Tell them to look up.

Hello, you have found one of my blogs. This one is just a collection of things I like. Blog posts I put any thought into are here and my Twitter is here.

My other Tumblrs:
✪ Contrary Librarian
✪ Fuzzy Felt
✪ #TillTreasures
✪ What Sparklenight Wore Today
✪ My Life on Animal Crossing
✪ A Note On The Type

Hey.

lesserjoke:

Could everyone please stop conflating ignorance, a lack of intelligence, and being a failure of a person (or any combination of those three)? This is just getting ridiculous. Nobody is “stupid” for not knowing something, even if you think that thing should be obvious. And someone being “stupid” doesn’t mean that their perspectives should be dismissed from consideration, either.

VEDA Day Four: I like shipping containers

Understanding and tolerating those who appreciate things you don’t.

VEDA from the beach

The beach makes me pretty

I’m really pleased with this one

(Source: 221tea)

lesserjoke:

Descriptivists of the world, feel free to use this as a response to language criticism whenever you see fit!

I have learnt SO MUCH from Lesser Joke. Possibly more than three years of studying linguistics.

waitingforturnips:

its-wallie:

waitingforturnips:

I find it interesting that while many people on Tumblr are obsessed with correcting spelling and punctuation errors, nobody has any problem with the innovative grammatical structures that become popular through novelty. It’s okay to use non-standard grammar, like turning verbs into nouns (‘all the feels’, ‘all the cries’ etc) and leaving out lexical verbs (‘I can’t even’), but if someone mixes up your/you’re and there/their/they’re then suddenly you face the wrath of the Spelling Police who will persecute you for your ‘terrible grammar’ and for ‘butchering’ the English language.

And yet some non-standard spellings are accepted, like whut/wut/wat and the use of text-message forms like ‘y’ and ‘u’, though I guess the reason they’re accepted is that they’re a deliberate deviation from the norm rather than what could be viewed as a mistake. It would be interesting to investigate whether the people who feel the need to correct spelling ‘errors’ always use standard grammar and orthography or whether they also follow innovative trends that deviate from the standard. And if the latter is the case, why is one deviation acceptable and not the other?

Wow, this is a really interesting question.

I don’t really consider myself a “grammar nazi” - I can’t remember the last time I corrected someone grammatically that didn’t ask me to - but errors like there/they’re/their really do bug me, while “omfg what even” doesn’t. I am egregiously guilty of the latter type of linguistic crime to be sure.

I think that to an extent my irritation ties in with one of your tags: “y u no let people spell how they want?” Mistakes like they’re/their/there commonly aren’t choices, and choosing a spelling out of ignorance or carelessness rather than playfulness is unfortunate. YMMV on how unfortunate it seems, of course.

However, using “there” when a writer means to ascribe possession violates (“their”) an expectation that I had. I explected the writer to discuss a place, or an object that is being possessed, or expand on an action that is occurring, and then it turns out that’s not what’s going on. This, on a mostly subconscious level, can be irritating.

On the other hand, I wouldn’t be bothered at all if the writer used “der” or “dere” or the like. I think this is because “der” is so clearly wrong, so far divorced from any kind of officially accepatble use of the English language, that I will assume that it’s a joke, and dang, it is funny! (Again, YMMV)

Also, “der” comes without preconceived ideas about the context. It turns the more specific words “they’re/their/there” into one that is very vague. Just like when I come across the word “bear” in a sentence, I know that I’m going to have to spend a little extra time parsing the meaning, whether it means the animal or to carry. It’s just less irritating to know what I’m getting into up front.

anyhoo dems mai thots

Thanks for your thoughts!

Firstly I have to take issue with the concept of a “linguistic crime”, even though you meant it jokingly. From an objective point of view, one either employs the standard or deviates from it, neither are “right” or “wrong”. Calling something a “linguistic crime” is a subjective and non-scientific point of view.

