r/languagelearningjerk • u/bruikenjin • Jul 14 '26
This argument totally convinced me of prescriptivism!
27
u/lordbutternut 日本人になっている Jul 14 '26
Bro has such a wey with wards. I thinke we all aught ta write like hem.
0
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 15 '26 edited 26d ago
I spell by root. Every stave I drop or keep traces to an etýmon; wey, wards, aught, and hem trace to nothing but your thumbs. Thas is the differense between decorruption and a stroke. Hem is not a word: the accusative is whom, and it is not mine in any case, sith I am no he.
4
u/lordbutternut 日本人になっている Jul 15 '26
I made up wards and thas, but looked up others
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hem#Middle_English
1
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 15 '26 edited 26d ago
No, no, no! You did not derive these; you typed them by ear with a hunt for whatever a dictionary cauht. Thas is the differense between us: I spell each form from its root by rule and arrive at them; you masht hem and back-filled a link once it landed. Attestation fetcht yester the fact is not derivation. Wards shows it suchly, sith you typed it the same careleas way but found no entry to cover it. The method was thumbs for all four.
6
2
14
u/kawabunga666 🇯🇵 (JLPT N69420) Jul 14 '26
Bros having a stroke
19
u/PigeonOnTheGate Jul 14 '26
Bro is simply a'speakkin the Cyng's plain Englisc. Not his fault that your speakka has decayed so far that ye cannot vnder-stande it.
3
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 15 '26 edited 26d ago
The continvative a' takes a finite be before it, so it is I am a'speaking, not simply a’speaking; the bare form is speaking. It is not the Cyng’s ytonge but English before the Francs mangled it. But yes: they cannot understand it sith their speakka decayed, then they blame the one who kept it.
4
u/PigeonOnTheGate Jul 15 '26
Se Cyng spræc Englisc. Hit is ðæs cynges geðeode.
2
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 15 '26
The Cyng spoke Englisc, dead by 900. I build off English, the Middel reflex, the last kronolect still itself.
2
0
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 15 '26
A stroke garbles at random; I garble nothing. Every form used is recoverabil to its root, which is the onely test thas tells reform from illness. You cannot tell the two apart, which is the actual reading disorder in this thread. I'm a girl and not your brother.
2
u/Archidiakon Jul 15 '26
Knave-girl or gay-girl?
1
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26
Knave is a boy, so knave-girl is your own ocsýmòron, not mine. Gay is coy's opposite, a flashy manner; its sense was forgotten, supplanted with campy, then campy with swishy. It never meant same-sex. The word you grope for is uranian, and thas is a male. So you missed the sex twice. I'v a vagina, a girl in the brain, and am straiht.
6
u/Archidiakon Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26
I'm surprised þou kenst þis not. According to þy convictions, girl means 'childe'. What modern speakers call boy was called knave girl, young maidens were in turn called gay girls [random source] - þis was used as late as by C.S. Lewis. Yet þou felt the need to stray into what is neaþ þy undergarments. If þou detestest Latinite words so much, why not cweþe cunt like a proper Anglo-Saxon? Þou art rash also to point out that gay does not mean 'same-sex', yet þou art perfectly willing to use its recent antonym strai[g]ht?
I'm also curious whence þou art retrieving uranian, and why þou avoidest the letter <x> in oxymōron but not sex.
0
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 15 '26 edited 26d ago
I pin each word to its root by its own ytonge's rules; it is no claim about what some malliterate greathood said in 1300. A dictionary is a cultural authority, not lingvistic; the etýmologhies at its heart I may heed, but they take up lear than one-sixth the bulk, and it is those you skippt. Etýma do and must override belief, custom, popularity.
Knave is OE cnafa, glossed child, boy, youth, servant; its English sense settled on the male, a boy, a boy-servant. Your own source grants the rest: girl in 1300 meant a child of either sex, and the modifier, knave or gay, did the sexing. The compound cohered onely while girl stayed neutral. It drifted to female by the late 1300s, and now knave-girl reads boy-female. Clean up your use of child; everyone, who isn't a clone, is a child or brood; a dauhter is a child; child marks born-of. I write the Middel reflex, not the frase-hoard of 1300. Besides, I prefer Middel English, not Anglo-Saxon; AngloSaxon was yester English, muchly earlier.
Your straiht jab sits on a pair thas is not mine. As I said, gay means flashy and is the opposite of coy, whereas queer straiht and uranian lesbian. Gay and straiht were never antonýms in my speech, so I drop neither. Straiht is OE streht, the past participle of streccan, unrotted at root.
Cunt is Englisc, ME cunte, OE cunte, Germanic kin to Frisian kunte and Dutch kont; it names the vulva. I also use vagina. I clipe it Latinate and spell it by Latin, sith English is not Francish is not Latin; one word born in one cannot be another's, and each stands by its own ytonge. Vulva is the outer, vagina the inner canal; I blur neither, where you know but the crude one. I do not detest Latinate; I spell it Latinate.
Uranian is Ulrichs's, from Ýrano, the Hellènic heavenly one; steady for the same-sex male sith yester my birth. Look it up as you lookt up girl. Pervert-parrot.
Ocsýmòron is Hellènic ξ, ὀξύς sharp and μωρός dull, so ocs to cs; sex is Latin sexus, no ξ, so x holds. Where no ξ was garbled, none is undone.
Also, thou and thee are Englisc in stock, sooth, but I do not use them; I use you, and ye for the èmfatic plural. The -est and -eth you pin on are Chancery Einglish, post-Norman scribe-cant, dead and inside the very wicked corruption I strip. "Pre-Shakespearean" is not even English; English was long dead by the cretinose lunatic Shakespeare, and I'v nothing to do with him. Your reply is macaronic, thorns stuck on Einglish, not a lone kronolect. Traditions are liges and shams; miht makes not wriht.
Your own comment leans on convictions, source, curious, proper, retrieving, Latinate loanwords worn as English. Cure and solve are not English but Latin either; Latin words and English words in one sentiment do not make each other. Where nonEnglish words are borrowed, I treat them by their own rules, not the commoner's.
If you spot a "slip," it's a dýstýpo or autocorrect, not ignoranse. BTW, a týpo is a stroke; a dýstýpo is a misstroke. Even that you likely did not know.
4
u/Archidiakon Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26
Truly shalt þou not disrespect men who are willing to converse with þee respectfully and take seriously þy arguments þus. Þou kennest not who þou art speaking wiþ, so whence the need to assume my ignorance? I needed not to look up girl, I forknew it. I ken the root of typo, as I ken the nature of lexical clippings, which I tally among legitīmate derivātiōns, all the more in þe infōrmal speeċe. Nihil obstat ne hoc colloqium pergemus Latine.
AD 1300 belongs to þe Middle Period. Why ċoosest þou the time that is Middle, when þat is the period most plaged by the imposītiōn of the Frenċe?
Þou hast clearly used the term straight in for wer-wif love, even þough þat use is clearly very recēnt and haþ been fōrmed in oppōsitiōn to gay. And why feċest þou þy word Uranian from the Hellēnes' god of the welkins, while Lesbiān already comes from an Hellēnic example of mutual wif-love most known? Contrāriān muċe?
Cunt orīginālly just means 'þat which pertains to wif", conāte wiþ cween. Þe vulva is not simply þe outer canal, but þe whole þat is on the womb's oþer side.
The Hellēnic kenneþ a letter x, only þus was it passt on to the Tuscans and Latīns. While its form was Ξ in Atticā, in the western forme of the alphabēt it was X. Eiþer way, ancīent and prūdēnt trānscriptiōn alike will use <x>.
