Your entire comment is sheer pedantry of the worst kind, that I’d expect on Reddit and not LessWrong.
I support the grandparent. Your condemnation here barely makes any sense and is unjustifiably rude.
I am rather shocked that kompo needed to make the comment. The subject had come up recently and more than enough explanation had been given to SIAI public figures of how to not sound ridiculous and ignorant while using the acronym.
Logically ruder than claiming one’s dislike is ‘Bayesian evidence’? Since when do we dress up our linguistic idiosyncrasies in capitalized statistical drag? Is there any evidence at all that this is a meaningful change, that it really makes one sound ‘ridiculous and ignorant’?
Logically ruder than claiming one’s dislike is ‘Bayesian evidence’?
I said unjustifiably rude, not logically rude (although now you are being the latter as well).
There was nothing logically rude about kompo claiming his own expertise as evidence. It does come across as somewhat arrogant and leaves kompo vulnerable to status attack by anyone who considers him presumptive but even if his testimony is rejected “logical rudeness” still wouldn’t come into it at all.
Since when do we dress up our linguistic idiosyncrasies in capitalized statistical drag?
Don’t try to “dress up” corrections about basic misuse of English as personal idiosyncrasies of komponisto. He may care about using language correctly more than most but the usage he is advocating is the standard usage.
Don’t try to “dress up” corrections about basic misuse of English as personal idiosyncrasies of komponisto. He may care about using language correctly more than most but the usage he is advocating is the standard usage.
Then you will easily be able to come up with citations from well-respected authoritative sources (eg. a nice long column from William Safire giving examples and explaining why it is bad) that it is correct.
...the subject had come up recently and more than enough explanation had been given to SIAI...
When the entire point of quoting a statement is to question whether or not “the” should be used you can’t go around truncating like that! (Are you being disingenuous or is that just a mistake?)
The subject had come up recently and more than enough explanation had been given to SIAI public figures of
Notice the difference in how an added ‘the’ would sound now?
Incidentally: Think “MIT” or “NASA” instead of “FBI”.
(Are you being disingenuous or is that just a mistake?)
I have now removed the quote completely. I was planning on writing something else first that was more relevant to the quote. Sorry.
Incidentally: Think “MIT” or “NASA” instead of “FBI”.
There might be some sort of rules that govern when it is correct to use “the” and when it is wrong. But ain’t those rules fundamentally malleable by the perception of people and their adoption of those rules?
An interesting example is the German word ‘Pizza’ (which happens to mean the same as the English word, i.e. the Neapolitan cuisine). People were endlessly arguing about how the correct plural form of ‘Pizza’ is ‘Pizzen’. Yet many people continued to write ‘Pizzas’ instead. What happened a few years ago is that the Duden (the prescriptive source for the spelling of German) included ‘Pizzas’ as a secondary but correct plural form of the word ‘Pizza’.
So why did people ever bother to argue in the first place? German, or English for that matter, would have never evolved in the first place if thousands of years ago people would have demanded that all language be frozen at that point of time and only the most popular spelling be regarded as correct.
Not that I have a problem with designing an artificial language or improving an existing language. Just some thoughts.
There might be some sort of rules that govern when it is correct to use “the” and when it is wrong.
The rules may not necessarily be simple, however. In the worst-case scenario, they may simply consist of lists of cases where it is one way and cases where it is the other.
(As you no doubt realize, the same issue also comes up in German: why is it “Deutschland, Österreich, und die Schweiz” instead of “Deutschland, Österreich, und Schweiz” or “das Deutschland, das Österreich, und die Schweiz”?)
But ain’t those rules fundamentally malleable by the perception of people and their adoption of those rules?
Yes, and the exact same thing could be said about any human signaling pattern, not just those that concern language. But don’t make the mistake of thinking that this is a Fully General Counterargument against any claim about the meaning of a particular signaling pattern in a particular context at a particular time.
It isn’t as if everything eventually becomes accepted. Language changes, but it doesn’t descend into entropy: in the future, there will still be patterns that are “right” and others that are “wrong”, even if these lists are different from what they are now. Not only will some things that are “wrong” now become “right” in the future, but the reverse will also happen: expressions that are “right” now will become “wrong” later.
