The Daily WTF: Curious Perversions in Information Technology

2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Charlie:
If you take out the DCOM layer in the middle it seems a lot like a VERY modern web platform, including the zlib compression.

I'm pretty sure that's the WTF here Charlie:

Yes, if you take out the DCOM, it makes alot more sense.

And if you take out the XML and keep the DCOM, it makes alot more sense.

Having both>

2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Jerry:
everyone was excited about the idea of making two systems that didn't use the same technologies communicate with each other. The original developer, in his excitement, had neglected to notice that he was developing two systems that used the same technology.
But... isn't that how you're supposed to do it? In case something changes someday? (Not that that would ever happen...)

That might be an argument for using XML, but how does it justify using XML on top of DCOM?

Now that that's known about what is WTFy about this WTF, WTF is your reason for defiantly defending this deplorable design decision?

2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Now that that's known about what is WTFy about this WTF, WTF is your reason for defiantly defending this deplorable design decision?

Oh no, did he just drop the D5 bomb??

2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Meep:
Another is any of the NoSQL snakeoil. It'll make a great demo, and then you discover you're reimplementing a conventional DBMS. (And SQL is, of course, the 70's XML, when they fundamentally screwed up relational theory.)

The public must never discover that our industry is nothing but a decades long series of WTFs. One day, when all converges to LISP, maybe then we can reveal the horrific history of software development.

boog · 2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Vulputate:
boog:
LANMind:
The point is that just because a hammer is your fave tool, everything isn't a nail.
Or more specific to IT: if all your problems are nails, any one of them can be claimed sufficiently unique to justify wasting time and resources designing and constructing a fashionably new hammer which you can claim is "the wave of the future" and invent acronyms for its components and write magazine articles about it. Then, you can convince your clients to spend millions to replace all their existing hammers with The New Hammer, because nobody wants to lag behind their competitors, amirite?
No, the New Hammer is unproven and scary. It may not work at all. Replacing it would be a huge unnecessary risk. The one we have now still works if you duct tape the head back on every week or so. What are you complaining about?

Since when does the software industry (particularly those fascinated with reinvention) care about "proven" technologies? I said fashionable. Nobody can resist keeping up with fashion; if your company doesn't keep up with fashion, what will others think? Don't you want to be popular? Don't you want to be invited to parties? Come on, everyone else is doing it!

Besides, your old, outdated, "proven" hammer may work for most nails. But not all nails. Not the nails of tomorrow, or the nails of next year, or (worse yet) nails that nobody has even thought of. Nails like that might exist some day and your hammer may only kind of work on them. When that time comes, everyone else will be prepared since they'll have The New Hammer (which is guaranteed-without-evidence to work for problems we haven't predicted!), and you might have to spend a small amount of money and quite possibly a few days modifying your hammer to make it work for the new nails that still don't exist yet.

But hey, no pressure.

boog · 2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Anonymous:
The public must never discover that our industry is nothing but a decades long series of WTFs. One day, when all converges to LISP, maybe then we can reveal the horrific history of software development.

I think if all converges to LISP, that'll be evidence enough.

2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Anon:

That might be an argument for using XML, but how does it justify using XML on top of DCOM?

Maybe because you were told that the DCOM server might go away? Or perhaps the DCOM server wasn't the original server?

Imagine,

(1) There was a [whatever] server that transacted in XML. (2) The client was written to use XML to talk to [whatever] (written very poorly). (3) The [whatever] server went away and needed a replacement. (4) The new DCOM server was written to use XML so the client doesn't have to change.

Not ideal, but no grand conspiracy needed.

But then, without overly verbose prose, Alex's writings would usually end up being a single sentence.

boog · 2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Anon:
...WTF is your reason for defiantly defending this deplorable design decision?

+1 for alliteration.

2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Jerry:
everyone was excited about the idea of making two systems that didn't use the same technologies communicate with each other. The original developer, in his excitement, had neglected to notice that he was developing two systems that used the same technology.
But... isn't that how you're supposed to do it? In case something changes someday? (Not that that would ever happen...)

