clong critic

Oh por Dios, esto suena hermoso. Casi mágico (╯▽╰ )

"Featural scripts are cool. So I made one!" -almost every conlanger, ever -practically just Korea in real life

Sounds beautiful. Kind of like Welsh and Spanish and Farsi combined.

In romanian, I find that it s really common. But I don t even think I m referring to the same thing as the one explained in the video. We have pronouns and "polite" pronouns. Meaning we use he/him when talking about someone close and they/them if they re of higher status than us. Though, in recent years, it s less commonly used among people, but the majority still uses them. Also, they re a must when typing / in some parts of literature. I find that it s similar to how it is in japanese. Anyways, I m pretty sure I m referring to a different thing than the one mentioned in the video. Sorry for rambling.

Interesting project. Curiously, I had an idea of similar point of departure but with a very different result. If Rome decisively lost war with Sassanids, there wouldn't be Arab conquest, because Persia would not be exhausted from decades of fighting, as it was in OTL. In my version of history, Persia rules the Levant and Anatolia, while the Greeks still hold Constantinople and all their European lands. Jews are allowed to rebuild their Temple (again), but are a minority in the large multicultural empire. Majority of Levant speaks a hybrid of Koine Greek and Syriac Aramaic, heavily influenced by Persian, or a Creole with Persian superstrate and Greek and Aramaic substrate. Maybe with some borrowings from Hebrew, Arabic, Latin and Coptic. I haven't done much actual conlanging though, apart from the worldbuilding :D

Always, my waking goal is to tell everyone precisely how to speak at all times 😎

If you are **Really** being a descriptivist, then you realise that prescriptivism is actually another thing that people just naturally do. It's another feature that human languages convey. A true descriptivist would not tell people to stop prescribing language use, as that is prescribing one to not prescribe. Confusing, I know. I'll try wording it better. People across all cultures prescribe how to speak their language, so a true descriptivist would recognise that. Hence, a descriptivist will not stop one from prescribing speech. This is when prescriptivism is OK, when prescriptivism is seen from a descriptive POV. For e.g., saying 'What the sigma' is demolition of culture, is prescriptive - but it is common amongst most cultures to tell the younger generation that they slang they use is bad, and the slang they use(d) OK. A true descriptivist would not prescribe the fact that prescriptivism is bad. Hope it wasn't too confusing.

Prescriptivism is okay when you tell Gen Alpha to stop saying 'What the skibidi ohio sigma rizz' (Just a joke)

Pronouns are defined to convey meaning in all languages. Even if a certain individual wishes to deceive others, that does not grant that person the right to compel others to engage in that same deceptive behaviour.

it sounds so good! usually with conlangs, especially with those made for fantasy, there's just something off with how they sound and you can discern they aren't real languages. but here, at the beginning of the video I could close my eyes and imagine that this was a video from an exotic country, it just sounded so real

I think a lot of this hinges on what "prescriptivism" and "descriptivism" even mean. I don't think linguists are under any illusion that there is no such thing as "incorrect" use of language, they just think that the boundary between correct and incorrect is innate to native speakers. The phrase "I didn't do nothing" might rile your average boomer, but most speakers of english will understand it as belonging to a different dialect. On the other hand, for the sake of example, something like "I didn't nothing" would be immediately clocked by virtually all native anglophones as incorrect. To my understanding, the descriptivist approach is all about finding grammatical as fundamentally understood by native speakers. That said, I think most of us linguistically minded folks understand that more formal prescriptivism has its place, depending on motivation. In academic writing, it's common to employ a lot of obtuse latinate terms because they're usually niche enough to have a very precise meaning, and in law, misplaced punctuation can have (and has had) significant consequences on how the law is interpreted in practice. There's a reasonable rationale behind those instances, and in the case of pronouns there's the noble goal of giving respect to folks that wider society is pretty hostile to. The point where it gets kinda stupid is when we're expected to contort english grammar to arbitrary standards because some guy in the 1800s wanted english to be more like latin.

