{"id":11603,"date":"2021-01-07T02:27:28","date_gmt":"2021-01-07T10:27:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/?p=11603"},"modified":"2021-01-07T02:27:28","modified_gmt":"2021-01-07T10:27:28","slug":"humpty-dumpty-and-commerce","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/?p=11603","title":{"rendered":"Humpty Dumpty and Commerce"},"content":{"rendered":"

Fairly inexpensive hair combs made of hard rubber<\/span> — rubber vulcanized to a state in which it is as about firm as a modern plastic — could be found in most American drugstores at least into the mid-'90s. Now-a-days, they have become something of a premium item. I was looking at listing on Amazon supposedly<\/em> of hard rubber combs<\/a> and discovered, to my annoyance, that a careful reading of the descriptions showed that most of the combs explicitly described as hard rubber<\/q> were made of plastic<\/em>. To me, the situation seemed to be of pervasive fraud, as it will to many others.<\/p>

But then I realized that it is more likely to be something else. Fraud<\/span>, after all, involves deliberate<\/em> misrepresentation. Whereäs we live in a world in which a great many people believe that no use of a word or phrase is objectively improper<\/em> — that if they think that hard rubber<\/q> means a rubbery plastic or a plastic that looks like another substance called hard rubber<\/q>, then it indeed means just that. (Of course, we cannot trust any verbal<\/em> explanation from them of these idiosyncratic meanings, as they may be assigning different meanings to any words with which they define other words<\/a>.)<\/p>

My defense of linguistic prescriptivism<\/a> has for the most part been driven by concerns other than those immediate to commercial transactions. And, when I've seen things such on eBay<\/a> as items described with mint condition for its age<\/q><\/a> or with draped nude<\/q><\/a>, my inclination has been merely to groan or to laugh. But it seems to me that the effects of ignoring or of rejecting linguistic prescription have found their way into commercial transactions beyond the casual.<\/p>

Well, those who are not prescriptivists are hypocrites if they complain, and they're getting no worse than they deserve.<\/p> ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Fairly inexpensive hair combs made of hard rubber — rubber vulcanized to a state in which it is as about firm as a modern plastic — could be found in most American drugstores at least into the mid-'90s. Now-a-days, they have become something of a premium item. I was looking at listing on Amazon supposedly […]","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,117,36,720,318,4],"tags":[1568,947,202,131,1137,914,811,1452],"class_list":["post-11603","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary","category-communication","category-economics","category-epistemology","category-ethics-philosophy","category-public","tag-commerce","tag-definitions","tag-everyday-frustrations","tag-grammar","tag-intention","tag-language","tag-meaning","tag-prescriptivism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11603","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11603"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11603\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11606,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11603\/revisions\/11606"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11603"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11603"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11603"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}