If something did change someday, whichever client/server end remains would still have to be re-written to remove the DCOM layer.

That's the WTF - none of the structure inherent to DCOM, none of the interoperability of XML. It's the worst of both worlds.

Somewhat unrelated : I wonder if, when a given person comes to this site, he will always be more likely to defend the WTF or join in its defamation.

?

Justice · 2011-05-31 Reply Admin

boog:
LANMind:
Kevin:
So apparently it's a total WTF to use XML? It'd be crazy to serialize objects in XML!

The point is that just because a hammer is your fave tool, everything isn't a nail.
Or more specific to IT: if all your problems are nails, any one of them can be claimed sufficiently unique to justify wasting time and resources designing and constructing a fashionably new hammer which you can claim is "the wave of the future" and invent acronyms for its components and write magazine articles about it. Then, you can convince your clients to spend millions to replace all their existing hammers with The New Hammer, because nobody wants to lag behind their competitors, amirite?

This. I usually see the converse form of the "if all you have is a hammer" problem; if all your problems are nails, every tool gets used as a hammer. It doesn't necessarily imply building a new hammer, but everything gets used to pound nails, regardless of suitability. Old shoe? Coke bottle? An intern's forehead? Why not!

I've taken to calling it the Glass Hammer anti-pattern, or possibly Nerf Hammer, depending whether you want to highlight fragility or ineffectiveness.

2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Robert:
Using XML to serialize objects is entirely reasonable.

OOP + XML = WTF + WTF. Burn it with fire.

2011-05-31 Reply Admin

C-Octothorpe:
frits:
The Article:
The application had been written in an era when XML was all the rage.
Is that era over? What's the new XML? JSON?
I'm looking to create some work...

Check out YAML...

Something that "Ain't a Markup Language" is probably not a contender to replace XML. If we're speaking era-wise, no single shitty serialization protocol can possibly waste as much time as XML has. Though, in fairness, given how YAML is only relatively feature complete on Python, it does have the potential to make many incredibly simple tasks chew up ungodly amounts of CPU.

boog · 2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Justice:
boog:
...if all your problems are nails, any one of them can be claimed sufficiently unique to justify wasting time and resources designing and constructing a fashionably new hammer which blah blah rambling blah...
This. I usually see the converse form of the "if all you have is a hammer" problem; if all your problems are nails, every tool gets used as a hammer. It doesn't necessarily imply building a new hammer, but everything gets used to pound nails, regardless of suitability. Old shoe? Coke bottle? An intern's forehead? Why not!
I've taken to calling it the Glass Hammer anti-pattern, or possibly Nerf Hammer, depending whether you want to highlight fragility or ineffectiveness.

Very true. I have worked in areas where developers abused every tool they could get their grubby meathooks on to solve trivial problems, so I know exactly what you mean.

But I've also worked in areas where developers use whatever semblance of an excuse they can as justification for inventing a new technology to solve a problem that's already been solved a dozen times before. Even worse, other developers follow their path of destruction like lemmings.

I'm not sure which philosophy is poisoning the industry more.

2011-05-31 Reply Admin

nice Goofus and Gallant reference in the HTML comments.

PedanticCurmudgeon · 2011-05-31 Reply Admin

dgvid:
What I really want to know is how the hell did I end up turning into a grammar troll? (Or grammar-troll, if you prefer.)

I don't know how you turned into a grammar troll, but the technique of a (deliberate?) typo in a reference to a well-known book that few own and fewer bother to actually read is the most innovative I've seen here in a long time.

frits · 2011-05-31 Reply Admin

So let me get this straight: Gallant prematurely optimizes?

C-Octothorpe · 2011-05-31 Reply Admin

boog:
... stuff ... But hey, no pressure.

I'll buy TEN!

