sparksbet's recent activity
-
Comment on Why are so many pedestrians killed by cars in the US? in ~transport
-
Comment on Swedish startup Saveggy launches pilot scheme for edible, plastic-free packaging for cucumbers – innovative solution made from just two ingredients: rapeseed oil and gluten-free oat oil in ~food
sparksbet Link ParentEnglish cucumbers are the most common kind sold here in Germany, and in my experience they usually aren't sold wrapped in plastic (and not because Germans don't love wrapping produce in plastic,...English cucumbers are the most common kind sold here in Germany, and in my experience they usually aren't sold wrapped in plastic (and not because Germans don't love wrapping produce in plastic, bc they do it regularly for some other produce). That said, I'm never stocking up for a month in advance and will generally use a cucumber within a week of buying it at the latest. And in my fridge, the cucumber is likely to dry out or go moldy before it becomes too mushy in my experience.
-
Comment on What common misunderstanding do you want to clear up? in ~talk
sparksbet (edited )Link ParentHonestly I think the principle issue that leads to our different perspectives here is this line. I don't believe this is true, and I don't think you've really substantiated it sufficiently here. I...- Exemplary
The mindset of there being 'a correct way to use language' is essential to actually using language effectively.
Honestly I think the principle issue that leads to our different perspectives here is this line. I don't believe this is true, and I don't think you've really substantiated it sufficiently here.
I am perfectly capable of using language effectively without believing that there is an objectively correct way to use language, and my belief that there isn't an objectively correct way to use language (aside from "how we observe people to be using it," ofc) does not hinder me from making suggestions on how something could be expressed more clearly in a certain context. I am perfectly capable of criticizing someone's writing and so is every other linguist I've worked with. Descriptivism does not render the concept of adhering to certain norms in certain contexts moot, nor does it prevent criticism on elements of style. It is very possible to criticize someone's use of language in a certain context based on any number of factors without the foundation for that criticism being "there is an objectively correct way to use language and you're doing it wrong". Descriptivists are capable of distinguishing between different grounds on which to criticize language use. What I was trying to say in the quoted portion of my previous comment was that descriptivists have never been arguing to throw out the concept of good writing and editing for style and that the accusations to this effect from prescriptivists are a seriously misguided straw man that does not accurately reflect what descriptivism is and betrays a serious refusal to actually engage with the science of language.
Moreover, I simply don't think your example is a good one. I grew up during the "gay being used as an insult" era, and setting aside the fact that using the word this way was definitely actually homophobic, not just etymologically related to homophobia in some way, it wasn't "using language wrong" in the sense that it was violating the rules of the English language. Comprehensive dictionaries include this pejorative use of "gay," in fact, because by being used that way it became part of the word's meaning just as naturally as its more neutral-to-positive use to describe homosexuality and queer attraction more generally. This meaning of "gay" is no less "correct" than The reason people tell others not to use "gay" as a pejorative or not to use slurs has absolutely nothing to do with whether doing so is "correct" according to the grammar of the English language -- linguists study how slurs are used in various languages precisely because the way people use them is part of a language's grammar! People tell others not to use words like this because it is socially harmful, not because it's incorrect use of English. It is perfectly possible to criticize language use for being morally wrong, as is happening here, without insisting that it is violating the rules of English (which it is not).
I am queer, and I have friends who use neopronouns, fwiw, so I'm absolutely not of the opinion that one cannot consciously use language differently to express certain ideas. Those things are part of the most interesting parts of how humans use language, and sometimes they lead to long-lasting change while other times they don't. But the prescriptivist bent of pushing back against language change is consistently reactionary and conservative, and while most cases are simply them serving as pointless nuisances, tilting at windmills about language changes that have long since taken root and which they have no hope of reverting (as in the case of "nauseous"), others are actively harmful, as with opposition to use of singular-they -- both a great example of prescriptivists arbitrarily insisting a construction that has been in use in English for centuries "wrong" and coming up with strictly inferior replacements like "he or she", as well as an example of people using "grammatical incorrectness" as a thin veneer over opposition to the social change represented by a change in language use (because use of they/them for specific people rather than just for when an individual's gender is unknown or unspecified has actually represented a change in use -- and arguably an intentional one!)
