Words/phrases I wish would go away

[Uturn]

That's not my name. My given name is Jenny, not Jennifer! It's on my birth certificate, ID, credit cards, social security statement -- Jennifer isn't on a single document associated with me.

I hear you!  We moved a lot growing up and I cannot tell you how many times I was sent to the principal's office because I refused to answer to Joseph.

I closed on a house a couple of weeks ago.  At the beginning of the process, I tell the loan officer that my legal name is Joe, not Joseph.  Two days before close, I get all new paperwork from the mortgage company with my name changed to Joseph.  It seems they have a QA process and the second person decided my name was wrong. 

[Dollar Slice]

You will hereafter be known as "Dslice" to me, @Dollar Slice

OK, but you have to pronounce every consonant very clearly, or I'll get offended.

I find myself wanting to add an apostrophe here. Can we make it D'Slice?

Sorry, no. That would be disrespecting my cultural heritage. You can either figure out how to to smoothly pronounce the 'dsl' consonant combo, or you can call me Slicey like everyone else. ;-)

[Jouer]

Personally, I love nicknames. For me or for others.

My given name was given to me before anyone knew anything about my personality and I had no choice. Nicknames come from friends or family once they get to really know you - to me that's more important/powerful than something given to me at birth.

[BlueHouse]

I am not a fan of people's business cards that say spell out a nickname.  As in "Robert 'Bob' Smith" .  Yes, the "Bob" is in quotes.  If you want people to call you that, why not just have "Bob Smith" on the business card? 

I was once given a business card by a law enforcement officer that just said "Officer Bob". :-/  No last name. Just... Bob.

I've never used my full legal name and am instantly skeptical whenever someone tries to use it (typically a marketer). 

My mom uses her middle name and knows as soon as someone addresses her by her first name that it's not going to be good. Or, better yet, she got on some telemarketer lists as her first initial and middle name run together. Which was unpronounceable, but they tried. The equivalent of Dollar Slice picking up the phone and having someone say "Hello, is... uh... Dslice there?"

My dad has spent decades of his life filling out his middle name first on any documentation he thinks might result in a phone call or ad.  Any time someone asks for him by his middle name he just hangs up, any time he gets mail addressed to his middle name he throws it out unread.  It's kinda genius.

I use my initials, and many websites don't allow periods in the name fields, so I just remove the periods.  It spells out what could be a name.  I guess.  and a lot of people call for "En".   Unfortunately or maybe fortunately, I always "hear" it as "N.Bluehouse" and get confused and then say "who? who? what" and I'm usually confused enough that they hang up and remove me from their list because they don't think I'm faking the confusion. 

My last name is a male first name, like Richard.  As children, my mom used to subscribe to National Geographic in the name of "Richard Children" which was shortened to "Richard Chidrn" for the mailing labels.  All of my siblings and I still sign birthday cards to each other as "Richard Chidrn" 

on another note, I only recently realized that someone I know who goes by the name of Billy Bob is actually named William Robert.  It would never ever occur to me to give a nickname to a middle name.

[Morning Glory]

I am not a fan of people's business cards that say spell out a nickname.  As in "Robert 'Bob' Smith" .  Yes, the "Bob" is in quotes.  If you want people to call you that, why not just have "Bob Smith" on the business card? 

I was once given a business card by a law enforcement officer that just said "Officer Bob". :-/  No last name. Just... Bob.

I've never used my full legal name and am instantly skeptical whenever someone tries to use it (typically a marketer). 

My mom uses her middle name and knows as soon as someone addresses her by her first name that it's not going to be good. Or, better yet, she got on some telemarketer lists as her first initial and middle name run together. Which was unpronounceable, but they tried. The equivalent of Dollar Slice picking up the phone and having someone say "Hello, is... uh... Dslice there?"

My dad has spent decades of his life filling out his middle name first on any documentation he thinks might result in a phone call or ad.  Any time someone asks for him by his middle name he just hangs up, any time he gets mail addressed to his middle name he throws it out unread.  It's kinda genius.

I use my initials, and many websites don't allow periods in the name fields, so I just remove the periods.  It spells out what could be a name.  I guess.  and a lot of people call for "En".   Unfortunately or maybe fortunately, I always "hear" it as "N.Bluehouse" and get confused and then say "who? who? what" and I'm usually confused enough that they hang up and remove me from their list because they don't think I'm faking the confusion. 

My last name is a male first name, like Richard.  As children, my mom used to subscribe to National Geographic in the name of "Richard Children" which was shortened to "Richard Chidrn" for the mailing labels.  All of my siblings and I still sign birthday cards to each other as "Richard Chidrn" 

on another note, I only recently realized that someone I know who goes by the name of Billy Bob is actually named William Robert.  It would never ever occur to me to give a nickname to a middle name.

My brother has a last name that could be a first name, and a first name that could be a last name. No middle. His first and last get confused all the time.

[Travis]

That's not my name. My given name is Jenny, not Jennifer! It's on my birth certificate, ID, credit cards, social security statement -- Jennifer isn't on a single document associated with me.

I hear you!  We moved a lot growing up and I cannot tell you how many times I was sent to the principal's office because I refused to answer to Joseph.

I closed on a house a couple of weeks ago.  At the beginning of the process, I tell the loan officer that my legal name is Joe, not Joseph.  Two days before close, I get all new paperwork from the mortgage company with my name changed to Joseph.  It seems they have a QA process and the second person decided my name was wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1tHYx_sr6o

[slackmax]

Ridiculous made up names for prescription drugs in TV commercials.

Garfrabshuh. Niquelbilf. Nushembra. Kalifra. Jelfrabah. and on and on. Almost always three syllables, sometimes two.

Why can't they just give it a normal name like "antacid pill' by J and J. ?     

And why is there always some slob with a shirt hanging open, walking in slow motion, whose expression says he is in quaaludes?

[Metalcat]

Ridiculous made up names for prescription drugs in TV commercials.

Garfrabshuh. Niquelbilf. Nushembra. Kalifra. Jelfrabah. and on and on. Almost always three syllables, sometimes two.

Why can't they just give it a normal name like "antacid pill' by J and J. ?     

And why is there always some slob with a shirt hanging open, walking in slow motion, whose expression says he is in quaaludes?

I love visiting the US and seeing pharmaceutical ads, it's always such a trip.

[zolotiyeruki]

Ridiculous made up names for prescription drugs in TV commercials.

Garfrabshuh. Niquelbilf. Nushembra. Kalifra. Jelfrabah. and on and on. Almost always three syllables, sometimes two.

Why can't they just give it a normal name like "antacid pill' by J and J. ?     

And why is there always some slob with a shirt hanging open, walking in slow motion, whose expression says he is in quaaludes?

I love visiting the US and seeing pharmaceutical ads, it's always such a trip.

It always mystifies me to see them, and makes me wonder how effective the "ask your doctor about X medication" approach actually is.