I think there’s a double standard with spelling going on here. It’s okay to violate the rules when you want to, but suddenly the rules become very important when you think that somebody else doesn’t know how to use them. (Which suggests that so-called “grammar-nazis” are probably more concerned with flaunting their “superior” language skills than protecting the integrity of the English language, as they claim to do.) Once again, from an objective, descriptive point of view, neither spelling is more correct than another, because spelling is entirely conventional (and standardised spelling of English is a relatively new phenomenon; in the not too distant past there was much greater freedom in spelling. Even Shakespeare didn’t spell things the same way twice.) So a spelling can be “wrong” in terms of the system, but the system is conventional rather than absolute. We invented it and we can change it if we want to. Or ignore it. We’re not it’s* slaves. :)

I definitely understand your point about the meaning of the spelling jarring with the meaning of the context, but I would argue that this doesn’t actually hinder comprehension: even if somebody spells ‘there’ as ‘their’, you will always know from the context what they meant. So from a personal point of view it may be annoying, but it doesn’t make communication any more difficult. (‘There’, ‘their’, and ‘they’re’ all sound the same when we speak and that doesn’t hinder communication, so there’s no real need for each to have different spellings.)

Also, I would argue that variation with there/their/they’re isn’t always the result of somebody attempting to conform to standard and getting it wrong - if people communicate largely with other people who exhibit variation, than it makes sense that they would exhibit the same features (just like dialects: if you’re born in one region you acquire that dialect, regardless of whether it is considered non-standard or ‘incorrect’ by other speakers). So I see interchangeability of spellings such as your/you’re and there/their/they’re as variation rather than a mistake. (I wrote a post about this here, if you’re interested.) Most people don’t know that variation is actually a normal feature of language.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts! Feel free to debate or disagree if you like.

*this was a genuine typing error and I’m leaving it here to back up my point. You understood me despite the stray apostrophe!

People who allow the correct use of “your” and “you’re” to sway your opinion on someone.

mapsofmymind:

You can leave.

I literally would punch you all in the face if I could.

It’s one thing to prefer the “correct” usage, but damnit stop correcting it every single time and blowing it out of proportion and demeaning people because god forbid they were doing something like multi tasking and used the wrong one. You have no right to point that out to make yourself feel superior for catching it. It’s not that big of a deal.

Some people just try to be correct with it and that’s whatever, I don’t care, but when you get an attitude and insult someone’s intelligence because at the moment- that wasn’t the most important thing, or they slipped, you look like a jerk.

Stop it, and shut up. There’s almost always context and you know damn well if they mean you are or your. Okay? It’s not the end of the world.

lesserjoke:

elsinore-rose:

lesserjoke:

elsinore-rose:

jajs:

elsinore-rose:

jajs:

elsinore-rose:

jajs:

elsinore-rose:

lesserjoke:

Your/you’re have different grammatical uses, which means there’s never any confusion about what a person means when they write one. The purpose of language is to convey thought, and that’s done successfully. Same thing goes for its/it’s, they’re/their/there, and lose/loose.

Using nonstandard spelling for weird or definitely is even less likely to impede understanding, since there’s nothing about that that could possibly confuse your reader.

Irregardless is totes a word: people say it and people understand it. (Hint in case you don’t: it means the same thing as regardless.) It’s also in the Oxford English Dictionary, and has been attested in the English language as early as 19-fucking-12.

Everything on this chalkboard is a perfectly valid piece of language. Objecting to one of the forms mentioned for being the “wrong” one just makes you a dick.

^^ This is why I follow you, lesserjoke. QUALITY LINGUIST.

I’m not going to lie, I’m perfectly okay with being a dick if this is what makes me a dick. #UNABASHED GRAMMAR NAZI #I don’t enjoy linguistics #I promise I’m not a bad person

As a former prescriptivist, I sympathize with you wholeheartedly, my dear. Alas that prescriptivism does not hold up to scientific rigor.

Damn it, I KNOW, and I do so love science and it’s rigor (EYEBROWS).

I just feel like these rules for language make it even more beautiful. I don’t want simply to be understood, when I could be both clear and precise. The true clarity of a perfectly composed sentence just makes me happy.

#aesthete

There’s a difference between rules for language and rules for writing. Ne’er should the twain be confused.

