper grammar” then it is because you’ve bought a bunch of kool-aid.
And no, probabilities have no direct connection to truth. If you think they do, then you obviously do not know why we talk in probabilities and not truth (in which case you really need to take a philosophy of science course). We approximate things as close as to reality as we assume we can get. The difference between a probability and truth is not semantic. If you think it is, then you seriously need to take an introductory class on logic.
If you think the suggestion that there are grammatical rules to the English language is “racist, elitist, and probably sexist or homophobic,” why does your own prose hew so closely to orthodox grammar? Is this not betraying your personal racism, elitism and probably sexism or homophobia?
Why do your word spellings match verbatim the orthodox spellings of those words? Are you secretly telling us you are a racist, elitist, and probably sexist or homophobe?
As for “probability,” it is simply the word we use to convey the likelihood of something being true, whether that is an event that is likely to happen in the future, or did happen in the past, an action being taken, or really any type of transaction. Truth is the word we use to describe reality or the actual state of things. So to deny that probability, i.e., the likelihood of something happening or having already happened, has a direct connection to reality or the actual state of things, rather misses the point.
Because I was trained to use it, as most people have it drilled into their brain. The fact you call it “orthodox” as well rather proves my point. Orthodoxies are arbitrary. Having been trained, indoctrinated, and forced by our systems to use “orthodox” grammar and spelling is not proof I am elitist, sexist, etc. It is proof that my own dialectical ways of spelling were forcibly removed. Also there is no single “English language” which has only one specific set of rules. If you think there is, then you deny the reality of other dialects.
Here is the Cumbrian dialect. This is an English dialect that is spoken in Cumbria:
This is perfectly grammatical, and 100% perfectly English. If you disagree, then you are just anti-reality. Here is another video where a black person talks about the (very real) fact that if people don’t talk the way white colonists did, that they will face discrimination (hence why people don’t use their native dialects of English):
Me not using my native dialect, is not proof of anything. But you defending elitism is. Nice try, but your lack of any intellectual nuance is only made staggeringly clear when you say things like that. That is like saying Native Americans are racist for having been forced to give up their languages.
I use “orthodox English” because if I don’t I will lose my scholarships, fail college, and more, because we perpetuate this racist, sexist, and homophobic system. I use it because I had to in order to survive.
I’d add, if you think any language has set immovable rules, I suggest you actually read Old English texts. Spelling is different, grammar is different, and even the way they write the letters is different in Old, Middle, and early Modern English. Because none of those things have “correct” forms. “Proper English” was an invention that does not exist. Hence why no one speaks with “proper English” according to textbooks.
——–
Likelihood of something being true, according to what? Reality? Reality according to whom? None of us experience reality the same way. We have no direct observation of reality. Reality we observe through indirect means (our imperfect senses, which are never perfectly translated into information by our brains). We never have any direct access to reality… hence why we cannot say anything is true that we observe. We can only say it is highly likely to varying degrees, based on a consensus of observations and experiments.
But why are you perpetuating racism, sexism, and homophobia? Do you not find that immoral?
* * *
On the “probabilities” thing …. if you cannot say anything is true, how can you say that propagating the supremacy of orthodox English is racist or sexist or homophobic? How do you know?
vergari said
Chris_Hansen said
Robert said
vergari said
“The latter have not been abandoned”
I think Bart would disagree with you here; and instead assert that the best a modern textual critic can do is to seek to arrive at the ausgang text, which Bart has rather clearly differentiated from the autograph.
Not sure where the miscommunication is here (perhaps my use of ‘the latter’ was not clear), but my position is exactly the same as Bart’s. What the Germans call the Ausgang text is exactly the same thing I meant by the earliest exemplar of the current texts. We cannot always know that the earliest exemplar is an original autograph and there are various compositional and redactional issues (cf the examples I gave above) which can never be solved by the mechanics of text criticism alone.
If the autograph — that is, the last edition to depart from the original author’s hands — is definitionally and ideologically out of reach, then the entire discipline of textual criticism is really an elaborate parlor game.
Not sure why you feel that way. It is still an essential discipline toward understanding the history of the text.
The distinction I’m drawing here is that scholarship cannot simply be about attaining more information; it has to be a search for the truth (even if all truths or the ultimate truth remain beyond our momentary grasp).
Not sure what you’re getting at here. Do you think those of us who acknowledge that we may never be able to arrive at an original autograph because of a variety of larger issues are no longer interested in the truth?