[Metalcat]

Ridiculous made up names for prescription drugs in TV commercials.

Garfrabshuh. Niquelbilf. Nushembra. Kalifra. Jelfrabah. and on and on. Almost always three syllables, sometimes two.

Why can't they just give it a normal name like "antacid pill' by J and J. ?     

And why is there always some slob with a shirt hanging open, walking in slow motion, whose expression says he is in quaaludes?

I love visiting the US and seeing pharmaceutical ads, it's always such a trip.

It always mystifies me to see them, and makes me wonder how effective the "ask your doctor about X medication" approach actually is.

Well, I'm currently on a medication specifically because I saw an ad for it while traveling in the US and my MD hadn't heard of it yet.

In my practice, ads for over the counter drugs and products definitely influenced patient questions and concerns.

[Morning Glory]

Ridiculous made up names for prescription drugs in TV commercials.

Garfrabshuh. Niquelbilf. Nushembra. Kalifra. Jelfrabah. and on and on. Almost always three syllables, sometimes two.

Why can't they just give it a normal name like "antacid pill' by J and J. ?     

And why is there always some slob with a shirt hanging open, walking in slow motion, whose expression says he is in quaaludes?

It is on purpose. They make the generic name difficult to pronounce because they want us to refer to it by the brand name. There's some psychology behind all the X's and Z's too (makes it sound more high tech???). The new ones all seem to have an "oo" sound, maybe to make them sound new.

Some of the old ones from before the advertising are almost like inside jokes (e.g. go-lytely). There's even a real drug called Soma.

[Jouer]

Ridiculous made up names for prescription drugs in TV commercials.

Garfrabshuh. Niquelbilf. Nushembra. Kalifra. Jelfrabah. and on and on. Almost always three syllables, sometimes two.

Why can't they just give it a normal name like "antacid pill' by J and J. ?     

And why is there always some slob with a shirt hanging open, walking in slow motion, whose expression says he is in quaaludes?

I love visiting the US and seeing pharmaceutical ads, it's always such a trip.

It always mystifies me to see them, and makes me wonder how effective the "ask your doctor about X medication" approach actually is.

Marketing works....else these companies wouldn't spend so much $$ on it. I would suggest it works less on MMMers so it may be hard to imagine the value.

"ask your doctor about X medication" is actually a pretty strong call to action. Simple and straight to the point.

[Travis]

Ridiculous made up names for prescription drugs in TV commercials.

Garfrabshuh. Niquelbilf. Nushembra. Kalifra. Jelfrabah. and on and on. Almost always three syllables, sometimes two.

Why can't they just give it a normal name like "antacid pill' by J and J. ?     

And why is there always some slob with a shirt hanging open, walking in slow motion, whose expression says he is in quaaludes?

I love visiting the US and seeing pharmaceutical ads, it's always such a trip.

It always mystifies me to see them, and makes me wonder how effective the "ask your doctor about X medication" approach actually is.

Marketing works....else these companies wouldn't spend so much $$ on it. I would suggest it works less on MMMers so it may be hard to imagine the value.

"ask your doctor about X medication" is actually a pretty strong call to action. Simple and straight to the point.

Frightening that there's payoff for the effort. "Here's a drug so new and dangerous that only your doctor can prescribe it. Go ask him about it." And somehow this works.  Mentioning an ad on tv will convince your doc to give you a pill.

[Metalcat]

Ridiculous made up names for prescription drugs in TV commercials.

Garfrabshuh. Niquelbilf. Nushembra. Kalifra. Jelfrabah. and on and on. Almost always three syllables, sometimes two.

Why can't they just give it a normal name like "antacid pill' by J and J. ?     

And why is there always some slob with a shirt hanging open, walking in slow motion, whose expression says he is in quaaludes?

I love visiting the US and seeing pharmaceutical ads, it's always such a trip.

It always mystifies me to see them, and makes me wonder how effective the "ask your doctor about X medication" approach actually is.

Marketing works....else these companies wouldn't spend so much $$ on it. I would suggest it works less on MMMers so it may be hard to imagine the value.

"ask your doctor about X medication" is actually a pretty strong call to action. Simple and straight to the point.

Frightening that there's payoff for the effort. "Here's a drug so new and dangerous that only your doctor can prescribe it. Go ask him about it." And somehow this works.  Mentioning an ad on tv will convince your doc to give you a pill.

Not exactly. It's more that ads for drugs trigger people to have conversations with their MDs that they might not otherwise have. A lot of people don't even think to talk to their doctor about things until an ad tells them there's a solution.

However, in my case, the ad I saw in the US was for an entirely new class of drugs that my doctor had never heard of. I was one of the first people in Canada to get it as a result.

[Roadrunner53]

People referring to a refrigerator as an 'icebox'.

I know people who call margarine...mar ga reene.


People who don't seem to know the difference between ask and ax. I ax my mother if I could take her car to the store.

[Metalcat]

People referring to a refrigerator as an 'icebox'.

I know people who call margarine...mar ga reene.


People who don't seem to know the difference between ask and ax. I ax my mother if I could take her car to the store.

"Ax(e)" instead of "Ask" is another case of African American Vernacular English. It's a valid version of the word in that context.

So it depends on the person's background.

"I'm finna ax you something" is not grammatically incorrect.

[GuitarStv]

People referring to a refrigerator as an 'icebox'.

I know people who call margarine...mar ga reene.


People who don't seem to know the difference between ask and ax. I ax my mother if I could take her car to the store.

"Ax(e)" instead of "Ask" is another case of African American Vernacular English. It's a valid version of the word in that context.

So it depends on the person's background.

"I'm finna ax you something" is not grammatically incorrect.

Bad English shouldn't magically be considered grammatically correct because the speaker carries a particular skin type.

If a white hillbilly says "Me and my sister gets into a fight sometimes" it's not grammatically correct.  If a black guy says "I'm finna ax you something" that's also not gramatically correct.

[sui generis]

People referring to a refrigerator as an 'icebox'.

I know people who call margarine...mar ga reene.


People who don't seem to know the difference between ask and ax. I ax my mother if I could take her car to the store.

"Ax(e)" instead of "Ask" is another case of African American Vernacular English. It's a valid version of the word in that context.

So it depends on the person's background.

"I'm finna ax you something" is not grammatically incorrect.

Bad English shouldn't magically be considered grammatically correct because the speaker carries a particular skin type.

If a white hillbilly says "Me and my sister gets into a fight sometimes" it's not grammatically correct.  If a black guy says "I'm finna ax you something" that's also not gramatically correct.

Actually the pronunciation (maybe even spelling, can't remember) of this word has flipped back and forth over the past few centuries. I used to be a devoted listener to A Way with Words on NPR (https://www.waywordradio.org/) and they did a piece on this in an episode like 10-12 years ago.  They talked about "ax" being the more common pronunciation back in the 1600s.  It was fascinating.

