That’s neat.
I really liked looking at the old typesetting ligatured characters when I was looking it up earlier.
It’s a fun artform.
No mention of one of my pet peeves, the use of “comprise” in place of “compose” (and particularly the phrase “comprised of”). Is it too far gone to save it?
“Comprise” used to mean “contain” OR “consist of”, the opposite of “compose”, as in “the parts compose the whole, the whole comprises the parts”. Now the corrupted form “comprised of” has come to replace “composed of”, as in “the whole is comprised of the parts”.
2 Likes
I think you’d like the Wikipedia “comprised of” guy, though it’s been argued he’s wrong.
ETA I agree with you, for what it’s worth: in a couple of hundred years we may well be wrong, though I won’t be losing sleep over it.
What amazes me is that it is usually the non-prescriptivist people who complain about my word usage. They seem to be unaware that “words can change” and “words can have several meanings” are not mutually exclusive. New meanings to words do not render older meanings invalid. That would be a problem only if one naturally assumed that there being more than one meaning must present cause for confusion. Yet, this is not consistent with greater English-language lexicology.
I like the idea of an anti-authoritarian style guide. I’m not saying anyone’s managed to write such a paradox in real life, but it’s a fun idea.
2 Likes
A prescriptivist treats proper language as set, and the only question is to use it correctly. A descriptivist treats language as whatever we make of it, clear or muddy, expressive or lifeless, poetic or awkward. To the former your word use reflects only on you, to the latter it is a vote in reshaping the whole of English to one taste or another. Is it any wonder who cares more? 
Of course I think it is a wonder, that’s why I said so!
Being a descriptivist means that proper use is determined by what we actually do with it. This means that it cannot be a dichotomy, rather, descriptivism functions as a superset of prescriptivism. It is usually self-professed descriptivists who tell me that certain usages are wrong. Declaring an established usage to be “incorrect” is itself prescriptivism, and a shaky example, at that. The irony of this seems lost upon them. And the contradiction inherent makes for unconvincing arguments against a usage they are reacting to.
I’m sure I’m late to the party and someone else has already said this, but fuck you Stephen Pinker.
How about:
Correct: The ceiling collapsing on me and leaving me in an agonizing vegetative state was fortuitous.
That’s not fortuitous. Fuck you.
2 Likes
My pet peeve: Young journalists using the adjective “ridiculous” in a positive way, equaling it to “gorgeous”. /old kranky me
Is that what we’re calling them now?
Call them as you like, they are young and journalist, what else?
Yeah, I have a performance poem where I use “externality” incorrectly, but it just flows so well. No one has ever called me on it, which is good, because I’d have a really hard time justifying it.
Ooooh, link to one of your performances plz?
I’m still working up the nerve to record and post online. I can tamp down the anxiety enough to stand up in front of 50 people, but online it feels like asking to be judged by everyone. Maybe I can figure a way to do where I don’t doxx myself, and coddle my social anxiety.
4 Likes
How about just 50 regulars in the lounge?
4 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
