User talk:HoggyDog

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * Wiktionary Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to start a page
 * Our format guidelines (nicknamed "ELE")
 * Criteria for inclusion (nicknamed "CFI")
 * Wiktionary Sandbox (a safe place for testing syntax)
 * What Wiktionary is not
 * FAQ

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

I notice you have already found the discussion rooms ;) - 16:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, The!   :-P


 * I'm not new to Wikis, being a frequent participant and contributor to the Oblivion and World of Warcraft Wikis, so I kind of already had a leg up when I landed here- the only thing missing here is the Smiley icons available on the other Wikis in the talk and discussion areas, and, of course, the Userboxes.


 * So I scanned the FAQs and then went straight for the jugular, as it were, the moment I arrived.


 * Thanks again for the welcome, Dave, and I plan to hang around a while, being my usual curmudgeonly (but lovable) self.


 * Doug, aka HoggyDog 18:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

descriptivism
Institutionally, there is a strong non-presecriptivist orientation here, except in regard to inclusion of commercially associated entries, even commonly used trademarks. The non-prescriptivist orientation is partially derived from a more scientific, descriptive approach toward language. It is built into WT:CFI. It is taken as virtually the mission of Wiktionary to include all words in all languages as they are used. We accept a bias toward standard English from reliance on printed works and durably recorded electronic media. You will probably eventually find it quite informative, liberating, and entertaining to simply observe and accurately record the way language is being and has been used. There is no shortage of entries to be improved, but the desired direction of change is toward accurate description of buzzing, blooming confusion rather than presecribing rules which often only reflect the habits, preferences, and whims of particular social groups. It is a more closed cooperative community because we have more substantive rules intimately connected to such questions as "formatting". There are pockets of relative independence in particular specialty areas, most of which are language oriented, but also include some built on subject area expertise. Feel free to touch base with me on any question at my talk page. DCDuring TALK 23:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

more!
Hi, this is getting off-topic to the Tea Room discussion, but I just wanted to say something else on the descrptive v prescriptive thing. Quoting OE and so on is not a way of insisting that every mistake is actually OK, nor am I saying that it is acceptable to say "less words" in an essay or newspaper or other formal document. But the point is that this usage is a kind of conspiracy of society rather than inherent in the language's grammar. People use it and therefore we should record it. Of course, we should also record that it will be frowned-upon in many situations: that is part of the description involved in descriptivism. But what we can't do is say that it's objectively "wrong", that is not our job - nor is it really a meaningful statement.

Like everyone interested in language, I went through a "grammar Nazi" stage. I think the more you know about language the less tenable it becomes. David Crystal's The Fight for English is one of the best books on this subject, if you're interested in this area. Widsith 15:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Widsith, I couldn't agree more with your above-stated philosophy- languge is a "living entity," subject to constant change by its users, etc., and a comprehensive reference (such as this wiki) should be descriptive of both "formal register" (in my world, "correct") usage and "other" less formal (in my world, "incorrect") usages. My issue here has been the apparent desire to defend less = fewer with spurious ("regional variations") usage notes. I listed 3 exemplars in the Tea Room where inappropriately saying less to mean "a lower number of" actually changes, or at least obfuscates, the intended meaning of the sentence. How can any thinking person then say that it doesn't matter which of the two words one uses? Although I don't much care for the pejorative implications, I suspect that I am, in fact, a "grammar nazi" because hearing malaprops and/or other egregious language errors completely blocks my further perception of what the speaker is trying to say- my brain just involuntarily locks down and examines the "offending" phrase or word, trying to tease out the speaker's intent- thereby missing the next few sentences. I can't seem to help it. I would be much more comfortable if this wiki sought to inform readers as to correct usage (why else would they come here?) while acknowledging other usages, rather than treating "anything anyone has ever said" as equally valid to the correct form or word. HoggyDog 17:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)