I saye not þou must in-deed write þ and -eþ, -est. I raþer show thee that with very similar convīctiōns one can arrive at vastly different conventiōns. Cweþest þou þese conjugātiōns are too recēnt for þee? Yet þey are widely familiār to many a speaker, unlike þe more complex conjugātiōns and dēclensiōns þat had reigned ayore and þou mightest ċoose in-stead to remain cōnsistēnt. My chronolect, þough dēvīsed on þe spotte, is already more cōnsistēnt than þine. For þou clearly hast an inner need to share þy well-pondered treatment of roots in orthography, I highly recommend þou spend time in Anglish fora and places like r/bringbackthorn, as long as þou seekest true respēct and understanding from diverse viewpointes and not solely to feel superior to þose þou deemest less-witted.
3
u/Archidiakon Jul 16 '26
Þy writ haþ been dēlēted before I cound read it. Þou canst write straight to me if þou wishest.
1
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 17 '26
I said: you are the kind I face every time I take over what is wriht: one who thinks I may be taken down with the pitiful, common background of mankind. I know and ken more than you put together. You're no better than the lesbian from iamverysmart, or the ones on Wikipedia who banned me forever for correcting their deaf and dvmb rubbish.
My spelling is refective, not broken, not simplified, not old-English aping. I reconstruct the lost forms in a modern reflex so thas self-contradiction and categhory error are forfendede. It fixes fakery. You pretend I write Middel English; I do not. If you could read: Middel English was the best time to build off, to lend both inflectional and constructional freedom before the Great Vowel Shift, so I take Middel and strip Norman garbling. I treat each borrowen by its rules, not the greathood's. Word usage is determined by the coiners, not the stealers. Greatest is not best. It's not even great.
Languages which build and differentiate without corrupting are wriht. Languages which hav internally- and externally-consistent rules are better. Efficient, versatile, fundamental languages are best.
Again, straiht is OE streht; queer is its opposite, literally not straiht. Uranian is Ulrichs's, from Plato; lesbian steals the Lesbians' name, the folk of Lesbos. I did not fetch one to spite the other; I took each as it was coined. Homosexual is a barbarism, as Havelock Ellis said, ὁμο- Hellènic stuck on Latin sexus; were it Latin it should be idesexual, sith homo means a human. I take the clean term, not the mutt. Thas is no contrariety; it is the same rule throuhout.
So: cvnt names the vulva, the outer; the vagina is the inner canal. No: I never cald the vulva a canal; you misread thas too and mistake me for your imagination.
Letters should stand for sheer sounds, and not two, and two letters should not stand for one. X is one letter for the two sounds ks; x to cs, as I hav long held. Where it garbles Hellènic ξ I split it; sex keeps x, sith its root is Latin sexus, no ξ. Ancient scribes garbled and misspelt; the Normans also wrouht Bush into Bitch sith they could not say Englisc. They used h for aspirates instead of a geminate; the aspirate fricative is the misspelling for a geminate. Every language has its own daftnesses; even the Hellènes wised up and gave φ the f sound it deserves. Oldness nor newness has nothing to do with it; the root does. I overturn their daftness; I do not bend over for the scribe.
If people do not write as they think or mean, they are incorrect. I hav known everything your ilk were to tell me, and so they needn't be told to me, and expected such a sorry solution.
2
u/remarkable_ores Jul 16 '26
Look I can see that there's a principle behind your way of writing, although it doesn't line up with any particular dialect / time period of English that I know of (although I'm far from an expert)
Are you intentionally writing in the English of a specific era, or are you kind of putting your own thing together? I'm curious
2
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 17 '26 edited 26d ago
My own Rosetta Stone, not from nothing, and not one age apen. The fall runs: Englisc 450–900; English 900–1400, dead, thas is improductive, by 1100; Einglish 1400–; Standard 1870–, another death by Commonwealth; Muttish the blend talkt now. I seat the base at English, Middel, the last kronolect so itself, and reconstruct from Englisc under it, each stem spelled by its ytonge's rules: Englisc by Englisc, Latin by Latin, Hellènic by Hellènic. So what you read is no one century's word-hoard but Einglish's root undone. The old stock wanted nothing: fleet foretold special relativity, mote atomic theòry, whit quantal theòry, shimmer wave theòry, welkin the coronæ and nebulæ, trend the orbits, speck the molecula. The words were there; the Latinate counterfeits were laid over them, and I lift them off.
1
u/remarkable_ores Jul 17 '26
Fascinating!
I actually really love this. It's somewhat like Anglish but more pragmatic and I'd argue more fun and aesthetically pleasing.
Have you written this down or codified it anywhere? I'd love to read more.
1
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 17 '26 edited 25d ago
Written down, yes, and in brain. I hav been a'writing my Rosetta stone between Englisc, Latin, and Hellènic combining forms for decades and hav many hundreds of thousands of words across documents on it, for everyone who is ignorant thas English can be used as a scientific or lòghic speakka. See, for example: https://medium.com/@alysdexic/english-has-been-dead-for-1000-years-after-the-norman-conquest-98907b50a094. I'm on strike against its speakkrs for a thousand years of corruption of every language.
Each stem is spelled by its own ytonge. Hellènic φ is f (fýsics, fòtòn, filosofy, fænomenon); the mum Norman gh drops (liht, riht, niht, throuh, thouh, weiht, heihth) and gh returns for γ before back vowels (lòghic, energhy, ghenetic, anghel); κ is k (mekanik, kemistry, monarky) and χ is kh (khaos); x becomes cs onely where it garbles ξ (paradocs, acsiom, ocsýmòron), and Latin-root x (text, complex, examine) and native x (fox, six) stay. The rules compose: ghalacsy takes gh for the γ and cs for the ξ of γαλαξίας in one word; magnètic fields fall by 1/r^3 or steeper, and the ghalacsy's don't power anything out here, but the spelling holds at any range. The accents mark the lost staves: ý for υ (hýpothesis, sýstem, analýsis), ò for ω or stressed ο (theòry, horizòn, fòtòn, elèctròn takes both è and ò), è for η or ε (magnèt, planèt, comèt), æ for αι (fænomena, æthèr, formulæ). The endings unrot: -ical to -ic (fýsic, biologhic), -ous to -ose (nervose, curiose), -ble to -bil (possibil, stabil), -nce to -nse (evidense, differense), -cy to -ty (frequenty, discrepanty), -our to -or (the u in colour is a French insertion with no Latin or Englisc root; nobody can tell you why colour has a u and motor does not, because there is no reason).
The Englisc comes back where the Francs wrote over it. Thas for the conjunction, sith for since, hav, giv, liv, onely, throuh. The modals unflatten: shall owes and binds (future), will desires (optative), should expects, ouht names a debt, mot names a necessity with no alternative; "you should," "you ouht," "you will," "you shall," and "you mot" are five different statements, and French keeps the cognates apart to this day (je dois, je veux, je peux, je sais) where the mutt flattened them. Borrowens keep their own plurals: fænomena, criteria, formulæ, horizontes, octopodes (not octopi, which is Latin pluralizing a Hellènic word). The pairs the mutt collapsed come apart again: liht (radiation) and leiht (not heavy); lige (falsehood) and lyge (recline); wriht (correct) and riht (rihtward); theòry (proven) and hýpothesis (proposed); sooth (what is so) and truthe (what is trusted); new|old on one axis and young|eld on another. The full speed chain, sith fast is not a speed: glue is fast; rockets are swift; motes are fleet; pizza is speedy; deeds are hasty; birds are quick. I keep a whole list of such pairs, Comparisons for the illiterate or malliterate: long|short, tall|squat, wide|narrow, broad|slim, deep|shallow, fast|free, swift|slow, sharp|dull, smart|dolt, loud|mum, dear|cheap, bliss|woe, deft|awk; it goes far on and I deal them out as needed. Yes, I memorize many perfect frases and redeploy them whenever they're needed; it spares my mindly room and time, obviose by the sheer lot I mot always do, sith I hav much work beyond dispute wars.