I find it funny he also calls me an anti-realist, for pointing out the very real reality that every Language and Dialect has a perfectly functioning grammar, and that no grammar is more “proper” than another, and there is no “proper” English, and pointing out further than the entire concept of “proper English” is largely a colonialist and imperialist invention… like… we have the textbooks they wrote. We have the letters they wrote. We know why, when, and how these rules came to be developed. Like, my position is about as realist and evidence based as they come lol.
The only way around this is to assert that there is this esoteric magical “proper grammar” which renders all other dialects inferior. “Proper grammar” is just taught in order to exterminate dialects and variety in our language, based on arbitrary rules (like “no double negatives” a rule specifically developed because rich white men did not like their usage).
“You are an anti-realist about English because you point out what every major Linguist of the 20th and 21st centuries has known for sixty years about the history of our language and how “standard English” and “proper grammar” were inventions and are used to eliminate the dialects of people of color, poor, and working class Americans from existence.”
Here is a podcast that covers some of this, by professional linguists (** you do not have permission to see this link **). As Carrie notes:
“In 1762, Bishop Robert Lowth – I think that’s how you pronounce his name – wrote a short introduction to English grammar with critical notes, and that seems to be where this rule comes from. So it’s just some dude, writing it down – okay he was a bishop, so I guess he’s not just “some dude” – one person just decides, “okay, this is a rule. I’m gonna write it down”. And it’s still around! We still obey this.”
Literally, rules of “proper grammar” were inventions by singular angsty white dudes.
Are rules of grammar for Mandarin and Hindi also racist, sexist and homophobic? or just the Western European languages?
What about grammatical rules for Navajo and Maori? Racist, sexist and homophobic, or no?
Um, actually Navajo and Maori have different manners of writing their words between speakers. It is not actually as stable as one thinks. There was not even a written form of Navajo until the 19th century. Each dialect has different rules. African American English and Midwestern White Middle Class English each are English, and both have different rules. For instance, white Midwestern Middle Class English does not have “Habitual Be”, where the word “be” is used to describe habitual actions “They be working most days.” Likewise, Maori did not have a written language. Christian missionaries tried making one in the 1800’s, and that would have been restrictive only to the dialect of those they interacted with. Also, Maori writing is not set in stone, and variances in spelling and such occur according to dialects.
Mandarin is specifically based on the Beijing Dialect and has been specifically used to eliminate dialectical writings of other Chinese speakers. Definitely elitist.
Let me ask, do you think that it should be spelling color, or colour? Honor or Honour? Which one is correct grammar? If there is any “proper spelling” then logically it must be one or the other. If you say “it depends where you are” then you just prove that spelling is a relative and arbitrary construct, it is not something which is set in stone.
Which one is more correct:
“Which city are you going in?”
“To which city are you going?”
Chris_Hansen said
vergari said
Chris_Hansen said
Robert said
vergari said
“The latter have not been abandoned”
I think Bart would disagree with you here; and instead assert that the best a modern textual critic can do is to seek to arrive at the ausgang text, which Bart has rather clearly differentiated from the autograph.
Not sure where the miscommunication is here (perhaps my use of ‘the latter’ was not clear), but my position is exactly the same as Bart’s. What the Germans call the Ausgang text is exactly the same thing I meant by the earliest exemplar of the current texts. We cannot always know that the earliest exemplar is an original autograph and there are various compositional and redactional issues (cf the examples I gave above) which can never be solved by the mechanics of text criticism alone.
If the autograph — that is, the last edition to depart from the original author’s hands — is definitionally and ideologically out of reach, then the entire discipline of textual criticism is really an elaborate parlor game.
Not sure why you feel that way. It is still an essential discipline toward understanding the history of the text.
The distinction I’m drawing here is that scholarship cannot simply be about attaining more information; it has to be a search for the truth (even if all truths or the ultimate truth remain beyond our momentary grasp).
Not sure what you’re getting at here. Do you think those of us who acknowledge that we may never be able to arrive at an original autograph because of a variety of larger issues are no longer interested in the truth?
I find it funny he also calls me an anti-realist, for pointing out the very real reality that every Language and Dialect has a perfectly functioning grammar, and that no grammar is more “proper” than another, and there is no “proper” English, and pointing out further than the entire concept of “proper English” is largely a colonialist and imperialist invention… like… we have the textbooks they wrote. We have the letters they wrote. We know why, when, and how these rules came to be developed. Like, my position is about as realist and evidence based as they come lol.
