I didn’t say it does. Language is not prescriptive. I’m just wondering if this is as much a scam as Flat Earth. Insofar that I doubt the sincerity of people saying that, but I realise that might just be because I’m biased for some reason.
I just have never heard anyone saying “jif” and hearing it makes me think of a semi-computer-illiterate boomer who’s reading a file-ending aloud to their nephew while never having heard anyone say it out loud.
Again, I realise that’s probably not true, but it’s the mental image I get.
That’s funny, because pronouncing it with a hard g sounds just as silly to me.
And it’s nothing like flat earth. The earth’s shape is a matter of science and empiricism; there’s a wealth of evidence confirming that it’s spherical, and nothing credible suggests otherwise. Flat earther arguments are completely disingenuous; it even started as irony and anyone who believed it has serious defects. Even Aristotle knew the earth was round by the way a ship’s mast appears on the horizon before the hull.
Pronunciation isn’t a matter of empiricism. All language is a social construct. It wouldn’t make sense for Brits and americans to argue over who pronounces a word the “correct” way. Even in america, people won’t agree on words like “pecan” or “crayon.”
But for some reason anyone who pronounces gif with a hard g has this really arrogant attitude towards anyone who pronounces it with a soft g. It’s really weird.
I think you’re proving my point, tbh. You didn’t properly read my comment and you’re going on about “empiricism of language”, which means you don’t understand the terms “prescriptive” / “descriptive”.
No, I definitely read your comment, but it seems like you didn’t properly read mine. I specifically said that empiricism doesn’t apply to language, as a counter to your argument that pronouncing it “jif” is comparable to being a flat earther.
I understand prescriptive vs. descriptive just fine, but you’re the one making a prescriptive argument for something that’s categorically descriptive. You’re just so confused that you’re projecting that onto me.
The fact that you don’t understand how badly you’re misusing those terms instead of talking about prescriptivism and descriptivism is what shows how little you know.
It’s not “empicisim” you dolt, which you’d know if you had any understanding of the subject.
Now you’re trying to use the terms, but fail hard.
I never even argued there’s even a single prescriptive rule, and I never would, because unlike you, this isn’t the first time I’m hearing the terms and I thus don’t make prescriptive arguments. You can look at my comment, it’s not been edited.
Point out a single prescriptive rule I even remotely imply. Oh there isn’t one?
It’s not “empicisim” you dolt, which you’d know if you had any understanding of the subject.
I know it’s not, jackass. That’s why I said it doesn’t apply. I only brought up empiricism to address your comparison to flat earthers, which is a matter of empiricism.
But since you’re so intent on butchering what I say in order to shape it into whatever nonsense argument you find easier to counter, you’re clearly not interested in having a serious debate and thus I no longer take you seriously.
I know it’s not, jackass. That’s why I said it doesn’t apply
You’ve just no idea how ignorant you are? :D Yes, you specifically connected it to the concept. Negative or positive, doesn’t matter. It shows how you conceptualise the idea.
That’s why it’s so wrong.
Empiricism would constitute both descriptive and prescriptive language, only prescriptive language less so. What you’re trying to do is prescribe rules to language, and because you don’t even understand what youre doing, you don’t even have the words for it. Which is why you’re now pathetically trying to pretend you knew those words before I pointed this out to you.
It’s a good comparison to flat earthers, because you’re equally ignorant of your own ignorance. It’s a veery different subject, but youre still quite as unable to understand what you understand as they are.
Oh yeah “I no longer take you seriously, goodbye” as if that isn’t the mating cry of every fucking moron proved utterly incorrect and who has to run away in shame.
![[SMBC] JPEG](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/2f500de2-cd40-4b23-ba8d-96b95aa34ec2.png){kind=link}
I didn’t say it does. Language is not prescriptive. I’m just wondering if this is as much a scam as Flat Earth. Insofar that I doubt the sincerity of people saying that, but I realise that might just be because I’m biased for some reason.
I just have never heard anyone saying “jif” and hearing it makes me think of a semi-computer-illiterate boomer who’s reading a file-ending aloud to their nephew while never having heard anyone say it out loud.
Again, I realise that’s probably not true, but it’s the mental image I get.
That’s funny, because pronouncing it with a hard g sounds just as silly to me.
And it’s nothing like flat earth. The earth’s shape is a matter of science and empiricism; there’s a wealth of evidence confirming that it’s spherical, and nothing credible suggests otherwise. Flat earther arguments are completely disingenuous; it even started as irony and anyone who believed it has serious defects. Even Aristotle knew the earth was round by the way a ship’s mast appears on the horizon before the hull.
Pronunciation isn’t a matter of empiricism. All language is a social construct. It wouldn’t make sense for Brits and americans to argue over who pronounces a word the “correct” way. Even in america, people won’t agree on words like “pecan” or “crayon.”
But for some reason anyone who pronounces gif with a hard g has this really arrogant attitude towards anyone who pronounces it with a soft g. It’s really weird.
If people actually read the comments they reply to ffs
Also the difference you’re trying to explain is called prescriptivism vs descriptivism
I think you’re proving my point, but go off
I think you’re proving my point, tbh. You didn’t properly read my comment and you’re going on about “empiricism of language”, which means you don’t understand the terms “prescriptive” / “descriptive”.
No, I definitely read your comment, but it seems like you didn’t properly read mine. I specifically said that empiricism doesn’t apply to language, as a counter to your argument that pronouncing it “jif” is comparable to being a flat earther.
I understand prescriptive vs. descriptive just fine, but you’re the one making a prescriptive argument for something that’s categorically descriptive. You’re just so confused that you’re projecting that onto me.
The fact that you don’t understand how badly you’re misusing those terms instead of talking about prescriptivism and descriptivism is what shows how little you know.
It’s not “empicisim” you dolt, which you’d know if you had any understanding of the subject.
Now you’re trying to use the terms, but fail hard.
I never even argued there’s even a single prescriptive rule, and I never would, because unlike you, this isn’t the first time I’m hearing the terms and I thus don’t make prescriptive arguments. You can look at my comment, it’s not been edited.
Point out a single prescriptive rule I even remotely imply. Oh there isn’t one?
How odd.
I know it’s not, jackass. That’s why I said it doesn’t apply. I only brought up empiricism to address your comparison to flat earthers, which is a matter of empiricism.
But since you’re so intent on butchering what I say in order to shape it into whatever nonsense argument you find easier to counter, you’re clearly not interested in having a serious debate and thus I no longer take you seriously.
Goodbye.
You’ve just no idea how ignorant you are? :D Yes, you specifically connected it to the concept. Negative or positive, doesn’t matter. It shows how you conceptualise the idea.
That’s why it’s so wrong.
Empiricism would constitute both descriptive and prescriptive language, only prescriptive language less so. What you’re trying to do is prescribe rules to language, and because you don’t even understand what youre doing, you don’t even have the words for it. Which is why you’re now pathetically trying to pretend you knew those words before I pointed this out to you.
It’s a good comparison to flat earthers, because you’re equally ignorant of your own ignorance. It’s a veery different subject, but youre still quite as unable to understand what you understand as they are.
Oh yeah “I no longer take you seriously, goodbye” as if that isn’t the mating cry of every fucking moron proved utterly incorrect and who has to run away in shame.