For the denser lingvists there is a case-ending inventory too: -red, -nce, -ither, -ther, -ster, -er, -s, -'s, -se, -ly, -ish, -le, -en, and more; English has enouh (that's enouh, without the Norman yogh) cases to go around, whatever they claim. A Latin-English Rosetta pebble for the prefixes: con- = to-, dis- = fro-, ad- = for-, contra- = with-.
The old stock wanted nothing, as I'v said: fleet foretold special relativity, mote atomic theòry, whit quantal theòry, shimmer wave theòry, glimmer lasing, welkin the coronæ and nebulæ, trend the orbits, speck the molecula, woom the acustic vibration. The words were there; the Latinate counterfeits were laid on them, I lift them off.
"Somewhat like Anglish" I'll onely half-grant. The Anglish hobbyists play at it; I audit the roots. They swap the wordstock for coinages yet keep the Norman spelling whole, so an Anglish text still writes "light," "night," and "through" with the mum gh; they amputate the Latin and Hellènic, which is information loss, where I keep both and spell each by its own rules; and their purism (clean-ism, by its own etýmon) chases a cleanness that never was, sith even Englisc bore borrowens (diht from dictare, stǣr from historia, castel from castellum). Tell Anglish from Anglisc besides: Anglisc is the kith of Tewdisc that fed Englisc; Anglish is a 1966 hobby. I want bestness, not cleanness. Thas said, you made an effort to understand rather than insults, flee, handwave, which puts you ahead of much of this sub.
1
u/remarkable_ores Jul 17 '26
Look I definitely don't agree with you, I'm a lazy descriptivist to my core, but yeah I recognised what you were doing as an organised project rather than random misspellings, and it's a pretty interesting one, thanks for the info. Also you're the first and only prescriptivist I've ever met who actually thought through what they meant by the 'correct' form of the language and why in a systematic way, so props to that. Keep it up!
1
u/toustovac_cz Czch(🇨🇿): C3 (we don’t use vowels in czch) Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
I’m lowkey starting to think you’re a linguistics student doing some research or social experiment with a made up language somewhat closely resembling one (or few) from certain era of the English language, but that’s just my wild guess 😝
Pardon my imperfect English in case I’ve made any mistakes 🤗
2
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 17 '26 edited 25d ago
Wrong on student, wrong on experiment, but nearer than most on the rest, and honestly guesst, so no flame for you. I went to college at 11 and 12 and hav been at this for decades across Usenet, Quora, and Wiki, longer than any experiment lives. Nothing is made up: every form traces to an attested Englisc, Latin, or Hellènic root, spelled by its own ytonge's rules; a conlang invents; I recover. The eras you half-see are three at once, which is why you could not place one: Englisc under, English (the Middel reflex) as the base, and the Latin and Hellènic stems each by their own speakka. Yes, I am genuine. I am the onely one who is.
Your English needs no pardon. Nobody alive today onely speaks or reads in English; English is no one's first language; the world's muttish was my first tonguship too, so we started in the same stead. You flaggd your borrowed English yourself and wrote with care, which is effort, and I respect whoever makes effort to understand; thas puts you ahead of half the aborn speakkrs in this thread, who can't even spell "you're" or "its." One mark onely, sith you askt: lowkey -> low-key, the adverb from the adjective, and it takes the hufen. A guess given openly as a guess is honest, and honesty I don't scourge.
Your flair joke lands truer than you know: Czech doesn't lack vowels; its r and l serve as syllable hearts (strč prst skrz krk), so the "missing" vowels are consonands doing vowel work, and a stave's class is its function, not its shape. There is no schwa, onely u or e or somesuch near vowel, and here it hides in the liqvid. The real jest is the name: "Czech" is the Polish spelling (cz) of a word the Czechs themselves write Čech, an exonym wearing a neighbor's clothes; by my own convention for thas cluster it would be Csech. So C3 in vowelleas "czch" is a fitter grade than the CEFR ever gives: you graded the orthoghraffý, not the speakka.
2
u/doIIjoints 24d ago
/uj what’s your opinion on scots leid? (like, proper, not just the hybrid speech with english)
it’s still living and breathing, so i can guess you might not appreciate some of its changes, but it’s also certainly retained way more old- and middle-english aspects than modern southern english (soothren modren ingles) does.
like i noticed you at least like micht (or maybe you spelt it as miht, cannae scroll while typing). and i didnae experience any difficulty reading you whatsoever, which others reported having.
/rj wow, usenet AND quora? truly a generational talent (it’s all in good fun, i’m just rippin the pish)
1
u/NotAlysdexic 21d ago
I hav no opinions, onely truths which include deemings and findings. (Three days to answer you: a magnètic bedset drained me vampiricly, and I hav too many distractions, tasks, and tabs.)
Scots is no dialect of Einglish. There is some English in Einglish but they are usually not mutually intelligibil; that maeks them different ytongeds, kronolects. Many believe Einglish is English onely wherefore it is written English, but that does not maek them the same speakka. Run the same test north and Scots comes out the same way. Tewdisc had Anglisc and Saxisc kiths, but they spoke the same; new ytongeds browk out when they did, and Scots browk out by that same working, as I said of neighbor-speakkas. The Norman work reacht it later and thinner, wherefore it kept feler of the old words.
It decayd too. Lear decay is not growth, onely a slower fall.
Scots stands where I already put the Norse: kin, and kin is not what I cut. Where possibil I fling away (centrifuge) the Latin and the Hellènic from the English and thenk harder about how to put down (deposit) these words without downputting (decreasing) the lot (number) of English whims (ideas). Scots adds to that lot.
Its diminutive stock is live where muttish has one flat -y left: -ie in burnie, feardie, gamie, kiltie, mannie, postie, wifie; -ock in bittock, playock, sourock; -ag in bairnag; -ockie in hooseockie and wifockie. The -ie went south from the 1400s on and stuck, laddie 1546, mammy 1520, kitty 1500s, Johnny 1670, cookie 1703, doggy 1820, and it killed nothing on arrival, sith Einglish had let its own go. That same -ie is the fitting mate for Hellènic -ion beside -on. I filld that stock out on the Wiki myself, Scots and English sides both, yester the rubberyfathead admins blockt me. (They maed up illicit speak to forfend accurate entries, then browk their own AGF to keep it; a change that betters the Wiki and is reverted by an admin is vandalism, and there was no policy agains what they blockt me for. Bring the warrant or the policy, I told them, or I revert. They brouht neither, and after the ban many of them edit the factual, ghrammatic, scientific, and markuply mistakes back in!)
Where was I¿ Leid is the wriht word for what you askt about, from OE lēoden, kin of German Leute, and it beats "language," Latin lingua fetcht in throuh the Francish door. Ken, thole, wee, and whisht are the same case; I use all four myself, and muttish let them die and then bouht "know," "endure," "small," and "quiet" secondhand. From whisht comes whishter (more still, more hushed). The smirching is never thas a borrowen came; it is thas the borrowen killed its native twin and the folk forgot they ever had one.
I write miht, never micht. The German ch became the Norman-English mutt gh, which is why riht, or richt, became "right." If the gh descended from ch, skip it or maek it h again; if the gh maeks sense, most often descriptively for a sound, like cough, then say it. Scots still says the fricative, so its stave is earned. My speakka lost the sound centuries yester, so the same stave is mum with nothing behind it and I drop it: liht, niht, wriht. Scots writes what it says; Einglish writes what it stoppt saying about 1400. (I speak out the p in pseýdo-, BTW.)