The only way around this is to assert that there is this esoteric magical “proper grammar” which renders all other dialects inferior. “Proper grammar” is just taught in order to exterminate dialects and variety in our language, based on arbitrary rules (like “no double negatives” a rule specifically developed because rich white men did not like their usage).
“You are an anti-realist about English because you point out what every major Linguist of the 20th and 21st centuries has known for sixty years about the history of our language and how “standard English” and “proper grammar” were inventions and are used to eliminate the dialects of people of color, poor, and working class Americans from existence.”
Here is a podcast that covers some of this, by professional linguists (** you do not have permission to see this link **). As Carrie notes:
“In 1762, Bishop Robert Lowth – I think that’s how you pronounce his name – wrote a short introduction to English grammar with critical notes, and that seems to be where this rule comes from. So it’s just some dude, writing it down – okay he was a bishop, so I guess he’s not just “some dude” – one person just decides, “okay, this is a rule. I’m gonna write it down”. And it’s still around! We still obey this.”
Literally, rules of “proper grammar” were inventions by singular angsty white dudes.
Are rules of grammar for Mandarin and Hindi also racist, sexist and homophobic? or just the Western European languages?
What about grammatical rules for Navajo and Maori? Racist, sexist and homophobic, or no?
Um, actually Navajo and Maori have different manners of writing their words between speakers. It is not actually as stable as one thinks. There was not even a written form of Navajo until the 19th century. Each dialect has different rules. African American English and Midwestern White Middle Class English each are English, and both have different rules. For instance, white Midwestern Middle Class English does not have “Habitual Be”, where the word “be” is used to describe habitual actions “They be working most days.” Likewise, Maori did not have a written language. Christian missionaries tried making one in the 1800’s, and that would have been restrictive only to the dialect of those they interacted with. Also, Maori writing is not set in stone, and variances in spelling and such occur according to dialects.
Mandarin is specifically based on the Beijing Dialect and has been specifically used to eliminate dialectical writings of other Chinese speakers. Definitely elitist.
Let me ask, do you think that it should be spelling color, or colour? Honor or Honour? Which one is correct grammar? If there is any “proper spelling” then logically it must be one or the other. If you say “it depends where you are” then you just prove that spelling is a relative and arbitrary construct, it is not something which is set in stone.
Which one is more correct:
“Which city are you going in?”
“To which city are you going?”
I accept both the American and British spellings of color / honor as “correct,” and have never suggested otherwise.
What I would reject as the “correct” spelling for the word “color” is something like this: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
I take it you think there is nothing “incorrect” (so to speak) about spelling the word “color”: “h2@nd[yn”?
vergari said
Chris_Hansen said
vergari said
Chris_Hansen said
Robert said
vergari said
“The latter have not been abandoned”
I think Bart would disagree with you here; and instead assert that the best a modern textual critic can do is to seek to arrive at the ausgang text, which Bart has rather clearly differentiated from the autograph.
Not sure where the miscommunication is here (perhaps my use of ‘the latter’ was not clear), but my position is exactly the same as Bart’s. What the Germans call the Ausgang text is exactly the same thing I meant by the earliest exemplar of the current texts. We cannot always know that the earliest exemplar is an original autograph and there are various compositional and redactional issues (cf the examples I gave above) which can never be solved by the mechanics of text criticism alone.
If the autograph — that is, the last edition to depart from the original author’s hands — is definitionally and ideologically out of reach, then the entire discipline of textual criticism is really an elaborate parlor game.
Not sure why you feel that way. It is still an essential discipline toward understanding the history of the text.
The distinction I’m drawing here is that scholarship cannot simply be about attaining more information; it has to be a search for the truth (even if all truths or the ultimate truth remain beyond our momentary grasp).
Not sure what you’re getting at here. Do you think those of us who acknowledge that we may never be able to arrive at an original autograph because of a variety of larger issues are no longer interested in the truth?
I find it funny he also calls me an anti-realist, for pointing out the very real reality that every Language and Dialect has a perfectly functioning grammar, and that no grammar is more “proper” than another, and there is no “proper” English, and pointing out further than the entire concept of “proper English” is largely a colonialist and imperialist invention… like… we have the textbooks they wrote. We have the letters they wrote. We know why, when, and how these rules came to be developed. Like, my position is about as realist and evidence based as they come lol.