[Paul der Krake]

Usage, consensus, and institutional acceptance is ultimately what makes something "correct". Vernaculars are not correct, by definition, whether it's Black English or Hawaiian Pidgin or Appalachian English. That doesn't necessarily mean they should be rooted out, in fact they often bring a richness to the more accepted form of the language as things bleed in and out. But trying to put them on the same level to prove... what exactly? That seems silly.

[Metalcat]

People referring to a refrigerator as an 'icebox'.

I know people who call margarine...mar ga reene.


People who don't seem to know the difference between ask and ax. I ax my mother if I could take her car to the store.

"Ax(e)" instead of "Ask" is another case of African American Vernacular English. It's a valid version of the word in that context.

So it depends on the person's background.

"I'm finna ax you something" is not grammatically incorrect.

Bad English shouldn't magically be considered grammatically correct because the speaker carries a particular skin type.

If a white hillbilly says "Me and my sister gets into a fight sometimes" it's not grammatically correct.  If a black guy says "I'm finna ax you something" that's also not gramatically correct.

AAVE is a recognized and legitimate dialect of English that is very, very old in it's roots and structure.

I'm sorry, but your position is not supported by any world experts in language. I thought the same as you until I got a degree in linguistics.

[dougules]

Usage, consensus, and institutional acceptance is ultimately what makes something "correct". Vernaculars are not correct, by definition, whether it's Black English or Hawaiian Pidgin or Appalachian English. That doesn't necessarily mean they should be rooted out, in fact they often bring a richness to the more accepted form of the language as things bleed in and out. But trying to put them on the same level to prove... what exactly? That seems silly.

If it sounds right to speakers of any given dialect, then it is right.    When people say "incorrect" English, they should be saying "non-standard" if it is something that makes sense within the rules of a given dialect.  Otherwise, you could just say American English is just incorrect British English or that English in general is just incorrect German. 

[Paul der Krake]

Usage, consensus, and institutional acceptance is ultimately what makes something "correct". Vernaculars are not correct, by definition, whether it's Black English or Hawaiian Pidgin or Appalachian English. That doesn't necessarily mean they should be rooted out, in fact they often bring a richness to the more accepted form of the language as things bleed in and out. But trying to put them on the same level to prove... what exactly? That seems silly.

If it sounds right to speakers of any given dialect, then it is right.    When people say "incorrect" English, they should be saying "non-standard" if it is something that makes sense within the rules of a given dialect.  Otherwise, you could just say American English is just incorrect British English or that English in general is just incorrect German. 

Sure, for any small enough group, anything and everything can be correct. But it won't exist outside of the group and won't be circulated in print. And without institutional acceptance, a language is relegated to being a forever diminishing curiosity, as the number of speakers dwindles and the group identity weakens. That is the logical curse of languages that are too close to a dominant variation.

[Metalcat]

Usage, consensus, and institutional acceptance is ultimately what makes something "correct". Vernaculars are not correct, by definition, whether it's Black English or Hawaiian Pidgin or Appalachian English. That doesn't necessarily mean they should be rooted out, in fact they often bring a richness to the more accepted form of the language as things bleed in and out. But trying to put them on the same level to prove... what exactly? That seems silly.

If it sounds right to speakers of any given dialect, then it is right.    When people say "incorrect" English, they should be saying "non-standard" if it is something that makes sense within the rules of a given dialect.  Otherwise, you could just say American English is just incorrect British English or that English in general is just incorrect German. 

Sure, for any small enough group, anything and everything can be correct. But it won't exist outside of the group and won't be circulated in print. And without institutional acceptance, a language is relegated to being a forever diminishing curiosity, as the number of speakers dwindles and the group identity weakens. That is the logical curse of languages that are too close to a dominant variation.

But many dialects aren't obscure and spoken by dwindling populations. There are many robust dialects all over the world.

The point stands though, old non standard dialects that have persisted for hundreds of years should not be called "incorrect". They may not be the standard used in professional contexts, but they aren't incorrect. And speakers of AAVE in particular have been inappropriately criticized as speaking "wrong" for a very long time.

[Paul der Krake]

Usage, consensus, and institutional acceptance is ultimately what makes something "correct". Vernaculars are not correct, by definition, whether it's Black English or Hawaiian Pidgin or Appalachian English. That doesn't necessarily mean they should be rooted out, in fact they often bring a richness to the more accepted form of the language as things bleed in and out. But trying to put them on the same level to prove... what exactly? That seems silly.

If it sounds right to speakers of any given dialect, then it is right.    When people say "incorrect" English, they should be saying "non-standard" if it is something that makes sense within the rules of a given dialect.  Otherwise, you could just say American English is just incorrect British English or that English in general is just incorrect German. 

Sure, for any small enough group, anything and everything can be correct. But it won't exist outside of the group and won't be circulated in print. And without institutional acceptance, a language is relegated to being a forever diminishing curiosity, as the number of speakers dwindles and the group identity weakens. That is the logical curse of languages that are too close to a dominant variation.

But many dialects aren't obscure and spoken by dwindling populations. There are many robust dialects all over the world.

The point stands though, old non standard dialects that have persisted for hundreds of years should not be called "incorrect". They may not be the standard used in professional contexts, but they aren't incorrect. And speakers of AAVE in particular have been inappropriately criticized as speaking "wrong" for a very long time.

I think this is a distinction without a difference. If hardly anybody will print a dialect, formally teach it in schools, offer translations to and from, or use it for anything "serious", what good does it do that it's considered correct?

I agree that there are tons of robust dialects all over the world. Catalan, Swiss German, Haitian Creole, etc. But those have, for lack of a better phrase, institutional backing. Do you have examples of robust dialects that don't? To me, you can't really have one without the other. And yes, that is circular logic, because that's how networks work.

[RetiredAt63]

Quebec English is a recognized dialect.  Basically English with a lot of Quebec French mixed in.  I had to learn/replace some vocabulary when I moved to Ontario.

"Youse"  is part of the Valley dialect (Ottawa Valley).  Also non-standard English.

Any group can have their own special vocabulary and pronunciation.  The question is, will it be understood outside that group.

[Metalcat]

Quebec English is a recognized dialect.  Basically English with a lot of Quebec French mixed in.  I had to learn/replace some vocabulary when I moved to Ontario.

"Youse"  is part of the Valley dialect (Ottawa Valley).  Also non-standard English.

Any group can have their own special vocabulary and pronunciation.  The question is, will it be understood outside that group.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

I speak English and French, but can't understand Acadian French, which has a bunch of English blended in.

Do Acadian speakers need to learn more standard dialects to get by in a lot of professional contexts? Yep. That doesn't mean their dialect is incorrect or "bad grammar".

That's the only point I'm trying to make. Dialects are NOT bad grammar, they are valid linguistic structures. They are not errors or deviations from proper grammar.