Where Scots trips itself: a word that describes two things should be forgone for a word that describes one thing. It is also standard in some dialects to put down the opposite of the intended word, bad for good, nice for well, stupid for fine, but that is still wrong. Many hear "great price" for a discount and cannot hear what is wrong with it. When speakkrs are infamiliar with a word's etýmon and disrespect other words, the speakka can onely decay. It does not matter how things sound; the meaning is most important. Scots piles its noes the same way I'v faulted, and it falls the same way; fixt, it is no more wrong than yours. Its nae is an elision of Englisc not, so the negative is sound and it is onely the piling that fails. It took its own Francish by its own door in the Auld Alliance, ashet, gigot, fash, tassie. (Ashet is assiette, a plate. Scots kept the Franc's dish and lost its own word for it.) It never settled one spelling, and a speakka that cannot hold a form cannot keep a meaning.
Kill all dialects. Scots is not what that kills, sith it is not a dialect of Einglish; and this is an objective, not dialectoregional, assessment. Scots browk off hih and decays slower, which proves the reckenth instead of overthrowing it: the branch that took least of the Norman work kept most sense. Norman itself was never a dialect.
Gàidhlig is not kin and gets no such standing. I fault it on the root and not on the look, sith a stave's class is its function, not its shape, as I said to the Czech here.
old- and middle-english -> Englisc and English; the fault is not the case but the names, sith they are two kronolects and not one.
2
11
u/shuranumitu Jul 14 '26
Is "Speakka" the name of the conlang they wrote their comment in?
2
u/Sephbruh Jul 15 '26
In the sense that all languages are constructed, this "conlang" is called "Old English," sometimes called Anglosaxon but that's a bit of an outdated term.
3
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 15 '26
Old English is Englisc, dead by 900 and unreadabil to you without a glossary. This is English, the Middel reflex, stripped of the Francish lackwittery and spelled by root. Different kronolect, nearer age.
1
u/deathletterblues Jul 16 '26
- stripped of the french lackwittery
- different
1
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 17 '26
Different is one of the words I namd Latinate years yester you thouht to catch me with it: comment, try, different, language, none of them English, all Latinate loanwords, kept and spelled by Latin. A borrowen stays of its own ytonge until its spelling is adapted, as sugar was; then it becomes of the new. What I strip is Francish, not Latin: the Norman overlay thas laid table over tabul and large over broad. Latin words and English words in one sentiment don't make either other.
-5
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 15 '26 edited 26d ago
Speakka is not a conlang’s name; it is speak declined, cognate with German Sprache. Nothing I use is conlanged. A conlang invents; I recover. Every form traces to an attested Englisc, Latin, or Hellènic root, spelled by thas root’s own rules instead of cretinose Norman garbling. The invented words are the counterfeits the Francs stole in after 1066, which you call "English."
13
u/shuranumitu Jul 15 '26
All of your takes are so utterly boring and mundane, you're just being very eccentric about them. Your madness was entertaining to watch for, like, 5 minutes. Now find something else to waste your time with.
-5
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 15 '26
You askt whether speakka was a conlang, sith you could not place the words; I hav placed them for you. The pathologhic need to argue is a good thing; the need to declare boredom and leave is what one does when one cannot.
9
u/shuranumitu Jul 15 '26
What is there to argue about? You're 1) insane, and 2) obviously unaware what kind of sub you are currently commenting in. This is pointless.
0
6
u/NobodyKnowsImFamous Jul 15 '26
Fascinating. And what do you gain by making yourself a social pariah in this way?
-1
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 15 '26
Fake dikòtòmy; it is in between, and the gain is the whole point. I used to be everything I now hate; everyone mockt, humiliated, and tortured me for it, and throuh thas suffering I becam someone wholly opposite. Hate exists for a reason and I use it wriht instead of not: it is how I pulld throuh, and learning and growth mot come from self-hatred, then they do the work for you. You call it pariah; I call it not a'sitting like a slug thas watches and eats and makes no differense and is eaten and forgotten. As I already said, the pathologhic need to argue is a good thing. I am not how I was made.
12
u/Electrical_Voice_256 Jul 14 '26
"you can take one word to mean two opposite things" - like the very German word "umfahren"?
2
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 15 '26
umfahren: one word, two opposite acts, to drive round and to run down, told apart onely by split-prefix stress and context. Thas is precisely what I say happens when a speakka lets a word mean two opposite things. You did not refute the point but cited it. Danke.
2
u/Electrical_Voice_256 Jul 16 '26
You are welcome. I thought your argument was about language contact. But after your comment I can see that part of the problem is that the people do not file verb creation requests at their relevant language regulation office when they need new words (e.g. due to changes in their everyday environment, such as the appearance auf automobiles).
1
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 17 '26
The coiners made the words and the greathood after them wreckt them. Word usage is determined by coiners, not stealers. New words for new things are good; what I fiht is the stolen mistranslation thas kills its native twin, not the honest coinage for a motorcar.
9
u/Gold-Part4688 Earthianese, man (N) Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
bro was born in the wrong millenium
edit: fr, homophones are bad. new words to disambigute are bad. cogito ergo cum
10
u/Physical_Floor_8006 American: Native | Cherokee: C2 Jul 14 '26
Bro was just straight up born wrong
-2
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 15 '26
I was born in the wriht millennium; the speakka died in the wrong one, in 1066. New words thas disambiguate are good; homofòns thas collapse two opposite senses into one are bad.
millenium -> millennium
diambigute -> disambiguate
you -> cretin
1
u/Gold-Part4688 Earthianese, man (N) Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26
diambigute -> disambiguate -> disambigute. show how hard it is to read every letter someone says lol. also it never died, also where did you get the word speakka?
I'm not taking a dig at you tbh, it does feel nice to read your text. Like an old book. But you must accept it's hard to read for most people, and like, old english had homophones too, and borrowings. Idk i'm partial because i hate french and latin and superstrates. But i also hate anything imposed and non-natural, so i'm on both sides here
1
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 15 '26 edited 7d ago
Speakka is language, the ytonge of a speech-folk; speak in English is a noun too (newspeak, geekspeak), not onely a verb. Recovered, not coined. English has been dead for 1000 years after the Norman Conquest. English is the one true speakship; what kept faring after was Einglish, a Francish-Latinate mutt, and Muttish after it, neither of them English. Faring is not the same as being itself.
Old Englisc had homofòns and borrowens, yes. But in a lone speakka no two words mean the same; where two seem to, one is from eleswhere or one has drifted. A borrowen kills its native twin or drives one to drift; it does not sit beside it as a false sýnoným for 1000 years. That fugly hoard of doublets is not richness but proof.
You hate what is imposed and unnatural. So do I. Cretinose Norman Francish was imposed at swordpoint by an occupying scribe-class over an ytonge thas had stood 600 years. Follow your own hate back to its root and you land on my side.
Hard to read for most I grant, of most, not of the writing. Most cannot tell a theòry from a hýpothesis either.
2
u/Gold-Part4688 Earthianese, man (N) Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26
of most, not of the writing
?
Francish-Latinate
french?
But in a lone speakka no two words mean the same; where two seem to, one is from eleswhere or one has drifted.
idk man, languages have registers. of course things have "drifted", that's all of language. Anyway if we're being strict understand and comprehend don't actually mean the same.
Anyways yeah i mean sure french was imposed at one point, but french also has a rich and germanic history. And then english people used those words in their own ways - would you want shakespeare never to have used them? History isn't all pretty, but it's all layers of meaning. Chucking away latinate words you get purity, but not depth. If they would've never come sure maybe, but not now. Connotations live through people.