The only way around this is to assert that there is this esoteric magical “proper grammar” which renders all other dialects inferior. “Proper grammar” is just taught in order to exterminate dialects and variety in our language, based on arbitrary rules (like “no double negatives” a rule specifically developed because rich white men did not like their usage).
“You are an anti-realist about English because you point out what every major Linguist of the 20th and 21st centuries has known for sixty years about the history of our language and how “standard English” and “proper grammar” were inventions and are used to eliminate the dialects of people of color, poor, and working class Americans from existence.”
Here is a podcast that covers some of this, by professional linguists (** you do not have permission to see this link **). As Carrie notes:
“In 1762, Bishop Robert Lowth – I think that’s how you pronounce his name – wrote a short introduction to English grammar with critical notes, and that seems to be where this rule comes from. So it’s just some dude, writing it down – okay he was a bishop, so I guess he’s not just “some dude” – one person just decides, “okay, this is a rule. I’m gonna write it down”. And it’s still around! We still obey this.”
Literally, rules of “proper grammar” were inventions by singular angsty white dudes.
Are rules of grammar for Mandarin and Hindi also racist, sexist and homophobic? or just the Western European languages?
What about grammatical rules for Navajo and Maori? Racist, sexist and homophobic, or no?
Um, actually Navajo and Maori have different manners of writing their words between speakers. It is not actually as stable as one thinks. There was not even a written form of Navajo until the 19th century. Each dialect has different rules. African American English and Midwestern White Middle Class English each are English, and both have different rules. For instance, white Midwestern Middle Class English does not have “Habitual Be”, where the word “be” is used to describe habitual actions “They be working most days.” Likewise, Maori did not have a written language. Christian missionaries tried making one in the 1800’s, and that would have been restrictive only to the dialect of those they interacted with. Also, Maori writing is not set in stone, and variances in spelling and such occur according to dialects.
Mandarin is specifically based on the Beijing Dialect and has been specifically used to eliminate dialectical writings of other Chinese speakers. Definitely elitist.
Let me ask, do you think that it should be spelling color, or colour? Honor or Honour? Which one is correct grammar? If there is any “proper spelling” then logically it must be one or the other. If you say “it depends where you are” then you just prove that spelling is a relative and arbitrary construct, it is not something which is set in stone.
Which one is more correct:
“Which city are you going in?”
“To which city are you going?”
I accept both the American and British spellings of color / honor as “correct,” and have never suggested otherwise.
What I would reject as the “correct” spelling for the word “color” is something like this: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
I take it you think there is nothing “incorrect” (so to speak) about spelling the word “color”: “h2@nd[yn”?
How can two things be correct, when they are different? Can blue be red?
And if “h2@nd[yn” made sense for “color” in that dialect, then it is correct.
Also, your drawing the line at color/colour is arbitrary. Why not draw the line more broadly? Why draw the line at all? Who chooses why ** you do not have permission to see this link ** is wrong and “color” is right?
Oh yeah… rich white guys did.
Let me ask, is “Eoghan” an incorrect spelling of “Owen”?
I do find it hilarious that your only comeback to this, however, has been to say “well, you do this”, after I specifically said the reason I do is because we live in a coercive system that harms the futures of those who don’t. You are actually just victim blaming. “How dare you be coerced into doing this” is basically what you are saying and it really says a lot about how little energy you use to think about anything.
Chris_Hansen said
Also, I just like that you are such a bloody coward that you refused to answer my questions.Again, are black people wrong for pronouncing “ask” as “aks”?
Well, first off, “aks” is not peculiarly black, as anyone who has spent time in New Jersey and Long Island would tell you.
The reason that “aks” has an association with black Americans is that it had a popular use in the American South, drawn from poorer settlers from Britain, where the word “aks” was still in use. Much of what you might call “African American English” is simply anachronistic or vulgar English from earlier centuries. In the case of “aks,” I believe it was at one time, centuries ago, the orthodox spelling and pronunciation of the word in Britain.
vergari said
Chris_Hansen said
Also, I just like that you are such a bloody coward that you refused to answer my questions.
Again, are black people wrong for pronouncing “ask” as “aks”?
Well, first off, “aks” is not peculiarly black, as anyone who has spent time in New Jersey and Long Island would tell you.
The reason that “aks” has an association with black Americans is that it had a popular use in the American South, drawn from poorer settlers from Britain, where the word “aks” was still in use. Much of what you might call “African American English” is simply anachronistic or vulgar English from earlier centuries. In the case of “aks,” I believe it was at one time, centuries ago, the orthodox spelling and pronunciation of the word in Britain.
