/edu/ - Education

there are two dictionaries a descriptive linguist will ever have to use:
>wiktionary, because it's freely editable and has tons of colloquial forms
>urban dictionary, because you can't perfectly navigate 2010s internet speak without checking urban dictionary at least a couple times

ehh there's a role for both prescriptive and descriptive methods. If you're learning a foreign language you need clear-cut rules to follow to speak correctly. And standardised forms are obviosuly desirable for some contexts like official documents and other texts meant to be read by people with different dialects. That's useful stuff. The problem comes when you get people saying that the standard dialect is the only 'correct' form and that other dialects are 'wrong' and should be stamped out, or when you get people making up random rules on no basis whatsoever (I'm looking at you, split infinitive) and forcing people to use it. This still happens in the english-speaking world but it's dying out very quickly.
OED is descriptivist, why do you think they add new internet slang to it every year? Descriptivism is, thankfully, a well-established orthodoxy in english-language linguistics now. The only people still calling themselves 'prescriptivist' are self-satisfied newspaper columnists, not taken seriously by anybody who actually studies linguistics.

>>353
Yes.

>>353
I agree, and that's why socialism is when the government does stuff and when the government does everything that is communism :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDd

The opressed nations language, who not only purely lingüistic but also social biases due to the domination of the dominators language, need to be normalized and regulated to emancipate. That's why within Spain Galiza, the vasques and Catalonia have language institutions and dictionaries or why the USSR could go beyond the "grandrrusian" nationalism, caring about the federation languages of the others.

Think about the opressed workers of a nation, that see how they own language is being killed to disposses them of a separate identity and prevent a national liberation.

>>383
Manolos will say this and then get extremely asshurt when Catalonia asks for independence

>FUCK GRAMMAR NAZIS
Grammar anarchy!

Descriptive > Prescriptive but I think what >>356 said is right as well. To learn a language you need prescriptivsm. But having a purely prescriptive approach in language teaching is cancer.

bump

>>353
>A language, its rules and words should be determined by the collective people who use it and not by academic institutions and scholars
Yeah no that's inane bullshit. Words do not arise from nothing and neither do their meanings. Linguists and academic definitions of language are used to determine the etymological origin of a word and thus it's original meaning. For a new meaning, a new word based on the rules of alphabets, language and their spelling/grammar a priori.
This "fugg uthority" idea on language is childish liberalism that is completely ignorant on the process of language and definition formation.
Obviously academia is riddled with ideologues that can make imprecise definitions and the like, but that does not discount academic definitions in and of themselves.
>Comic
The comic is cringe, but also goes directly against your OP idea, and rightly so, those that use words without understanding their meanings are inane or ignorant.

>>383
Caring about ANOTHER language =/= dismissing definitions in a dictionary.

>>353
>A language, its rules and words should be determined by the collective people who use it and not by academic institutions and scholars
>FUCK OXFORD DICTIONARY
The OP is probably gone, someone bumped the thread. The ignorance I see still surprises me. It would have taken OP twenty seconds to look up how dictionaries, especially OED, are constructed.

The OED was a crowd-source attempt to catalogue every word in the English language, its etymology and its use/definition throughout the years. People were asked to send in words, their definitions and the context in which they appear, as well as the written work were they appear. Even today, dictionaries do not dictate how words are used, only dweebs say they do so they can argue semantics. Dictionaries reflect the language in use. For example, Merriam-Webster has "ya'll" in the dictionary because of its widespread use in the southern United States [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/y%27all], while Oxford English Dictionary has the word "yeet" in it, because people use it/write it [https://www.lexico.com/definition/yeet]

>Words do not arise from nothing and neither do their meanings. Linguists and academic definitions of language are used to determine the etymological origin of a word and thus it's original meaning. For a new meaning, a new word based on the rules of alphabets, language and their spelling/grammar a priori.
This "fugg uthority" idea on language is childish liberalism that is completely ignorant on the process of language and definition formation.
This is a bunch of hogwash, because language and its definitions are determined by its speakers/users, not by academics in ivory towers. That poster doesn't know what they're talking about.

So, if discard a dictionaries' definition of, say, socialism, how then i'm an supposed to define it? Under Marx's view? Under the view of utopian socialists? According to Hitler, Mises, boomers or 14yo me? Based on what most people currently think?