Markup View

Author: Xtifr

Dec 13th 2012 at 12:38:04 PM

^^ ''It is '''not''' a descriptivist position!'' How many times do I have to say it!  It is a ''prescriptivist'' position! How many prescriptivists do I have to quote before you begin to comprehend that? You seem to have a straw-man view of descriptivism that has no bearing on reality, and keep trying to assign views to them that no well-educated descriptivist would ever hold.  Descriptivists talk about ''how and when'' things are used, and I've never seen an actual descriptivist say anything but "it's controversial, and common in some dialects, but almost non-existent in others, and should probably be used with caution, though it is occasionally unavoidable." It's the ''prescriptivists'' that are (almost universally now, among well-known, well-respected prescriptivists) saying it's perfectly correct.

''The Elements of Style'', probably the most respected style guide in America (and one universally loathed by descriptivists) says it's ok, and ''always has''. ''Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage'', probably the most respected style guide in the UK, says it's ok, and always has.

I'm not saying you have to agree or disagree that it's correct. I really don't care about that. I'm saying that ''you are wrong to call it a descriptivist position''. It. Is. A. Prescriptivist. Position. And as long as you keep trying to construct StrawDescriptivists, I will continue to correct you.

^ Sorry, I think Morgan's right that it's a dupe.