the list (fwd)

[Anne Gilbert]

Mark:

> You mean, I take it, that <Mr. K. seems to think> that we feel superior
> and wish to exclude the unwashed from our arcane knowledge -- not that
> we actually feel that way! (Although, speaking of unwashed, we're
> breaking temperature records here in the Boston area and I want to get
> to the shower... But I digress.)

Judging by the responses to Mr. K's proposals, I don't think many people on
this list feel that way.  I find many of the exchanges quite open,
interesting, and delightful. I'm speaking, in general, of some other lists I
inhabit or have inhabited.  One in particular, which I shall not name.  but
it is not ADS-L.  Rest assured.

> Or perhaps they had so much trouble from people who didn't respect the
> norms of the list that they felt they had to close their doors in order
> to continue to accomplish their main purpose. Some ways in which
> outsiders, who otherwise would have been welcome, could have been
> troublesome:
>  - by repeatedly pushing unsupportable theories; say,
> creationism on a geology list, astrology on an astronomy list, or flat
> earth on a geography list
>  - by flaming: hurling insults and anger
>  - by trolling: maliciously provoking angry responses by saying
> controversial or objectionable things, and fanning the flames of
> argument
>  - by spamming: posting advertisements to the list, especially ads with
> no relevant content

This is true enough.  I moderate two lists, and have worked out ways to keep
the lists "open", but at the same time keep such obnoxious people at bay.
They're always around in cyberspace, unfortunately.
>    And there are many other ways to be obnoxious.

> As far as I can tell, we're in agreement about this list, up to this
> point, where I draw back-- not from what you've said, but from some of
> its implications. Language is a universal in that everyone has a
> language, and in some broad sense everyone is therefore an expert on it.
> Yes, and everyone has a body, but does that make everyone an M.D.?

No, of course not.  I was only thinking of "expertise" in the sense that we
all "know" our own language(s).  But there are some *real* "experts" who
actually study the use of languages.  I perhaps should have clarified what I
meant here.
>
> People often *think* that language is obvious and transparent; after
> all, it's "natural": we learned it not at our mother's knee, but before
> we can remember doing any such thing. So everyone's an expert, in their
> own minds. "Why do those foreigners bother saying all those funny things
> like Brot and pano and khleb, when it's really *bread*?" Of course,
> "bread" is no more or less "real" a name for it than any of the others.

Agreed.  No problem there.
>
> Most non-members who post to this list aren't _that_ ignorant, but the
> very accessibility of language makes it easy to formulate hypotheses
> that are scientifically unsupportable. We call many of these "folk
> etymologies", or (on this list) "etymythologies" in Larry Horn's
> felicitious term, and they are a legitimate field of study... but they
> are not to be confused with the scientific and data-driven study of
> language, and someone who repeatedly insisted on his right to have such
> a theory heard would be as unwelcome here as a skunk at a perfumers'
> convention.

Again, I am in no disagreement whatever with this.  But I think we should
bear in mind that the non-members contributions can be valuable, at the very
least as teaching tools.  I've learned a great deal since joining this list.
. . among other things, just how "prescriptivist" my own language upbringing
was.  As a writer, I think this somewhat "prescriptivist" approach is
helpful to me(for writing, at least), *but* learning about other "ways" of
speaking is also immensely valuable and gives me personally a broader
perspective.  And I'm just one person on this list.
Anne G


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002