The "bits of prescriptivism" you seem to want to hang onto don't actually require you to hang onto the prescriptivist foundation that there is an objectively correct way to use language. You can criticize how people use the word "fascism" without insisting that the way others are using it is an objectively incorrect use of the word. In fact, I think it would be a far stronger argument to rely not on some abstract notion of "correct use of language" but rather to focus on the more concrete reasons why you think it should be used or defined in certain ways. It is far better to argue why using the word in a watered-down way is harmful, not that it's violating some objective "definition" -- especially for a word that's been long-recognized as hard to strictly define (after all, "trying to define 'fascism' is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.")
-
Comment on What common misunderstanding do you want to clear up? in ~talk
sparksbet Link ParentYeah, wiktionary is a good enough resource (especially for very well-documented languages like English) when you can't find something more reliable. Its results should definitely still be taken...Yeah, wiktionary is a good enough resource (especially for very well-documented languages like English) when you can't find something more reliable. Its results should definitely still be taken with a bit of skepticism though, especially for languages with fewer speakers and less accessible documentation.
-
Comment on Bluesky melts down over Jesse Singal in ~tech
sparksbet Link ParentI don't use bluesky all that much, but it allows you to make custom feeds based on hand-picked lists of users (yours or someone else's), and that feature is the key to enjoying the site at all for...I don't use bluesky all that much, but it allows you to make custom feeds based on hand-picked lists of users (yours or someone else's), and that feature is the key to enjoying the site at all for me when I do use it. The default discover feed is not great in my experience but I've got a few better feeds that I occasionally enjoy browsing through.
-
Comment on What common misunderstanding do you want to clear up? in ~talk
sparksbet Link ParentOthers have already given you the answer here, but for future reference, when you have questions like this about English words, this online etymology dictionary is free, searchable, and based on...Others have already given you the answer here, but for future reference, when you have questions like this about English words, this online etymology dictionary is free, searchable, and based on high-quality sources.
-
Comment on What common misunderstanding do you want to clear up? in ~talk
sparksbet (edited )Link ParentI think most of your comment is well-written even though I disagree strongly with your points, but I think claiming that "radical descriptivism" is even capable of being remotely as "puritanical"...- Exemplary
I think most of your comment is well-written even though I disagree strongly with your points, but I think claiming that "radical descriptivism" is even capable of being remotely as "puritanical" as prescriptivism given the amount of real world harm -- including actual genocide -- that has come alongside language policy based on prescriptive ideas about language makes that statement utterly absurd. The end result of believing that there should be a push towards "optimal" language or that the way certain native speakers use language is wrong isn't just stupid arguments online, it's an incredible amount of real-world harm. I wish you'd addressed this in your comment.
And the idea that a descriptivist approach to language necessitates an utter lack of care towards elements of style pervades the rest of your arguments, when that is not and has never been what's being argued. The idea that it can make your writing clearer to choose certain words or pay attention to the placement of certain modifiers is completely orthogonal to whether doing things differently than that is "wrong", and people who insist that these things are universal "rules" of the English language rather than simply stylistic choices that a writer should pay attention to are not only failing to comprehend that context is deeply important when it comes to how one uses and interprets language, but they are also perpetuating ideas that are used to commit significant actual real-world discrimination. Their sense of intellectual superiority for speaking and writing "correctly" isn't neutral when it's used to punish and demean people for speaking AAVE, insisting on the unintelligence of those who can effortlessly code switch between two grammatically rich dialects of English because one of them is "wrong."