2011-05-31 Reply Admin

"Beg the question" actually means that a statement causes the desire to ask a question. That's the more contemporary definition, anyway. Yes, it originally refers to a type of logical fallacy, but the usage has changed.

Language evolves. Accept it.

2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Neville Flynn:
"Beg the question" actually means that a statement causes the desire to ask a question. That's the more contemporary definition, anyway. Yes, it originally refers to a type of logical fallacy, but the usage has changed.
Language evolves. Accept it.

This isn't evolution, it's ignorance. Deal with it.

frits · 2011-05-31 Reply Admin

trtrwtf:
Neville Flynn:
"Beg the question" actually means that a statement causes the desire to ask a question. That's the more contemporary definition, anyway. Yes, it originally refers to a type of logical fallacy, but the usage has changed.
Language evolves. Accept it.

This isn't evolution, it's ignorance. Deal with it.

Actually, I think it's more like evtrollution.

boog · 2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Neville Flynn:
"Beg the question" actually means that a statement causes the desire to ask a question. That's the more contemporary definition, anyway. Yes, it originally refers to a type of logical fallacy, but the usage has changed.
Language evolves. Accept it.

Say, that's a great example of "begging the question".

Or were you serious when you said that it's the "more contemporary definition"? Because I could just as sensibly assert that E-X-C-E-P-T is the contemporary spelling of "accept", as I'd bet just as many morons misspell it as do misuse the phrase "begs the question".

Lorne Kates · 2011-05-31 Reply Admin

frits:
Lorne Kates:
frits:
The Article:
The application had been written in an era when XML was all the rage.
Is that era over? What's the new XML? JSON?
I'm looking to create some work...

You do know you can put an XML string inside a JSON object, right?

json.objects[id].id = object.id json.objects[id].data = SerializeXML(object)

You can also put JSON in your XML. What's your point?

My point is that you can have the all-the-rage JSON, and not have to give up tested-and-true XML.

But you do bring up a good point. If we switch the webcall from XML to JSON directly, who knows what problems it may cause. Let's wrap it again.

json.objects[id].id = object.id json.objects[id].data = SerializeXML(object)

xmlToSend.json = SerializeXML(json)

2011-05-31 Reply Admin

boog:
Neville Flynn:
"Beg the question" actually means that a statement causes the desire to ask a question. That's the more contemporary definition, anyway. Yes, it originally refers to a type of logical fallacy, but the usage has changed.
Language evolves. Accept it.
Say, that's a great example of "begging the question".

Or were you serious when you said that it's the "more contemporary definition"? Because I could just as sensibly assert that E-X-C-E-P-T is the contemporary spelling of "accept", as I'd bet just as many morons misspell it as do misuse the phrase "begs the question".

See the second definition in the section on "beg the question":

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beg

In language, even incorrect usage can become standard usage depending on how widespread it is and the level of adoption. I believe the reason "except" hasn't become "accept" or vice versa is because the misuse isn't that widespread (though it seems like that sometimes).

boog · 2011-05-31 Reply Admin

C-Octothorpe:
boog:
... stuff ... But hey, no pressure.
I'll buy TEN!

I'm sorry, we only sell licenses in blocks of 100.

frits · 2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Lorne Kates:
frits:
Lorne Kates:
frits:
The Article:
The application had been written in an era when XML was all the rage.
Is that era over? What's the new XML? JSON?
I'm looking to create some work...

You do know you can put an XML string inside a JSON object, right?

json.objects[id].id = object.id json.objects[id].data = SerializeXML(object)

You can also put JSON in your XML. What's your point?

My point is that you can have the all-the-rage JSON, and not have to give up tested-and-true XML.

But you do bring up a good point. If we switch the webcall from XML to JSON directly, who knows what problems it may cause. Let's wrap it again.

json.objects[id].id = object.id json.objects[id].data = SerializeXML(object)

xmlToSend.json = SerializeXML(json)

Yeah, but I was facetiously looking to create work, i.e. port an entire collection of applications from one data format to another. This port would preferably require a bunch of entire rewrites of existing code. You know, because it's the next big thing.