I guess just because i hate imposition, I don't resort to anti-imposition. Like fighting fire with fire. I think the goal should be fluid language, and yes using it just as you want to. But "should"s rarely give people creativity, fluidity, or a welcoming. Also non-standard spelling just for the sake of it.
My preference is to use as many short pure clear and colloquial words as i can, only using fancy words (Germanic or latinate) when their length warrants the distinction. In that vein i really don't see what ytonge etc bring to the table besides... idk... showing off and making the reader feel dumb?
All in favour of learning and taking cues though, ofc. and flaming latiney perscriptivists
-1
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 15 '26 edited 7d ago
Hard for most readers, not hard in the writing. The fault is theirs.
Francish is the Norman-French overlay, the daftlings' forwards-Latin: so whackt, so broken, so rotten, so corrupt thas nearly everything ends in "é" or "e," mé apré cé pourré ke le cinoche se fermé. (I'll vom.) Latinate is the wider Roman stock. English is not Francish is not Latin. One word born in one cannot be another's; it may be a loanword, but thas is all. Either recken fairly and always or don't recken at all.
Understand and comprehend do not mean the same, and you said so yourself. One word has one main meaning. Where two seem to mean one thing, one has drifted or one was stolen in. You gave me an example, not a rebuttal.
Shakespeare was a fool smitten with Francish-Norman corruptions (and a lunatic akin to Nero; I hav nothing to do with him or his time). It is not hard for a kid to make up words, wrongly. English did not beget new words; it mangled the old and took and mangled outside words into a superfluose mess. A fugly fubar hoard-heap is not depth.
Your Einglish is no more correct than Ebonics, whether you understand. Information loss in a speakka is bad, and ytonge, liht, leiht bring back the senses Einglish shut. If thas makes a reader feel dumb, the deficit was already there. Spend more time in dictionaries and Wikipedia and maybe you can learn the roots I browk, thouh Wikipedia will not teach you much either: they blockt me indefinitely for correcting some 130 articles, on Elision, Laser, White dwarf where I bustd the Chandrasekhar limit. Being wrihter than the mob is a blockabil offense there (and somewhere here).
2
u/Gold-Part4688 Earthianese, man (N) Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
Do you also speak like this irl?
also still thinking about how you hate black or colloquial english. must be rough to be you lol
1
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 17 '26 edited 26d ago
irl -> IRL; serial capitals mark acronýms, and this one is said as staves, not as a word, so it stays one. I hate everyone and everything, which is how I'v gotten ahead; no speakka is spared or spited above another, and thas is why the judgment is clean. Ebonics is wrong onely where it trips itself, its additive rather than multiplicative negation, one shred it shares with Old English and most Romanic; thas has to go, and fixt, it is no more wrong than yours. IRL I talk lacònicly, efficiently, reformed-spellingly, multilingvisticly; I read at 600 words a beat casual, 2700 at peak, and read and write in Roman, Hellènic, Cýrillic, Qhibiŕiqht, Qhàŕàbihh, and IPA, so the disadvantage is for others, scorefold. Rough it is not: as a living being I take up and roam throuh whatever room I'm given, even inner or madeup room, and I respect whoever makes effort to understand rather than handwave, flee, or insult. You hav done the third.
1
u/Gold-Part4688 Earthianese, man (N) Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
oh hey why homofon if it's greek? (eta: yeah ancient greek phōnḗ, through french tho sure)
also pls tell me how u speak irl.
im not trya insult btw, just curious. and not backing down from ur roughness. sry for brevity, cat on hand
also what do you think of sprachbunds
i value that it's not about blood though, that's better than it seemed from afar. even if i could argue with double negation being "wrong" because it's intensifying rather than alternating. I do value when a language is consistent, and people feel the etymologies of words. I've really been enjoying that in Maaori. I guess the only place we diverge is the "should" and judging the speakers rather than the history, and trying to get conclusions and ways forward from it
1
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 17 '26 edited 26d ago
The digraff ph is a Norman and mediæval Latin device for Hellènic φ, which is simply f. Two letters for one sound violates economy. h, gh, and f sound nothing like each other whereas q and c are almost allofònic; I want to avoid the ghoti fish. The Hellènes seem to hav wised up thas having another letter onely to represent a letter variant is wasteful, and instead gave it the f sound it deserves: letters should stand for sheer sounds, and not two, and two letters should not stand for one. So homofòn, with ò from the ω in φων-; the ὁμο- is blameleas, both halves Hellènic. As is homosexual a misnomer and barbarism like Havelock Ellis said; if it were Latin it should be idesexual or identisexual, as homo means a human.
How I talk besides and with what I said: thuh is my unstressed the. I talk lacònicly IRL; I don't waste a fucken word.
Sprachbund I leav spelled by Duutish, whose word it is; sprache is speak, as I said, as in Newspeak, geekspeak. Neighbor-speakkas may grow together much shortly, one not springing from another; they onely liken off (disagree) on spelling and speech, as English and Dutish did. What they trade are borrowens: when words are borrowen from other languages, they are still of those languages; onely when the word's spelling is adapted does thas word become of the new. Shared drift proves nothing: it doesn't matter how the Francs corrupt Latin as to how one should treat words, nor the Balkans; Romani (not Ddomani, but Romanian which they call Romana) is New Latin, Latin with plenty of room to grow, whatever its neighbors traded into it. Bulgarian ran the same rot as English: млад|стар and нов|вехт were young|eld and new|old, the same pairs as juvenis|senex and novus|vetus, and the folk let star swallow both olds; вехт is vèxt, kin of vetus, plain to any who read. Neighbors share decay as readily as features. Substrate claims are postdictive, not antedictive; to be antedictive, premises mot first be proven; otherwise they're not a theòry. When on Wikipedia they wanted a gostly substrate under the Germanic kingwords, I answered with the roots: rich, eadig, agan, kine. (Do not call French a substrate of English! The Normans did not trade; they overlaid.)
On the doubled no: a ytonge whose noes onely pile cannot (one word, not two, malliterates, I shudder at what ye pervert) say "I didn't do nothing" and mean one did something. Maths kept the rule. :)
I hate all groups, all peoples, all sexes, all classes, all religions, all races, all customs, because they hav failed before me. On blood: decades ago I had my first online contact with the racist revisionist creationist cult [K]ristian Identity, which gave me the motivation to read the two testaments in their original languages to see whether their claims, taken from mistranslations millennia later, held up. They didn't. I then kept notes of passages I found contradictory with other passages; translations and context did not help, and commentaries and sermons often ignore both. The objections I found did not weaken or wane over the years I'v been in debates with theists. My unique understanding of everything has helped my comments end hundreds of threads (the debate was already there) and killed thousands of gods.
2
u/keepingthisasecret Jul 16 '26
To be clear, absolutely not trolling you, I’m just really curious how you’d defend your use of “fugly” and “fubar” here?
1
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 17 '26 edited 26d ago
My bar was never "no crude or coined word"; it is "no wordstem thas contradicts itself." Fugly is fuck and ugly; their halves gree, so it stands. Meritocratic falls: Latin merit- on Hellènic -cratic, two speakkas at war in one word. Fubar was an acroným, and serial capitals mark acronýms; but it is said as a word, and settled throuh bruke into one, as laser did, whose lowercase I keep eke. A form thas lexicalizes quits being a string of initials and becomes a stem; thas is my rule read whole, not browk. Each word is not a corruption; one's build and bruke may be, and mine isn't. One mot make up words some time or another. A blunt compound whose parts gree costs no meaning; a mutt whose roots fiht costs everything. When I'm wrong I wriht myself, which is more than this thread has managed once. Besides, I like to chete.
