• kwomp2@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Objective and socially constructed isn’t a ‘hard’ contradiction.

    Yes of course language evolves and so on, but in a given time(period) it needs to be interpretable more or less independently from the specific actor (a dictionary ensures this, even though it needs to be updated regularly).

    In other words yeah sometimes language comes up with new stuff. If it would do it all the time, it wouldn’t function

    • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      It does change all the time, and dictionaries don’t ensure any kind of standard. The linguists who write dictionaries will tell you that their only function is to describe the most popular parts of the language, not to prescribe any particular rules. Telling people how they should speak doesn’t actually work.

      I could say the phrase “abso-fucking-lutely” and you understand it, even though it’s not in the dictionary. That’s still language, it’s still English.

      And I don’t know what you mean by a “‘hard’ contradiction” or why that matters. My point is that both language and gender are forms of communication that rely on socially constructed signifiers and they are both fluid to a similar degree, so the analogy is good. If you want to argue with me, that’s the point you should be dealing with.

      • kwomp2@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Well my point is just it’s neither fully determined as in ahistoric rule nor random as in “changes all the time” or “everyone has their own singular definitions and concepts”. And in between there is the sweet spot of understanding, interpretation and development…