[net.nlang] Linguistic Relativity

eric@sri-unix (11/29/82)

	To Pete Hardie; I have grown very familiar with
the mispronunciation of height you describe (terminal soft th).
Though I can't call instances to mind, I'm sure I have
heard it both in Atlanta and here in Portland, OR.
	And with regard to David Elliott's linguistic relativist
stance, I submit that my user of the word mispronunciation above is
correct.  There is a sizeable body of linguistic behavior in the
population of English speakers which characterizes usages as wrong,
and I think that the mispronunciation of height would be so characterized
by most speakers queried.  If the linguistic relativist is simply
pointing out an unfortunate fact about the impossibility of stemming
incorrect usages of a word, that is one thing, but his comments seem
to place David Elliott among those anarchistic linguistic relativists
who not only describe language, but venture into normative aspects
of the field by contesting normative judgements.  The principle these
anarchistic linguistic relativists (please flame only if you are in
fact an anarchistic, *normative* linguistic relativist) use to contest
normative judgements is that no normative judgement can be enforced,
therefore none should be made.  I thought we had laid to rest the
derivation of an "ought" from an "is" with the English classical
empiricists.

teklabs!reed!eric Johnson