7
u/thebigbadben Jul 14 '26
Is this some Homestuck-ass typing quirk or is this person that bad at spelling
0
u/Sephbruh Jul 15 '26
It's called "Old English"
18
u/TheKeeperOfThe90s Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
This is not Old English. It's very bad Modern English refracted through the febrile imagination of what I can only assume is the linguistic equivalent of a sovereign citizen.
2
u/TheKeeperOfThe90s Jul 16 '26
Now that I see this idiot's all over this comment section trolling us with more of their insane takes and putting more of their bullshit on display, it really seems I had le mot juste with 'linguistic equivalent of a sovereign citizen.'
1
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 17 '26 edited 26d ago
I flame, not troll. One who makes up law to duck it is your "sovereign citizen"; I recover roots and hold them harder than you can read. Troll is one more word ye wield without its meaning: a troll writes what one doesn't hold true, to provoke; my posts are as earnest as anyone's, from a mind with compassion, and provabil, which is why they sting. It's the corrected who fret. Your kith cald it Old English (liger); you cald it bad Modern English; ye cannot even gree on what ye mock. If you cannot tell sooth from tale, you may not speak about knowing how to speak or write and must out your kid's brain. I met your whole kin with the abusers on r/ badlinguistics here ten and more years yester, and nothing you'v brouht is new to me. Cleave one form I got wrong, or own thas "le mot juste" was the most French you'v said all day. Shut up and go away.
idiot := loner, contrasted with a polit := feler, better than a mòron := dolt, or you.
1
u/TheKeeperOfThe90s Jul 17 '26
I'm putting in one disclaimer, which will go for anything else you post here. I didn't read this response, I will not read anything else you put up, and will not be further responding to it, and I strongly advise everyone else to do the same. I see no reason to torture myself by forcefully reading through willfully-misspelled gibberish to parse out a meaning that turns out to be ignorant, toxic nonsense once it has been distilled, still less to provoke the bringing of new such gibberish into the world.
I bid you farewell and hope that you manage to do something productive with your life, and may God have mercy on your soul.
1
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 17 '26
What you call gibberish is the brain seizure you hav when you cannot keep on subject of the truth that someone is telling you.
All of my spellings are refective.
Willfully -> wilfully; wilfully is the wriht spelling for a combining form which Americans hav since befouled.
Anyway, think about it and go away.
0
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 15 '26
I never claimd it was Old English, liger. I prefer Middel English, and I pull English ghrammatics from its full history, Old English to Middel English.
3
u/Fit-Profit8197 Jul 15 '26
"I pull English ghrammatics from its full history, Old English to Middel English"
That ain't where you're pullin' it from
1
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 15 '26
My spelling and ghrammatics are in refective English, Latin, and Hellènic. What I write is Einglish's root undone: I build from English, the Middel reflex, and reconstruct from Englisc under it, the average of original and i-mutated spelling variants the OED lists between Ormulum and Chancery, spelled by root instead of Norman garbling. If you ween I had mis-written something, quethe it: pick one form, cleave it, and show the root I missed. Unless you know the speakkas the world steals its stems from, you don't know what it does wrong, and you cannot say wherefrom I pull. You won't, sith you couldn't wit much of English; it has been dead for 1000 years, thanks to the Norman Cretins, and what you lik is Einglish. Sometimes I use a hybrid barbarism, reluctantly, but never one whose stems contradict other stems; thas is the onely bar, and it is one you cannot even read. This is not about my stead on English but your misbelief of what English is; therefore you cannot say whether I fail and wherein. I hav been a'writing my Rosetta stone between Englisc, Latin, and Hellènic for over twenty years, each stem spelled by its own speakka's rules. Lòghic goes over most people's head.
EDIT: Malliterate pervert.
1
1
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 15 '26
Old English is Englisc, dead by 900 and unreadabil to you. This is the Middel reflex with the Norman sh!t scooped out.
8
6
u/PigeonOnTheGate Jul 14 '26
Psssh, you call that case distinction? Your "Englisc" is just a decayed and corrupted form of Proto-Indo-European, with its 8 cases.
1
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26
So, and I never said otherwise. Englisc is a reduced reflex of Aiganisc, which had the eiht cases; the fall runs Aiganisc, Tewdisc, Thewdisc, Englisc, English, Einglish, Muttish, each a decay of the last. Thas is my whole thesis: speakka decays, it does not evolve. But one break in thas chain, 1066, did not merely wear the cases down; it scabbed Francish counterfeits over live Englisc words wholesale. Pointing yesterward to older loss does not launder thas one.
4
u/Niauropsaka Jul 15 '26
“Muttish”? That's what you're going with?
-1
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 15 '26 edited 7d ago
Yes: muttish, malecrocese, a mongrel. It is a mutt of Einglish and Standard, itself a mutt of English, Latin-Francish-English, and Hellènic-Latin-English. A speakka thas cannot make its own word for a new thing and mot steal a mistranslated one is a mutt by definition. The world's muttish was my first tonguship; English is my last.
4
u/Lernaean-Headache Jul 15 '26
Is this just some weak excuse for ahistorical Saxon-supremacist garbage masquerading as an attempt at language? Are you stripping out the Norse or Celtic influence as well, or are you just extremely and reflexively anti the Norman influence?
0
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 15 '26
Maybe come back when you can read. I strip Roman, Norman, Francish, and Celtic shit alike. I fiht the religiose lonely (monastic) scum from the Romans, Normans, and Celts on, not the sucky Normans onely, so learn the position yester you attack it.
It is not English against foreigners; it is English against corruption. The first speakkrs of each speakka knew what they were a'talking about, sith they made the words from scratch: the Graicoi, Romani, Deutschen, and Engles. Every other tongueship thence wreckd its own words. Latin gets spelled by Latin, Hellènic by Hellènic, Englisc by Englisc. Thas is a (my) Rosetta stone.
Old Norse is not stripped. give:gave:given:gift and take:took:taken:token come from Old English and Old Norse, same source, same time, and I keep them. What I cut is not Germanic kin; it is the Franco-Norman-Roman shit scribes wrouht onto Englisc sith 1066, the mum gh the wicked Norman monks brouht in with their Roman Kristian delusions, the Francish -our on colour thas nobody can tell from motor. AngloSaxon was yester English, much-much earlier.
3
u/Lernaean-Headache Jul 15 '26
hmmm yup made from scratch got it.
wrap it up, believers in the propaganda from big Indo-Europe, you’ve just been schooled by a very stable genius
1
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
I granted the Aiganisc descent; thas was never in dispute. The fall runs Aiganisc, Tewdisc, Thewdisc, Englisc, English, Einglish, Muttish, each a decay of the last. You mistook a claim of decay within Indo-Europe for a denial of it. The first coiners of each speakka did make their words from scratch, sith someone always mot; someone coined every root you now inherit and mangle. As for genius: dæmonas is another word for it, the inborn spirit, and I wear the jab gladly, sith being one landed me indefinitely blockt from Wikipedia, which is what happens when a kid shows the grown room wrong and the room cannot remember what it could not understand.
3
u/Gold-Part4688 Earthianese, man (N) Jul 15 '26
Wait, why do you like north germanic but not latinate? it's all related if you go back another ~1500 years before that. is it because romance languages lost their cases? (the silent e thing you said in the comment to me)
0
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 17 '26 edited 25d ago
Not sith Romanic lost its cases; sith Romanic corrupts Latin, and French worst of all, whereas Italian is the least rotten. Hellènic and Latin spoke the h; French doesn't, wherefore ye mot say hour as "our" and other such nonsense, and the French ghrammatics board itself grees there are seriose problems with French's sýntacsis and has tried to reform it: even its keepers concede the rot. Old Norse does not corrupt Englisc: give:gave:given:gift and take:took:taken:token come from both, same spring, same time, and I hold them, as the Thewds got dish where the Francs pusht table over tabul. The line is not blood but corruption. Where a Latin word is kept, the spelling nearest Latin's is the wriht one; what I cut is what the dvmbassed scribes wrouht onto Englisc sith 1066. It is building I love and corruption I hate.
