World of Weird Al Yankovic

No, it's just a coincidence.

The Sporkman wrote:The people complaining are academic linguists whose job is to study how people communicate and the ways in which language is evolving. Prescriptivists or "Grammar Nazis" like Al's character in the song are more interested in professing how they believe language SHOULD work as opposed to how it actually does, an attitude which is counterproductive and harmful if your goal is to broaden our understanding of language as a psychological and sociological phenomenon. Even though the song's aggressive, elitist tone is satirical and exaggerated, it hits too close to home and reminds them of the negative attitudes and ideas that impede their research on a daily basis.

Or it reminds them that descriptivism isn't particularly useful when it comes to written language. The difference between saying "should of" vs. "should've" is negligible. They sound the same to the ear, so who cares? But writing it the wrong way presents problems. We can't just tack on a new definition for every word whenever someone makes a mistake. Eventually we'll end up with complete nonsense that r brainz cant even desifer bc its got 2 many errors n it 2 make ne kinda cents weather or knot thats how ppl talk i mean wat f they're was know roolz abt punkuashen n speling then wat wood we do then idk lol yolo

This anti-prescriptivism nonsense is like saying you can't define what a cat is because species are constantly evolving, and some cats are born different than any other cat, so if someone calls his dog a cat, you can't tell if he's wrong, because you never know

Skippy wrote:Or it reminds them that descriptivism isn't particularly useful when it comes to written language. The difference between saying "should of" vs. "should've" is negligible. They sound the same to the ear, so who cares? But writing it the wrong way presents problems. We can't just tack on a new definition for every word whenever someone makes a mistake. Eventually we'll end up with complete nonsense that r brainz cant even desifer bc its got 2 many errors n it 2 make ne kinda cents weather or knot thats how ppl talk i mean wat f they're was know roolz abt punkuashen n speling then wat wood we do then idk lol yolo

Very well said. Traditionally in linguistics, prescriptivism is thought of as the more rigid and more uptight frame of mind, but when descriptivism proponents get all bent out of shape over a Weird Al song, they make themselves look like the ones who are too tightly wound.

Skippy wrote:

The Sporkman wrote:Or it reminds them that descriptivism isn't particularly useful when it comes to written language. The difference between saying "should of" vs. "should've" is negligible. They sound the same to the ear, so who cares? But writing it the wrong way presents problems. We can't just tack on a new definition for every word whenever someone makes a mistake. Eventually we'll end up with complete nonsense that r brainz cant even desifer bc its got 2 many errors n it 2 make ne kinda cents weather or knot thats how ppl talk i mean wat f they're was know roolz abt punkuashen n speling then wat wood we do then idk lol yolo

Descriptivists don't claim that all individual instances of typos and misspellings are correct and reflective of change. They keep track of how common and pervasive a change is and how usage varies on a regional and dialectical level. "Correct" spelling and grammar ultimately means "common" spelling and grammar, and sometimes what is common and correct varies by community and region. That's why dictionaries list both American and British spellings; what is common and therefore "correct" in one country is not "correct" in the other. Textspeak has developed its own spelling and grammar rules at this point. Some abbreviations and shortenings are very common and widely understood, and their usage is now "correct" for the community that uses them. If a "mistake" is common enough that it can become someone's pet peeve, then it's probably time to recognize it as a legitimate change or variation. Placing a value judgment on an entire dialect and claiming that one form of grammar is superior to another is unscientific and counterproductive.

The Sporkman wrote: If a "mistake" is common enough that it can become someone's pet peeve, then it's probably time to recognize it as a legitimate change or variation. Placing a value judgment on an entire dialect and claiming that one form of grammar is superior to another is unscientific and counterproductive.

So you're okay with "could of" meaning the same thing as "could've?" How about "there," "their," and "they're." People switch those around all the time.

Dialect has nothing to do with writing. People can speak however they want, and it really doesn't bother me as long as I understand what they're talking about. But if you want to communicate through writing, then you have to follow some basic rules, or your message will be unclear or even possibly the opposite of what you intended.

Descriptivists ignore the contribution of prescriptivism to the evolution of language that they are supposedly in love with. For example, without it, there wouldn't be any classic literature, because you can't tell coherent stories in writing without rules.

Skippy wrote:So you're okay with "could of" meaning the same thing as "could've?" How about "there," "their," and "they're." People switch those around all the time.

None of those are currently correct in Standard American English. I don't know the statistics of whether any of those are used consistently in any particular dialect. Consistency's the thing. If someone's always using a different form of "there/their/they're" in different instances without any recognizable pattern, then it is a "mistake." The person clearly knows that there's supposed to be a rule in SAE about those words, but they're not sure what it is. On the other hand, if an entire community spelled all three forms as "thair," as many Middle English speakers did, then that would be correct for them.

Skippy wrote:Descriptivists ignore the contribution of prescriptivism to the evolution of language that they are supposedly in love with. For example, without it, there wouldn't be any classic literature, because you can't tell coherent stories in writing without rules.

Rules happen on their own. They don't have to be prescribed by anyone. Your personal system of grammar already exists in your brain. It's absurd to say that great literature can't exist without universal formalized rules, unless you consider anything written before the 19th century to be worthless. Most of what's considered part of the "Western canon" was originally composed before the modern standardization of English spelling in 19th century, before the various standards used by early printers in the 15th century, before the early grammatical treatises of Alexandrian scholars in the second century BCE, and in some instances before the invention of writing itself in the late Bronze Age.

I think you're reading way too much into this song. After all, the song it parodied was a love letter to Robin Thicke's penis.

I absolutely love the song, and I do think the people complaining about it are overreacting and failing to get the joke, but I'm going to defend linguistics as an academic and scientific field if I see misconceptions about it.

The Sporkman wrote: None of those are currently correct in Standard American English.

That's not what I asked. I asked if you're okay with it. If everyone starts using "could of" (and a LOT of people already do,) then are you okay with that being a "correct" way to say "could have" even though it is obviously a mistake?

if an entire community spelled all three forms as "thair," as many Middle English speakers did, then that would be correct for them.

But will it be "correct" on a resume? In a college essay? And how do you determine if someone is just mistaken about how a word is spelled or if it's something that's "correct" where they come from?

Skippy wrote: Rules happen on their own. They don't have to be prescribed by anyone.

They have to be organized by someone. They have to be agreed upon by some group of people. That's how rules work.

Your personal system of grammar already exists in your brain.

You mean from birth? Or am I misunderstanding you?

It's absurd to say that great literature can't exist without universal formalized rules, unless you consider anything written before the 19th century to be worthless. Most of what's considered part of the "Western canon" was originally composed before the modern standardization of English spelling in 19th century, before the various standards used by early printers in the 15th century, before the early grammatical treatises of Alexandrian scholars in the second century BCE, and in some instances before the invention of writing itself in the late Bronze Age.

Most of it? That's just not true at all, unless you're using a different list than Harold Bloom. Or you're using commas wrong, and your sentence doesn't mean what you intended it to.