C-Octothorpe · 2011-05-31 Reply Admin

boog:
C-Octothorpe:
boog:
... stuff ... But hey, no pressure.
I'll buy TEN!
I'm sorry, we only sell licenses in blocks of 100.

Hmm, well we only have 10 employees now, but you say that New Hammer is future proof and will work with all unknown technologies? That may be worth it...

PedanticCurmudgeon · 2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Neville Flynn:
"Beg the question" actually means that a statement causes the desire to ask a question. That's the more contemporary definition, anyway. Yes, it originally refers to a type of logical fallacy, but the usage has changed.
Language devolves. Accept it.

FTFY

2011-05-31 Reply Admin

trtrwtf:
This isn't evolution, it's ignorance. Deal with it.

This isn't brave, it's murder. What have I ever done to you?

boog · 2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Neville Flynn:
boog:
Neville Flynn:
"Beg the question" actually means that a statement causes the desire to ask a question. That's the more contemporary definition, anyway. Yes, it originally refers to a type of logical fallacy, but the usage has changed.
Language evolves. Accept it.
Say, that's a great example of "begging the question".

Or were you serious when you said that it's the "more contemporary definition"? Because I could just as sensibly assert that E-X-C-E-P-T is the contemporary spelling of "accept", as I'd bet just as many morons misspell it as do misuse the phrase "begs the question".
See the second definition in the section on "beg the question":

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beg

So all that's needed is a dictionary suggesting improper usage? Great, I'm going to start my own dictionary where "up" means "south", "west" means "potato salad", and "dodecahedron" means "paper airplane". And so nobody can accuse me of a logical fallacy here, I'll define "straw man" to mean "handsome fellow".

Neville Flynn:
In language, even incorrect usage can become standard usage depending on how widespread it is and the level of adoption. I believe the reason "except" hasn't become "accept" or vice versa is because the misuse isn't that widespread (though it seems like that sometimes).

Or it could just be because it's wrong, and people who spell it wrong are corrected/berated/mocked in order to preserve the correct spelling. In fact, that could be just what's happening here with "begs the question".

boog · 2011-05-31 Reply Admin

C-Octothorpe:
boog:
C-Octothorpe:
boog:
... stuff ... But hey, no pressure.
I'll buy TEN!
I'm sorry, we only sell licenses in blocks of 100.

Hmm, well we only have 10 employees now, but you say that New Hammer is future proof and will work with all unknown technologies? That may be worth it...

As somebody who's trying to get rich quick by selling you a broken new product, let me assure you that it is worth it.

2011-05-31 Reply Admin

PedanticCurmudgeon:
Neville Flynn:
"Beg the question" actually means that a statement causes the desire to ask a question. That's the more contemporary definition, anyway. Yes, it originally refers to a type of logical fallacy, but the usage has changed.
Language devolves. Accept it.
FTFY

You're going by the creationist view of evolution. Natural selection just guarantees that the Good Enough survive, not that there is any pressure to continually improve. You only get improvement if there is competition between species.

Captain Oblivious · 2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Neville Flynn:
"Beg the question" actually means that a statement causes the desire to ask a question. That's the more contemporary definition, anyway. Yes, it originally refers to a type of logical fallacy, but the usage has changed.
Language evolves. Accept it.

Not only that, but the "logical fallacy" usage is based on a hamfisted mistranslation of "petitio principii", which is more like "asking to accept the principle".

2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Captain Oblivious:
Neville Flynn:
"Beg the question" actually means that a statement causes the desire to ask a question. That's the more contemporary definition, anyway. Yes, it originally refers to a type of logical fallacy, but the usage has changed.
Language evolves. Accept it.

