Re: Gatekeeping is fine.

#21
Tony Wrote: I think there's a big difference between conjugating/structure and definitions.  Language is meant to be understood.  Everyone (I can think of that speaks English somewhat understandably) can understand, "Well, you applying to the job has made my life hell."  If I said, "I'm inferring Alexander feels that your applying to the job has made his life hell," we have a word that used to be solidly defined and meant a specific thing, but now means anything, so means nothing.  Did you make an implication I can base my inference on?  Or am I just trying to sound smart and saying this after you made a specific statement with no ambiguity?  Who knows, because it is a meaningless word now.
The inferring/implying confusion is a touch different here, though, because they have markedly different meanings—indeed, so markedly different that their misuse (for now) impairs communication.
I'd be surprised if your ability to comprehend what was implied by "I literally need to go to the toilet" were impaired simply for the usage of literally. I would also suggest that it wasn't, considering you knew what they meant to say. Its usage for emphasis is extremely well established, albeit informal enough.
Tony Wrote: The first is perfectly understandable and the second is the destruction of all civilization.  Just kidding, that is very overly dramatic, but definitions being destroyed is far more detrimental to a language than conjugation and grammar.
I would argue definitions, and usages to that end, change—rather than are destroyed.
To shoot oneself in the foot is a good example. We take it now to mean an action of self-sabotage, where originally it meant a self-serving action, a sacrifice to avoid something worse down the line—soldiers shooting themselves in the feet to escape postings on the front lines during the First World War. The meaning changed quite dramatically, to the ire of prescriptivist grammars everywhere.

Re: Gatekeeping is fine.

#22
The meaning of idioms or popular uses can still have a unique function.  Literally and infer had unique functions, now don't.  The functions weren't replaced.  They're just gone.  Language is less clear.  Communication is becoming harder.

And pigeon languages work well with completely destroyed conjugation and structure; they would cease to work if definitions changed all willy-nilly.  

These two examples are my core argument and I think ones that can't be refuted.  (Unique functions not being replaced, just gone forever; and pigeon languages working).

Re: Gatekeeping is fine.

#23
Tony Wrote: The meaning of idioms or popular uses can still have a unique function.  Literally and infer had unique functions, now don't.  The functions weren't replaced.  They're just gone.  Language is less clear.  Communication is becoming harder.
I disagree with this.
Literally and figuratively still have unique functions, and are still used for those unique functions. Different parts of society use them in different ways. The same applies to infer and imply—I can picture my colleagues grinning ear to ear at the prospect of explaining to any student why "I think she's inferring..." is probably not correct usage.
I wouldn't mix them up, and no one I know mixes them up. Does that make our usage right and everyone else's usage wrong? It depends whether you consider there to be an authority over the English language. I don't. The prevailing opinion right now is the same, I would say.

Tony Wrote: And pigeon languages work well with completely destroyed conjugation and structure; they would cease to work if definitions changed all willy-nilly.

(I'm assuming you mean a pidgin language, which is tangential to the very point in a rather humorous way!)
While what you're saying is true to an extent, I'm not sure what the point being made is—that would be true of any language if its lexicon were ill-defined. It's not exclusive to pidgins. They come about by necessity, between speakers of dissimilar languages, and for the process of their communication work as well as needed. That's not to say they have destroyed conjugation or morphology, but simplified versions, for the complexities are of no value given the nature of the pidgins themselves—often for commericial benefit where the ability to express complex tense (for example) is of lesser importance than actually identifying goods and services in a mutual way.

Re: Gatekeeping is fine.

#24
I made a mistake.  I used the wrong word, and by context and your own knowledge, you knew what I meant and corrected me.  I agree I used the wrong word and thank you for correcting me.  But using a wrong word is vastly different than destroying the unique function of a word.  

But for the rest of your argument, it seems like you're trying to have it both ways.  You explain how language changes in popular vernacular and can't be stopped, but say you (and what I am assuming are college professor peers?) know the correct meaning and definitions of these words.  As words change the definitions change and are updated.  So, the incorrect usage becomes codified and is now correct.  In 50 years can you say for certain your peers will use infer for its unique function, or will they use it (correctly, as the definition has been updated and codified) as a synonym for imply?  Once changed and widely accepted, the unique functionality is gone forever.