Yes it was. But you did not answer my question. Are they incorrect? Because American and British textbooks have it as “ask” not “aks”… and you are the one pretending there is “proper spelling” and “proper pronunciation” and “proper English”
Chris_Hansen said
How can two things be correct, when they are different? Can blue be red?And if “h2@nd[yn” made sense for “color” in that dialect, then it is correct.
Also, your drawing the line at color/colour is arbitrary. Why not draw the line more broadly? Why draw the line at all? Who chooses why ** you do not have permission to see this link ** is wrong and “color” is right?
Oh yeah… rich white guys did.
Let me ask, is “Eoghan” an incorrect spelling of “Owen”?
I do find it hilarious that your only comeback to this, however, has been to say “well, you do this”, after I specifically said the reason I do is because we live in a coercive system that harms the futures of those who don’t. You are actually just victim blaming. “How dare you be coerced into doing this” is basically what you are saying and it really says a lot about how little energy you use to think about anything.
Two different things can both be correct and different, so long as they are not mutually exclusive.
Red being blue is mutually exclusive. Two acceptable spellings for the same word is not mutually exclusive.
“Who chooses why ** you do not have permission to see this link ** is wrong and ‘color’ is right? Oh yeah… rich white guys did.”
I personally would like to meet the rich white guys who chose that “h2@nd[yn” was an incorrect spelling of “color.” Anyway, I take it you are fine with the “h2@nd[yn” spelling being correct.
“Is ‘Eoghan’ an incorrect spelling of ‘Owen’?”
On the proper name “Owen”? Yes, that would be incorrect if the person’s name is literally spelled “Owen.” If it merely pronounced “Owen,” then a different spelling might be right.
Chris_Hansen said
vergari said
Chris_Hansen said
Also, I just like that you are such a bloody coward that you refused to answer my questions.
Again, are black people wrong for pronouncing “ask” as “aks”?
Well, first off, “aks” is not peculiarly black, as anyone who has spent time in New Jersey and Long Island would tell you.
The reason that “aks” has an association with black Americans is that it had a popular use in the American South, drawn from poorer settlers from Britain, where the word “aks” was still in use. Much of what you might call “African American English” is simply anachronistic or vulgar English from earlier centuries. In the case of “aks,” I believe it was at one time, centuries ago, the orthodox spelling and pronunciation of the word in Britain.
Yes it was. But you did not answer my question. Are they incorrect? Because American and British textbooks have it as “ask” not “aks”… and you are the one pretending there is “proper spelling” and “proper pronunciation” and “proper English”
“Aks” is wrong in modern English.
vergari said
Chris_Hansen said
How can two things be correct, when they are different? Can blue be red?
And if “h2@nd[yn” made sense for “color” in that dialect, then it is correct.
Also, your drawing the line at color/colour is arbitrary. Why not draw the line more broadly? Why draw the line at all? Who chooses why ** you do not have permission to see this link ** is wrong and “color” is right?
Oh yeah… rich white guys did.
Let me ask, is “Eoghan” an incorrect spelling of “Owen”?
I do find it hilarious that your only comeback to this, however, has been to say “well, you do this”, after I specifically said the reason I do is because we live in a coercive system that harms the futures of those who don’t. You are actually just victim blaming. “How dare you be coerced into doing this” is basically what you are saying and it really says a lot about how little energy you use to think about anything.
Two different things can both be correct and different, so long as they are not mutually exclusive.
Red being blue is mutually exclusive. Two acceptable spellings for the same word is not mutually exclusive.
“Who chooses why ** you do not have permission to see this link ** is wrong and ‘color’ is right? Oh yeah… rich white guys did.”
I personally would like to meet the rich white guys who chose that “h2@nd[yn” was an incorrect spelling of “color.” Anyway, I take it you are fine with the “h2@nd[yn” spelling being correct.
“Is ‘Eoghan’ an incorrect spelling of ‘Owen’?”
On the proper name “Owen”? Yes, that would be incorrect if the person’s name is literally spelled “Owen.” If it merely pronounced “Owen,” then a different spelling might be right.
So you think that Irish writing is incorrect because they spell it Eoghan? Nice, good to know you think entire language writing systems are incorrect. You’d fit right in with 1930’s Americans who thought Irish people were subhuman.
vergari said
Chris_Hansen said
vergari said
Chris_Hansen said
Also, I just like that you are such a bloody coward that you refused to answer my questions.
