They actually are the reverse of irked, cause like an archaeologist finding a new artefact, they find the cool thing of evidence of the shift of language.

Not errors, evidence of change

[–] palordrolap@fedia.io 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What's your opinion of the word "neologologist" and are you proposing that these "most linguists" are in fact described by it? And what do you think their opinion of it would be? ;p

[–] gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago

I would say that most aren't, but some definitely are

It's a study of both the past and the present, many study both, many study just one, some flip-flop between

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I also envy their ability to understand what was meant, because sometimes there are enough errors to make meaning completely impossible to discern

[–] gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

There's this thing in linguistics, casual language requires backchanneling - to respond back with either short utterances that show you understand, or to show confusion and then ask for clarity

The reason formal language is formalised, as in the shit used in essays, is that there is no easy way to say "what did you mean?" - the feedback loop is far too slow for that process and by the point the author(s) get to respond they likely forget what they meant as well

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago

This makes so much sense, my most painful experience in understanding department is from forums where feedback is at best hours long, and infinitely long at worst if the person never ever replies