Not only that, but the "logical fallacy" usage is based on a hamfisted mistranslation of "petitio principii", which is more like "asking to accept the principle".

principii, I think, is more like "premise" than "principle"... anyone with a better grasp of Latin is welcome to correct me, though

2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Meep:
frits:
What's the new XML? JSON?
Well, Javascript could easily be. It's a lot like XML in that it's a monster that is completely consuming the talents of the best engineers in the industry, all to make a hammer do embroidery and brain surgery.

OK, the magic genie allows you to go into the past and permanently delete one thing from the history of technology. Part and parcel of the bargain is that whatever you choose to ban can never again be re-invented. It's kinda like a preemptive patent.

Anyway, this is your chance to save the world! Do you eradicate XML? JavaScript? Or Microsoft, back when it was still just a lying vaporware salesman in an IBM office? Sorry, you can't have all three.

Discuss.

C-Octothorpe · 2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Ralph:
Meep:
frits:
What's the new XML? JSON?
Well, Javascript could easily be. It's a lot like XML in that it's a monster that is completely consuming the talents of the best engineers in the industry, all to make a hammer do embroidery and brain surgery.
OK, the magic genie allows you to go into the past and permanently delete one thing from the history of technology. Part and parcel of the bargain is that whatever you choose to ban can never again be re-invented. It's kinda like a preemptive patent.
Anyway, this is your chance to save the world! Do you eradicate XML? JavaScript? Or Microsoft, back when it was still just a lying vaporware salesman in an IBM office? Sorry, you can't have all three.

Discuss.

The guy who invented "Teach yourself [programming language] in 24 hours".

2011-05-31 Reply Admin

boog:
Neville Flynn:
In language, even incorrect usage can become standard usage depending on how widespread it is and the level of adoption. I believe the reason "except" hasn't become "accept" or vice versa is because the misuse isn't that widespread (though it seems like that sometimes).
Or it could just be because it's wrong, and people who spell it wrong are corrected/berated/mocked in order to preserve the correct spelling. In fact, that could be just what's happening here with "begs the question".

Most of the time, people trying to get it right get it wrong, but that's just another factor in the evolution of language.

2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Ralph:
Meep:
frits:
What's the new XML? JSON?
Well, Javascript could easily be. It's a lot like XML in that it's a monster that is completely consuming the talents of the best engineers in the industry, all to make a hammer do embroidery and brain surgery.
OK, the magic genie allows you to go into the past and permanently delete one thing from the history of technology. Part and parcel of the bargain is that whatever you choose to ban can never again be re-invented. It's kinda like a preemptive patent.
Anyway, this is your chance to save the world! Do you eradicate XML? JavaScript? Or Microsoft, back when it was still just a lying vaporware salesman in an IBM office? Sorry, you can't have all three.

Discuss.

How about anyone who advertises to make some extremely complicated thing "easy"? Then puts your local tech support on the hook for delivering on their failed and impossible promises...

2011-05-31 Reply Admin

boog:
Neville Flynn:
See the second definition in the section on "beg the question":
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beg

So all that's needed is a dictionary suggesting improper usage? Great, I'm going to start my own dictionary where "up" means "south", "west" means "potato salad", and "dodecahedron" means "paper airplane". And so nobody can accuse me of a logical fallacy here, I'll define "straw man" to mean "handsome fellow".

I'm just saying that the new definition has become so commonplace that we're even seeing it in Merriam-Webster.

M-W is a well-known dictionary that generally incorporates changes to the English language as they see it occur in popular usage. boog's dictionary, on the other hand, isn't well-known and it seems to only reflect boog's idea of the English language. The OED is another well-known dictionary that also adapts to changes in the English language. It, however, doesn't have any mention of the new definition of "beg the question".

There's no standard for when a new definition or new word becomes an official part of the English language. All I'm saying is that the new definition of "beg the question" has momentum in the direction of becoming widely accepted. I'm not saying it's right or wrong to fight against this momentum. But it's kind of like trying to stop a runaway truck with your bare hands.

boog:

Neville Flynn:
In language, even incorrect usage can become standard usage depending on how widespread it is and the level of adoption. I believe the reason "except" hasn't become "accept" or vice versa is because the misuse isn't that widespread (though it seems like that sometimes).
Or it could just be because it's wrong, and people who spell it wrong are corrected/berated/mocked in order to preserve the correct spelling. In fact, that could be just what's happening here with "begs the question".

