Greg Sonnenfeld wrote circa 11-08-20 06:27 PM: > It really seems an issue of what standards body or dialect you decide > to choose as proper.
To some extent. Unfortunately, I've ended up believing that we are defined by our environment. Of course, there's (at least) a transience to the effect of any cause. The genes we're born with have a very long transient. [grin] But because I believe we're defined by our environment and in order to limit my cognitive dissonance, I can only adopt standards contingently. And that means if I find myself amongst those who think the word "data" is the plural of "datum", then I have to be _capable_ of adopting it. I don't seem to be capable of that. A more general (and professional) angle is the ability to adopt a set of premises (or even a formal system like ZFC) at least for the sake of argument. I've found one of the best rhetorical tactics is to adopt your opponent's rhetoric and try to work within it for awhile. That helps persuade the opponent when/if flaws are found. It's professional for me because that's what we do when we construct simulations, albeit the game isn't necessarily zero-sum or dialectical. But the ability to put on and take off hats at will is important in lots of contexts, including using language. So, I laud the standards guys and the effort put into resolving the issue down to an Ultimate, Godly, One True Path. But I can't simply adopt that and be done with it if I want to swim in various waters. > Well here are somethings to consider: > > 1. Isn't the idea of "bad behavior" very subjective? Not generally. I regard it as cultural, or perhaps even rational. Bad behavior is defined by the context. In some specific cases, part of the context is the observer or the subject. > 2. If a standard's body says is fine to use, would it still be "bad > behavior"? (As apposed to just your friends etc.) In the contexts where that standard is uncommon or ill-favored, yes. And in some cases, _all_ standards are considered suspect ... though such places don't tolerate verbal communication very well; so perhaps that's moot. 8^) > 3. There are other similar words, such as "agenda", that are treated > correctly as singular in English despite being Latin plurals. Yes and that's good parallax. Once inside enemy territory, we can use that to crack their foundations. > 4. When does a new but common usage become "proper English" and when > does the old usage become deprecated? It depends entirely on the context. Thanks _very_ much for the thought-food! I think it's helping. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
