I really like Johnson's dictionary, which is prescriptive. It is a bit dated, but it's such a pleasure to read.
But the main topic of this thread is: how do descriptivist dictionaries obtain their definition? Seems a bit difficult without a mass poll. I'd really like to know
Also, as an aside, is the transition to descriptivist dictionaries something almost inevitable from democracy? Johnson was a High Tory (anti-capitalist, anti-democracy), and in a way I think his book as the paragon of prescriptive dictionaries in English is almost an embodiment of that ideology. One of course he managed to work into his dictionary
His definition of Tory
>One who adheres to the ancient constitution of the state, and the apostolical hierarchy of the church of England, opposed to a Whig.
His definition of Whig
>The name of a faction.
I honestly am not sure why "misogyny" is tossed around to describe sexism so much. Misogyny is not something like, "Women need a strong man to protect them," misogyny is like Elliot Rodger.
Most of the people he killed were men though, and he clearly hated the guys who got the chicks at least as much as (and probably more than) the chicks who didn't like him. And in any case, it's obviously more misandristic than misogynistic to say that men should be compelled to protect women, presumably with their lives (the entire history of war is inherently extremely misandristic).
It's way too early for this MRA spiel, I'm surprised an MRA even frequents this board.
But I'll humor you. Through most of history, women had to bear a lot of kids, and bearing kids was an extremely hazardous proposition. Furthermore, until massive urbanization and agricultural advancement, most men in a given country did *not* go to war, because if they did, the whole country would starve.
Women can't handle the truth though.
They know deep within their hearts that if it wasn't for their fathers and male neighbors, they would be left alone in the dark to be raped and murdered by foreign hordes across history.
The irony about people like Eliot Rodger is that the supposed "misogyny" that made him do what he did, is also incidentally the same time of violent aggression that will defend a woman against a man in times of war.
Guys, I admit is my fault for choosing those pictures, but could we get to the topic I asked about?
If nothing else, then at least the question of how dictionary committees come up with a "descriptive" definition for a word.
Whole countries usually did starve.
Poll research, those pictures suck because they misunderstand what a dictionary primarily is.
A dictionary is designed to raise money, they contain the most up to date common usage of a word because that's the one people will need to know. The lexicographer just records words, they don't decide how they're used.
Also dictionaries are designed to be used by the entire world, including exceptions for the 30 million african americans in a book intended for 7 billion people is fucking stupid. Especially when local english variants like singrish (singapores unique take on english) has far more adherents.
>tfw in the future the English language will be a mess of slang that only the youth uses and old people like us will never understand it and will be written off as racists for not getting it
The difference would have been that the earlier Committees would have been made up of basically a Group of Friends or Colleagues whilst modern Descriptive Dictionaries are run through more diverse committee that isn't solely members of an English Department
Also, isn't this almost a globalist thing that kills community independence of culture? Have a prescriptivist dictionary for the "King's English" makes sense, but trying to do one that engulf's everyone's not only seems absurd, but actively crushing their independence of dialects by taking their power to define from them. In Johnson's time, the English dialects of regions what far, far, far more diverse, and the projection of a descriptivist dictionary would have seemed ludicrous. If it's tenable now, it is because pockets of independent culture are getting standardized much more, and what is strange is that the standardization of culture is being done in the name of inclusiveness, and it kills the agency of communities. Good bye community and regional dialect, it will be replaced by universal slang distributed through music videos, pop film and the internet.
I honestly think if you want a truly "descriptivist" dictionary, the process of urban dictionary makes much more sense. But the truth is that dictionaries are not really descriptivist. They are always proscriptivist, they are just really sneaky about it. And there is nothing wrong with prescriptivist English when you know that it is specifically "prescriptivist English". Having a "prescriptivist English" is a very handy thing, it does not have to come at the expense of other kinds of English, but it is extremely useful for certain functions. Without it, the only form of English that has substance you can hold and reliably apply is terminology. There has to be a language variant that has much more precision than contextual dialects, but is more flexible than terminology.
As in, to give the cartoon as an illustration: as soon as the dictionary definition of racism is changed, it will be constantly brought up as the "objective" definition...and not just for "the King's English", but for ALL English in ALL contexts in ALL cultures in ALL communities in ALL dialects.
>any kind of advancement
You're forgetting the debt that math, medicine, and engineering owe to Indian and Chinese ancient and medieval scientists. India only stopped contributing when Britain conquered it and bled the subcontinent dry (which, incidentally, is why Britain became such an industrial powerhouse at all)
> No. I meant what I said
well then I mean it when I say you probably have an IQ of 80 or below and realistically should be barred from the voting/democratic process but unfortunately democracy is a scam that empowers you as much as someone who speaks english correctly
I said basically. It's not like my point was that all other groups of people have never contributed, but honestly, white men account for the vast majority of progress this world has known.
And yeah, white men conquered India too, thus proving their superiority yet again.
But tell me more about what white men didn't invent in terms of engineering and medicine - I know the decimal system was made somewhere in the Middle East, and that arabs where the first to use weed and opium as medicine (lmao), but apart from that, what contributions do you think were their greatest?