Rejecting the scientifically invalid idea that some languages and dialects are better than others and that those who fail to meet an arbitrary, unnaturalistic standard that more often than not does not improve clarity or decrease ambiguity are inferior or unintelligent is disgusting, harmful, and has no foundation in any remotely scientific study of human language. There's certainly no scientific basis to believe that language evolution, even if it is accounted for by "laziness" (it generally isn't), is producing language that is worse in any objective way, and there's absolutely plenty of evidence that attempts to "improve" language to make it more "optimal" through resistance to natural language change are utterly ineffective at best and genocidal at worst. If these ideas' foundation in the scientific study of language or empathy for your fellow humans can convince you that this concept isn't too "radical" or "puritanical", I can't help you, because if you come to this topic refusing to change your mind based on either of those perspectives, I fundamentally cannot relate to you.
-
Comment on Charlie Kirk, Ezra Klein, and the cost of civility-theater liberalism in ~society
-
Comment on What common misunderstanding do you want to clear up? in ~talk
sparksbet Link Parentyeah, analogical leveling does unfortunately often get rid of weird little quirky things like that over time... we must comfort ourselves with the fact that language change will make new weird...yeah, analogical leveling does unfortunately often get rid of weird little quirky things like that over time... we must comfort ourselves with the fact that language change will make new weird little quirky things over time to replace them.
-
Comment on What common misunderstanding do you want to clear up? in ~talk
sparksbet Link ParentYou literally (hah) gave an example of how someone could clarify a potential misunderstanding like that in conversation. The vast majority of the time for the vast majority of English speakers, it...You literally (hah) gave an example of how someone could clarify a potential misunderstanding like that in conversation. The vast majority of the time for the vast majority of English speakers, it will be very clear from context. When it's potentially ambiguous, it can be clarified exactly like that. There are plenty of ambiguous sentences and structures in English and every other human language that has ever existed. It's probably not even possible to engineer ambiguity out of human language. So I don't think your "practical" grounds hold water unless you can demonstrate that it's somehow uniquely more problematic than the plenty of other potentially ambiguous words in English -- a language with several words that serve as their own opposites!
-
Comment on What common misunderstanding do you want to clear up? in ~talk
sparksbet Link ParentAnd don't tell anyone where the other intensifiers came from! You've gotta stop using "really" now. And don't look up the etymology of "very"! Changing from a word that means "really, actually,...And don't tell anyone where the other intensifiers came from! You've gotta stop using "really" now. And don't look up the etymology of "very"!
Changing from a word that means "really, actually, truly, no really this is the real exact thing" to an intensifier is possibly one of the most well-worn paths in semantic change.
-
Comment on What common misunderstanding do you want to clear up? in ~talk
sparksbet Link ParentI'm not super familiar with the RAE's approach to Spanish so I can't directly comment on it. My principal exposure to language academies has been to language academies that are incredibly elitist...I'm not super familiar with the RAE's approach to Spanish so I can't directly comment on it. My principal exposure to language academies has been to language academies that are incredibly elitist and out-of-touch like the Académie Française -- and a look at France's treatment of other local languages is a phenomenal demonstration of how harmful language policy can be. I'm very glad if it's the case that the RAE approaches things differently and takes into account dialectical variation and includes things that are in everyday usage by Spanish speakers despite being traditionally "incorrect." A linguistically-grounded approach such as this would be the only remotely acceptable way for a language academy to exist imo.
That said, even without a formal language academy English has an absolute bevy of absurd arbitrary rules that were literally made up in relatively recent history to serve as a sign of status and education... so I'm very glad there's no English language academy, as I'm confident it would be extremely regressive in this regard if it existed. We can see evidence of this in Style Guides, which attempt to be more or less the type of authoritative reference for what's "correct" that you see -- I don't know any linguist who doesn't have some degree of distaste for Strunk & White. That said, there are style guides out there that set out their limitations in terms of what they can and should address about language use -- they're just a relatively new phenomenon.
