Archived How should we view "Irony" and "Their/They're" in terms of language drift? (askgoat)
submitted ago by SteelKidney
Posted by: SteelKidney
Posting time: 4.9 years ago on
Last edit time: 4.9 years ago on
Archived on: 2/12/2017 1:51:00 AM
Views: 333
SCP: 5
5 upvotes, 0 downvotes (100% upvoted it)
Archived How should we view "Irony" and "Their/They're" in terms of language drift? (askgoat)
submitted ago by SteelKidney
Sort: Top
[–] AnTi90d 1 point 4 points 5 points (+5|-1) ago
No, their misuse by poorly educated individuals does not signify a change in the meaning of the word.
Heil grammar!
[–] ScreaminMime 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Continue to fight the good fight!
[–] omegletrollz 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
I don't think these examples have enough merit to become a change in language, no matter how prevalent they are. They are more a misunderstanding of language to me than anything else and language should be enforced to a certain degree.
I mean: "their" instead of "they're" is not any kind of organic proposal of a new English grammatic, it's just really bad orthography.
[–] SteelKidney [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Although an extreme example, Chaucer would consider every word written today as bad orthography. Assuming he realized we still speak English.
That said, I tend to agree. But when does today's bad grammar become common and then drift into a correct usage? A hundred-ish years ago, English schools began teaching English as a Latin based language, which is where we get the rules of Split Infinitives and not ending a sentence with a preposition. Something up with which they would not put. But as English is more Germanic-based than Latin, natural usage has made these rules obsolete. I chose the above examples because they're actual mistakes- and mistakes of different sorts. Incorrect definition and poor orthography. However culture drives language changes as much as anything else, if not more. And our culture changes rapidly.
[–] omegletrollz 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
We are the same. I too hesitant and reluctantly gave my opinion before - but I maintain that we should be careful not to promote crude mistakes as a "new language". In my own language I know crude mistakes that could become a new and easier coherent grammar but I don't think your examples are on par with that - they are isolated cases.
I think linguists should start studying "broken english" - the de-facto language of the Internet, where "u" is you and "their so weak, we pwned easily" are actually within the norm. I wouldn't been surprised if many native English start adopting broken-English as a second language of sorts, but I wouldn't personally call it a new English when I could say these mistakes are loan words.
This all is very hard to define properly but I would rather call a native English speaker using "their" instead of "they're" a mistake or a broken loan word that the new norm. Maybe I'm being too conservative here and I"m fully aware of that - but as long as it's a matter of opinion...
[–] RayLomas 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I think that the new meaning of "ironic" can be considered an example of language drift - it's a quite common process.
With their/they're it's just stupidity of people confusing 2 completely different terms. I don't think such mistake can be accepted in any way, as it can drastically change the meaning of sentence once it happens.
[–] SteelKidney [S] ago
I like this- thanks!
[–] Rottcodd ago
I have no particular issue with the drift regarding the word "irony." In fact, I've written here before about my opinion on language drift - in brief, it happens, and that's just the way it is. The exact intent of language is to communicate ideas, so the only valid measure of the meaning of a word is the meaning the user intends and the meaning the audience takes away from it. If those two meanings correspond, then the word has been used as "correctly" as it ever needs to be, and the opinion of any third party is utterly irrelevant. And specifically regarding "irony" - its modern usage refers to a particular idea, and one for which there really isn't another term that's as suitable. If, for instance, your OP had been a raging screed about the stupid people who misspell words, I might've pointed out the "irony" of the fact that you misspelled "it's" (the possessive form doesn't have an apostrophe). First, there's no other term that communicates that idea quite as well, and second, had I said that, those who read it would've known exactly what it was that I meant, so the word would've been used "correctly" by any measure that actually matters.
That said, I've taken to using the phrase "unintentional irony" to differentiate the more modern conception of "irony" from the traditional, literary style usage. It should be noted though that I don't do that in the interest of precision, since I'm certain that the audience would grasp my meaning without the word "unintentional." I do that in order to avoid pointless arguments with third parties who are wrongly convinced that their opinions are relevant.
"Their" and "They're," on the other hand, is just a mistake. It's not that people are consciously using one or the other in order to attempt to communicate some specific idea - they're just not clear on which one is which (or, arguably more likely, simply using the wrong one inadvertently - I've even caught myself doing that from time to time).
[–] SteelKidney [S] ago
Stupid Autocorrect. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
I get what you're saying about communication not necessarily being tied to original meanings. First time my daughter used "throwing shade" I knew what she meant. And it's actually a more elegant way of describing a fairly subtle form of communication.