Can you say with certainty words losing their unique function doesn't bother you at all?  Not even a little tiny bit?  It has to bother you more than if you had dinner with my family and had to deal with our Boston grammar (which is absolutely atrocious, and we take pride in it).  "I ain't guts none," is still clear communication.  No word has lost any unique functionality.

Re: Gatekeeping is fine.

#25
Tony Wrote: As words change the definitions change and are updated.  So, the incorrect usage becomes codified and is now correct.

This is a fundamental misattribution of how a dictionary works.
A dictionary does not define a word's meaning. Rather, its usage defines the dictionary entry.
That is to say, as a word's usage shifts over time, how it is reflected in the dictionaries changes. A dictionary in English—and here I am specific—is only ever a reference of current usage, not correct usage.
It might seem like a very, very fine hair to split, but the implication is substantial indeed. Now, there do exist prescribing dictionaries for some disciplines, but in general use and for the general public, all the big ones are descriptivist. You might see the barest pass of "nonstandard usage" or "considered vulgar" but this skirts the line between the opinions of the lexicographers and factual reporting of use itself.
More significantly, this implies that, should a dictionary not contain any particular definition against any particular word, then it might nonetheless still exist—just not prominently enough to have been noticed. This was obviously more significant a problem before online dictionaries were a thing. One of my tutors was an editor for a bilingual English–French dictionary and frequently reminded us that it made her suicidal. How much of that was a joke, I cannot say.
Tony Wrote: Once changed and widely accepted, the unique functionality is gone forever.
This presumes that English's lexicography is a closed class—that is, does not meaningfully evolve over time (consider determiners, pronouns*, etc.). Should a word's usage evolve sufficiently, as you say, that the original concept it embodied ceases to be represented, then a new word or expression will evolve in to cover this gap.
Unless, of course, there's no need, in which case the meaning might indeed be lost forever... until it evolves back again. Consider apricity, a word to express the feeling of the warm sun in winter. Its usage was apparently unnecessary and infrequent enough that it passed into history without, to my knowledge, ever being replaced.
Tony Wrote: It has to bother you more than if you had dinner with my family and had to deal with our Boston grammar (which is absolutely atrocious, and we take pride in it).
I once had to read the words "could of dessenated".
Nothing can hurt me anymore.
*Generally speaking, for the moment and at the moment—this may be subject to change more rapidly as the debate does.

Re: Gatekeeping is fine.

#26
Elijah-Talbot2 Wrote: I won't say they are the worse people, they haven't committed a crime or done something morally objectionable. You are correct to say that their interpretation shouldn't phase me. Because it doesn't. If they made something I don't like or won't enjoy, I put it down and get on with my day or enjoy the original one as that hasn't gone away.
This can always be done and I don't believe that it I said otherwise. The question was whether you would put an interpretation of something that you didn't like (in this case an interpretation from the worst people that you could imagine) on the same level as the original that you enjoy. Whatever that level is when you don't differentiate between fan work or original works.

Elijah-Talbot2 Wrote: Yes, and I pointed out that they have changed names and points to make it so they won't get sued. It is again, more of a legality thing. It still started and is more or less still Twilight fanfiction. Fanfiction doesn't have to follow the same story or ideas, it can use characters and the setting to create new stories that are their own thing.

So in essence they made a new story. If you can explain to me how it remains fanfiction when there is nothing but the abstract linking it to the original then that would be appreciated.

If fanficition is just anything that takes inspiration from something else than this is another point to drop as we'd be using the same term for different things.

Elijah-Talbot2 Wrote: An artistic translation of Homer's work is not historic revisionism, it's simply an interpretation. The historical context of the Iliad is still here, we have studied that book for centuries. In turn, we have also interpreted that story differently depending on the time period. It will only be historical revisionism if the original works are altered (which they have not).

Depends on how "artistic" the interpretation, depends on what you consider a translation and an adaptation.

Creative liberty is required when translating, it is inherent due to the differences between languages, but I'll remind you that a translation is purely about translating the content of the work from one language to the other. Overly caring about prose and some such, while nice for the reader, strays close to and sometimes into the realm of adaptation (again there is some leeway here).

Elijah-Talbot2 Wrote: I have, it was the first point I made. "The Iliad has gone through multiple changes throughout the years. Different translations from different groups (be it race or gender) will give you different results on what that story is."
No, and you still haven't. The focus is not on the fact that different people have translated the work instead it was on the fact that of the translations that have been made some are considered more linguistically accurate than others. If you are getting "different results on what the story" is than you are reading adaptations or terribly bad translations. Of which the former I don't have a problem with as I've mentioned before.

