On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 11:53:55AM -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
One aspect of the English language's dominance in the world is its ability to create new words whenever circumstances require. English has no Académie rushing in to say, "You can't use that word, because it's not in the dictionary." This is a huge problem for lexicographers. New words are regularly being invented, but many are invented for a particular ephemeral occasion. When that occasion passes the word passes with it; it has no need for an obituary. If I inject a new word or usage into a text or conversation, as I frequently do, it is in anticipation that my readers or listeners will understand it's meaning from the context. If I suggest that Mark quayles the English language readers will have some understanding of what I mean, but I would have no illusion about making that verb a normal part of English usage.
I agree 100% with the content of that paragraph. Good job.
Those of us with a more conservative view of language accept a lexicographer's duty as one of description and documentation. Mark and his prescriptivist friends are too quick to tell us what belongs in the language without the least shred of verifiability. They seem to forget the basic point that I put at the begining of this message: "The purpose of language is to communicate."
I would not, on my weirdest days, describe Mark's views on linguistics as "prescriptivist". I tend to agree with the content of your entire email except your characterization of Mark's views as "prescriptivist". In fact, judging by what I read in your email, I'd call YOU a prescriptivst, but with the entirely reasonable addition of an acceptance of new additions to the language when old material doesn't suffice. That is, in fact, basically how I'd describe my own views on the matter.
-- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]