It's one thing to say Standard English is dominant and that fluency is often necessary to be understood and succeed professionally, but that doesn't mean that dialectical difference are errors or mistakes.

Dialectical differences are correct within their own dialect, which have their own rules. What constitutes a grammatical error is dependent on the dialect being spoken.

What constitutes a dialect is actually formally defined. It's not just little quirks within groups.

[GuitarStv]

People referring to a refrigerator as an 'icebox'.

I know people who call margarine...mar ga reene.


People who don't seem to know the difference between ask and ax. I ax my mother if I could take her car to the store.

"Ax(e)" instead of "Ask" is another case of African American Vernacular English. It's a valid version of the word in that context.

So it depends on the person's background.

"I'm finna ax you something" is not grammatically incorrect.

Bad English shouldn't magically be considered grammatically correct because the speaker carries a particular skin type.

If a white hillbilly says "Me and my sister gets into a fight sometimes" it's not grammatically correct.  If a black guy says "I'm finna ax you something" that's also not gramatically correct.

AAVE is a recognized and legitimate dialect of English that is very, very old in it's roots and structure.

I'm sorry, but your position is not supported by any world experts in language. I thought the same as you until I got a degree in linguistics.

Appalachian English of the sort that I posted (it was actually directly taken from the wikipedia article on Appalachian vernacular - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_English) as an example of hillbilly speak has roots at least as old as (if not older) than AAVE.  It's a mix of 16th and 18th century English and has roots that go back further than the slave trade in the US.  Both hillbilly talk (AVE I guess you would define it Appalachian Vernacular English) and AAVE are still grammatically incorrect though - as the length of time that people have been speaking improperly doesn't really matter.

Note that there's a difference between 'grammatically incorrect' as it pertains to the English language, and 'bad'.  I enjoy hearing slang, patois, regional dialects, and vernaculars in speech . . . they're appropriate in types of music, poetry, casual conversation, etc.  They add a richness to the language that is lovely.  However, they shouldn't be used for essay writing, research papers, technical manuals, etc. where proper English should be used as they deviate from correct grammar.

[Metalcat]

People referring to a refrigerator as an 'icebox'.

I know people who call margarine...mar ga reene.


People who don't seem to know the difference between ask and ax. I ax my mother if I could take her car to the store.

"Ax(e)" instead of "Ask" is another case of African American Vernacular English. It's a valid version of the word in that context.

So it depends on the person's background.

"I'm finna ax you something" is not grammatically incorrect.

Bad English shouldn't magically be considered grammatically correct because the speaker carries a particular skin type.

If a white hillbilly says "Me and my sister gets into a fight sometimes" it's not grammatically correct.  If a black guy says "I'm finna ax you something" that's also not gramatically correct.

AAVE is a recognized and legitimate dialect of English that is very, very old in it's roots and structure.

I'm sorry, but your position is not supported by any world experts in language. I thought the same as you until I got a degree in linguistics.

Appalachian English of the sort that I posted (it was actually directly taken from the wikipedia article on Appalachian vernacular - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_English) as an example of hillbilly speak has roots at least as old as (if not older) than AAVE.  It's a mix of 16th and 18th century English and has roots that go back further than the slave trade in the US.  Both hillbilly talk (AVE I guess you would define it Appalachian Vernacular English) and AAVE are still grammatically incorrect though - as the length of time that people have been speaking improperly doesn't really matter.

Note that there's a difference between 'grammatically incorrect' as it pertains to the English language, and 'bad'.  I enjoy hearing slang, patois, regional dialects, and vernaculars in speech . . . they're appropriate in types of music, poetry, casual conversation, etc.  They add a richness to the language that is lovely.  However, they shouldn't be used for essay writing, research papers, technical manuals, etc. where proper English should be used as they deviate from correct grammar.

Agree to disagree.

I don't refer to Standard English as "proper English". Other dialects are not errors, they are just not Standard English.

[RetiredAt63]

Quebec English is a recognized dialect.  Basically English with a lot of Quebec French mixed in.  I had to learn/replace some vocabulary when I moved to Ontario.

"Youse"  is part of the Valley dialect (Ottawa Valley).  Also non-standard English.

Any group can have their own special vocabulary and pronunciation.  The question is, will it be understood outside that group.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

I speak English and French, but can't understand Acadian French, which has a bunch of English blended in.

Do Acadian speakers need to learn more standard dialects to get by in a lot of professional contexts? Yep. That doesn't mean their dialect is incorrect or "bad grammar".

That's the only point I'm trying to make. Dialects are NOT bad grammar, they are valid linguistic structures. They are not errors or deviations from proper grammar.

It's one thing to say Standard English is dominant and that fluency is often necessary to be understood and succeed professionally, but that doesn't mean that dialectical difference are errors or mistakes.

Dialectical differences are correct within their own dialect, which have their own rules. What constitutes a grammatical error is dependent on the dialect being spoken.

What constitutes a dialect is actually formally defined. It's not just little quirks within groups.

Newfoundand has it's own dialect which I would guess is as old and distinct as the Appalachian dialect. 

Joual is certainly a recognized French dialect, which is different from Acadian French.  I was surprised to learn, several years ago, that Quebec English is a recognized dialect.  I thought we were just continuing the standard English language practice of borrowing words.  I never even thought of my language quirks as odd until I went out-of-province*.  I know there are varying vocabularies across Canada.  Who knew a hoodie is a bunnyhug?  A Quebecer has no idea what a slough is but an Albertan does.  I leave it to the linguists to decide what is a variant and what is a dialect.

* Does anyone else say out-of-province or is it just us?  ROC, please tell me.

[GuitarStv]

People referring to a refrigerator as an 'icebox'.

I know people who call margarine...mar ga reene.


People who don't seem to know the difference between ask and ax. I ax my mother if I could take her car to the store.

"Ax(e)" instead of "Ask" is another case of African American Vernacular English. It's a valid version of the word in that context.

So it depends on the person's background.

"I'm finna ax you something" is not grammatically incorrect.

Bad English shouldn't magically be considered grammatically correct because the speaker carries a particular skin type.

If a white hillbilly says "Me and my sister gets into a fight sometimes" it's not grammatically correct.  If a black guy says "I'm finna ax you something" that's also not gramatically correct.

AAVE is a recognized and legitimate dialect of English that is very, very old in it's roots and structure.

I'm sorry, but your position is not supported by any world experts in language. I thought the same as you until I got a degree in linguistics.

Appalachian English of the sort that I posted (it was actually directly taken from the wikipedia article on Appalachian vernacular - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_English) as an example of hillbilly speak has roots at least as old as (if not older) than AAVE.  It's a mix of 16th and 18th century English and has roots that go back further than the slave trade in the US.  Both hillbilly talk (AVE I guess you would define it Appalachian Vernacular English) and AAVE are still grammatically incorrect though - as the length of time that people have been speaking improperly doesn't really matter.

