Thread by @EvilJoeMcVeigh

Thank you, Lionel Shriver and @SpectatorUSA for publishing this pratfall of an article. I can't wait to show it to my students. It's proof that you can know diddly-doo about language & still get paid to write about it. Time to dunk on some bad linguistics! spectator.us/topic/beware-l…

This is published in the "Education" section? Ruh roh.

Remember that comment about "notorious" - it's going to come up again soon.

What's the bane of linguists these days? Garbage rants about language like this.

But I digress. You were saying? Your favorite dictionary is Webster's 7th from 1969? Fine. Because politics? Um, ok. Explain.

This is not true. Dictionaries have never functioned as linguistic anchors. I mean, maybe in the 1700s. But by 1969? Nope. No way. They weren't slow to adapt, they were just slow. Writing, editing, publishing and all that was slow and expensive. That's it.

And hey, there's that comment again about "notorious" not meaning "famous". Is that true? Nerp. Here it is in one of those pre-internet, august dictionaries you love so much, Ms. Shriver: the OED. "Notorious" has meant "famous" SINCE THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 1555!

"Notorious" meant "famous" before Shakespeare was born. Maybe Shriver should - I don't know - checking a dictionary or something?! 🤯

I don't have a copy of Shriver's desert island dictionary, Webster's 7th from 1969... but the internet does 😎
archive.org/details/webste…

And whaddya know? Shriver's favorite dictionary says "notorious" is synonymous with - wait for it - "famous". 👀Wow, I did not see that coming. (I totally saw that coming)

Maybe Lionel Shriver doesn't know how to read?? Huge if true.

Or then she's just lazy. 🤷‍♂️

And guess who else uses "notorious" to mean "famous"? The Spectator! (@SpectatorUSA) 297 articles with "notorious" in there. I'll bet you a Coke that at least a few of these examples mean "famous". I can't view them b/c I have to subscribe and lol no.

Moving on! You're nuts if you think dictionaries are updated daily. The quickest ever update of MW happened last year and it took WEEKS. You would literally starve if you waited for the dictionary to update a definition.

Look, I get it. I'd love to think that dictionary editors are a bunch of commie pinkos like me. But the fact is that they're (probably) not.

I mean, Merriam-Webster's headquarters is in Boston, which means that some of them are probably even *shudders* Bruins fans.

Truth is that lexicographers (the people who write dictionaries) record the language. That's it. They're eternally playing catch-up but that's just how language and dictionaries work. So beat it with your conspiracy theories about the dictionary.

Oops. Forgot to add the screenshot for that last tweet. This conspiracy theory will be important later. (Unfortunately)

Here's another basic fact for ya, Comrade Shriver. Language change is good. A language that changes is a language that is alive. There are languages that don't change. Linguists call them dead languages. Latin is a notorious one. Maybe you should try it. No change happening there

But come on Lionel and @spectator. This is first semester undergrad linguistics stuff. Maybe you should pick up a book about language if you're so interested in it?

Alright, we're three paragraphs in and this article already sucks, but apparently I hate myself so let's see what the rest holds.

Oooh, we're going to look in the dictionary now? Cool! And we're going to prove that modern dictionaries are being imposed upon by ~*evil progressives*~ to control thought? Not so cool! (Also 100% not true, but sure, give it a shot, Shriver)

Aw crap, Lionel. Did you attack the dictionary just so you could be transphobic? Next time just tell your cats that you're a transphobe who doesn't understand how language works. Don't rope lexicographers into your bigotry. I feel like I walked right into this one. 🤦‍♂️

I shouldn't waste time with this nonsense, but I'm going on record showing why this whole paragraph is a hot pile of doggie doo doo. 1. That is definitely not the sole difference between the words "sex" and "gender" in your old ass dictionary.

I know. I checked. "sex" as a noun has 3 definitions and is also a verb. "sex" and "gender" don't and didn't mean exactly the same thing. No two words do. True synonymy is a myth.