If you can get access to a copy through a library, university, or other means (it's definitely more of an academic reference text than anything else and both physical and digital copies are accordingly expensive), I highly recommend checking out Huddleston and Pullum's 2002 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. I doubt it would really serve as a practical way to look up whether something is allowed in English while writing or teaching, but it is a very thorough explanation of the actual rules of English grammar explored from a linguistic perspective, and it includes examples and explanations even of relatively niche structures in English (I cited it extensively in my bachelor's thesis on right dislocation, and right dislocation is not a particularly common or thoroughly-discussed sentence structure in English!) As far as I remember the text is pretty readable despite it being targeted at a more academic audience, but there's also a Student's Introduction to English Grammar that's based on the same text afaik.
r/grammar's list of resources actually has some good recommendations -- I haven't used the style-guides they cite, but since they recommended the same book as I did above and include a link that explains the issues with Strunk & White, I feel confident that their other recommendations are solid, and style guides seem like what you might be after based on how I understood your comment.
-
Comment on Charlie Kirk, Ezra Klein, and the cost of civility-theater liberalism in ~society
sparksbet Link ParentUltimately I think that even if public opinion were wildly against trans issues to a much greater extent, it would still be wrong to abandon them. But it's much easier to believe that when "them"...Ultimately I think that even if public opinion were wildly against trans issues to a much greater extent, it would still be wrong to abandon them. But it's much easier to believe that when "them" is actually "us".
Establishment democrats have proven themselves very willing to throw even very popular issues under the bus out of some delusion that it will appeal to right-wing voters, though. Abortion rights are actually very popular these days even in redder states, for instance.
-
Comment on What common misunderstanding do you want to clear up? in ~talk
sparksbet Link ParentWorth noting that it's not a mistake once it becomes how the word is generally used, which has long since happened for "nauseous" -- the definition that equates to "nauseated" is present in major...- Exemplary
Worth noting that it's not a mistake once it becomes how the word is generally used, which has long since happened for "nauseous" -- the definition that equates to "nauseated" is present in major English-language dictionaries, with the other definition being considered less common and more formal. Language change happens this way all the time, it cannot be stopped by pedants, and people are not wrong or less intelligent for using language naturally rather than following made-up rules that involve arbitrarily deciding certain word usages and grammatical structures that are naturally part of the language are "wrong" and a sign of unintelligence.
"Nauseous" is actually attested as being used for the now-obsolete meaning of "inclined to nausea, easily made queasy" earlier than it's attested as being used to mean "causing nausea,". Were people wrong for beginning to use "nauseous" to mean "causing nausea" back then? When did they become correct? Who decides when the way normal people regularly use a word is "right" and when it's "wrong", and how might their decisions be influenced by arbitrary bias towards the things they're familiar with rather than anything remotely approaching "objective truth"?
The people who insist that the way common words in everyday language are used should be policed like this rarely, if ever, think about these things, and that's before you even start with them literally just making up grammar rules that are not a thing in the English language (not splitting infinitives and not ending sentences with prepositions being two prominent examples that spring to mind) to start enforcing for no reason other than as a purity test to filter out the "uneducated." And it's all fun and games with little trivialities like "nauseous" vs "nauseated", but the same mindset and behaviors do regularly result in actual discrimination and horrific mistreatment around the world of speakers of languages and dialects that are just as rich and complex as those spoken by the people who make these "rules," but just happen to have less societal prestige.
People who insist that you're using language "wrong" for "mistakes" like this are overwhelmingly assholes (and I say this as a reformed "grammar nazi" myself), and they're also just straight-up wrong and silly from the perspective of those who actually study language from a scientific perspective.
-
Comment on Charlie Kirk, Ezra Klein, and the cost of civility-theater liberalism in ~society
sparksbet Link ParentIt's always fun to see things like "criticizing someone for explicitly advocating that removing my right to live my life and make my own decisions about my body be considered acceptable collateral...It's always fun to see things like "criticizing someone for explicitly advocating that removing my right to live my life and make my own decisions about my body be considered acceptable collateral damage to appeal to people who want people like me dead" dismissed as a "purity test." Of course the people not wanting to be thrown under the bus are framed as the divisive ones, not the spineless liberals chomping at the bit to sacrifice us for a hypothetical chance at winning over more votes from transphobes and bigots of other varieties.
