Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by Tuskin38, Jul 28, 2021.
"Other languages"? You know of several languages like that? Of one?
French and Spanish both come to mind.
Well, IMO, you're wrong for both of these. There are no dictates, or "cultural nazism" in either of these countries. In France for example, they have an academy that produces a dictionary but it's not imposed or even used as a reference and there are plenty of other dictionaries that are published with different views. AFAIk they don't even use the academy's dictionary in games but others that are more popular. They also have plenty of dialects in France, Breton, Picard, Alzacien, Occitan, Corsican...etc... But these dialects are really languages in their own rights, they're not just distortions of the French language. Only in America did I find people who think that terrible grammar is a cultural asset.
I mean, yes, comparing them to Nazis is incredibly hyperbolic (and incorrect, as the Nazis failed in their attempt to regulate language.), but linguistic purity is a stated aim among many languages, even if they cannot actively enforce dictates on the citizenry at large.
There is a world of difference between a stated aim and a dictate and as I said it's not very successful (or accompanied with legal coercions ) so associating the whole country with that is a reminder of Nazi propaganda... as exaggerations go that one is not worse than the one made about that so-called search for language purity.
Eat your MacDougall's.
"Time is the fire in which we burn." - H.G. Wells (paraphrased)
"Now you'll have to excuse me, Herbert. I have an appointment with eternity...and I don't want to be late."
Other than those actively holding anti-intellectual views, I've never heard of anybody regarding terrible grammar as a cultural asset.
And I hadn't even considered anything about Nazis seeking linguistic purity.
On the other hand, I take great pride in the fact that the English-speaking world is completely open to loanwords (even if we sometimes have trouble pronouncing them), and does not waste time or effort reinventing linguistic wheels.
The phrase "people who think that terrible grammar is a cultural asset" made me think they're referring to AAVE. Hopefully, I'm wrong. That would be way more insidious than any supposed Nazi metaphor. That's why I glossed over that portion and didn't take the possible bait.
It's similar to the "Scots is not a real language" folks in the UK.
<looking up "AAVE" >
Uh, no, I was not referring to that at all. It had never, in fact, entered my mind. (Why do I suddenly find myself thinking of Barbara Billingsley's big scene in Airplane!?)
I was thinking more in terms of how I might expect a redneck to talk.
"Redneck" is a deeply classist term and I would urge you not to use it.
The language of impoverished and working-class rural white people is just as valid as African-American Vernacular English, and both are just as valid as other regional variations of English. Prescriptivism is inherently classist and racist.
Jive is an earlier term for AAVE, and arguably a dialect out of Harlem, so you're on the right track. In my youth, there was a lot of arguments on whether "Ebonics" was a real dialect that should be fostered or just incorrect English that should be stamped out. This is the kind of thinking that oldtrekkie reminded me of when he spoke of people thinking "terrible grammar is a cultural asset".
I didn't find anything objectionable with what you said. Your opinion, that language should be allowed to develop and evolve on its own has me nodding in agreement. I don't think there's anything wrong with language academies, per se, but they're outside of my cultural purview and seem odd to me. They could be a boon, in helping to learn a new or second language, but that presupposes there is a correct version of a language, which goes into the sketchy territory of discounting AAVE, Appalachian English, Pennsylvania Dutch, Joual, and so on.
Could you provide a typical example of what you mean by this?
I have always understood -- and used -- "redneck" to refer to shamelessly bigoted white guys, regardless of their economic status or where they make their homes. Which is to say I would not hesitate to so characterize Donald Trump, who is neither poor nor rural.
Then the author of this particular video is a redneck, because I was horrified to see just how unashamedly bigoted he is. And it's too bad, because I used to eagerly await his videos and watch them multiple times.
Not all rednecks are bigoted.
And in the end, most rednecks don't mind being called by that name anyway (as any Jeff Foxworthy fan knows), so how offensive could it really be?
There are rednecks who are progressive and vote for Democratic and other center-left candidates and there are rednecks who are unapologetic reactionaries and fascists and support candidates like Donald Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz.
Separate names with a comma.