There is no form of reality that is independent of the human mind.
True and corect rules?
Previous page Pages: 1 2 3
Divvy, prescriptivism, or prescriptive truth, is true in so far as accepting that one ought to do something or something ought to be such a way.
Many would be prescriptivists, and I refer to language teachers and lay people alike - especially on language fora such as this one - wish not to admit the above. We contantly hear "you must construct your sentence in this way because it's the only logical/truthful, self-evident way to do it" - even if not in those exact words.
Sush statement seem to infect language students, who then go on to spout the same nonsense. It's a vicious circle of denial and misbelief in the supposed truth of prescriptive statements. I repeat:
<prescriptivism, or prescriptive truth, is true in so far as accepting that one ought to do something or something ought to be such a way.>
As said, by others here, prescriptivism expresses a desire for things to be in a certain way, and that's all.
Many would be prescriptivists, and I refer to language teachers and lay people alike - especially on language fora such as this one - wish not to admit the above. We contantly hear "you must construct your sentence in this way because it's the only logical/truthful, self-evident way to do it" - even if not in those exact words.
Sush statement seem to infect language students, who then go on to spout the same nonsense. It's a vicious circle of denial and misbelief in the supposed truth of prescriptive statements. I repeat:
<prescriptivism, or prescriptive truth, is true in so far as accepting that one ought to do something or something ought to be such a way.>
As said, by others here, prescriptivism expresses a desire for things to be in a certain way, and that's all.
<There is no form of reality that is independent of the human mind. >
But Man Utd WILL win the league and all cups next season. ;-)
But Man Utd WILL win the league and all cups next season. ;-)
Divvy,
<<Ok, Kef and M56, is it then never possible to say "It is self-evident that the correct way to express XXXX sentence is this way..."?>>
[removed by moderator] what's your point? There is a difference between "what ought to be" and "what is." "What is" describes the current state affairs, the current truth, while "what ought to be" expresses the way you or a group of people think things should be. Even if you, giving a prescriptive command, say it is, "correct," it is only "correct" because they are following your command. In other words, you are trying to force a change and providing the carrot of "correct."
The current prescriptivism in English comes from a consensus of the elite, and their students.
<<Ok, Kef and M56, is it then never possible to say "It is self-evident that the correct way to express XXXX sentence is this way..."?>>
[removed by moderator] what's your point? There is a difference between "what ought to be" and "what is." "What is" describes the current state affairs, the current truth, while "what ought to be" expresses the way you or a group of people think things should be. Even if you, giving a prescriptive command, say it is, "correct," it is only "correct" because they are following your command. In other words, you are trying to force a change and providing the carrot of "correct."
The current prescriptivism in English comes from a consensus of the elite, and their students.
<The current prescriptivism in English comes from a consensus of the elite, and their students. >
Shouldn't that be "elites"? In every dialect, including the Standard dialect, there are prescriptivists who wish to say, in fact do say "you ought".
Shouldn't that be "elites"? In every dialect, including the Standard dialect, there are prescriptivists who wish to say, in fact do say "you ought".
<< Shouldn't that be "elites"? >>
Hmm. "The elite" sounded fine to me at first, referring to the class as a whole, but Merriam-Webster suggests that it is usually plural in form when it means "members of the elite", and use of "their" suggests we're talking about the class's members and not the class itself. I wouldn't consider using "elite" a blunder, but it might be better to use "elites" in more formal contexts.
- Kef
Hmm. "The elite" sounded fine to me at first, referring to the class as a whole, but Merriam-Webster suggests that it is usually plural in form when it means "members of the elite", and use of "their" suggests we're talking about the class's members and not the class itself. I wouldn't consider using "elite" a blunder, but it might be better to use "elites" in more formal contexts.
- Kef
Should foreign learners be taught formal and dated-sounding structures like WHOM, I SHALL, TALLER THAN I, IT IS WE?
when you learn French, professors teach you the language elites speak, not the ''street language''?
in some countries like Brazil people are even ashamed of their local variant, so most grammar books only consider classical 19th century grammar rules for most written contexts /even for children coloring books/
when you learn French, professors teach you the language elites speak, not the ''street language''?
in some countries like Brazil people are even ashamed of their local variant, so most grammar books only consider classical 19th century grammar rules for most written contexts /even for children coloring books/
<when you learn French, professors teach you the language elites speak, not the ''street language''? >
Then you leave the classroom, go out on the streets, and find you can't communicate with anyone or your communication sounds "foreign". Did you waste your money on a, mostly, useless course of lessons?
Then you leave the classroom, go out on the streets, and find you can't communicate with anyone or your communication sounds "foreign". Did you waste your money on a, mostly, useless course of lessons?
Beneficii
<[removed by moderator] what's your point? >
(First, what was removed from that post? I hope it wasn't a personal attack, beneficii.)
<Even if you, giving a prescriptive command, say it is, "correct," it is only "correct" because they are following your command. In other words, you are trying to force a change and providing the carrot of "correct." >
Yes, I agree, the carrot is dangled and says come this way, it's the only true way. Some beleive that it is the true way and begin speaking about natural laws of language and such. Many run after the carrot because it looks scientific, academic, learned, etc. For me, there is nothing self-evident about any item of English language use, but there are many, native and nonnative alike, who believe the contrary. I think you agree.
<[removed by moderator] what's your point? >
(First, what was removed from that post? I hope it wasn't a personal attack, beneficii.)
<Even if you, giving a prescriptive command, say it is, "correct," it is only "correct" because they are following your command. In other words, you are trying to force a change and providing the carrot of "correct." >
Yes, I agree, the carrot is dangled and says come this way, it's the only true way. Some beleive that it is the true way and begin speaking about natural laws of language and such. Many run after the carrot because it looks scientific, academic, learned, etc. For me, there is nothing self-evident about any item of English language use, but there are many, native and nonnative alike, who believe the contrary. I think you agree.
<<Beneficii
<[removed by moderator] what's your point? > >...
Sorry, that post was from me, beneficii. I forgot to add my name.
<[removed by moderator] what's your point? > >...
Sorry, that post was from me, beneficii. I forgot to add my name.
So, as I think was said, above, only descriptivism can use the term "truth". It tells us what is, not what ought to be. Prescriptivism is only a desire or command.
<So, as I think was said, above, only descriptivism can use the term "truth". It tells us what is, not what ought to be.>
That's about it, Divvy.
That's about it, Divvy.
Previous page Pages: 1 2 3