Skibidi gyatt rizz only in ohio rizzing up baby gronk sussy imposter grindset freddy fazbear literally hitting the griddy whopper whopper whopper whopper 1 2 buckle my shoe goofy ahh ugandan knuckles family guy funny moments compilation with subway surfers gameplay backrooms gigachad based cringe kino redpilled literally 1984 mrbeast kid named finger fanum tax toilet.

How do we rectify this as linguists? Simple, by not denying reality. The reason it's an "exception" is because there is a violent movement out there that threatens us with violence for not saying things that are blatantly untrue. The reason you're a prescriptivist in this situation is because social pressure demands you contradict reality with nice words. It's not any more or less wrong than others, it's just that you get cancelled if you don't do it. Besides, saying that there is no right or wrong way to speak might have something to do with the falling literacy rates of the US...maybe there's a reason why we all agreed on a code of communication instead of being unique pink unicorns and not being able to communicate.

I think the real problem with this question, and why it's so hard to try and answer without making contradictions or cornering yourself into a subjectively stupid position is that "ok" is subjective. Peoples' priorities can be incompatible. I read someone saying it was about consent, that Harry wouldn't consent to being called anything but "they". But you can say the same for the narrator's Mother, that she doesn't consent to calling Harry "they". And consent over what you're called surely can't outweigh consent over the words you say, or vice versa. In this case I think there's really no objective scientific way to resolve the issue. A whole lifetime of experiences and thoughts have gone into shaping both Harry's and the narrator's Mum's opinions, and it can't be said in general that prescriptionism in either direction is worse than the other. I'm rambling, but what I'm trying to say is that none of the attempts at explanations in the comments are satisfactory to me, so I've decided this problem is poorly framed and/or unsolvable.

Thank you for decribing by main beef with self-styled descriptivists, who, as soon as a field comes up that matters to them, suddenly are anything but. It's egotism, pure and simple - my hobbyhorse matters, not yours!

I’m no linguist, but I always interpreted descriptivism as something more like “any linguistic path you take to get your point across is valid as long as your audience understands your point.” In other words, a language is defined not just by the specific linguistic rules humans set up for it, but also the naturally occurring, often unspoken rules that determine interpret what you say. In the case of pronouns here, I would argue the two aren’t arguing about how they’re speaking, but instead the actual content of what they’re saying. While the primary function of what the mom is saying is to ask a question, on a secondary level, her use of pronouns is clearly trying to say that she believes Harry (rest in peace) is a man. The son, does not believe Harry is a man, so the message delivered by his mom’s words doesn’t align with his world view. Therefore, he’s attempting to correct her message, not her understanding of language.

Your premise is that prescriptivism is self-evidently bad. It's not.

Jasmijin (The top comment rn) got at it pretty well. Descriptivism is literally about DESCRIBING. It's about how people USE the words. Your mother using "He" would not be described by a descriptivist as "wrong" it would be described as "Ignorance of preferred pronouns or a statement against their use." As for when it is okay to tell people what words to use? That basically comes down to practicality and ethics. If you're trying to communicate with French speaking people but you're using Italian words, then it would be practical to tell you what words to use. If you're trying not to be a racist bigot, then it would be ethical to tell you not to use slurs. If I'm tryna order a fuggin sammwish from ma bro at the deli? Bish i don't got no time to fo your bish ass corrections! Did ma bro know what sammwish I wanted? Then words did do their job well now didn ey?

I'm so glad living in a country with a language that has neuter pronouns, so i don't need to dealt with this crap 😎

Say whatever you want just be aware that i dont like bigots xd

When you tell your mom Harry's a they you're describing language as it's used by the person in question, whereas your mom is prescribing gendered pronouns where they aren't used because she thinks they should be. The argument you're presenting here reminds me of arguments certain people make about tolerance, and how tolerant societies don't actually exist because they can't tolerate intolerance. Descriptivists can't exist because they're always prescribing descriptivism to prescriptivists. blah blah blah. And it's already been pointed out that your depiction of descriptivism is imprecise.