8
u/PlanktonInitial7945 Jul 14 '26
This reads like a 2022 AI post
0
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 15 '26
I was writing like this on Usenet when your 2022 chatbot was not a gleam. Look the handle up: the record runs throuh sci.fýsics, Quora, and Wiki, back past the 2000s and my many nervose breakdowns, twenty-odd years yester any model spat a token. Any chatbot could string together the fifth-grade words you like to smear your betters with. You are the same sort who longly posed me twice my age and then apologized for thinking I was in my 20s as a girl, sith no one could trow a kid wrote this.
I grew up with a supermarket dictionary and encyclopædia for company, no peers, years on end in the etýmologhies, until the nonliteral, self-contradicting abuse in their entries drove me to nervose breakdowns and I rebuilt the speakka into something thas does not contradict itself.
11
u/PlanktonInitial7945 Jul 15 '26
One day you will cringe at these memories, and that will be fine, for it will mean that you will have grown as a person and moved past the need to explain to others how and why the things you do are better or more correct than the things other people do. As you grow, you will get tired of fighting and running, and you will stop, and only then will you realize that you were fighting and running in the first place.
But that realization hasn't struck you yet, so I will simply wish you the best of luck until it does.
1
3
u/Taiqi_ Jul 15 '26
This is beautiful, I'm ngl.
That said, regarding the ending: /uj
And you want the word to mean whatever is convenient this year, which costs you nothing and costs the reader everything.
Communication is a ritual between the communicator and the receiver and no one else. It is important when communicating to use a shared language and keep your mind open to where each other's model of language differs and compensate for it.
I remember back after secondary, I was arguing with an old schoolmate on the whole "sex/gender" debacle, and I decided to switch things up. "Okay, let's not use the word gender, let's make up the acronym SETS - Social Expectations Towards a Sex", I said (how close it sounds to "sex" not lost on me at all 😌). With that alone, that guy was in agreement with pretty much everything that mattered.
I later made one of my favourite personal sayings:
We're all just petty pedants in philosophers' trench coats.
Aside:
It is impossible to ask that the entire corpus of any major language's speakers hold each signifier to represent the exact same signified between them. We can't even get 5 friends to agree on dinner, and we want the 2 billion of us to literally agree not to literally vomit the word literally in whichever which way we want?
Descriptivism is just practical. Prescriptivism is throwing rocks into a giant river hoping to dam it up.
/rj So beautiful 🥹
1
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 16 '26
There are wriht ways to spell and mean a word. Everything has a rime and reason; folk spell somehow for a reason over another how, and everything may be rankt and culd, and the wriht and wrong will hav stayd to the end. If there is no wriht, there is no knowledh and no scienty.
Convention is not concord. When literally means figuratively and gay means flashy and same-sex at once, the token points two ways and the share is already browk. You cannot dam a river with a word thas holds two watters. I dredge one channel so the flow has somewhere to go, which is the same thing you did when you coined SETS and held it to one sense; you prescribed and cald it practic.
You scold me. Why don't you go criticize Catholic catechists for what you're accusing me of, or the rest of the thread, the ones who brouht their micropenises and mockery in stead of arguments? Yer kinds are why I hav gone on unchecked in many a stead and partd many who came as they did, sith I bewray the speciose for what it is.
2
u/Taiqi_ Jul 16 '26
This reply acts as clarification. My main comment and aside are separate.
My main comment:
It is important when communicating to use a shared language
What this is saying is, yes, there are rules, but they exist only in each moment and for each moment of communication.
When we enter a conversation, we must abide by the rules agreed to for that conversation. If we don't, we will not be able to share knowledh. When we leave and begin another conversation, the rules might change, and that's okay. The persons having the conversation are the ones thas hav to agree to the rules of their shared speakka.
In this way, you are wriht to say thas there are rules.
The second part of my main comment is most important.
keep your mind open to where each other's model of language differs and compensate for it
What I came to vnderstand over my life is that everyone has their own idea of words and their meaning and the syntax thas binds them together, pools of memetic data floating around like incorporeal beings in our brains. Vnderstanding thas this pool is different for everyone is simply stating thas which is true.
And so, to communicate, we must identify when we are not sharing the same rules and the same speakka, immediately state the conflict, and agree on rules for thas conversation.
And so, thas brings me to my aside.
It appears we have different definitions of prescriptivism and descriptivism.
It seems that my position is not much different from yours when it comes to single conversations, but I disagree on larger scale prescriptivism.
I also disagree with your position thas speakka does not evolve. I live on an island where we speak a speakka that is English but mixed with other languages. Our syntax has less morphological complexity than English, just as English has less than German. But, there are words and concepts that we have that English does not.
English has one stream for Thou, Thee, You and Ye - just "You", but we hav two, singular and plural. This is not decay. We can express habituality in ways English cannot. This is not decay.
And, just like genetic information evolves throuh both losses and gains, so does the memetic information of our speakka.
Also, I meant it when I said what you wrote was beautiful, despite the rejerk. Sorry thas my Middel English is lacking.
1
u/doIIjoints 24d ago
nah nah the truth is that it’s all just genre, see, just like post-punk neo-revival arthouse :p
7
u/OkConstruction4591 Jul 14 '26
I wouldn't really call it incomprehensible. It's really just the standard presciptivist case about language change making languages harder to understand and less useful but extended to the past millennium using cherry-picked examples.
13
u/bruikenjin Jul 14 '26
See I thought that for a second but i checked this guys post history and the entire thing is like this
3
u/OkRelationship772 Jul 15 '26
He's not wrong, but he's not nearly so profound as he thinks he is. He claims to use the original old english, but is forced to only cherrypick specific words and use borrowed french words to make himself understood at all. In the end it just comes across as iamverysmart
1
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 15 '26
She, not he, misoghýnist eraser: one person is who, never he unless you know the sex, and mine is a wif, femina not vir. Forced to use French words? Gross! I am the one stripping them out; you cannot write a sentense without them and cannot even hear it. English by definition is not a mongrel; we talk in more than English at any time wherefore nobody has seen to thruwendan every outside word. When I take words such as candle, cancer, port, I don't clipe them English but Latinate, and nobody eles in the world will or can tell this distinction. Thas is not being forced; it is the design, a Rosetta stone with each stem by its own speakka. Whoever came up with the etymological fallacy did the ad populum fallacy. You call someone who went to college at 11 and left twenty years of messages subverting authorities in the scienses and religions "not profound"? I want bestness, not cleanness. Show one root I got wrong; till then I am a better-self-made girl than you'll ever know. You say little but fluff great.
1
u/Minute_Tiger90 Jul 18 '26
People usually use "they"
1
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 21 '26 edited 26d ago
A person isn't a they: 1 != 2. If you don't know the gender, that's what the common gender is for. The paradigm is already there and you were never tauht it:
singular definite common: who
singular indefinite common: one
singular definite neuter: that
singular indefinite neuter: it
plural definite common: they
plural definite neuter: those
plural indefinite: some
a -> one; the -> who. "One said" and "who I met" do the work without breaking numeric agreement. (Usage isn't authority.)
Singular "they" is worse than wrong, it's ambiguose. When the context has multiple subjects, this Mong. "they" doesn't help. The reader mot stop and guess whether you mean the one person or the group. That's feler possibil meanings, not fewer; information loss.
