Hacker News Reader

Comment by drblast | Hacker News Reader

My wife and I discus this all the time. She's in the "descriptive rules" camp, and I straddle the line.

The advantage to prescriptive rules for language is that you don't lose the context of a language over time or distance. My hope was that the popularity of the web would make it easier to communicate and understand each other, and also that languages would mature to the point where we could read historical documents without a language barrier.

Instead, it seems like language in popular use seems to have evolved more quickly, we're not as good at communication as before, and we collectively choose our words less carefully out of a smaller pool.

Or maybe I'm just getting old and cranky.

View on HN

> The advantage to prescriptive rules for language is that you don't lose the context of a language over time or distance

That's assuming that even works. I'm not sure it's clear prescribing language rules has ever worked at stopping the natural evolution of language. Most grammar nazi's (if there's a less politically laden term, let me know) focus on a small amount of "common mistakes" but don't seem to care or even notice the avalanche of tiny changes to language occurring at the same time. And do they win with regard to the changes they do focus on? Even in 1874, the "correct" way to say people are building a house in the passive voice was "the house is building", which even in the most formal communications has been completely replaced with the nonsensical and uncouth "the house is being built".[0]

0: http://volokh.com/2011/01/15/the-best-writers-say-the-house-...

> Most grammar nazi's (if there's a less politically laden term, let me know)

Well, from the article, grammar maven. That said, grammar nazi nicely codifies quite a few thoughts very succinctly. Given the content and theme of the article, I'm now fairly certain since you brought it up the whole point of calling the person a grammar maven is a subtle in-joke about grammar nazis, and how that's as good a name as any, and better than most. Why else focus on someone that self-described as a grammar maven, and call out the Yiddish origin? It's likely in my mind the original person described themselves that way with grammar nazi firmly in mind, which makes the in-joke all the better when used in this article.

I'm actually fairly pleased with that interpretation (whether it's true or not), as it opens up a whole layer to the article I wasn't thinking of and quite enjoy. I wouldn't have thought of that at all if you hadn't brought up the term in a way that made me examine it, so thanks. :)

From the article below:

To counter the negative connotations evoked by the term “grammar pedant” and to celebrate their pleasure in language, they invent playful monikers such as “grammartiste”, “grammagician”, “grammardian angel”, “grammar groover”, “grammartuoso” and “grammasseur”.

https://theconversation.com/in-defence-of-grammar-pedantry-7...

To be meta-prescriptive for a moment: I think your example demonstrates why proponents of clear communication frown on the passive voice.

> The advantage to prescriptive rules for language is that you don't lose the context of a language over time or distance.

Only partially, though, right?

E.g. someone from a hundred years ago wouldn't know the first thing about the meaning of terms like "internet," "smart phone," "google it," etc, even if the grammar was exactly the same.

Even those new words have undergone usage, spelling and grammar changes that have made them more effective and succinct -- "email" as an example.

As an early 1981 user of "email" I have always used "mail" to refer to email - note I am from the UK where snail mail is the Post

I think language plays by natural selection rules; speciation mirrors groups of people that don't speak to each other anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com