Prescriptivist here. This is really interesting and thoughtful. But i do not think that the object of a pronoun can dictate the use of a pronoun. The pronoun is a shortcut and aid for the speaker and "their" (indefinite singular) listener--even how another person or the society broadly uses a pronoun to describe them is not theirs to control. I also don't think that the mother in this example is purposely inflexible; she may use a different pronoun in light of her son's explanation. She will have to decide for herself, just as her son did, if she is using the correct pronoun. The son who wants to have her use "they" in a non-standard way has offered a good rationale: my friend prefers it or doesn't want to be associated with a masculine identity. (Even though "they" was used in the past only to reference an individual of unknown gender, not to someone who wanted to subvert the gender binary.) Prescriptivism isn't about controling or imposing, rather it is insting that words have meanings, specific symbols have specific referents. The pronouns above assume the mother is a "she," the son is a "he," and the hypothetical object of my example (they) is of an undetermined gender. These shortcuts are available to all speakers without having to ask about someone's subjective mental state or feelings at every turn. Both the mother and son are agreeing that words have both meaning and reference to objective reality. The question remains for the broader society: is someone a "they" because they prefer the term?

You can correct someone for calling a trans man "she" (or even a cis man), for using a term which is now considered a slur, or for simply saying something insulting. In those cases the correction because the usage of English is wrong, but instead because the meaning being conveyed is hurtful.

This is no joke. This is ART and it is super duper fly! Bless people with an interest in both music and ancient languages. How long does it take to write the lyrics for a project like this?

Im a linguistics nerd they/them who has gotten in trouble with other non-binary and agender friends because I refuse to "correct" people who use she/her or he/him. This video is going to be super helpful in helping those friends understand my position better! I can think of three reasons to describe descriptivists as mythical despite their existence: 1 - to try and bait people who falsely claim the title into revealing themselves 2 - youve never met one irl so doubt their existence 3 - because its not natural so people who truly live life as descriptivist still hear things as wrong the first time theyre exposed to new changes in language Curious which reasoning was used in this video or what other reasons people can think of?

In issues like this where you get conflicts, the definition is too broad

This isn't a new thing with pronouns. It's fundamental to seccond-language education. You can't teach someone French by saying "eh, do whatever you want and I'll observe your struggles". "Prescriptivism" is OK, and necessary, when you want to tell someone how to function within the systems that already exist, rather than changing those systems. I.e., what you are describing is not prescriptiv-ism, it is the practical application of knowledge obtained through descriptivism.

I'm not a linguist, so I don't know how exactly "prescriptivism" is designed, but I think there is a clear difference between telling someone that they shouldn't say something because it's "grammatically incorrect" or even "factually incorrect" and telling someone they shouldn't say something because it's "hurtful", which I think is generally the intended meaning when people say things like "Harry goes by "they" so you should use "they". So I don't think that would qualify as "prescriptivism", unless the argument is that telling someone not to hurt people using language is inherently prescriptivist.

Just follow standard English teach from school. Bad at learning grammar isnt an excuse to create new word and avoid the problem. Literally just a grammar issue.