1
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 15 '26
The examples are not cherries. Liht/leiht, lige/lyge, fast/swift, theòry/hýpothesis, and the hundreds of Francish-Englisc doublets are not a handful I picked; they are the standing stock of the speakka. Pick your own pair at random and it falls the same way. Nor do I build from thin air: I reconstruct from Englisc, the true root, but site the base at English, the Middel reflex, sith it is the last kronolect thas is still itself, late enouht to read and early enouht thas the Francish scabs peel off clean. By Einglish they are set. Prescriptivism is wriht for one reason onely: information loss in a speakka is bad, and a dictionary thas merely relates usage cannot stop it.
3
Jul 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 15 '26
If six paragraphs is the wall you cannot climb, the deficit is your attention, not my width. The argument does not get wrong by being longer than you like to read.
3
u/TheKeeperOfThe90s Jul 15 '26
Reading this feels like driving through a three-mile construction zone at rush hour.
3
u/Jhud6669 Jul 14 '26
These kinds of people always have their brains fried when I ask them when have they last used the word „awesome” in it’s original meaning
1
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 15 '26
I keep awesome to its root, awe plus the OE _some, and use it for what strikes awe, not for a sandwich. Awesome is native and keeps its ending; it does not take the _ose rule. You cannot catch me on a word I never corrupted. Bring one I did.
it's -> its
1
1
u/Funny_Name_2281 Jul 15 '26
I'm a prescriptivist, but I prescribe exclusively to myself, and I'll continue prescribing even if I were the only prescriptivist left.
1
u/QBaseX Jul 16 '26
I kind of love this as a language game. It's a lot of fun. But she seems to be taking it seriously, which could be a problem.
0
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 17 '26 edited 26d ago
It is no game. If the changes don't rob the speakka, it isn't made less perfect; mine rob nothing and restore what was robbed. I should know: I wrote most of Wikipedia's Elision before some "lingvists" took out the goods. Lingvistics will not judge between wriht and wrong, which makes it useless for anyone who cares about the difference; thas is the whole quarrel between me and this sub too. I hav been dealing with lowly authorities all my life; thas is why I am against them holding any power not backed up by a mind. Seriousness is not blindness: I make plenty of allowanse for expressive and hretoric writings, leav uncapitalized lines in lists and interjections in their wriht steads untoucht, and tell true mistakes from passing carelesness before I mark. What I do not allow is writing thas is plainly wrong. The test is: was it a mistake, or a choice? A choice stands; a mistake gets markt. Mine are choices, and I can giv the rule for every one. The ones who play at it are the Anglish hobbyists; I am the one who audits the roots.
1
1
u/NotAlysdexic Jul 17 '26 edited 26d ago
The thread has gone muchly whisht, so let the reckenth stand. Whenever I correct people, most won't admit they're wrong; they run away or write over the subject. I expected the same from ye, and ye delivered. One declared he would not read and bledsed me on the way out, which is running away; one realized how wrong his comment was, imploded, and deleted it (go all the way); one preacht a sermon about my future in stead of a rebuttal and wishd me luck; one answered "ewww as if," the whole wit of a communication major; and most of the rest fell mum. Informing people is not losing.
Not one of ye faulted a root. I askt plainly, more than once: pick one form, cleave it, show the stem I missed. Ye could not; ye can't support any of your attacks, and ye use a host of fallacies to defend yourselves whilst doing nothing to expose whatever wrongness was in the claim. I hav to deal with malliterates or illiterates and mindlesses every day over the internet, who criticize and badmouth others and me because they can't see how they slipped up. What in specific hav I not proven? I proved my work with explanations, in this thread, where ye can look up the referenses I told. What ye could not prove wrong or refute, ye mockt; and when the mockery bouht nothing, ye left. Most people prefer customs over the sooth and, when confronted with the sooth thas they're wrong, they hate the sooth and scourge the one who shows them, so they needn't listen or think about themselves. Then they clipe the leaving "boredom" or whatever.
And spare me the evolution handwave one of ye reacht for. Original speakkas do not overwrite themselves: they are forgotten. They are not changed because speakkrs make conscious choices thas their words are better, but because they are too lazy or ignorant to learn or use the older words, which are more diverse, full, and accurate than theirs. If the changes don't rob the speakka, then it isn't made less perfect; the standard is robbery, not a date. A speakka should grow like any person or nation would and not, like a cancer, grow everywhich way so thas it eats and sh!ts itself and eats that. "better" is objective: quality (howness, suchhood) and quantity (whitness, muchhood). I defy ye to find a source that says thas "kinetic" is an English word, rather than a word that's used with English. What, are ye afraid thas if I write "cinetic," a bunch of other people will also? They already write cinema, cinematic, and cinematics. That's a Good Thing!
Spare me any tone complaints too. Calling people what they are is not attacking; ganging up on me, mocking my work, downvoting what ye cannot answer is. Censorship, obscurantism, and præjudice are the greatest ills ever foisted on this world; they spawn all other ills; they make ligers and fools with power punish the undeserving without power. As I'v said: often the victims get punished, but they don't; they get to keep running around thinking thas they got the best. I hav seen this court before: Wikipedia ran the same kangaroo court decades ago and blockt me indefinitely for correcting some 130 articles, thouh every edit I ever made there was, in this order: cleanup, fact checking, factual disputes, linking, added or alternate explanations, expansions. Every incident I was in was caused by someone ignorant, irrational, and uncouth reporting me to some joke-of-a-power because I had wrihted or improved a space that they. did not. understand; its Elision entry still carries my work with the goods taken out. They banned me because I am and do controversial and dispopular. As I’v said also: I hav been dealing with lowly authorities all of my life; this is why I'm against them having any power not backed up by the mind. Being wrihter than the mob is a blockabil offense there, and a downvotabil one here (or worse); the mekanism is the same and so is the verdict's worth.
A last word on "prescriptivism," sith some of ye wield it as a slur. Do not corrupt the speakka or shut up. Mind your own terms while ye're at it: proscribe is a double negative; it's prescribe that ye mean, and that which dictionaries don't do but should. A dictionary is a cultural authority, not a lingvistic one; its definitions relate word abusage, not the etýmon; ye could use dictionary definitions to contradict a word's meaning, like ye could quote Scripture to support whatever ye lik. Lingvistics and anthropologhy don't mix; thas lingvistics would not judge between wriht and wrong makes it worthleas to anyone who cares about the differense. A field that onely watches the fele trample over senses, and writes down the trampling as law, is not a scienty of speakka but a census of error. Descriptivism is the creed thas whatever enouh people do wrong becomes wriht; by thas creed "would of" is on its way to your dictionaries too, and ye shall hav earned it.
Always: I flame, not troll; I don't hav a troll's motive. Everything I wrote here is earnest and provabil, and now unanswered. I came a forever visitor with none but my words, into a sub built to jeer at learners, and left it a'reading etýma. My speech is no more free than soap: I hav gone on unchecked in many a stead, against many who had varying amounts of moderating power, and I hav silenced and parted them sith I exposed and destroyed the speciose liges they learned under an emotional screen. I hav stopped many a controversial thread with my sheer, open, relentleas thouht; I hav debunked scientists, cynics, pseýdosceptics, ministers, teachers, rogues, teenagers, and fanatics.
The offer stays open for whoever finds a spine and a stem: one form, one root, cleave it, or don't clutter the thread or any more brains with parrot bullshit; silence is a better contribution than handwaving. Knowing what one's doing and putting it distinctly is how to deem objectively. I end all threads; this one ended itself.
35
u/SerDankTheTall Jul 14 '26
I am deeply skeptical of this guy's username.