Note that there's a difference between 'grammatically incorrect' as it pertains to the English language, and 'bad'.  I enjoy hearing slang, patois, regional dialects, and vernaculars in speech . . . they're appropriate in types of music, poetry, casual conversation, etc.  They add a richness to the language that is lovely.  However, they shouldn't be used for essay writing, research papers, technical manuals, etc. where proper English should be used as they deviate from correct grammar.

Agree to disagree.

I don't refer to Standard English as "proper English". Other dialects are not errors, they are just not Standard English.

Let's say you're in university studying for your degree in biology.  You need to write a paper.  Will you write your paper in in AVE, AAVE, or Standard English?  Let's say you're writing a resume to get a job.  Would you write your resume in AVE or AAVE, or Standard English?  Now let's say you get that job . . . and your work is to do technical writing documenting the features of a new electronic device.  Are you going to write your documents in AVE or AAVE?, or will you choose grammatically correct English?  Now what if you're writing a legal brief?  Or a psychologist writing up a report about a patient?  Or a media relations specialist writing a press release?

If AVE and AAVE are equally as proper to use as Standard English, then shouldn't they all be interchangeable?  If they're equally correct then why even teach Standard English in school at all in preference of one of the many other vernaculars available?

I initially called your example 'Bad English' (which - quite justifiably - ruffled some feathers) because I was thinking from a corporate/employment/education perspective.  In these cases, the use of non-Standard English is certainly an error.  Again, the term 'proper' was not intended to denigrate slang/patios/vernacular (I hold nothing against Appalachian, Newfoundlander, Ottawa Valley, or Ebonics speaking brethren), but to differentiate between the form of English as accepted for everything (which you term 'Standard English') and the dialect/vernacular of naturally more limited use.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

I agree with GuitarStv. Whether or not 'ax' as a vernacular term is 'correct' or 'incorrect', it still grates on me. It grates on me the same way 'asteriks' and 'ek cetera' grate on me. It involves a transposition of letters for no apparent reason with no apparent logic in a word with a simple pronunciation. I doubt that the 'aks' pronunciation is supposed to be a throwback to the original etymology. It seems to me to simply be a widespread, 'accepted' lazy pronunciation. I guess I can't be prescriptivist about it because if enough people want to change a syllable they can. That doesn't mean I have to remain value neutral or that we all have to remain value neutral.

A purely descriptivist approach is how you end up losing the distinction between imply and infer or disinterested and uninterested or verbal and oral. If we never push back we'll just see all these meanings elided into a yucky mess. It's okay to criticise bad thought processes and lazy enunciation, folks.

[Metalcat]

People referring to a refrigerator as an 'icebox'.

I know people who call margarine...mar ga reene.


People who don't seem to know the difference between ask and ax. I ax my mother if I could take her car to the store.

"Ax(e)" instead of "Ask" is another case of African American Vernacular English. It's a valid version of the word in that context.

So it depends on the person's background.

"I'm finna ax you something" is not grammatically incorrect.

Bad English shouldn't magically be considered grammatically correct because the speaker carries a particular skin type.

If a white hillbilly says "Me and my sister gets into a fight sometimes" it's not grammatically correct.  If a black guy says "I'm finna ax you something" that's also not gramatically correct.

AAVE is a recognized and legitimate dialect of English that is very, very old in it's roots and structure.

I'm sorry, but your position is not supported by any world experts in language. I thought the same as you until I got a degree in linguistics.

Appalachian English of the sort that I posted (it was actually directly taken from the wikipedia article on Appalachian vernacular - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_English) as an example of hillbilly speak has roots at least as old as (if not older) than AAVE.  It's a mix of 16th and 18th century English and has roots that go back further than the slave trade in the US.  Both hillbilly talk (AVE I guess you would define it Appalachian Vernacular English) and AAVE are still grammatically incorrect though - as the length of time that people have been speaking improperly doesn't really matter.

Note that there's a difference between 'grammatically incorrect' as it pertains to the English language, and 'bad'.  I enjoy hearing slang, patois, regional dialects, and vernaculars in speech . . . they're appropriate in types of music, poetry, casual conversation, etc.  They add a richness to the language that is lovely.  However, they shouldn't be used for essay writing, research papers, technical manuals, etc. where proper English should be used as they deviate from correct grammar.

Agree to disagree.

I don't refer to Standard English as "proper English". Other dialects are not errors, they are just not Standard English.

Let's say you're in university studying for your degree in biology.  You need to write a paper.  Will you write your paper in in AVE, AAVE, or Standard English?  Let's say you're writing a resume to get a job.  Would you write your resume in AVE or AAVE, or Standard English?  Now let's say you get that job . . . and your work is to do technical writing documenting the features of a new electronic device.  Are you going to write your documents in AVE or AAVE?, or will you choose grammatically correct English?  Now what if you're writing a legal brief?  Or a psychologist writing up a report about a patient?  Or a media relations specialist writing a press release?

If AVE and AAVE are equally as proper to use as Standard English, then shouldn't they all be interchangeable?  If they're equally correct then why even teach Standard English in school at all in preference of one of the many other vernaculars available?

I initially called your example 'Bad English' (which - quite justifiably - ruffled some feathers) because I was thinking from a corporate/employment/education perspective.  In these cases, the use of non-Standard English is certainly an error.  Again, the term 'proper' was not intended to denigrate slang/patios/vernacular (I hold nothing against Appalachian, Newfoundlander, Ottawa Valley, or Ebonics speaking brethren), but to differentiate between the form of English as accepted for everything (which you term 'Standard English') and the dialect/vernacular of naturally more limited use.

I've made my points clear, you are entitled to disagree with them.

[Roadrunner53]

Anytime I hear someone say they axed another person, all I can imagine is an ax in their hand chopping up that person! It totally distracts my thought process on what the person is actually getting at!

[Sanitary Stache]

"That requirement came from legal"

I get very frustrated when someone tells me I have to do something and doesn't provide either a reason to convince me or a written directive from someone I am willing to follow.

This phrase is bullshit and I am not going to do whatever you say "legal" is "requiring" me to do.

[Cool Friend]

A purely descriptivist approach is how you end up losing the distinction between imply and infer or disinterested and uninterested or verbal and oral. If we never push back we'll just see all these meanings elided into a yucky mess.

Do you think the descriptivist approach is new? This is how human language has worked for all of recorded history. Dictionaries record how people actually use language; they are not prescriptive. Meanings can and do change all the time. For example, "elide" originally meant "annul," which would make your use of it incorrect. In our day, it's often used to mean "merge" or "conflate," which is okay. Because language is not a fixed structure, it's in constant flux.

edit: as for the "ax/ask" thing, take it up with Chaucer. Ax has been used as a variant of ask for at least 1,000 years.

[BlueHouse]

* Does anyone else say out-of-province or is it just us?  ROC, please tell me.