2. In the New World Order Dict. that scares you so, "gender" means... "sex". Get lost w/ "basket of social behaviors and ornamental conventions". Those words ain't in the definition. That's you adding partisan ideological baggage. That's bad, remember? You said so 3 sentences ago

Third, "sex-role stereotype" isn't in your crotchety 1969 dictionary. I guess those conservative editors didn't think it was important enough to define.

Fourth, what the heck is the "transgender lobby" and why are you so afraid of it? Are you worried they're going turn you queer? I bet you are because you seem to think that trans people are just "acting". Get. Lost.

"What is it with LGBTQ+ people? Why can't they just be straight, ya know?
How come Irish people can't just be English?
Birds: why aren't they dogs?"
-Lionel Shriver probably

Oh, and btw all this has got bugger-all to do with the dictionary. 😠

Fifth (Last hopefully), I love that you think semantic change can be calculated. It's adorable. But maybe try learning a bit about semantics before you publish an article and completely step in it. 💅

(Nope, not last! 😞) Sixth, you know who claims "sex" and "gender" mean the same thing? The online dictionaries that you hate so much. They fucking agree with you, Shriver!

Blah, blah, blah... "equality" and "equity" weren't synonyms in Shriver's crusty dictionary, they're not synonyms now. You would think that an author would cherish the fact that these words have specific, distinct meanings. Guess not!

And in the newer, cooler dictionary "equity" does not mean "equality of outcome". Shriver made that up. Because - again - she either (1) has no idea how dictionaries and language work, or (2) she's intentionally lying to us, or (3) both.

For someone who claims to not like importing "partisan ideological baggage" to words, Shriver sure seems to do it an awful lot. Huh. Wonder why that is? And how come she has a problem with a rise in equality and equity? Strange.

Also, "equality" is not quietly disappearing. In fact, it's usage has slightly increased in the past few years. And "equity" has been more frequently used than "equality" since the early 90s.

Hey Shriver, you know where else there's "no mention anywhere of ‘equality of outcome’"? Online dictionaries. I checked. 9 of them. Maybe you should've too. Or are you just doing that ideological baggage importing thing again? You gotta stop doing that, bro. I heard it's bad.

Oops. Forgot another screengrab. Here's the quote in question.

Now on to "patriotism" and "nationalism". Ugh boy. Here we go.

It looks like Lionel actually checked the dictionary?? Could it be? Doth mine eyes decieveth me?

The online dictionary doesn't "now" qualify "that ‘nationalism’ also means ‘exalting one nation above all others", Lionel. Your papyrus dictionary did that back in 1969. Starting to think you don't own a copy of MW's 7th. B/c you sure as shit didn't bother to check, ya lazy ass.

See me after class, Lionel. We need to discuss your final paper.

"Sorry to quibble"? Lol no you're not. This whole shitpost is you quibbling. Or did quibble mean something different in the bygone days of 1969?

The dict. didn't put a neo-Nazi stink on "nationalist" - you did that. I did that. We all did that. It's how lang works. People - incl. fascists - used "nationalist" to mean "neo-Nazi" & so the dictionary updated its definition. B/c if it didn't then the definition would be WRONG

Ok, we're almost done. I promise.

I also promise that this article does not get better. Sorry. ☹️

Ugh. This part sucks hardcore. "These examples are arguably inorganic"? Fucking prove it, Lionel. We've just seen how your own evidence doesn't back up your claims. A glance at it shows that dictionaries - new and old - say exactly the opposite of what you claim they say. FOH

Started out wrong, might as well end wrong. "Performative" still means what it has always meant. I know because I'm a linguist. Shriver doesn't know because - as we've seen - she sucks at linguistics.

So "performative" has a new definition. So what? Literally a gajillion words have multiple definitions. That's a feature of language. And know what? It's fine. People are totally ok with it. In fact, they're good at it. Because people control language, not the other way around💪

Dictionaries certainly don't control language. Never have, never will.

And they don't even want to!

Stop shitting on language and linguistics, Shriver. When you wanna complain about how you can't be transphobic or nationalist anymore (even though you clearly can be and the @spectator will publish it), leave the dictionary out of it.

The next time you want to fart out a hit piece on the English language, Shriver, just do it into your hand. Then you can enjoy the stink and we don't have to.