"Wrong" words will always make their way into the language. It's kind of like natural selection, where mutations occur: you could say the mutation results in "wrong" DNA because it's not a correct replica of the previous generation. But it could either make the organism stronger or weaker. Only time will tell.

2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Meep:
Sometimes, people trying to get it right get it wrong, but that's just another factor in the evolution of language.

FTFY. Actually, hypercorrection is usually not a very productive process of language change, as you'll see from the examples cited in that article. (how many have become standard?)

C-Octothorpe · 2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Neville Flynn:
"Wrong" words will always make their way into the language. It's kind of like natural selection, where mutations occur: you could say the mutation results in "wrong" DNA because it's not a correct replica of the previous generation. But it could either make the organism stronger or weaker. Only time will tell.

Your rite, lets git 'r dun!

2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Ralph:
Meep:
frits:
What's the new XML? JSON?
Well, Javascript could easily be. It's a lot like XML in that it's a monster that is completely consuming the talents of the best engineers in the industry, all to make a hammer do embroidery and brain surgery.
OK, the magic genie allows you to go into the past and permanently delete one thing from the history of technology. Part and parcel of the bargain is that whatever you choose to ban can never again be re-invented. It's kinda like a preemptive patent.
Anyway, this is your chance to save the world! Do you eradicate XML? JavaScript? Or Microsoft, back when it was still just a lying vaporware salesman in an IBM office? Sorry, you can't have all three.

Discuss.

No.

PedanticCurmudgeon · 2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Neville Flynn:

boog:

Neville Flynn:
In language, even incorrect usage can become standard usage depending on how widespread it is and the level of adoption. I believe the reason "except" hasn't become "accept" or vice versa is because the misuse isn't that widespread (though it seems like that sometimes).
Or it could just be because it's wrong, and people who spell it wrong are corrected/berated/mocked in order to preserve the correct spelling. In fact, that could be just what's happening here with "begs the question".
"Wrong" words will always make their way into the language. It's kind of like natural selection, where mutations occur: you could say the mutation results in "wrong" DNA because it's not a correct replica of the previous generation. But it could either make the organism stronger or weaker. Only time will tell.

In this case, however, the mutation obviously makes the organism weaker, assuming strength is defined as expressive power.

People who misuse the phrase "begs the question" already have a phrase that expresses perfectly what they wanted to say: "raises the question." So now we have two phrases that mean the same thing in common use, and the original meaning of "begs the question" will effectively be lost.

2011-05-31 Reply Admin

trtrwtf:
Meep:
Sometimes, people trying to get it right get it wrong, but that's just another factor in the evolution of language.

FTFY. Actually, hypercorrection is usually not a very productive process of language change, as you'll see from the examples cited in that article. (how many have become standard?)

If they were standard, they wouldn't be errors, and considering that it's something that can take 100+ years, I probably won't ever have personal recollection of an error becoming standard.

What linguists seem to think is that when the leading prescriptivists put their ideas together in a book, they get it horribly, horribly wrong. And, by wrong, they make verifiable claims that turn out to be untrue, or often just invent stuff.

Satanicpuppy · 2011-05-31 Reply Admin

You guys just don't appreciate genius. This system is completely platform agnostic*! You're just jealous.

*As long as that platform is capable of running DLLs.

boog · 2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Neville Flynn:
I'm just saying that the new definition has become so commonplace that we're even seeing it in Merriam-Webster.

It's not surprising to me to see a commonplace usage in Merriam-Webster. What's disturbing to me is that, unlike countless other sources (albeit countless because I have not attempted to count them), M-W doesn't appear to include the "this is not proper usage, dumbass" clause. Common yes, proper no; a place that should be clarifying usage for people who bother to look doesn't even make a note of it? So sad.

