World of Weird Al Yankovic

Found this on Al's site. Think it's new, but sorry for re-posting if it's not.

http://jarrettheather.com/wordcrimes/?s ... al27979306" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Alinite27 wrote:Found this on Al's site. Think it's new, but sorry for re-posting if it's not.

http://jarrettheather.com/wordcrimes/?s ... al27979306" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted the day the video came out!

Skippy wrote:

The Sporkman wrote: Regional and ethnic patterns and variations exist and can be identified, classified, mapped out, and studied. It's systematic. It's not about "correct" or "incorrect." A dialect is the way it is. It's not about political correctness. It's science.

If it's not about "correct" or "incorrect," why do you take issue whenever someone points out a grammar mistake? If it was only about studying the way people talk scientifically (which I have no problem with at all) there would be no conflict with prescriptivist standards.

Not following the standard leads to confusion, miscommunication and assumptions about intelligence. That's why it's important to teach people that while their dialectical quirks are fine for communicating within that dialect, they become a hindrance when venturing outside of it. But when descriptivists say all dialects are correct (or whatever term you want to use) it discourages people from learning the standard rules and cripples their ability to communicate effectively.

You think, "Oh that lady knows the standard way to say it, but she's just using her regional/cultural dialect in an informal setting." But the truth is a LOT of people really don't know the standard, and they don't care because descriptivists keep telling them the rules are archaic and culturally insensitive.

Yesterday I saw someone write "kind've" instead of "kind of." This is the sort of absurdity we're heading toward if we continue to let things like "would of" slide.

I assume he takes issue because they're not mistakes, and prescriptivist grammar is arbitrary. Long story short: if you can understand what a person is talking about, it's fine. You're being a bit pedantic otherwise.

Sure, if they're writing a PhD thesis and they write "thunk", tell them to knock it off. I won't argue there. But if they're writing a MySpace blog, don't bother.

The world will not disintegrate if "you was" becomes the norm. If that's the case, I image Cicero is rolling over in his grave because English (aka bad French), by way of French (aka bad Latin), is the lingua franca.

Skippy wrote:Not following the standard leads to confusion, miscommunication and assumptions about intelligence.

That just tells us something about the nature of humanity, rather than grammar, methinks.

Way_Moby wrote: I assume he takes issue because they're not mistakes, and prescriptivist grammar is arbitrary. Long story short: if you can understand what a person is talking about, it's fine. You're being a bit pedantic otherwise.

That's a fine opinion to have, but what do arbitrary prescriptivist rules have to do with the scientific study of the way people speak and use grammar? How does the desire for a standard to facilitate clear communication interfere with describing what people are doing?

If descriptivists aren't interested in defining what is "correct," then what difference does it make to them if someone else does it?

Sure, if they're writing a PhD thesis and they write "thunk", tell them to knock it off. I won't argue there. But if they're writing a MySpace blog, don't bother.

Why not? Aren't they trying to communicate with people on their MySpace blog? And where do you draw the actual line, because there's a lot of writing in between the two examples you gave.

The world will not disintegrate if "you was" becomes the norm.

Probably not. And if that happens, so be it. But it will only happen if people start to realize that "you was" is more clear than "you were," and there's no real reason to keep the current rules about subject-verb agreement. It won't happen just because of a bunch of 12-year-olds' Facebook posts.

Skippy wrote:Not following the standard leads to confusion, miscommunication and assumptions about intelligence.

That just tells us something about the nature of humanity, rather than grammar, methinks.

If you just mean assumptions about intelligence, yes, I'd agree with you. If you mean all of it, then I don't know what you're trying to say.

Skippy wrote:If descriptivists aren't interested in defining what is "correct," then what difference does it make to them if someone else does it?

Well, descirptivists aren't trying to find what is "correct" (nothing is really 'correct'), they're trying to find what is in use.

Skippy wrote:That's a fine opinion to have, but what do arbitrary prescriptivist rules have to do with the scientific study of the way people speak and use grammar? How does the desire for a standard to facilitate clear communication interfere with describing what people are doing?

See, there's the rub. If I say, "You was tired", you know exactly what I mean. In fact, in many, many parts of the English-speaking world, that type of construction is common. Arguing that "You were tired", and by extension perscriptivist grammar, ALWAYS facilitates communication is just plain erroneous.

But, if I were to say, "U fuit sleep-sleep", I assume you'd have no idea what I meant (for the record, I just took the letter "u", added the Latin past-tense of "are" and made up a new word for sleep). That's why having a lingua franca can be useful, as it sometimes does facilitate communication.

But to answer the bulk of your questoin. I think it irks descriptivists simply because its wrong. There is not "right" and "wrong" grammar, there's simply "different" grammar. The issue arises when one side favors one of the grammars over the other and puts people down because of that. If you think "you were" is correct, perfect! No harm! But please don't humiliate and shame people who happen to like "you was", especially if they use it in an informal area. It comes across and pedantic, smug, and ultimately arrogant.

Why not? Aren't they trying to communicate with people on their MySpace blog? And where do you draw the actual line, because there's a lot of writing in between the two examples you gave.

Short answer: culture and communication. A PhD thesis or journal article is inherently made for a large audience, and thus should probably be written in a language or style that the largest group of people can understand; so sayeth our culture. A blogpost, on the other hand, is not inherently meant for a large audience because it is informal. Sure, it may attract a large audience, but it is not always the intention.

If everyone in the US started speaking AAVE, then it seems appropriate for journals to be written that way, since the largest audience is speaking a different type of English. However, I will I agree with you that a standard, rule-driven lingua franca usually eases communication and facilitates the exchanging of ideas. I just don't like it when people act dickish because one is 'right'.

And here's a more philosophical question: where do you draw the line on anything? There's always going to be a middle ground. Thanks post-modernism!

