Talk:Corruption (linguistics)

message: This is by far the worst article I have ever encountered on wikipedia. Please someone fix it!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.101.102 (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

message: To preface my comments, I'm no linguist or etymologist make sure to keep what I say in that context. I had always thought that the reason the word bastardize means what it means is because the word bastard itself has been bastardized. By that I mean that as opposed to simply meaning an illegitimate child, it has become a curse word which people throw around in the heat of arguments or use to describe politicians. While some bastards may in fact be illegitimate, the meaning has changed. That's why it's called bastardization. Is that true? Is there some sort of etymologist that could answer that question authoritatively?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.112.76 (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the term bastardization 

message: I fixed what I could, but I don't even know what this ungrammatical sentence from the history section is supposed to mean, so I took it out.  Whoever knows what it should probably make it make sense and put it back in:
:In cases it would be implied, and in others an accidental fault on one side.  
NickelShoe 21:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is inarticulate

message: does not mean descriptivism.  While I happen to hate prescriptivism, calling it a "notion" and refusing to actually use the word "corruption", which is the title of the article, is clearly a POV, even if it is the correct one. NickelShoe 22:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV actually does mean descriptivism. Describing something in the terms of what it is instead of the terms of what certain people think it should be is exactly what neutrality means. I stand by my use of the word "notion," but I don't have a problem with the way you phrased it, so that's okay. However, using the word corruption to describe these language changes is to give the notion of linguistic corruption validity and to tacitly approve those classist (etc.) prescriptivist ideals. Dave 01:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: As a recipient of B.A. degree in Linguistics, I have gone through this article and raised it to a minimally acceptable level of scientific accuracy. Note especially that "corruption" and "bastardization" are not actually linguistics terms in the sense of being widely used by the academic linguistics community (I challenge anyone to find them in a modern glossary of linguistics terms). They are folk terminology originating with the subjective (and not well-supported) opinion that changes arising from errors or non-standard usage constitute degradations of the language. The overall quality of the article could obviously use some improvement, which I will leave to more experienced editors. Evzob (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partial Rewrite (Attention from Expert) 

message: What is the point of this article? It doesn't have a topic and is sort of a dictionary definition for two different and vague words. Corruption (linguistics) is also obviously the wrong name for a non-linguistic term. I will nominate it for deletion unless someone can convince me otherwise. Bhny (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it warrants treatment in Wikipedia because of its status as a culturally prominent concept (not just a pair of words). But I definitely agree about the name change. Would suggest Corruption (language). GeoEvan (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  why does this article exist?