When I lived in Atlanta, many people who lived inside the Beltway (highway that circles Atlanta and its inner suburbs) refused to attend parties or doctors or stores or even date someone or generally just travel "OTB" (Outside the Beltway).  I seriously never heard so many people consistently use a phrase to represent the geographically undesirable. 
Do you say OOP or spell it all out?

[dougules]

Let's say you're in university studying for your degree in biology.  You need to write a paper.  Will you write your paper in in AVE, AAVE, or Standard English?  Let's say you're writing a resume to get a job.  Would you write your resume in AVE or AAVE, or Standard English?  Now let's say you get that job . . . and your work is to do technical writing documenting the features of a new electronic device.  Are you going to write your documents in AVE or AAVE?, or will you choose grammatically correct English?  Now what if you're writing a legal brief?  Or a psychologist writing up a report about a patient?  Or a media relations specialist writing a press release?

If AVE and AAVE are equally as proper to use as Standard English, then shouldn't they all be interchangeable?  If they're equally correct then why even teach Standard English in school at all in preference of one of the many other vernaculars available?

I initially called your example 'Bad English' (which - quite justifiably - ruffled some feathers) because I was thinking from a corporate/employment/education perspective.  In these cases, the use of non-Standard English is certainly an error.  Again, the term 'proper' was not intended to denigrate slang/patios/vernacular (I hold nothing against Appalachian, Newfoundlander, Ottawa Valley, or Ebonics speaking brethren), but to differentiate between the form of English as accepted for everything (which you term 'Standard English') and the dialect/vernacular of naturally more limited use.

You would use the standardized English of your particular country in those situations because what variety of language you use depends on the situation.  That's what a standardized form of a language is for.  On top of that you would use a more formal variety that you wouldn't use with your friends, and you wouldn't use General American English in Australia or vice versa.  If you used formal standard English with friends and family it would be really awkward.  It's inappropriate in that setting the same way a dialect or informal language is inappropriate in a formal situation. 

On top of that, viewing a dialect as "incorrect", especially AAVE, is frequently a tool for discrimination against marginalized groups. 

* Does anyone else say out-of-province or is it just us?  ROC, please tell me.

When I lived in Atlanta, many people who lived inside the Beltway (highway that circles Atlanta and its inner suburbs) refused to attend parties or doctors or stores or even date someone or generally just travel "OTB" (Outside the Beltway).  I seriously never heard so many people consistently use a phrase to represent the geographically undesirable. 
Do you say OOP or spell it all out?

Are you sure it's "Beltway" and not "Perimeter"?  I've only heard "Beltway" with DC.  Whatever you call it, though, I-285 definitely has significance as a perceived cultural boundary in Georgia. 

[GuitarStv]

Let's say you're in university studying for your degree in biology.  You need to write a paper.  Will you write your paper in in AVE, AAVE, or Standard English?  Let's say you're writing a resume to get a job.  Would you write your resume in AVE or AAVE, or Standard English?  Now let's say you get that job . . . and your work is to do technical writing documenting the features of a new electronic device.  Are you going to write your documents in AVE or AAVE?, or will you choose grammatically correct English?  Now what if you're writing a legal brief?  Or a psychologist writing up a report about a patient?  Or a media relations specialist writing a press release?

If AVE and AAVE are equally as proper to use as Standard English, then shouldn't they all be interchangeable?  If they're equally correct then why even teach Standard English in school at all in preference of one of the many other vernaculars available?

I initially called your example 'Bad English' (which - quite justifiably - ruffled some feathers) because I was thinking from a corporate/employment/education perspective.  In these cases, the use of non-Standard English is certainly an error.  Again, the term 'proper' was not intended to denigrate slang/patios/vernacular (I hold nothing against Appalachian, Newfoundlander, Ottawa Valley, or Ebonics speaking brethren), but to differentiate between the form of English as accepted for everything (which you term 'Standard English') and the dialect/vernacular of naturally more limited use.

You would use the standardized English of your particular country in those situations because what variety of language you use depends on the situation.  That's what a standardized form of a language is for.  On top of that you would use a more formal variety that you wouldn't use with your friends, and you wouldn't use General American English in Australia or vice versa.  If you used formal standard English with friends and family it would be really awkward.  It's inappropriate in that setting the same way a dialect or informal language is inappropriate in a formal situation.

This isn't my experience at all.

I use the standard English of my country (which is largely British English) to speak and write all the time . . . whether it's a technical manual, letter to my mom, resume, or speech I've got to give.  Because that's what it's for - broad applicability in all cases.  It's not awkward at all to use standard English.  It's the English that you read in most books and in everything in school.  It's the language of the business world.  It's how the majority of people who aren't playing a character part will speak in movies and TV shows.  If you're using some sort of stilted 'formal' English for your technical writing at work that you wouldn't normally talk with - stop it!  Nobody wants or needs that.

Non-standard/informal slang/jargon/vernacular are limited forms of the language with much less applicability - basically limited to informal and poetic usage.

On top of that, viewing a dialect as "incorrect", especially AAVE, is frequently a tool for discrimination against marginalized groups.

This is true with all forms of incorrect speech.  It's not limited to marginalized groups or 'AAVE'.

A guy with a thick Newfoundland accent will (at least initially) have trouble getting people to take him seriously.  (The guy who taught us aerodynamics at university had a thick Newfie accent and spouted a lot of colloquialisms from his home province - and people always laughed at him in their first class with him.  I'm sure that he was taken less seriously because of the way that he spoke.)

I don't believe that my comments about dialects have been unfairly picking on any marginalized group, but please let me know if I have been.

[RetiredAt63]

* Does anyone else say out-of-province or is it just us?  ROC, please tell me.

When I lived in Atlanta, many people who lived inside the Beltway (highway that circles Atlanta and its inner suburbs) refused to attend parties or doctors or stores or even date someone or generally just travel "OTB" (Outside the Beltway).  I seriously never heard so many people consistently use a phrase to represent the geographically undesirable. 
Do you say OOP or spell it all out?

Say it in full.  That university is out of province.  And of course for Montrealers, there is Montreal Island and then the rest of the province.  I used to live off-island.  Didn't matter which direction, just not on the Island.

ROC is Rest Of Canada.

[dougules]

You would use the standardized English of your particular country in those situations because what variety of language you use depends on the situation.  That's what a standardized form of a language is for.  On top of that you would use a more formal variety that you wouldn't use with your friends, and you wouldn't use General American English in Australia or vice versa.  If you used formal standard English with friends and family it would be really awkward.  It's inappropriate in that setting the same way a dialect or informal language is inappropriate in a formal situation.

This isn't my experience at all.

