George Carlin on English Language Usage

[Porter]

I think that it's doomed to failure because most people's pronouncements about it are judgment calls.

There wouldn't be an argument if Carlin said something along the lines of "the original pronunciation of the word forte is "fort", while the pronunciation "forte" is a much more recent phenomenon."  That is a verifiable (or disprovable) fact.  

But when he says that it's wrong to do it one way, that we should do it another way, or that doing it that way makes you look stupid, he's in the realm of opinion, not verifiable fact.  He can't prove it right, and you can't prove it wrong.

[goofy]

I think that it's doomed to failure because most people's pronouncements about it are judgment calls.

There wouldn't be an argument if Carlin said something along the lines of "the original pronunciation of the word forte is "fort", while the pronunciation "forte" is a much more recent phenomenon."  That is a verifiable (or disprovable) fact. 

But when he says that it's wrong to do it one way, that we should do it another way, or that doing it that way makes you look stupid, he's in the realm of opinion, not verifiable fact.  He can't prove it right, and you can't prove it wrong.

So when he says "Healthy does not mean healthful" that's not a factual claim. He's really saying "whatever the heck healthy is used to mean doesn't matter, this is what I think it should mean." hm.

The weird thing is I can understand where he got the ideas for "healthy", "unique" and "momentarily" - these are disputed usages. But no one else complains about "celibate".

[Porter]

So when he says "Healthy does not mean healthful" that's not a factual claim.

It's not a verifiable claim.  How can you prove what a word really means?  What does that even mean?

But no one else complains about "celibate".

That's not true.  I've heard that one many times.

[goofy]

So when he says "Healthy does not mean healthful" that's not a factual claim.

It's not a verifiable claim.  How can you prove what a word really means?  What does that even mean?

We can figure out what words mean. We've gotta be able to use rational methods of enquiry to determine this sort of thing, otherwise what's the point in anything.

[Porter]

What does it mean when someone says that Star Wars is better than Star Trek?  Sure it means something, namely about his opinion, but it's nothing verifiable.

It's the same with Carlin's pronouncements on language.  He was expressing an opinion on what he wants people to do.  It's nothing verifiable.  

[goofy]

What does it mean when someone says that Star Wars is better than Star Trek?  Sure it means something, namely about his opinion, but it's nothing verifiable.

It's the same with Carlin's pronouncements on language.  He was expressing an opinion on what he wants people to do.  It's nothing verifiable.

I know, but that doesn't mean that we can't prove what words really mean - because we can.

[rivka]

For some value of "really mean".

[Porter]

What does it mean if I say that Star Trek is better than Star Wars?  Or that chocolate is better than strawberry?  Or  It means nothing verifiable, beyond the fact that that's my opinion.

The same is true with most of what Carlin said.

[goofy]

What does it mean if I say that Star Trek is better than Star Wars?  Or that chocolate is better than strawberry?  Or  It means nothing verifiable, beyond the fact that that's my opinion.

The same is true with most of what Carlin said.

Yes, you keep saying that, and I agree. I thought he was making factual claims like "word X means Y" but he wasn't.

[Porter]

He probably thought he was.  So do a lot of keeps who pontificate about which Star Trek captain was "better".  But for the most part, he wasn't.

Saying something as though it's provable, verifiable fact does not make it so.

[rivka]

Saying something as though it's provable, verifiable fact does not make it so.

Sez you.

[Porter]

Touché

[rivka]

[Icarus]

I'm not convinced that it does.

How do you check to see if a given usage is correct?  Appeals to authority or common usage are worthless for the sake of this discussion.

You can ask me, and I'll let you know what the Style Manual of Joe says.

[Jonathon]

Well, I don't think you've made your point.  He says over and over that "common usage" is wrong/stupid/etc..  It being in the dictionary doesn't make it right, by his argument.

That's because his argument is wrong. Or rather, he isn't making an argument at all—he's simply making assertions. And he isn't giving his opinion, so this isn't really analogous to arguments over whether Star Trek or Star Wars is better.

He just says over and over again, "x doesn't mean y; it means z." Inasmuch as we can determine what words mean, we can evaluate these statements and decide whether they're accurate or not. As goofy pointed out, many of them are not. Now, if he had said, "I don't think x shouldn't mean y; it should mean z," that'd be something else entirely.

The interesting thing is that a few years ago Carlin said that he probably would've liked to teach linguistics. Though I suppose he probably would've had the prescriptivism beaten out of him.