I found this debate on another blog and posted my comment

"Conventional Language and Meaning" Kenneth said... A linguist would tell you that language is not a set of rules, and that if what I say is understood, then it is language and it is correct.Of course, as a philosopher (or lawyer) one needs to use language in precise ways. In which case, the rules are full on and an important part of creating meaning.So perhaps I'm begging the question here, by saying, in some contexts, rules don't matter, and in other contexts the rules do matter. 1/11/2005 1:00 AM Andrew said... Interesting post!What does it mean to accept language? What does it mean for something to "not be permitted"? You can, if possible, correct the speaker. You could also take the speaker literally.Everyone must have a line for which they "accept" language, and people differ in where they draw it. Everyone must also choose how they "reject" language. I think some people expend too much energy in rejecting language. Thinking in terms of Kenneth's comment, the double negative IS quite annoying (at least) for a philosopher or lawyer.I also flinch when I hear someone on TV use a double negative. I think it looks negatively on them and says something about their education.I can't recall hearing a double negative like "ain't got no idea" ever being said to me in person, and if I did, if I knew them at all I would likely say "Ah, you have no idea." to correct them. I accept the meaning of the statement as given by context, delivery, socially and culturally, etc. but reject it in part by presenting something gramatically correct, if possible.Unfortunately I must run off to class, but let me leave with this thought.. Given "There is no excuse for the usage of this kind of language in everyday conversation to mean something negative", what about sarcasm? Is wittiness an acceptable excuse? Oh yeah, that's such an obvious one! ;) 1/11/2005 11:27 AM Dawn said... That don't make no sense!! haha... kidding. gosh. i've never met anyone as passionate about double negatives as me!! great post. about the carrots: maybe it's a lot of carrots... that smell bad. 3/18/2005 11:49 PM Controinfo said... Rules of language are post litteram notions based on concepts. In other words we learn the language outside the grammar rules, that are added to language in second intension so to speak, they would have not enjoyed a psychological reality if grammarians and scholars of Language would have not invented them. Rules of language are based on algorithms and as of today only few meccanical procedures can work for language. This amounts to saying that it could even happen that we will never find a complete list of rules to generate language; just because they do not exist. 6/15/2009 12:25 PM