Again, are black people wrong for pronouncing “ask” as “aks”?
Well, first off, “aks” is not peculiarly black, as anyone who has spent time in New Jersey and Long Island would tell you.
The reason that “aks” has an association with black Americans is that it had a popular use in the American South, drawn from poorer settlers from Britain, where the word “aks” was still in use. Much of what you might call “African American English” is simply anachronistic or vulgar English from earlier centuries. In the case of “aks,” I believe it was at one time, centuries ago, the orthodox spelling and pronunciation of the word in Britain.
Yes it was. But you did not answer my question. Are they incorrect? Because American and British textbooks have it as “ask” not “aks”… and you are the one pretending there is “proper spelling” and “proper pronunciation” and “proper English”
“Aks” is wrong in modern English.
So you think black people are wrong for the way they speak. Good to know racist. Also, why is a one letter difference okay for “color/colour” but not for “aks/ask”… You literally have nothing but arbitrary nonsense for your position and no scholarly backing either. You are actually pathetic.
I’m done now. I have no desire to continue talking with victim blamers, racists, and elitists… and more specifically you. When you decide to join linguists in reality, let us know.
I use “orthodox English” because I have to. Adrienne Rich wrote a rather poignant poem, which feminist scholar bell hooks has since commented on, where she said “This is the oppressor’s language yet I need it to talk to you.” Blaming people for using the language of their oppressor, is blaming them for being oppressed. And it is pretty gross and shows the elitism, racism, classism, sexism, and homophobia that goes with it. We are not those things for using it, but you are those things if you blame us for just trying to survive.
Chris_Hansen said
vergari said
Chris_Hansen said
How can two things be correct, when they are different? Can blue be red?
And if “h2@nd[yn” made sense for “color” in that dialect, then it is correct.
Also, your drawing the line at color/colour is arbitrary. Why not draw the line more broadly? Why draw the line at all? Who chooses why ** you do not have permission to see this link ** is wrong and “color” is right?
Oh yeah… rich white guys did.
Let me ask, is “Eoghan” an incorrect spelling of “Owen”?
I do find it hilarious that your only comeback to this, however, has been to say “well, you do this”, after I specifically said the reason I do is because we live in a coercive system that harms the futures of those who don’t. You are actually just victim blaming. “How dare you be coerced into doing this” is basically what you are saying and it really says a lot about how little energy you use to think about anything.
Two different things can both be correct and different, so long as they are not mutually exclusive.
Red being blue is mutually exclusive. Two acceptable spellings for the same word is not mutually exclusive.
“Who chooses why ** you do not have permission to see this link ** is wrong and ‘color’ is right? Oh yeah… rich white guys did.”
I personally would like to meet the rich white guys who chose that “h2@nd[yn” was an incorrect spelling of “color.” Anyway, I take it you are fine with the “h2@nd[yn” spelling being correct.
“Is ‘Eoghan’ an incorrect spelling of ‘Owen’?”
On the proper name “Owen”? Yes, that would be incorrect if the person’s name is literally spelled “Owen.” If it merely pronounced “Owen,” then a different spelling might be right.
So you think that Irish writing is incorrect because they spell it Eoghan? Nice, good to know you think entire language writing systems are incorrect. You’d fit right in with 1930’s Americans who thought Irish people were subhuman.
I can definitely see you’re not majoring in reading comprehension.
Chris_Hansen said
vergari said
Chris_Hansen said
vergari said
Chris_Hansen said
Also, I just like that you are such a bloody coward that you refused to answer my questions.
Again, are black people wrong for pronouncing “ask” as “aks”?
Well, first off, “aks” is not peculiarly black, as anyone who has spent time in New Jersey and Long Island would tell you.
The reason that “aks” has an association with black Americans is that it had a popular use in the American South, drawn from poorer settlers from Britain, where the word “aks” was still in use. Much of what you might call “African American English” is simply anachronistic or vulgar English from earlier centuries. In the case of “aks,” I believe it was at one time, centuries ago, the orthodox spelling and pronunciation of the word in Britain.
Yes it was. But you did not answer my question. Are they incorrect? Because American and British textbooks have it as “ask” not “aks”… and you are the one pretending there is “proper spelling” and “proper pronunciation” and “proper English”
“Aks” is wrong in modern English.