-
Comment on The video-game industry has a problem: there are too many games in ~games
sparksbet Link ParentThis may be true for some people, but honestly I've found I have pretty broad genre preferences when it comes to gaming (and I assume for the sake of this comment that I'm not some weird outlier)....Any given person will have a fairly narrow range of games they are interested in playing.
This may be true for some people, but honestly I've found I have pretty broad genre preferences when it comes to gaming (and I assume for the sake of this comment that I'm not some weird outlier). My collection is mostly focused on indie games, but even that's not a strict preference -- it has more to do with trends in the AAA space not really aligning with my tastes most of the time. But I doubt I'm the only one with pretty broad and eclectic genre preferences!
Discoverability is a problem, but more for indie devs than for consumers imo. Unless the range of games you're interested in truly is super narrow, there's no shortage of options, and I've found Steam is good at recommending new titles based on stuff I've bought and liked. Not everything is gold, but it's good at pointing me towards stuff that's at least mid. Where discoverability sucks is if you're a developer trying to make sure people who'd like your game see it.
I tend to get games based in large part on word-of-mouth and reviews, though. I've bought several games solely on the basis of Yahtzee Croshaw's review making it clear that they're doing something interesting and are my cup of tea -- his reviews are fun to watch, but conveniently his opinions and taste align well enough with my own for me to buy games based solely on his thoughts and opinions. The channel he's part of, Second Wind, has also started a series that focuses on talking about new indie games to help with this kind of word-of-mouth discoverability. Honestly, I think independent games journalism is probably the most effective solution to any discoverability problem, and it's a shame there are so few outlets these days that aren't corporate owned.
-
Comment on Gianmarco Soresi: Thief of Joy in ~tv
sparksbet LinkThe YouTube algorithm started showing me his stuff right after my divorce, and damn he quickly became one of my favorites of all time. Excited that he's got a full-length special I can recommend...The YouTube algorithm started showing me his stuff right after my divorce, and damn he quickly became one of my favorites of all time. Excited that he's got a full-length special I can recommend people now! His clips on YouTube were already gold imo. I saw him live recently when he toured here in Europe and it was a blast.
-
Comment on California attorney fined for using twenty-one AI hallucinated cases in court filing in ~tech
sparksbet Link ParentIt's theoretically possible, but probably he'll suffer other sanctions first rather than immediately being disbarred. My understanding is that getting disbarred typically requires something much...It's theoretically possible, but probably he'll suffer other sanctions first rather than immediately being disbarred. My understanding is that getting disbarred typically requires something much more egregiously unethical than this or a longstanding pattern of bad behavior. Starting out with fines seems fine to me as long as they're large enough to serve as enough of a learning experience for the lawyer in question and others who hear about what happened.
-
Comment on California attorney fined for using twenty-one AI hallucinated cases in court filing in ~tech
sparksbet Link ParentYeah, even the most obstinate model can and will still hallucinate. It's an entirely orthogonal problem to the obsequiousness and is much, much less solvable.Yeah, even the most obstinate model can and will still hallucinate. It's an entirely orthogonal problem to the obsequiousness and is much, much less solvable.
-
Comment on California attorney fined for using twenty-one AI hallucinated cases in court filing in ~tech
sparksbet Link ParentNot only that, but this is far from the first attorney to get in trouble for this exact issue either!Not only that, but this is far from the first attorney to get in trouble for this exact issue either!
Are these (and other sedans and compact cars) being built the same as they have in the past, though? one could easily see other classes of vehicle still being influenced by the US SUV trend and changing in size or shape (or some other way that affects visibility and/or lethality in the case of a pedestrian crash) over the years.