Alright /lit/, which is better way of thinking about grammar

depends on the context

>>7659534
descriptive unless there's good reason to be prescriptive
so, for example, it would be confusing if we just accepted the incorrect use of "literally" to mean basically its opposite, so we should be prescriptivists on that point

>>7659564
Sums up my belief as well.

>>7659534
the two actual categories are contrarian and memetic

Anons: is logic a consequence of the way language is, or is it a separate entity that is merely manifest in language. Thoughts?

>>7659995
Language is artificially constructed/expanded on a primitive/intuitive foundation. So both.

>>7659995
Logic, broadly construed, is a model of how reality *is*. Think: Language is the content, logic is the skeleton.

Modern formal language theory constructs the formal language part and the logic part separately. They only work in unison.

But strictly speaking we'd have to get clear about what exactly do you mean by 'logic', 'consequence', 'language', and 'entity'.

You see DFW wrote a lot of shit and he's a meme and all but in Authority and American Usage he's at his best and you should at least read it

>>7659564
I disagree. Words and their meaning change over time. Like 'awful'

>>7659564
>>7659575
it's not confusing at all to accept a word with two definitions that are opposite.

>clip as a verb
>hardly
>dust as a verb
>inflammable
>off - eg 'the alarm went off'
>execute
>garnish
>rent - can mean to borrow or to lend
>sanction
>screen
>stone

there are also words that have had an opposite meaning in the past, but we just use a new one now.
>awful
>moot
>let
>terrific

this isn't even comprehensive. just picked some obvious ones

>>7659534
prescriptivism is largely untenable. any given rule or definition is rooted in older rules or definitions, such as english being a mix of latin and germanic languages. latin was also a mix of rules and vocabulary from other languages, and changed over time. the languages that latin drew on were also themselves a mix of languages that changed over time, so on until we pass the point of having written words. if rules were obeyed strictly, language would be prevented from keeping pace with the changes in the world's reality. not to mention a great deal of poetry and prose would be impossible.

if you understand and accept this about the nature of language, i suppose prescriptivism is a nice thing for initiating someone into a language, and good for polish when polish is required. for example writing a cover letter or an article for a newspaper.

condescending to others for their use of 'literally' or correcting others for their fumbling of grammar in casual conversation are not an instances of applying appropriate polish. its an instance of revealing pettiness, hypocrisy, lack of critical reflection, narcissism, and/or social ineptitude.

>>7659564
Obviously you're right in theory, but you picked a really shitty example. It's fine for a word to mean its opposites

>>7659534
Always descriptivism, with technical language as a possible exception.

But this guy >>7659564 is an idiot. It would not be confusing. Or rather, if it was confusing the word would not be used in that manner. Because people don't willingly confuse themselves.

>>7660086
Correct, but 'literally' becomes completely weak and auxiliary within the current context. It's changing, but there's no shame in thinking that it shouldn't be.

>>7660172
>implying