Linguistics

Comments

• Sotuanduso@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  No, snuffles005, that doesn’t mean “yzax” is a valid word for Scrabble.

  source

  • LunarLoony@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It’s a worm found in New Guinea, everyone knows that!

    source
  • Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    My favourite part of scrabble rules as written is that if another player challenges the existence of a played word the player who is wrong skips their turn, be they challengee or challenger.

    source
• ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  This is how descriptivists try to cope.

  source

  • BluesF@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Even descriptivists accept there has to be some degree of balance. Yes, language evolves, that doesn’t mean I can start calling my shoes bhurghs and expect anyone to know what I’m talking about.

    But if it catches on…

    source

    • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Except there’s quite a few descriptivists online that take that very stance.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • puppy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Tell me this, why don’t “but” and “put” sound similar?

    What about “height” and “weight”, what’s the rule here? And what makes a letter silent in a word? If any of these rules have exceptions, then why are there exceptions?

    source
  • sundray@lemmus.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Well, I mean describin’ ain’t easy.

    source
• corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Yes. English is evolved by whatever’s popular, ergo whatever the cool kids are doing. They’re actually going to make ‘fetch’ happen because there’s no one driving this crazy short bus just a bunch of cheerleaders on the roof and influencers tasting the back windows.

  source
• letsgo@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Great post. Fnrb wijjk blerb phtooie wagawaga nkkjqqz frup walawala madooie.

  Edit: What do you mean you haven’t got a clue what I’m talking about?

  source

  • davidagain@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    People don’t say “that’s not a word” unless they understand. If they don’t understand they say “What?”. The point was that linguistics is the study of how language is used to communicate. “Cristofascist” is going to get added to a dictionary, but “nkkjqqz” isn’t, even though they’re both made up; one conveys meaning, the other doesn’t.

    source
  • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    this is kindergarden level argumentation lol

    source

    • letsgo@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Or perhaps it’s a level of intelligence beyond your limited comprehension.

      source
  • Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Phtooie waawaa ngizzk nizik wagag was plerb. 😮‍💨

    source
  • nutt_goblin@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    <Wow cool robot Gundam meme>

    source
• Etterra@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I just like to point out that umami is a terrible word to import into English. Why? Because we already have a word for savory. It’s savory. Worse, umami doesn’t completely just mean savory. It also means meaty or deliciousness. In English, savory ≠ meaty, and deliciousness is subjective. The word just doesn’t translate cleanly. So when anybody uses umami to describe savory food, all they’re really doing is sounding like an imprecise, pretentious jackass.

  source

  • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    counterpoint: umami sounds cool

    source
• nikaaa@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  One thing I learned: fuck dictionaries. Be creative. Invent words if you need them. As long as it’s understandable, that’s all fine.

  source

  • stephen01king@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    While, at the same time, don’t be mad at people that don’t understand the word you used because they lack the context. Be educational, don’t gatekeep.

    source
• Lojcs@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Except if you’re talking about Turkish, TDK dictates what words are real, how they’re written and what they mean

  source

  • bdonvr@thelemmy.club ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Several languages have this. Spanish has the Real Academia Española (RAE) and French has something similar.

    But they’re not generally in much of a different position than a dictionary is. If the people start using the language in new ways they have little recourse other than to accept it and amend their rules. If they refuse they’ll look antiquated and people start to question their influence.

    They certainly do have influence of course, but the ultimate authority is the people who speak the language in the end.

    source

    • zaphod@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      People always think the académie française is antiquated because it doesn’t like new anglicisms (old ones are fine though) and sometimes invents words. But in general language standardisation will always be seen as antiquated because it needs to lag behind at least a decade, otherwise things get standardised that are just a fad or where no general consensus has been found.

      source
  • zaphod@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Do they monitor your private messages and fine you for typos or do they just codify the language which is taught in schools and used by the authorities? If it’s anything like German language regulation then it’s the latter and the way people actually talk and write slowly is adapted by the language regulations.

    source
  • underisk@hexbear.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Literal grammar police? What are the consequences for breaking word laws?

    source

    • Lojcs@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Someone links to the TDK website to prove you wrong :p

      It’s most relevant to most people in university entrance exams where they ask you edge cases sometimes, but otherwise just annoying that it exists

      source
    • fossilesque@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Image

      Die Schläge werden so lange fortgesetzt, bis sich die Moral verbessert.

      source
  • keepcarrot@hexbear.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I think the French have something similar, but that’s the state imposing hard lines on fluid cultural stuff

    source
• ggppjj@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Learned this a while ago, from an excellent YA writer: Image

  source

  • bdonvr@thelemmy.club ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    memory unlocked

    source
  • davidagain@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    What a fantastic book. Thanks.

    source
• theacharnian@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  A Elbereth Gilthoniel, silivren penna míriel o mendel aglar elenath! Na-chaered palan-díriel o galadhremmin ennorath, Fanuilos, le linnathon nef aear, sí nef aearon!

  source

  • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    This text is a poem in Sindarin, one of the languages created by J.R.R. Tolkien for his Middle-earth legendarium. It is a hymn to Varda (Elbereth), a revered figure among the Elves. Here’s a translation and analysis:

    Translation:

    A Elbereth Gilthoniel, (Oh Elbereth Star-kindler,)

    silivren penna míriel (white-glittering, slanting down sparkling like jewels)

    o menel aglar elenath! (from heaven the glory of the star-host!)