That’s an awesome point. I have a question. Why would the spelling matter for language? To me, language would be defined as anything spoken, sung, or signed, and writing is anything in text. Obviously this wouldn’t include colloquial language being spelled more phonetically, to mimic an accent or whatever.

Also, I just wanted to make sure you know I’m not trying to be a douche; I really am interested! Also also, now I’m terrified I’m going to make some stupid little grammar or spelling error in my excitement and sound like a cockweasel.

1. “Cockweasel” is a delightful word.

2. I would attempt to answer this coherently, because it is a good question, but I am exhausted and if I tried to apply my brain to what you have written all that would happen would be that then there would be brain all over your words. DO YOU SEE THE SENTENCE THAT I JUST TYPED? THAT IS HOW TIRED I AM. I shall defer the task of answering your query to other, more qualified, less sleep-deprived linguists. HAVE AT IT, LINGUISTS.

“Cockweasel” is a great word (despite not being in the OED, and probably never being — aka, having less standard legitimacy than “irregardless”). I don’t know of any reason why writing shouldn’t be considered language, though. For both writing and speech, we all have a set of internal rules that turn our thoughts into those words and sentences that are understandable to others. You can argue that people write with a different grammar than they speak, but that’s not true of everyone naturally, and we can all type like we talk or talk like we type if we set our minds to it.

I was not trying to be a douche either, so I’ll try to further explain myself. You mentioned liking standard spelling and grammar because it is a) more beautiful, b) clearer, and c) more precise. Point a) seems self-explanatory: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You are well within your rights to prefer the standard form of a language, and to find it beautiful. But I think finding something beautiful and calling its alternatives ugly are pretty different things. I have zero problem with people using or praising a standard; it’s attacking the nonstandard variety that makes someone a dick.

Point b): Clarity is also in the eye of the beholder, when it comes to language. Language comes from our own rules, and we use our own rules to interpret the language of others. So other people seem clearer when their rules are more in line with ours, and less understandable when their rules are further removed from our own. When our two sets of rules are different enough, we call them entirely separate languages. (Also, I’d like to point out that the points I brought up regarding this picture’s lessons had to do with the fact that clarity isn’t impeded in the slightest by these particular alterations.)

Finally, point c): I think saying that you like the standard form of English because it’s the most precise is a pretty weak claim. English has tons of ambiguity built right into its spelling, vocabulary, and grammar. How do you pronounce the word “bow” in the sentence “She gave him a bow” — and what does it mean? Is the word “jump” a noun or a verb? If I tell you, “I saw the man from the balcony,” does that mean that I was on the balcony then, or that he was, earlier? If you really think language should be more precise, I would think you’d be focusing on changing the standards for this sort of thing — although really, that kind of effort is doomed to failure from the start. Every natural language has these ambiguities, and that’s what I find beautiful.

Well said. And I should clarify that when I said “rules for writing,” I didn’t mean rules for textual language, I meant rules for standardizing writing style, the sorts of rules applicable to writing “good” prose or poetry or essays. As someone who identifies as both linguist and poet, I have had to learn to be descriptive in one area of my studies and (somewhat) prescriptive in another. You can’t really be a bad language-er, but you can be a bad literature-er. Does that make sense?

Well, I get that casual writing and literature/poetry have different standards, but I’m not willing to say that deviation from those standards is a bad thing in either case. For me, the situation always comes down to two facts and a conclusion:

Fact 1: From an objective, scientific point of view, no language form or style is inherently better or worse than any other.

Fact 2: Language is tied intrisically to people’s sense of self-identity, belongingness, and expression.

Conclusion: Banning, attacking, or mocking a language variety, even in the name of upholding standards, amounts to a subjective disenfranchisement of individuals who naturally communicate that way.

Lesser Joke is my hero.

You know what’s offensive? Telling someone they’ll see things your way when they’re older.

lesserjoke:

I don’t care how true you think it is. I don’t care if you’re right in 99.9% of cases. Hell, I don’t care if you’re right in 100% of cases. This remains an arrogant, deeply insulting thing to say to someone.

