• jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    61·
    23 hours ago

    So long as you’re understood, it’s fine.

    Burying the lede here.

    But also like language shapes the way we think. If you just let all your words boil down into “good” and “ungood”, you’re reducing your tools for thinking. 1984 and The Dispossessed are great books, by the way.

    • audaxdreik@pawb.socialEnglish
      12·
      22 hours ago

      Lol, wut?

      Burying the lede here.

      I don’t think this is the expression you intended to use, or if it was, you used it poorly.

      In my post I:

      1. Open by indicating that I think it is foolish to enforce strict language standards
      2. Affirm this point by saying that the primary purpose is to simply be understood
      3. Expand on this point by saying I think it’s cool that language evolves

      Where did you even pull that “good” and “ungood” dichotomy from?! Don’t be smarmy and quote high school literature reading lists at me. But if that’s the extent of your repertoire, perhaps I have some recommendations for you 🫤

      • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
        5·
        19 hours ago

        You say it’s foolish to enforce strict language standards, but the most important thing about language is that it is understood. You buried that point in the middle of your second paragraph.

        Did you read 1984? It has a major thread though it about how collapsing language reduces the ability of people to think. One of the first and most prominent examples in the book is replacing the many words for “good” and “bad” (eg: great, amazing, excellent, terrible, atrocious, etc) with simply “good” and “ungood”. Similarly, the dispossed has some writing in it about how language shapes thought. For example, the prevalence or absence of possessive forms (eg: my house vs the house I stay in)

        The reason I used “good” and “ungood” is because those are the preeminent examples in 1984. They’re not a judgement of your post.

        I’m not sure why you’re dismissive of “high school reading lists”, but you are coming off as someone who might actually be a high schooler. Your last emoji didn’t render, so maybe that would’ve changed the meaning.

        • audaxdreik@pawb.socialEnglish
          3·
          19 hours ago

          Alright, chilling out for a second, I understand your point better. Thank you for the additional information.

          I do still feel we may fundamentally disagree though.

          It’s honestly been a good long while since I read 1984, but I think my interpretation was different. You use the word “collapsing” but Newspeak was a more intentional reinforcing through rigid structure. They purposefully reduced the language to good and ungood as a direct means to smooth out the nuance.

          In essence I’m contesting that strict language standards are necessary to be understood. I mean, of course some standards are still required, just not strict enough to be all uptight about it when people start to bend them. The fluid nature of language is what allows it to evolve and I think stifling that evolution is both foolish and downright impossible in the long run. The advent of the internet and social media speeds things up.

          Let’s set aside the stupid TikTok censorship stuff for the moment because that has it’s its (ah fuck, don’t crucify me) own unique motivation. Slop as a noun has existed for a long while with its set definition. The modern use of it has evolved this new connotation to specifically imply something is rushed, derivative, or overabundant. As people start to apply it in more situations, it shows an understanding of those new connotations even when they haven’t been directly communicated. I think that’s cool. I think that shows a deeper understanding of how language moves and is shaped than strict adherence to definitions. True, eventually its overuse may dull the meaning a bit, but by allowing language to be continually fluid we leave the door open for other new wordly innovations.

          But again, I aim’t not linguist.

          • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
            3·
            18 hours ago

            Thanks for the reasonable response.

            In essence I’m contesting that strict language standards are necessary to be understood. I mean, of course some standards are still required, just not strict enough to be all uptight about it when people start to bend them.

            We agree on this, I think. I’m mostly a linguistic descriptivist - that is, language is what people speak more than what’s written in a rulebook somewhere. I’m not a linguist but I have an undergraduate degree that required some courses on English language.

            It can be annoying when there’s a word for something (eg: enshittification, gaslighting, woke) and people then over extend it to mean “things i don’t like”. There’s not much to stop that, other than as an individual trying to be more precise in language. I think it’s not good for one’s brain to only have a few catch-all words for stuff.

            I think “slop” specifically is a very old word (1400ce, if etymology online is to be trusted). But like if there was a word for “low quality LLM content” (let’s say… slopplement), applying that to any low quality writing would kind of suck. it would almost certainly happen, though, because all of us humans are kind of lazy.

            Anyway. We mostly agree. I would just recommend being mindful of one’s word choices, because a narrow vocabulary can be a drag on thinking and communication.