Mind you I understand your point, I just don't think that it's at all applicable.

Elijah-Talbot2 Wrote: In that case, it's highly subjective. No story is hard to replace or perfect. Every story can be changed and made better. Lord of the Rings is a really boring book, but the movies changed it to make it less so. The books are still there, they haven't disappeared since someone made an updated version of it. Regardless, what one person finds iconic won't be for the other person. In that case, if the other person doesn't find that story iconic to them, then I say let them make it iconic. They are not altering the text, for the text is not actively being destroyed.
Yes, things are subjective.

DrakanFascinating 

Elijah-Talbot2 Wrote: War of the Worlds has the same cultural impact as the Iliad for its time. And the Iliad is far older than War of the Worlds, and people change and interpret the Iliad differently the same way they would interpret War of the Worlds. If it's going to be based on dates of publishing, then frankly who cares if people change old stories to fit modern audiences?

I do.*


Re: Gatekeeping is fine.

#27
Paradoxcloud Wrote: a translation is purely about translating the content of the work from one language to the other. Overly caring about prose and some such, while nice for the reader, strays close to and sometimes into the realm of adaptation (again there is some leeway here).
What of translating poetry?

Does one translate the content, or the metre? What should be done in circumstances where those two things are mutually exclusive?
To that end, I translated a children's book some years ago—Wunschpunsch—and found another translator's solution for the title quite neat indeed: the Notion Potion.
Beelzebub Irrwitzer became Beelzebub Preposterer in English. Again, a fantastic choice. Speakers of both German and English here will know why.
If we accept that no two languages are identical, then we must by reason accept that all translations are adaptions. I think the measure being how much adaptation is permissible.

Re: Gatekeeping is fine.

#28
Alexander Wrote: If we accept that no two languages are identical, then we must by reason accept that all translations are adaptions. I think the measure being how much adaptation is permissible.
Eh, it's up to interpretation like most things. If I translate голубой into "blue" instead of "light blue" am I adapting or translating crudely, it's for the senate to decide (or Palpatine, take your pick).

Re: Gatekeeping is fine.

#29
I feel like gatekeeping in relation to your question and original post needs more properly defined or that you might not be using it properly.

Typically when someone refers to gatekeeping, you're either going with the accepted usage or the dictionary definition. The latter being: "the activity of controlling, and usually limiting, general access to something." 

Any instance you see someone referencing gatekeeping, it's used as a solely negative descriptor. If someone is gatekeeping, it is always bad. If the person is doing something that isn't seen as bad, it's not described as gatekeeping. As an example: you'll never describe banning or limiting access to bots and spam as gatekeeping unless you want to confuse everyone involved. Even if the specific circumstance made the dictionary definition technically applicable, nobody would consider that gatekeeping because it's not a bad thing.

In comparison, your focus in relation to gatekeeping is:
Quote:My focus is mainly on plots and narratives staying consistent over time as to preserve it, not limiting distribution and excluding others so that some people can feel good about themselves, there is little merit in that.
Given the definitions, I don't think what you're describing is even gatekeeping. If it is, I may be misunderstanding.

The way you describe it in your first post makes it seem you mean you don't want people dumbing down their content to appeal to wider audiences? Because that's not gatekeeping. You're focusing on the quality of the content. You're not saying the creator shouldn't dumb their shit down to purposefully exclude anyone. You're saying they should make quality content and not compromise solely to make it more widely acceptable. The knock-on effect of it excluding others is just happenstance to what you care about. Good media that isn't dumbed down or shat on.

There is a term for artists doing that, if that's what you mean. "Selling out." Cashing in or exploitation could also work. Which would seem to fit with what happened with the specific adaptation you mentioned, and can be similarly applied to what people see happening with Star Wars and plenty of other franchises.

Re: Gatekeeping is fine.

#31
"One gatekeeper a day keeps the posers away"

Seriously now, yes, we need gatekeeping. We all know series that used to be cool and unpopular but when they became mainstream, everything got ruined. Decreasing quality of new books/movies "so they will sell better", fanbase getting absolutely terrible, people pretending to like sonething because it's trendy now, things like that.
I mean, we shouldn't just scare new people away but we have to keep the thing authentic.