Just putting Tumblr on notice

lesserjoke:

madamethursday:

When you post/reblog pithy little graphics or other things that bemoan others not using English words or grammar correctly, it makes me lose a lot more respect for you than anyone else. It makes me want to unfollow you.

On the best days, that kind of language policing and shaming is a little brother to the tone argument in which you don’t care if someone has said something true or important because you’re just there to tear it down any way you can by disapproving of the words, letters, and structure used and the failure of them to meet arbitrary standards.

Arbitrary standards which, I should add, usually reside with the most privileged groups to set. Don’t believe me? Go look up the MLA (Modern Language Association) sometime and see how many rules of grammar and usage they’ve elected to change over the years. With them? Overnight what was correct before becomes incorrect and vice versa. Any group that can decide stylistic rules for millions without ever talking to those millions can fuck right off.

Or go look up how many words have entered and left “the dictionary” because a handful of privileged people have the power to make something a “real word” just by wielding such tools.

I’m going to make this simple. English as a language is not this perfect, beautiful, logical thing that must be preserved and protected from the dirty, filthy hands of people who won’t use it “correctly”. It isn’t even something that is actually all that streamlined.

English is a tongue that’s been forced on millions of people around this globe either at the direct end of a colonizer’s weapon or by circumstance which makes English the language people have to speak in order to get better social and economic opportunities.

How about you start with the ways in which Native languages here in the U.S. and in Canada were forcibly ripped from people through extermination and rounding up Native children and sticking them in hellish boarding schools until they spoke it just like white people thought it should be spoken. Then you can move on to other places in the world, (including the British isles, where languages like Gaelic declined greatly under English occupation in the seventeenth century and onwards) and see that English has often been a way for colonizers to have a stranglehold on the very method on which the colonized communicate with themselves, each other, and the world.

Part of these groups recovering, rebuilding, and empowering themselves is being able to use the English language however they want, in the way that best suits them.

If someone breaks into your home, beats up or kills your family, steals your treasures, smashes the rest and kidnaps you and then happens to give you their language along the way? You don’t owe them shit. You certainly don’t owe the native speakers of your assailant’s tongue a damn fucking thing when they’re running around benefitting big time from the suffering of you and yours.

Nor is language something that is automatic or universally easy to use in the standard way for all people. More than a few disabilities or conditions mean that the standard use of English is either exhausting and difficult or damn near impossible for the person writing, speaking, or communicating with it. It doesn’t mean that what such people have to communicate is worthless because while trying to tell their stories or communicate they substituted “your” for “you’re”.

See again the: you don’t owe anyone shit rule. You don’t owe a society that decides you’re subhuman based on bullshit criteria and wants to silence you anything. You don’t owe them a perfect presentation of your thoughts and ideas.

I mean, really, do you have any idea how arrogant, officious, petty, and utterly soulless you come off as when you start waggling your English teacher finger at someone for such things?

It doesn’t make you sound smart, it makes you sound snooty and spiteful. It makes it clear that you’re not interested in communication or actually understanding what anyone has to say. Complaining about improper grammar usage, especially in very informal settings, makes it clear that you’re interested in asserting privilege and dominance, in setting yourself up as some kind of authority who has the right to hand down condemnation and censure if someone comma splices a sentence.

So when you go around shaming people who do not use the English language the way you (especially if you are a white middle-to-upper class first language English speaker) think it should be spoken, you’re basically just spewing everything from classism to racism to imperialism/colonialism, and ableism. And you’re thinking that you’re superior because you’ve been privileged with the education, upbringing, and sheer LUCK to be able to easily use the English language in the standard fashion.

And if the “there”/”their” issue is more important than all that to you? Then you’re the problem here.

I am overjoyed at how many notes this message has. I hope that most of those are from people in agreement. It’s incredible how tolerant Tumblr users are about a lot of diversity in this world, but how judgmental and privileged they can be about matters of language.

YEAH.

Quotative “like”. It’s here, get used to it.

little-red-robin-hood:

PSA of the day.