"Dave Dunn" <poi### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3C0B7B79.EEF09155@aol.com...
> Ben Chambers wrote:
>
> >Kind of like the English language :)
>
> Interesting that you should mention this. I have been thinking that this
> whole discussion mirrors a debate that has been raging for years in the
> area of liguistics, between prescriptive and descriptive grammar.
> Prescritive grammar is based on the insistance that a set of rules,
> formulated over the course of time, must be followed, or the language
> will degenerate. Descriptive grammar looks at the way the language is
> being used and reformulates the rules to reflect current usage. I happen
> to fall into the descriptive category.

    Follow ups to p.o.t.

    Clearly it is both. Definitions of words must be agreed upon, while room
must be made for new usages. But I must admit that I would be more willing
to argue in favor of the former than the latter if we -had- to have it one
way or another.

    Most modern languages are quite expressive. If new words can be added as
new concepts arise, there is no need to re-define the old words. But going
to far in the 'descriptive' direction allows chaos to rule and
misunderstanding erupts in every attempt to communicate. For instance, what
if I use the word "erupts" to mean "decreases" or "is destroyed"?

Post a reply to this message