On 13/10/17 09:30, Duane Whitty wrote: >> Your argument is unsound, because the inference is unjustified. >> The possibilities that a language is regulated by an official body >> or defined by majority usage are not exhaustive. > > I'd be interested to know what the other possibilities are.
I mentioned another possibility in my previous message: “one must apply well-known rules of English and use common sense in determining words one will regard as legitimate”. The whole of my previous message is an elaboration of this. > I think that if one individual tried […] You are referring to an hypothetical individual who develops a language reform. But that is not the case here. Here (the discussion is or was around the word “Linux”) we simply have a misuse of a word which is not part of a proposal of a language reform and has no rationale. Since these cases are very different, the reasoning for one case does not necessarily applies to the other case. In the case of misuse of the word “Linux”, I have already given my arguments. In the very different case of a well-made language reform, I would immediately regard it a a legitimate variant of English. However, it would be _inappropriate_ (not _incorrect_) to use it when it would cause significant confusion or be an obstacle to communication. > What about the role of media and its influence on popular culture? If > I say "C'mon, you gotta be kiddin me" everybody knows what I'm saying > and its acceptability depends on the audience. “Popular culture” is not a good source of what is correct, precisely because of aberrations like this. Many things that are socially acceptable are factually or morally incorrect. These concepts should not be conflated. -- Do not eat animals; respect them as you respect people. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+to+(become+OR+eat)+vegan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
