• rottingleaf
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Prescriptivism in liguistics is for ignorant people.

            • rottingleaf
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Prescriptivism is ignorance. No linguist would take your side in that argument.

              • lugal@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                Tbh prescriptivism has its place in official over regional communication and language learning. We wouldn’t understand each other if we were writing each in their local dialect and when you start learning a language, you don’t want to first need an overview of the dialect continuum.

                That said, in unofficial writing it doesn’t matter as long as you write intelligible and advanced language learners should learn about varieties. I for example was tought British English at the start and in the 4th year, we learned about American English and the differences to British English.

                  • lugal@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    A true descriptivist will describe the effects, prescriptivism has on language #toleranceparadox

                    But your right, it isn’t linguistics since science is always descriptive.

    • FardyCakes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      No, this is not true. No, English is not math.

      See. Both of those sentences contain “double negatives.”

    • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I’m pretty sure you say and hear “I don’t have anything” all the time and it doesn’t trip you up. That’s a double negative used in common dialects of English to emphasize.

      • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        11 months ago

        Did you mean to say “I don’t have nothing”? Because “I don’t have anything” doesn’t seem to be a double negative

        • lugal@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Arguably, since “anything” is only used in negative sentences, it is kind of part of the negative. You wouldn’t say “I have anything”, only “I don’t have anything”. Then again, it can be used in positive sentences like “I would do anything” with a slightly different meaning.

          But let’s take “anymore”. “I can’t stand it anymore” is a common phrase but “I can stand it anymore” not so much. “anymore” is only used in negative sentences so the “not” is arguably redundant and therefore “not … anymore” is kind of a double negative.

          And even that’s not true for all speakers of English. There are native speakers who would say “I go to town anymore” unironically.

          Edit: I reread the comment you reacted to and to say it’s “to emphasize” is wrong. That argument would work better for “at all” for example. My point is that “double negative” isn’t as clear cut as it might seem to be at first glance. “I don’t know nothing” is a double negative for sure, “I don’t know anything at all” kind of in a way, “I don’t know anything” maybe a little bit.

          • Klear@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            This is close to the dumbest thing I read today, though to be fair I haven’t been reading that much today.

          • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            First of all, something like “I’ll have anything” is a valid and reasonable statement that is not negative, for example when somebody asks you what you want to drink.

            But further, “anything”, “anymore” and “at all” are all very different - from what I understand, “anymore” doesn’t even exist as a word in British English, and I’d point out an example of “do you have any more?” as another non-negative. I think generally “anything” makes more sense by itself than “anymore”/“any more”, and “at all” similarly needs context. But just to provide a not-really-negative example, “Do you like it at all?”, where a positive response (“yes”/“I do”) does mean liking something.

            In the end, I think your arguments might be stemming from trying to apply the term to too many things, from my understanding double negatives are very simple in that they need to have two negatives. A word being general, and used mostly in negative statements doesn’t mean it’s a negative, and that the actual negative part of the sentence is redundant.