    Na-chaered palan-díriel (To-remote distance far-having gazed)

    o galadhremmin ennorath, (from tree-woven Middle-earth,)

    Fanuilos, le linnathon (Fanuilos [Ever-white], to thee I will chant)

    nef aear, sí nef aearon! (on this side of the ocean, here on this side of the Great Ocean!)

    Analysis:

    Elbereth Gilthoniel: Elbereth is another name for Varda, the Queen of the Stars, one of the Valar. Gilthoniel means "Star-kindler."
    silivren penna míriel: Describes the shining and glittering quality of the stars.
    o menel aglar elenath: Refers to the glory of the star-host (elenath) in the heavens (menel).
    Na-chaered palan-díriel: Indicates gazing into the remote distance.
    o galadhremmin ennorath: Mentions Middle-earth (Ennorath) being tree-woven.
    Fanuilos, le linnathon: Pledges to sing to Fanuilos (another name for Elbereth) forever.
    nef aear, sí nef aearon: A vow made on this side of the ocean (referring to the Great Ocean that separates Middle-earth from the Undying Lands).
    

    The poem reflects the deep reverence and love the Elves have for Elbereth, highlighting her connection to the stars and the distant heavens.

    source

    • theacharnian@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Ok ChatGPT.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• ID411@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I think the words “pious cunt “ has been with us for quite sometime.

  source
• HowManyNimons@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Nucular. Checkmate, atheists.

  source

  • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    and yet a nuclear bomb is commonly referred to as “nuke” and no one bats an eye, curious

    source
• LunarLoony@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Fine, but I’m still not happy about ‘performant’

  source

  • pau_hana@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Is there a better adjective you prefer to use to describe something that performs well?

    source

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Efficient and effective

      source
    • psud@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Performant seems like a good word to use when you don’t want to admit the performance was poor

      source
    • LunarLoony@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I would probably say fast, efficient, high-performance, or optimal, depending on context. Or just “it performs well”. But I recognise I’m in the vast minority - just one of those new words that bugs me now but I’ll eventually accept

      source
• Eylrid@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I love militant descriptivists

  source
• fsr1967@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  My ex-wife was a word snob. I wish I’d seen this when I was married to her.

  source
• corstian@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Given our thoughts are largely impacted by the vocabulary we know, being able to come up with new words can be considered a super power!

  source
• PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  English dictionaries are also very much on the descriptive side of things as of late, especially compared to their counterparts among other languages.

  Dunno how the tea totallers do things but here in burgerland we actually have sort of a minor annual event finding out the latest slang terms and grammars that have entered this year’s edition of the webster dictionary, and which words have fallen out of significant use enough to be dropped from the book too.

  source

  • klemptor@startrek.website ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    …what do you think teetotaler means?

    source

    • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Brits and Brit adjacents.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • roguetrick@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      What do you think wordplay is?

      source
• yesman@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Some people think god is an English teacher and his cock is a huge red pen.

  source

  • psud@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    • God is an English teacher, His cock is a red pen

    Capitals for deities.

    source
• FilthyShrooms@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Ok but “melty” isn’t a real word and I’ll die on this hill

  even if it’s a real word I hate it

  source

  • essteeyou@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I don’t care about melty, but “would of” will never be right no matter how many times people say it.

    source

    • bdonvr@thelemmy.club ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      People don’t say “Would of”, they just miswrite “would’ve”

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Would’ve

      source
  • oxideseven@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Something expensive is spendy. Something that melts is melty. What’s the trub, bub?

    source

    • psud@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      It doesn’t need to melt. Many cars look melty

      source
  • merc@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Neither is “ask” as a noun. You don’t have asks, you have requests.

    source
• pocopene@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I thought you couldn’t be snob and captain obvious at the same time, but here we are.

  On the other hand, with your degree in linguistics are you granted a special permission to use random capitals?

  source

  • AdlachGyfiawn@lemmygrad.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    yes, it came in the same folder as my degree

    source
• Etterra@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  In a perfect world there would be one language that was absolutely precise and only added new worlds as necessary. We don’t live there though, so we’re stuck with our current insanity.

  source

  • Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Different languages have unique world views and understandings.

    To have a single language is to eradicate a plethora of cultures… Nothing perfect about that.

    source
  • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    What you’re describing sounds like Esperanto.

    source
• CarolineJohnson@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  But there is no single word in modern English for “the day after tomorrow” or “the day before yesterday”.

  In other languages, maybe. But not in English.

  source

  • Trashboat@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Overmorrow?

    source

    • dave@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Tomomorrow?

      Yestesterday?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • CarolineJohnson@sh.itjust.works ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      But that isn’t modern English.

      source
  • joby@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Be the change you want to see in the word.

    source

    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      as has already been said, overmorrow is already mostly a thing and is completely cromulent, and i propose taking the swedish “förrgår” and bringing it in as something like “foremorrow” which sounds reasonably cromulent to my ear, might confuse people a little bit but the “fore” bit is a pretty big hint as to what it means.

      source
  • bdonvr@thelemmy.club ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Spanish has “antier” for the second one.

    Also a fun one “Estrenar”, which can mean something like “try for the first time”. So you might say “I tried out my bike for the first time the day before yesterday” in English, you could simply say “Estrené mi bicicleta antier” in Spanish

    source
• southsamurai@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Yeah, yeah, but where’s the fun in that? Trolling the shit out of people is way too much fun to not be pedantic.

  source