>mfw autists sperging over the figurative use of "literally"
>mfw linguistics
>>8018581
yeah haha I literally want to kill myself when people do that
>>8018585
i literally hope you do
>>8018590
I sincerely hope that the implications that you emitted in the preceding post were true.
>linguistics-related discussion online
>"DAE DESCRIPTIVISM >> PRESCRIPTIVISM??"
>>8018645
It is objectively better though
>>8018645
it literally is objectively correct and better though
>>8018645
Not really related to the thread but I find it stupid when Anglophonic shits say that prescriptivists like the Académie française are bad for trying to defend their language and battle against the linguistic consequences of American globalism and consumerism.
>>8018581
Please, Monsieur I'd rather you referred to it as grievances with Philology.
Get it right, Sir or cease posting here!
>>8018742
>non-English speakers are literally cucked at a neurolinguistic level
>>8018742
>tfw defending my language and battling against the linguistic consequences of American globalism and consumerism
>remember that there are actually interesting things to do with my life
>kill self
>>8018770
>swami discussion on an armenian pheasant hunting board
JESUS CHRIST
>>8018581
getting bent out of shape about the "improper" use of the word literally is literally the most entry-level of things to get bent out of shape about
it just screams "I'd like to be perceived as intellectual but lack the wherewithal to pull it off properly"
>>8018581
Can someone explain what prespectivisim is ? Is it a normative approach to language, and is it opposed to descriptivism ?
>>8018786
Unlike others, I don't want to live in a Huxleyan global superstate.
>>8018802
this'ing this
>>8018802
>getting bent out of shape about the "improper" use of the word literally is literally the most
The first 'literally' should be enclosed in quotation marks, since you are mentioning it rather than using it.
>>8018854
listen here fella i didn't come here to be ridiculed
>>8018854
start shit get hit
critique my improper use of conventions now, nerd
>>8018837
Explain, because that analogy was retarded. Most of prescriptive grammar is arbitrary and forced; the Dark Ages wasn't a fucking rule, it was an era. Find a better way of putting it please.
>>8018727
>objectively correct
Scholars making up rules is not objectivity. You're correct in that it's objectively true that these functions are correct ACCORDING to the rule, but orthography only exists as a standard for several dialects to mutually agree with one another, so in fact it isn't objectively correct but politically correct.
Faggot.