An interesting example is the German word ‘Pizza’ (which happens to mean the same as the English word, i.e. the Neapolitan cuisine). People were endlessly arguing about how the correct plural form of ‘Pizza’ is ‘Pizzen’. Yet many people continued to write ‘Pizzas’ instead. What happened a few years ago is that the Duden (the prescriptive source for the spelling of German) included ‘Pizzas’ as a secondary but correct plural form of the word ‘Pizza’.
From what I understand, linguists actually consider “-s” the regular manner of plural formation in modern German, despite the fact that only a minority of words use it, because it is the default used for new words. (So the dispute you mention is perhaps really about how “new” the word “Pizza” is felt to be.)
I support the grandparent. Your condemnation here barely makes any sense and is unjustifiably rude.
I am rather shocked that kompo needed to make the comment. The subject had come up recently and more than enough explanation had been given to SIAI public figures of how to not sound ridiculous and ignorant while using the acronym.
Logically ruder than claiming one’s dislike is ‘Bayesian evidence’? Since when do we dress up our linguistic idiosyncrasies in capitalized statistical drag? Is there any evidence at all that this is a meaningful change, that it really makes one sound ‘ridiculous and ignorant’?
Own dislike is clearly some evidence of others’ dislike, the relevant question is how much evidence. Votes add more evidence.
I said unjustifiably rude, not logically rude (although now you are being the latter as well).
There was nothing logically rude about kompo claiming his own expertise as evidence. It does come across as somewhat arrogant and leaves kompo vulnerable to status attack by anyone who considers him presumptive but even if his testimony is rejected “logical rudeness” still wouldn’t come into it at all.
Don’t try to “dress up” corrections about basic misuse of English as personal idiosyncrasies of komponisto. He may care about using language correctly more than most but the usage he is advocating is the standard usage.
Then you will easily be able to come up with citations from well-respected authoritative sources (eg. a nice long column from William Safire giving examples and explaining why it is bad) that it is correct.
The SIAI is located in the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the FBI.
SIAI is located in U.S. under the jurisdiction of FBI.
Neither. What you want is:
SIAI is located in the U.S., under the jurisdiction of the FBI.
When the entire point of quoting a statement is to question whether or not “the” should be used you can’t go around truncating like that! (Are you being disingenuous or is that just a mistake?)
Notice the difference in how an added ‘the’ would sound now?
Incidentally: Think “MIT” or “NASA” instead of “FBI”.
I have now removed the quote completely. I was planning on writing something else first that was more relevant to the quote. Sorry.
There might be some sort of rules that govern when it is correct to use “the” and when it is wrong. But ain’t those rules fundamentally malleable by the perception of people and their adoption of those rules?
An interesting example is the German word ‘Pizza’ (which happens to mean the same as the English word, i.e. the Neapolitan cuisine). People were endlessly arguing about how the correct plural form of ‘Pizza’ is ‘Pizzen’. Yet many people continued to write ‘Pizzas’ instead. What happened a few years ago is that the Duden (the prescriptive source for the spelling of German) included ‘Pizzas’ as a secondary but correct plural form of the word ‘Pizza’.
So why did people ever bother to argue in the first place? German, or English for that matter, would have never evolved in the first place if thousands of years ago people would have demanded that all language be frozen at that point of time and only the most popular spelling be regarded as correct.
Not that I have a problem with designing an artificial language or improving an existing language. Just some thoughts.
The rules may not necessarily be simple, however. In the worst-case scenario, they may simply consist of lists of cases where it is one way and cases where it is the other.
(As you no doubt realize, the same issue also comes up in German: why is it “Deutschland, Österreich, und die Schweiz” instead of “Deutschland, Österreich, und Schweiz” or “das Deutschland, das Österreich, und die Schweiz”?)
Yes, and the exact same thing could be said about any human signaling pattern, not just those that concern language. But don’t make the mistake of thinking that this is a Fully General Counterargument against any claim about the meaning of a particular signaling pattern in a particular context at a particular time.
It isn’t as if everything eventually becomes accepted. Language changes, but it doesn’t descend into entropy: in the future, there will still be patterns that are “right” and others that are “wrong”, even if these lists are different from what they are now. Not only will some things that are “wrong” now become “right” in the future, but the reverse will also happen: expressions that are “right” now will become “wrong” later.
From what I understand, linguists actually consider “-s” the regular manner of plural formation in modern German, despite the fact that only a minority of words use it, because it is the default used for new words. (So the dispute you mention is perhaps really about how “new” the word “Pizza” is felt to be.)