One thing that still shapes how I think of the world is this introductory linguistics class where the instructor have explained the difference between prescriptivist and descriptivist linguists.
Prescriptivists think they know language better, or at least think that one can know “the language” “better.” For them, language is governed by rules and patterns, and everyday language is merely a manifestation of these structures.
Descriptivists take a totally different stance. They believe that everyday language is “the language” and that language is continuously reshaped by its users in unpredictable ways. Which means: there is no structure, and no rules set in stone. Only the language itself, an entity in constant flux.
Being a prescriptivist is comforting while quite involved in the justifying change part. Being a descriptivist is FOMO, but freeing in that you know there’s no universal unattainable truth.
This one class made me a descriptivist. Not only in linguistics, but in many other areas and systems. Before I rush to change something, I think: is this situation a consequence of how people interact, systemically? Is there benefit to it? Should I understand it better before trying to impose my rules on it?
I should.
@aartaka Hmmm... Maybe there has to be a middle way. Without learning grammar and spelling in school to get to a common foundation, communication may be a bit more complicated. In some fields, being able to accurately communicate something, is more important than in others (e.g. where it touches safety). In everyday life, on the other hand, people are going to do whatever, so, that's that. But you are the one who attended a linguistics class, so... what do I know? 🤷😄