Neville Flynn:
M-W is a well-known dictionary... boog's dictionary, on the other hand, isn't well-known and it seems to only reflect boog's idea of the English language.

Or as I (boog) like to call it, the correct version of the English language (see boog's dictionary for definition of "correct"). But I might (if I wasn't so very lazy) be able to find several widely-used dictionaries (and other non-dictionary references) that publish common usage and still make note of which is the correct usage of "begs the question".

Neville Flynn:
All I'm saying is that the new definition of "beg the question" has momentum... I'm not saying it's right or wrong to fight against this momentum. But it's kind of like trying to stop a runaway truck with your bare hands.

If any of my comments have indicated that I take this "fight against momentum" of improper usage of "begs the question" seriously, I apologize. I certainly wouldn't want to stop a runaway truck with my bare hands, but I'd gladly point and laugh at anyone who decides to race behind it.

Neville Flynn:
"Wrong" words will always make their way into the language. It's kind of like natural selection, where mutations occur: you could say the mutation results in "wrong" DNA because it's not a correct replica of the previous generation. But it could either make the organism stronger or weaker. Only time will tell.

Time will tell indeed. Fortunately real evolution takes a long time. I take comfort knowing I'll be long dead when the damage from my generation is truly inflicted on the English language.

2011-05-31 Reply Admin

What the hell have you people done to my language?

2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Meep:
What linguists seem to think is that when the leading prescriptivists put their ideas together in a book, they get it horribly, horribly wrong. And, by wrong, they make verifiable claims that turn out to be untrue, or often just invent stuff.

One of those same linguists has written a long post on the phrase that brought this up, ending with the following:

Mark Liberman:
My recommendation: Never use the phrase yourself — use "assume the conclusion" or "raise the question", depending on what you mean — and cultivate an attitude of serene detachment in the face of its use by others.

But with that approach, what would duelling prescriptivists fight over?

2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Everything new is old again, or the other way around: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Infoset

2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Meep:
If they were standard, they wouldn't be errors, and considering that it's something that can take 100+ years, I probably won't ever have personal recollection of an error becoming standard.

Right. So what you're saying is, no, it's not a very important factor in language change. And you're right. There are some cases, but as a whole hypercorrection is mostly a source of persistent mistakes that are never absorbed into that language as a whole. Language can change much faster than on a century scale, typically you'd be looking at a generation-scale for most changes, as children hear and re-interpret the previous generation's speech. (which is in fact where language change comes from, in the end - adult changes don't take until they're learned natively by the the next generation) (yes, I did write a thesis on this, why do you ask?)

What linguists seem to think is that when the leading prescriptivists put their ideas together in a book, they get it horribly, horribly wrong. And, by wrong, they make verifiable claims that turn out to be untrue, or often just invent stuff.

I don't think Pullum's making the mistake you think he's making. He's not criticizing Elements as a work of linguistics, he's talking about it as a style guide, which is a completely different thing. Strunk does not, and does not pretend to present a theory of English grammar, and no linguist - could get confused on this point.

So since they're not even talking about the same sorts of thing, it seems difficult to imagine that a linguist would say that someone offering stylistic rules (a "prescriptivist" in the Strunkian sense) is "wrong", except stylistically, the way Howard McGee might say that Julia Child's cooking is wrong, gastronomically. (He wouldn't say that her cooking violates the laws of physics...) In fact, what a linguist will tell you is that a style guide really has nothing to do with their work, and that's not what they do.

This is all stuff you get in an intro linguistics course, which you might want to consider taking, since you seem to have a keen interest in and almost no understanding of the discipline.

Power Troll · 2011-05-31 Reply Admin

Good lord, has Nagesh's (oddly absent) trolling manifested itself in the form of some linguistic nonsense?

Design for the Future

Leave a comment on “Design for the Future”