no okay but here’s the thing about language.

it’s one thing to police spelling and grammar; it’s a douchebag thing to do, especially if you’re using it as a means of refuting an argument (“you spelled that word wrong, therefore I don’t have to listen to you!” that’s not an argument. even worse is “you used the wrong form of there/their/they’re, therefore you’re stupid, therefore you’re wrong,” which is not only an invalid argument, but ableist to boot!)—but, using “nonstandard” spelling and grammar can contribute to a loss of understanding and can bar effective communication. the reason we have a distinction between “there,” “their,” and “they’re” is to prevent ambiguous sentences! and the fact that they come from completely different roots, but, w/e.

the point is, effective communication by using “standard” spelling and grammar is cool and should be encouraged! whining about improper comma usage that, while breaking all the rules you might have learned in sixth grade, doesn’t create an ambiguous message, is not cool! and it also prevents a lot of freedom in creative writing, where breaking the rules of grammar is often required in order to convey a certain concept (see: my tendency to express a character’s thought process by use of lots of clauses with no periods, creating a rambling but still somewhat linear tone).

what I really take an issue with is people actively preventing the evolution of language—trying to stamp out neologisms, saying the use of a word that’s taken on a new definition over time is “wrong,” saying that any deviation from “standard” english (which, by the way, what? english has been evolving and changing since before it was called english. do we still write like chaucer? like shakespeare? give it a few centuries and people will have to re-transcribe and translate our english into whatever form of english they’ll use in the future, the same as we have to do with beowulf.

and that’s okay.

it’s beautiful. linguists are going to find the evolution of emoticons and hashtags and txtspk fascinating years from now. I certainly do!



a really good post about something other than the current shitstorm

seriously this is great and pretty much 100% my opinion


Language is not a constant unchanging thing that needs to be safeguarded, every language evolves as culture changes and that’s okay and that’s good. 

this is great

i reserve the right to get angry about people using the word decimate wrong though (it means to remove one tenth)

because it’s one of my favourite pet peeves

and it makes that moment when the master says it right all the more awesome

  1. ultralaser reblogged this from isabelthespy
  2. this-is-ryan reblogged this from ultralaser
  3. florentia-mitchell reblogged this from reijys
  4. amalia-hartman reblogged this from blue-author
  5. queercommunist reblogged this from literarybinge and added:
    There’s also ableism in saying someone’s argument is wrong because their grammar or spelling is. People with...
  6. literarybinge reblogged this from isabelthespy
  7. null-set reblogged this from blue-author and added:
    The problem with using “literally” as a generic intensifier is that it dilutes the power of the word to disambiguate a...
  8. jenny-sparks reblogged this from autisticmerrill
  9. iwaharamovin reblogged this from unbrokencircle
  10. zakkazuki reblogged this from unbrokencircle and added:
    Beautiful posts! I love watching language evolve.
  11. unbrokencircle reblogged this from drbrucebananer
  12. needlesslydefiantwithtea reblogged this from megaparsecs and added:
    this is great i reserve the right to get angry about people using the word decimate wrong though (it means to remove one...
  13. spaceshipmatria reblogged this from isabelthespy and added:
  14. isabelthespy reblogged this from girlboymusic and added:
    well played.
  15. nocturnallyabuzz reblogged this from blue-author
  16. thewatermonchichi said: I lurve you and your language feels!
  17. blue-author reblogged this from ashleyrealitymurphy and added:
    First, a nitpick. Nobody uses literally to mean figuratively. They aren’t throwing the word “literally” into the...
  18. ashleyrealitymurphy reblogged this from blue-author and added:
    and yet, I cannot abide some things. the meaning of “literally” must not be allowed to become “figuratively.”
  19. tissuefox reblogged this from protectnatashahamilton
  20. autisticmerrill reblogged this from protectnatashahamilton
  21. ahumanhurricane reblogged this from protectnatashahamilton
  22. fallingaparttocuttime posted this