I use the standard English of my country (which is largely British English) to speak and write all the time . . . whether it's a technical manual, letter to my mom, resume, or speech I've got to give.  Because that's what it's for - broad applicability in all cases.  It's not awkward at all to use standard English.  It's the English that you read in most books and in everything in school.  It's the language of the business world.  It's how the majority of people who aren't playing a character part will speak in movies and TV shows.  If you're using some sort of stilted 'formal' English for your technical writing at work that you wouldn't normally talk with - stop it!  Nobody wants or needs that.

Non-standard/informal slang/jargon/vernacular are limited forms of the language with much less applicability - basically limited to informal and poetic usage.

On top of that, viewing a dialect as "incorrect", especially AAVE, is frequently a tool for discrimination against marginalized groups.

This is true with all forms of incorrect speech.  It's not limited to marginalized groups or 'AAVE'.

A guy with a thick Newfoundland accent will (at least initially) have trouble getting people to take him seriously.  (The guy who taught us aerodynamics at university had a thick Newfie accent and spouted a lot of colloquialisms from his home province - and people always laughed at him in their first class with him.  I'm sure that he was taken less seriously because of the way that he spoke.)

I don't believe that my comments about dialects have been unfairly picking on any marginalized group, but please let me know if I have been.

If you don't have intuitive experience with using different forms of language in different circumstances, it means that you're part of the privileged group that gets to make their dialect or language the standard.  I know you don't mean to be picking on people, but calling someone's dialect "incorrect" is not fair.  Laughing at them even more so.  It's unfortunate that people from Newfoundland have to learn to speak perfect Standard Canadian English just to be taken seriously.  A dialect is essentially a separate language that just hasn't diverged much yet from the dialect considered standard.  It has its own rules separate from the standard dialect, and it's tied closely to the identity of the people that speak it.  Calling a dialect "incorrect" is just a mild form of the same culture that thought indigenous Canadians would be better off speaking only English. 

[Cool Friend]

It's not just unfair to call it "incorrect." There are appropriate and inappropriate contexts in which to use any number of dialects, determined by explicit or implicit social code and convention. But there is no such thing as an incorrect language.

[GuitarStv]

If you don't have intuitive experience with using different forms of language in different circumstances, it means that you're part of the privileged group that gets to make their dialect or language the standard.

Sure.  I can agree with that.

But you're changing the argument here.  You were originally arguing that the Standard English used to write reports at school, compose documents at work, and write resumes was somehow different from the language that is used while talking to family and friends.  My point was that this is incorrect.  Standard English is appropriate in all places English is used.

Non-standard dialects (of any kind) are not.

I know you don't mean to be picking on people, but calling someone's dialect "incorrect" is not fair.

I'm not sure where fairness comes into things.  They're 'incorrect' from the perspective of being deviations from standard English and (as we've established) inappropriate for non-casual usage.  Complaining about unfairness in this situation seems like complaining about gravity pulling my feet downward and preventing me from flying around.

Laughing at them even more so.  It's unfortunate that people from Newfoundland have to learn to speak perfect Standard Canadian English just to be taken seriously.

They don't.

The guy who taught us aerodynamics was well liked and respected.  But the first impression with the thick accent and heavy use of colloquialisms was usually laughter due to difficulty in understanding.  This occurred because he didn't learn very good Standard English, instead forcing others to deal with his dialect.  (He did write his textbooks in perfect Standard English with no colloquialisms.)

A dialect is essentially a separate language that just hasn't diverged much yet from the dialect considered standard.  It has its own rules separate from the standard dialect, and it's tied closely to the identity of the people that speak it.

I like the concept of a dialect as a different language, and it makes sense to me and is a good way of thinking about them.  Many languages are closely tied to the identity of the people who speak them.

As an English speaker, it would be weird of me to go to Thailand and expect easy communication / work / concessions while speaking English.  The correct thing for me to do would be to learn standard Thai if I was expecting to conduct my business/education there.  I'd keep speaking English of course, but that would largely be relegated to the occasions when I was with other English speaking people.  To speak English in a setting where Thai is expected would, of course, be incorrect.

Calling a dialect "incorrect" is just a mild form of the same culture that thought indigenous Canadians would be better off speaking only English.

I don't think I'd ever argue that speaking only one language is for the best.  Languages help a persons mind develop in a variety of different, beneficial ways.  Languages themselves expose a person to wider cultural differences and ways of thinking.  Learning more languages is better in pretty much all the cases I can think of.

The white Christians who thought that indigenous Canadians would be better off speaking only English didn't care at all about the English language.  They were very clear about their goals - to eradicate native religion and culture to enforce dependence so that they could be controlled more easily.  The Canadian government (assisted by Christian churches) went out of their way to build some very specific and horrific ways of going about doing that with impacts that have damaged native communities to this day.  The goal didn't have anything to do with correct usage of the English language, or dialects . . . and it's a little odd to see you somehow try to equate the two.

[Paul der Krake]

It's not just unfair to call it "incorrect." There are appropriate and inappropriate contexts in which to use any number of dialects, determined by explicit or implicit social code and convention. But there is no such thing as an incorrect language.

There are state-sponsored institutions the world over whose only job is to determine what is correct or incorrect use of the language they have jurisdiction over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_language_regulators

They are not exactly shy to tell you when you're wrong.

We can have robust disagreements as to where to draw the line, but the absolutist view is not an easy one to defend.

[Cool Friend]

It's not just unfair to call it "incorrect." There are appropriate and inappropriate contexts in which to use any number of dialects, determined by explicit or implicit social code and convention. But there is no such thing as an incorrect language.

There are state-sponsored institutions the world over whose only job is to determine what is correct or incorrect use of the language they have jurisdiction over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_language_regulators

They are not exactly shy to tell you when you're wrong.

We can have robust disagreements as to where to draw the line, but the absolutist view is not an easy one to defend.

This does not really address what I said, and that link is not doing the point you seem to be making any favors.

[dougules]

If you don't have intuitive experience with using different forms of language in different circumstances, it means that you're part of the privileged group that gets to make their dialect or language the standard.

Sure.  I can agree with that.

But you're changing the argument here.  You were originally arguing that the Standard English used to write reports at school, compose documents at work, and write resumes was somehow different from the language that is used while talking to family and friends.  My point was that this is incorrect.  Standard English is appropriate in all places English is used.

Non-standard dialects (of any kind) are not.

You're right that I didn't address that.  But I will now.  If I were checking a technical document you wrote using the language we're using right now, I would bleed red ink all over it.  If I read a technical paper you wrote in language that we're using right now, I would probably be less likely to take you seriously.  When you write formal technical documents, you should use formal English which has a lot more influence from Latin, Greek, and Anglo-Norman French.  If you feel strongly that that needs to change, then you're feeling a little bit of what it's like to deal with implicit biases against your own dialect. 

That does not make the way we're writing right now incorrect, though.  It's just informal. 

And no, standard English is not appropriate in all places English is used.  If you went up to your friends and started speaking in the formal language I was talking about, they'd think you were pretty pompous.  Formal English isn't appropriate there, or in other words "incorrect" under the circumstances.  In the same way, using standard English could come off wrong in a situation where you should speak in your native dialect.  That's about the best I can do to explain it if you don't have any intuitive experience with diglossia.

