Talk:language maven

RFD discussion: August 2020–January 2021
Added in 2005, before our current rules were in place, with a subtly misleading definition. I have corrected the definition to demonstrate that it is straightforwardly SOP. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But your new definition isn't right. A language maven isn't an actual expert on language (those are called linguists). A language maven is someone, usually a journalist, who has strongly held prescriptivist opinions on language. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's how Pinker uses it, and arguably Safire as well (though Pinker means it as a bad thing and Safire as a good thing, so it's not entirely clear their definitions are the same). Those are usually not independent; search with  and you get quotes like this: "It would take a very imaginative language maven indeed to explain satisfactorily why the part of a car that covers either the engine or the luggage compartment is called a “bonnet” in the U.K. and a “hood” in the United States." Now it's clearly just a maven in the area of language. You might be forgetting, by the way, that most people never come into contact with linguists, so their conception of a language expert is an English teacher or copy editor rather than an academic who studies syntax theory. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether our users have heard of linguists or not, we won't be doing them any favors by suggesting that someone like is an "expert" in an area he knows nothing about. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * People are referred to all the time as “computer mavens” in news items although they don’t know *xcr*m*nt – or perhaps just a trick or two. Come to think about it, most ”health experts” aren’t. Many so-called “fair trials” are nor fair, if only because the jury was not impartial, or else because both the defence and the judge were grossly incompetent, Does that mean we should adjust the definitions, or do these merely reflect what people mean when they use these terms, whether their judgement is correct or not? --Lambiam 15:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The journalists (also in Germany) constantly cite certain “experts”, too, which aren’t really representative of any science. The journalists constantly use words in meanings they don’t have or without knowing their meaning, and constantly repeat the same designations, apparently having considerable language-impairments, or indeed they are lying, for someone is elevated to an expert or maven because he is most available for interviews. The requirements for becoming a journalist are very low in the 21st century. Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * People are also incorrectly referred to by ignorant journalists as "computer experts" or "computer gurus". This does not mean the word has a different sense; it just means that journos can't tell an expert from an ex-parrot. Equinox ◑ 17:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this is sum of parts, if we assume that "maven" has implications of "(self-declared) expert", which I think it does. Ƿidsiþ 06:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP per Widsith. PUC – 10:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. The term "maven" may imply the expert is self-described, as Widsith suggests, or it may simply be used inaccurately sometimes, but I think "langage maven" is SOP in any case. - -sche (discuss) 01:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)