Skip to main content


It's common, I think, to learn the rules of grammar, become a linguistic prescriptivist, and then learn about dialect and evolution of language and become a linguistic descriptivist.

Sometimes I feel like the latter correction overcorrects, and becomes something like "you're not allowed to have opinions about how people use language, or exert pressure to try to get it to be used in a particular way". But of course the process of language evolution you just learned about is exactly the result of people doing this! You relate to it a bit differently from the prescriptivists, as a language designer rather than a blind enforcer, but you have as much of a right to do language design and advocate for your design as anyone else.

in reply to Ben Millwood

the draft post in my head had a digression on how linguistic attitudes could be ordinal-indexed, where realising that level N was part of the process was level N+1, realising the attitudes could be indexed by natural numbers was level ω, etc. but I decided this was silly and cut it