Laughing at them even more so.  It's unfortunate that people from Newfoundland have to learn to speak perfect Standard Canadian English just to be taken seriously.

They don't.

The guy who taught us aerodynamics was well liked and respected.  But the first impression with the thick accent and heavy use of colloquialisms was usually laughter due to difficulty in understanding.  This occurred because he didn't learn very good Standard English, instead forcing others to deal with his dialect.  (He did write his textbooks in perfect Standard English with no colloquialisms.)

As you said, though, he had a small amount more trouble being taken seriously than if he talked like he had been raised in Toronto.  If you hadn't already known he was a respected aerodynamics professor, you might have dismissed his intelligence based on implicit biases about Newfoundlanders.   (I honestly don't know how serious the negative stereotype of Newfies is, so that may or may not be a good example.)

Also, give him credit that he's trying to teach you in what amounts to a foreign language.  Yes, he should learn better Standard Canadian English if he's going to teach a class in it, the same as a non-native English speaker, but you should recognize you're saying that from a place of being born into the privilege of being a native speaker of the prestige dialect. 

A dialect is essentially a separate language that just hasn't diverged much yet from the dialect considered standard.  It has its own rules separate from the standard dialect, and it's tied closely to the identity of the people that speak it.

I like the concept of a dialect as a different language, and it makes sense to me and is a good way of thinking about them.  Many languages are closely tied to the identity of the people who speak them.

As an English speaker, it would be weird of me to go to Thailand and expect easy communication / work / concessions while speaking English.  The correct thing for me to do would be to learn standard Thai if I was expecting to conduct my business/education there.  I'd keep speaking English of course, but that would largely be relegated to the occasions when I was with other English speaking people.  To speak English in a setting where Thai is expected would, of course, be incorrect.

Yes totally. 

Calling a dialect "incorrect" is just a mild form of the same culture that thought indigenous Canadians would be better off speaking only English.

I don't think I'd ever argue that speaking only one language is for the best.  Languages help a persons mind develop in a variety of different, beneficial ways.  Languages themselves expose a person to wider cultural differences and ways of thinking.  Learning more languages is better in pretty much all the cases I can think of.

The white Christians who thought that indigenous Canadians would be better off speaking only English didn't care at all about the English language.  They were very clear about their goals - to eradicate native religion and culture to enforce dependence so that they could be controlled more easily.  The Canadian government (assisted by Christian churches) went out of their way to build some very specific and horrific ways of going about doing that with impacts that have damaged native communities to this day.  The goal didn't have anything to do with correct usage of the English language, or dialects . . . and it's a little odd to see you somehow try to equate the two.

There are a lot of similarities to what speakers of AAVE have been through.

But yes those examples are extreme.  Nonetheless, people from places like West Virginia still face an uphill battle to be taken as seriously as people like you who were born into learning the prestige dialect of North American English. 

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

It's not just unfair to call it "incorrect." There are appropriate and inappropriate contexts in which to use any number of dialects, determined by explicit or implicit social code and convention. But there is no such thing as an incorrect language.

That's like me saying that because people have different subjective rules of grammar, all the people who enjoy putting the apostrophe in a plural pronoun are not incorrect - just nonstandard.

[Paul der Krake]

It's not just unfair to call it "incorrect." There are appropriate and inappropriate contexts in which to use any number of dialects, determined by explicit or implicit social code and convention. But there is no such thing as an incorrect language.

There are state-sponsored institutions the world over whose only job is to determine what is correct or incorrect use of the language they have jurisdiction over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_language_regulators

They are not exactly shy to tell you when you're wrong.

We can have robust disagreements as to where to draw the line, but the absolutist view is not an easy one to defend.

They're also arms of governments that have a long history of colonialist atrocities around the world.

Not everything has to be seen through the lens of colonial history.

You can see these academies as the tyranny of the majority oppressing a minority, or you can see it as a brave minority taking a stand to protect their own language from the more influential group. It just depends on the situation.

For example: the French academy spends a crazy amount of time "fighting" anglicisms. There are millions of people in France who use the word "digital" the way English speakers understand it, because many French citizens go on the global internet a consume a ton of American content. Many are highly educated and work in tech or whatever, so it bleeds into everyday language. The academy isn't having it, because "digital" means something else entirely in French, you should use "numérique" instead. If you don't, that's incorrect.

Now there is no police that goes around arresting people at night because they used the word incorrectly. But in any situation that matters even just a bit, whether it's crafting legislation, writing papers, giving a public talk, you are expected to know the difference and use the appropriate word. If you don't, people will think less of you. Probably not a lot less, but less.

This isn't about ethnic dominance or cultural assimilation or anything like that. There is no deep-rooted anti-Anglo resentment going back to Joan of Arc. French is the language of the Republic, and its citizens are expected to speak French in the public sphere.

[BlueHouse]

* Does anyone else say out-of-province or is it just us?  ROC, please tell me.

When I lived in Atlanta, many people who lived inside the Beltway (highway that circles Atlanta and its inner suburbs) refused to attend parties or doctors or stores or even date someone or generally just travel "OTB" (Outside the Beltway).  I seriously never heard so many people consistently use a phrase to represent the geographically undesirable. 
Do you say OOP or spell it all out?

Are you sure it's "Beltway" and not "Perimeter"?  I've only heard "Beltway" with DC.  Whatever you call it, though, I-285 definitely has significance as a perceived cultural boundary in Georgia.
[/quote]
Oh gosh, you're right!  I live in DC now so that's on my mind.   I'm losing my mind.

[Cool Friend]

It's not just unfair to call it "incorrect." There are appropriate and inappropriate contexts in which to use any number of dialects, determined by explicit or implicit social code and convention. But there is no such thing as an incorrect language.

That's like me saying that because people have different subjective rules of grammar, all the people who enjoy putting the apostrophe in a plural pronoun are not incorrect - just nonstandard.

You’ve confused the idea of a coherent dialect being incorrect (which is what I’m talking about) with individual errors within the framework of that language.

[Metalcat]

It's not just unfair to call it "incorrect." There are appropriate and inappropriate contexts in which to use any number of dialects, determined by explicit or implicit social code and convention. But there is no such thing as an incorrect language.

That's like me saying that because people have different subjective rules of grammar, all the people who enjoy putting the apostrophe in a plural pronoun are not incorrect - just nonstandard.

You’ve confused the idea of a coherent dialect being incorrect (which is what I’m talking about) with individual errors within the framework of that language.

Exactly. A dialect is different from a pattern of errors within a dialect.

There is such thing as a grammatical error, anyone speaking any dialect can make a grammatical error. Not speaking the dominant dialect is not making an error, it's speaking according to a systematically different set of rules.