• rainwall@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    23 hours ago

    That works for the plant milk folk here. “Language changes literally everyday bro” arguments fall apart pretty quick:

    “Milk changed back to include plants, bro.”

    • hakase@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      23 hours ago

      Not according to the UK. Also, thanks for proving my point.

      • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        “Language changes unless my favored language authority says it doesn’t.” I honestly do not understand how you could take a perscriptive stance in FAVOR of language changes. It’s pretty much like looking at 1984 and saying “yes, this is the correct way of language evolution.”

        • hakase@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          23 hours ago

          That’s exactly what’s wrong with this post - thanks for putting it so succinctly.

          Edit in response to your edit: you have no idea what my stance is, because I haven’t stated one other than “y’all are hypocrites”.

          Completely aside from the post, as a linguist my stance is always “language always changes, and meaning is determined by usage”, because both of those positions are demonstrably correct.

          • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            23 hours ago

            This post is prescriptive based on etymology. You’re being prescriptive based on regulation. You’re not making a descriptive argument that would be strong in this case(but wrong because casual usage DOES include plant milk so that’s why I don’t think you’re doing it). You’re making a fucking bizzaro world argument.

              • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                16
                ·
                23 hours ago

                Uh huh. So your argument is you secretly don’t have one but are pointing in the general direction that maybe there’s an argument somewhere here and it’s right.

                • hakase@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  10
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  22 hours ago

                  No, I made the argument quite explicit. Since it still seems to have gone over your head somehow, I’ll simplify it here:

                  “Y’all hate etymological arguments right up to the point that they appear to support your position, and then suddenly you’re in love with them. That makes y’all hypocrites.”

                  That’s all. That’s my argument. You’re correct that it’s right, of course.

                  • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    11
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    22 hours ago

                    Oh I see. Your argument that vegans or Lemmy users have a particular linguistic theory. I have to admit, I did kind of miss the idea that you had that sort of insight while telling everyone they don’t know what your personal opinion is in other posts. Primarily because the idea is so pants on head. I’m also glad you have intimate knowledge of the language usage of gestures vaguely the UK in regards to plant milk.