I don't believe in either descriptivism or prescriptivism. I believe in being descriptive in linguistics and prescriptive when we're considering speech as a part of our culture including the ethics as well as practicalities of particular usages. Why be descriptive in linguistics? Because linguistics as a social science is interested in the facts about how language actually works, and doesn't make that conditional on what anyone's judgements about it are. It deals with forms that are prestige, forms that are looked down on, it even has to deal with things like overcorrections or spelling pronunciations, and in all this it doesn't judge, just describes. But the fact that linguistics has to be descriptive doesn't mean *we* all have to be descriptive, all the time. Even linguists can be prescriptive in appropriate situations. An example is gender pronouns as in the video: whether you believe "they" should be used for particular non-binary people, or only for particular pluralities of people and maybe indefinite references in the singular, you're prescribing. Even if you say "It doesn't really matter, say whatever you want to say..." you're actually prescribing a linguistic course of action. Truly being descriptive would to offer no rule at all. There are actually many situations in which we are being prescriptive. Examples that have less to do with ethics and more to do with practical considerations include rewriting a text for tone, clarity, conciseness, (im)personality, factual accuracy etc. In doing this the rewriter is judging that some linguistic choices are better than others, within a given context of purpose. The whole profession of copy-editing is essentially linguistic prescriptivism. It's not just about English teachers and self-appointed grammar pedants. If we were to say there should be no language prescription then we could write a formal speech in the most informal language and we could not say that was 'wrong'. Not only is this ludicrous, but it does nothing to further the objectivity and scientific rigour of linguistics, which was the whole of descriptivism as an approach when first created.

I love this video! But my solution to the pronouns debate is to remove the concept of gender from the language as a flawed construct... so I've never claimed to be a remotely a descriptivist. I do believe you should be aware of the contexts of how you use words in communication in the interim of fixing the language though and that claiming/informing a preference is different to prescribing a usage - eg: 'Harry claims "they" as their default first person singular pronoun' is a neutral phrase, while 'you must use "they" when you talk about Harry to be grammatically correct' is putting impetus on the person you talk to to change their behaviour. AKA: the first is informing a person how to avoid communicating that they are a troglodite in future communication, while the second gives the impression that there is a factually correct way to describe an individual's gender using language.

This is my first time hearing about this, but wouldn’t prescriptivist’s main concern be language, and your main concern not related to language? In the whom example, there is a grammatical error/disagreement whereas the “they” example is less grammatical and more relating to personal issues. Does this matter?

I would disagree with how you see descriptivism. I think descriptivism (in inguistics) is not used to mean "anything is fine use whatever you want" but a scientific approach: "we're not here to judge people's language, we're just here to learn how people use language". I think a descriptivist can definitely have opinions on language, but they recognise that opinions and preferences are subjective and not objective: you can't measure or prove what the "correct" word to use is. I think instead of "mythical descriptivist", I would just use "mythical anti-prescriptivist" or something.

Thanks for the thought ! I think the boundary is about consent. Consent over one's designation.

I feel like the answer in this case would be: don't be prescriptivist when doing linguistics (like when writing a grammar), but in the case of people merely speaking, prescriptivism is okay (I should define limits regarding obsolete or dragging along archaic parts of language) within reason because that is just something that happens naturally. Language is just a convention, so people are to find common ground to understand eachother.

I like the idea though, combining the logic of hangeul with an interesting shape

genius.

do you still plan on making the other parts?

what if i started each line with “SOS” and ended it with “EOS”. will it have an impact on the model? of course it shouldn’t be added to the word generation part.

This whole story really reminds me of korean

I love that you speak Dorini quickly and without being overly dramatic with your enunciation. i feel like I'm hearing an actual native speaker speak the language!!

17:49 repeating lower() while all of the corpus is in lowercase already 😅

maybe this will fill at least some of the vast void left by the end of conlang critic

i thought this was the mashup of plastic love vocals and never gonna give you up instrumental (mariya astley - plastic you up) bc of the never gonna give you up instrumental at higher pitch in this well interesting singing lol

What is your favorite song if you had to choose one?

this is legendary

Jhopenese alphabet A Be De E Ge Ha I Ka Ele Eme Ene O Pe Ese Te U We Ye Letters in Loanwords Se(C) Epe(F) Yota(J) Kiyu(Q) Ala(R) Po(V) Ekisu(X) Seta(Z)

Jhope conlang It has 18 letters Vowels aeiou Consonants bdghklmnpstwy

My question is. Is it possible to learn some languages of this amazing world? ❤❤❤