~ (UNCLASSIFIED)

[Tom Zurinskas]

It would be nice if these linguistic classes have some subject differenciation (generally). After the Monty Python guy directed the person to the right door he said "stupid git", whatever that means.

Writing a dictionary is descriptive, but then for anyone reading them prescriptive.  Below you say.

> Except that your advice is highly prescriptive, while linguistics (not
> to mention history) has pretty much demonstrated that that approach
> doesn't work.

This kind of statement is worthless without examples.  Got any?  Is history not prescriptive or are we doomed to repeat it?


Tom Zurinskas, USA - CT20, TN3, NJ33, FL5+
see truespel.com




----------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:15:25 -0500
> From: db.list at PMPKN.NET
> Subject: Re: ~ (UNCLASSIFIED)
> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender: American Dialect Society
> Poster: David Bowie
> Subject: Re: ~ (UNCLASSIFIED)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: Tom Zurinskas
>> David Bowie wrote:
>>> someone left unattributed wrote
>
>>>> I've been a little curious in the time I've been on this list as
>>>> to why so much effort is being spent in separating dialects, but
>>>> not in looking at what unifies these dialects. Through corpus
>>>> studies we have seen that there is a standard grammar defined by
>>>> frequency of use. There hasn't been so much study yet though
>>>> looking at pronunciation this way.
>
>>> That's not the point of sociolinguistics or dialectology. You want
>>> thetheoretical linguists--down the hall, room 12B.
>
>> The above spoken like true academic boorishness. Detention is room
>> 12C. The best possible outcome of this forum in my opinion would be
>> unification of dialects into one best possible for mass
>> communication.
>
> I may regret this, but are you actually saying that theoretical
> linguists, dialectologists, and sociolinguists shouldn't specialize on
> what they look at within language? The theoreticians (generally) look at
> commonalities, while the sociolinguists and dialectologists (generally,
> again) look at differences. This is done so that we're not all studying
> from a fire hose, to mangle metaphors.
>
> And the "room 12B" thing was a reference to the Monty Python argument
> sketch. Even most of my undergrads get that one when i pull it out, but
> it may have lost something in text, i suppose.
>
>> We may have many visitors here looking for best USA dialect advice.
>> And I hope we're prepared to give it to them.
>
> Except that your advice is highly prescriptive, while linguistics (not
> to mention history) has pretty much demonstrated that that approach
> doesn't work.
>
> --
> David Bowie University of Central Florida
> Jeanne's Two Laws of Chocolate: If there is no chocolate in the
> house, there is too little; some must be purchased. If there is
> chocolate in the house, there is too much; it must be consumed.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Discover 10 secrets about the new Windows Live.
http://windowslive.com/connect/post/jamiethomson.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!550F681DAD532637!7540.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_ugc_post_022009

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org