misuse

<I think that people use nonstandard because they believe "right" or "wrong" is very harsh or a "black-and-white" view of language.>

"Standard" is a linguitics term for a certain form/certain forms of language that have been objectively codified. "Nonsatndard" was invented to refer to everything not considered part of such Standardised (codified forms. It's as simple as that.

Yeah, FuryKef, c'mon have balls. Stop asking questions and trying to get other posters into traps and say what you think. Is the word "nonstandard" used incorretly by some or not?

If I see a dog on the street and my friend say it's a cat, is he using the word "cat" incorrectly?

<If I see a dog on the street and my friend say it's a cat, is he using the word "cat" incorrectly? >

LOL! No, at least according to Kef. Kef would probably say it's your friend's preference to use the word "cat" when he sees a dog.

A nonstandard dialect is a dialect that does not have the institutional support or sanction that a standardized dialect has.

Like any dialect, a nonstandard dialect has its own vocabulary and an internally consistent grammar and syntax; and it may be spoken using a variety of accents. Describing a dialect as "nonstandard" is not to imply that the dialect is incorrect or inferior. Also prestige dialects may be non-standard.

As a border-case, a nonstandard dialect may even have its own written form, although it's then to be assumed that the orthography is unstable and/or unsanctioned, and that it is not orderly supported by governmental or educational institutions. When used in quotes and as a contrastive feature in literature, the term eye dialect may be used for nonstandard phonemic spelling.

It is uncommon in written texts unless the text is dialect poetry, etc.

<< Yeah, FuryKef, c'mon have balls. Stop asking questions and trying to get other posters into traps and say what you think. >>

I'm not trying to "trap" anybody. I ask questions because I have questions. Would you prefer that I spout off opinions before they are informed?

But, to answer the question directly, I don't think it's a misuse of the word. It all depends on how the word is defined, and some people, including those who write dictionaries and grammars -- i.e., authorities on the language -- do use the term "nonstandard" that way.

<< Kef would probably say it's your friend's preference to use the word "cat" when he sees a dog. >>

I never said I was 100% descriptionist. I would say it's a bad idea to call a dog a "cat" because you will not be understood. But with the word "nonstandard", there is no such confusion.

- Kef

<and some people, including those who write dictionaries and grammars -- i.e., authorities on the language -- do use the term "nonstandard" that way. >

So there's no correct way to use it, right? Can you show me a quality dictionary that defines the word as synonymous with "incorrect" and "ungrammatical"? And how would such people define the word "substandard"?

<I never said I was 100% descriptionist.>

I'd say it's more a case of you recognising yourself in the group of those who misuse the word. You seem offended, or threatened, by Gwest's thread post. Shame on you, Kef. Using cheap, nonlinguistics-based tricks to try to market your idea of valuable English.

Now, who do you think has more to gain from making us believe that the word "nonstandard" can and should apply to incorrect, inferior and ungrammatical use? Is it The Truth, above, or KEF, all over the place?

:-)))

<< So there's no correct way to use it, right? Can you show me a quality dictionary that defines the word as synonymous with "incorrect" and "ungrammatical"? >>

I hope by "defining the word as synonymous with 'incorrect' and 'ungrammatical'", you don't mean you want a dictionary that contains an entry like this:

nonstandard (nän-'stan-d&rd) adj.: 3) incorrect or ungrammatical

Obviously, no such dictionary exists. But here's a definition given by Merriam-Webster:

"2 : not conforming in pronunciation, grammatical construction, idiom, or word choice to the usage generally characteristic of educated native speakers of a language -- compare SUBSTANDARD"

Isn't that as close to "incorrect" or "ungrammatical" as you can get if you don't believe in those concepts? What exactly would be a misuse of this definition of "nonstandard"?

<< You seem offended, or threatened, by Gwest's thread post. >>

Then you're reading something into my words that isn't there. *shrug*

<< Shame on you, Kef. Using cheap, nonlinguistics-based tricks to try to market your idea of valuable English. >>

I don't think ad hominem arguments are a good way to go, either. You're getting pretty close to making one by addressing me more than you're addressing my argument.

And, "market my idea"? I have no particular reason to "sell" my ideas to anybody here.

<< Now, who do you think has more to gain from making us believe that the word "nonstandard" can and should apply to incorrect, inferior and ungrammatical use? >>

Again, "more to gain"? Is something at stake here?

- Kef

I kind of wonder that too. Kef seems inoffensive to me.

<Again, "more to gain"? Is something at stake here? >

The survival of nonstandard forms. I thought you'd know that.

I'm not campaigning for the survival of nonstandard forms so much as just pointing out that "correctness" is imaginary. There is no God of English that says that X is correct and Y is not. Correctness can be a useful concept, but it still exists only in our own minds.

- Kef

<Why do people on here pick on furrykef all the time?>

Grow up, Josh Kef sets himself up for major falls.

So, what you're saying is it's OK to apply concepts such as incorrect, inferior, ungrammatical, uneducated, etc. to the word "nonstandard", right? You say it's OK to do that because correctness does not exist, right?

In Kef's world, it would be OK to tell a teenager that heroin is non-addictive because the word non-addictive does not really mean the opposite of addictive. It's not incorrect to call heroin non-addictive, in other words.