So you think black people are wrong for the way they speak. Good to know racist. Also, why is a one letter difference okay for “color/colour” but not for “aks/ask”… You literally have nothing but arbitrary nonsense for your position and no scholarly backing either. You are actually pathetic.
I’m done now. I have no desire to continue talking with victim blamers, racists, and elitists… and more specifically you. When you decide to join linguists in reality, let us know.
I use “orthodox English” because I have to. Adrienne Rich wrote a rather poignant poem, which feminist scholar bell hooks has since commented on, where she said “This is the oppressor’s language yet I need it to talk to you.” Blaming people for using the language of their oppressor, is blaming them for being oppressed. And it is pretty gross and shows the elitism, racism, classism, sexism, and homophobia that goes with it. We are not those things for using it, but you are those things if you blame us for just trying to survive.
You have outed yourself as a racist, under your criteria for the word; but seek to explain away your own believed racism on the basis of social coercion.
Of course, no one in this forum is coercing you to reject non-orthodox English. So it seems your racist insistence on orthodox English is entirely voluntary.
vergari said
Chris_Hansen said
vergari said
Chris_Hansen said
How can two things be correct, when they are different? Can blue be red?
And if “h2@nd[yn” made sense for “color” in that dialect, then it is correct.
Also, your drawing the line at color/colour is arbitrary. Why not draw the line more broadly? Why draw the line at all? Who chooses why ** you do not have permission to see this link ** is wrong and “color” is right?
Oh yeah… rich white guys did.
Let me ask, is “Eoghan” an incorrect spelling of “Owen”?
I do find it hilarious that your only comeback to this, however, has been to say “well, you do this”, after I specifically said the reason I do is because we live in a coercive system that harms the futures of those who don’t. You are actually just victim blaming. “How dare you be coerced into doing this” is basically what you are saying and it really says a lot about how little energy you use to think about anything.
Two different things can both be correct and different, so long as they are not mutually exclusive.
Red being blue is mutually exclusive. Two acceptable spellings for the same word is not mutually exclusive.
“Who chooses why ** you do not have permission to see this link ** is wrong and ‘color’ is right? Oh yeah… rich white guys did.”
I personally would like to meet the rich white guys who chose that “h2@nd[yn” was an incorrect spelling of “color.” Anyway, I take it you are fine with the “h2@nd[yn” spelling being correct.
“Is ‘Eoghan’ an incorrect spelling of ‘Owen’?”
On the proper name “Owen”? Yes, that would be incorrect if the person’s name is literally spelled “Owen.” If it merely pronounced “Owen,” then a different spelling might be right.
So you think that Irish writing is incorrect because they spell it Eoghan? Nice, good to know you think entire language writing systems are incorrect. You’d fit right in with 1930’s Americans who thought Irish people were subhuman.
I can definitely see you’re not majoring in reading comprehension.
My point was that the name Owen is spelled Eoghan when translated in Irish. You thick? I guess small brained quacks like you can’t read “Irish writing” lol. You know Irish is another language right? It is like how Jesus is the translated name of Joshua. I think the only person needing reading comprehension is you. Not that we should expect much about the person who thinks that anyone who doesn’t speak your racist form of English based on arbitrary rules developed in the 1700’s is wrong for… speaking a perfectly correct dialect of English.
Also, people like you regularly attack me if I do not use “orthodox English” spellings and grammar. So no, it is coercion. I have been specifically attacked on this blog for it. It is called social coercion. And if you don’t think it exists, it is because you are an elitist who doesn’t suffer from it. Congrats on your privilege.
The fact that you insist there is proper English, is reason enough for me not to use my dialect, because I know that horrid pieces of human garbage like you would attack me for it, the way you just said anyone who says “aks” is wrong… for saying something perfectly fine.
You are a horrible person. I have no interest in being around sorry excuses of human beings like you. I bet you also say “she was asking for it” when women wear revealing clothes and are harassed. I’m done with you. You obviously don’t have the capacity to think about anything that isn’t just preset in your beliefs.
You can stop writing that reply which is just going to repeat the same crap you’ve been spewing for the last two pages. Like you actually just think black people using AAE dialect are inherently wrong for the way they speak. It is actually gross what you argue for.
Edited to be less harsh. Regardless, my point stands. vargari is just arguing elitist standpoints, and obviously refuses to challenge his preconceptions, hence why he hates postmodern theories (even though he clearly, based on his third wave feminism comment, has no idea what they even are).
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)