Thread replies: 19
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Anonymous
Prescriptivism vs Descriptivism 2016-12-20 07:15:50 Post No. 8865844
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Prescriptivism vs Descriptivism 2016-12-20 07:15:50 Post No. 8865844
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: stock-photo-9128453-asian-man-reading.jpg (369KB, 1024x683px) Image search:
[Google]
369KB, 1024x683px
If your goal is uncompromising self-expression or originality than shouldn't you respect all Linguistic rules and Literary devices? The more abstruse your mode of externalization, the fewer people will care about what you have to say; and past a certain threshold there's no guarantee that even a single person will resonate with it. All descriptive roads lead to the same dead end of negative value.
>>
>>8865844
>all these big cuck words
Try the redpill
>>
>>8865844
Prescriptivism and descriptivism isn't about whether there ARE rules, it's about whether you give more weight to top down or bottom up (prescribing or describing)
>>
>than
>tfw you know exactly when to use "then" and "than" but your muscle memory randomly types one or the other regardless
>>
>>8865844
>The more abstruse your mode of externalization, the fewer people will care about what you have to say; and past a certain threshold there's no guarantee that even a single person will resonate with it
You'd think that someone who understands this would also know not to vomit a thesaurus onto their post.
>>
>>8868789
>words that are not used in south park are /thesaurus/
>>
>>8868967
No I agree with him. There are simpler ways to put that. OP is probably some poor sap whose fallen for the academic meme
>>
>>8869351
Other than "fewer" (which should be "less") there is nothing wrong with that sentence.
>>
>>8866962
Which why I said that all descriptive roads lead to the same dead end of negative value.
>5 replies
>0 meaningful things said
Thanks guys.
>>
>>8865844
me on the left
>>
No.
>>
>can jerk each other off several times a day about garbage meme books like gravity's rainbow
>can't answer a bog-standard question
>/lit/ - 2016
>>
>>
>>8869918
It's a fundamental flaw in what you're claiming bro. What you've written there and above is meaningless, mostly through conflating a bunch of shit.
>>
>>8869913
Who are the "fewer people"?
>>
>>8870008
You can count people, therefore he should have used fewer. Less is for uncountable things, like flour or water.
>>
>>8869983
>conflating a bunch of shit.
Like what?
>>
>>8870031
Read the sentence again. "Fewer" refers not to the number of people who care, but the degree to which they care, which is uncountable.
Thread posts: 19
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1