It won't happen just because of a bunch of 12-year-olds' Facebook posts.

12 year-olds grow up. And if enough 12 year-olds use that construction, you better bet your bottom dollar it'll become the new norm.

If you just mean assumptions about intelligence, yes, I'd agree with you. If you mean all of it, then I don't know what you're trying to say.

I was kind of referring to it all. Intelligence? Yes? But also the idea about "following the standard". People are inherently scared of what is different, be it race, culture, language, music, or TV shows. It's just part of being a human, I guess.

All-in-all, the real reason I'm not a perscriptivist is because perscriptivists grammar isn't "right", it's just merely seen as correct by a hegemonic part of the population. And besides, language changes, and keeping language in artificial and arbitrary boxes is silly, because eventually the language will outgrow those rules. Like I said before, French is really just really, really, really evolved Latin. Should Latin grammatical rules be applied to French? No? Why not? The standard answer would be: "They're two different languages!" But the problem here is that there is not clear cut differentiate between language; it's not like one day everyone in Gaul said, "Hey! We're not speaking Latin anymore. We're speaking... FRENCH!" Same with English. There was no hard and fast 'dividing line' between Old, Middle, and Modern English. It's all one, amorphous, ever-changing blob.

But anyway, I can see I'm not convincing anyone, and I needn't argue any further. Adieu!

Way_Moby wrote:
Well, descirptivists aren't trying to find what is "correct" (nothing is really 'correct'), they're trying to find what is in use.

This is exactly my point. It's not two opposing philosophies; it's two entirely different pursuits. Prescriptivists are trying to define a standard to make communication between vastly different cultures/dialects possible. There is a "correct" way within the context of the standard, and the goal it is trying to achieve. That doesn't mean that if someone follow the standard in their everyday speech that they are better than someone who doesn't. That's not what anyone is trying to say.

See, there's the rub. If I say, "You was tired", you know exactly what I mean. In fact, in many, many parts of the English-speaking world, that type of construction is common. Arguing that "You were tired", and by extension perscriptivist grammar, ALWAYS facilitates communication is just plain erroneous.

And if you reverse it. If you are used to "You was tired" and I said, "You were tired," you would also know exactly what I mean. The reason for the standard is so that the person who says "was" and the person who says "were" can communicate effectively with each other. I've already said that I'm not talking about two people from the deep South chatting with each other. That's not what it's about.

The problem descriptivists have with the standard is that some people already talk that way, so to them it feels like one group trying to impose their way of speaking on others. But that's like complaining about the height of the ceilings in your house because you're taller than average. If people begin to favor "You was" instead of "you were," the standard will eventually change. That's what it's for.

It comes across and pedantic, smug, and ultimately arrogant.

That says more about society than grammar, no?

Short answer: culture and communication. A PhD thesis or journal article is inherently made for a large audience, and thus should probably be written in a language or style that the largest group of people can understand; so sayeth our culture. A blogpost, on the other hand, is not inherently meant for a large audience because it is informal. Sure, it may attract a large audience, but it is not always the intention.

Pretty sure everybody has read more blog posts than PhD theses. If you're trying to communicate with people outside of your region/dialect, then it's best to do that in a way that most people can understand. We use abbreviations for Al songs and albums here because we all (pretty much) know what they mean. But if I was writing a review of Mandatory Fun for my imaginary music review blog, I wouldn't say it's his best album since RWS, because people who aren't as obsessed as we are won't know what that means.

I just don't like it when people act dickish because one is 'right'.

Me either. Those people give prescriptivists a bad name, just like people who always shout, "NO! EVERYTHING IS CORRECT!" give descriptivists a bad name.

12 year-olds grow up. And if enough 12 year-olds use that construction, you better bet your bottom dollar it'll become the new norm.

But they won't, because most of them will find that it's easier to communicate when they follow the standard rules. Some of them will question the validity of the rules, and they may convince others that some rules are outdated, and the standard will evolve just as it always has.

I was kind of referring to it all. Intelligence? Yes? But also the idea about "following the standard". People are inherently scared of what is different, be it race, culture, language, music, or TV shows. It's just part of being a human, I guess.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't really think it has anything to do with fear in this case.

But anyway, I can see I'm not convincing anyone, and I needn't argue any further. Adieu!

I don't really think we're that far apart anyway, and I don't really feel like this was an argument. If you want to talk about problems in modern society, then there's the biggest one: it's virtually impossible to have a discussion that doesn't devolve into some fabricated dichotomy. Everything has to turn into This vs. That, liberal vs. conservative, rich vs. poor, alien vs. predator. Why can't there just be disagreement? Every conversation doesn't have to be about changing someone else's mind.

I've seen a few tweets about this over the past few days. Merriam-Webster is now saying that the word "literally" can be used to mean "figuratively". Wait, what??

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you scroll down and read comments, someone started a petition to save the word "literally". For some reason, that cracked me up, but at the same time, I was curious. I signed. Why not?

Even if it's a joke, here's the link - http://www.thepetitionsite.com/213/429/ ... uratively/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

algonacchick wrote:I've seen a few tweets about this over the past few days. Merriam-Webster is now saying that the word "literally" can be used to mean "figuratively". Wait, what??

Most dictionaries these days are primarily descriptive. They are trying to catalog the ways words are used. A lot of people use "literally" that way, even though that's not what the word means.

algonacchick wrote:I've seen a few tweets about this over the past few days. Merriam-Webster is now saying that the word "literally" can be used to mean "figuratively". Wait, what??

I remember when that first happened.
I had tried to forget...

Not trying to start a fight with any Sean Hannity fans around WOWAY, but this recent Stephen Colbert bit seems fitting here:
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/ente ... nnity.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;