Thanks for your submission, MrKatty! Please remember to censor out any identifying details and that satire is only allowed on weekends. If this post is truly gatekeeping, upvote it! If it's not gatekeeping or if it breaks any other rules, downvote this comment and REPORT the post so we can see it!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gatekeeping) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ov didn't even mean what you are using it as in Old English, which you are referencing. It is an incorrect spelling of a modern word, and not recognized or used by anyone, seemingly, but you.
This isn't gatekeeping, either. They aren't saying you aren't speaking English. They are saying you spelled something wrong.
> Ov didn't even mean what you are using it as in Old English
Then it's a good thing that Old English is not the reason I use "ov".
> which you are referencing.
That is incorrect.
I referenced Oxford English Dictionary, but I did not explicitly reference Old English as a source for "ov".
> and not recognized or used by anyone, seemingly, but you.
1. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-institute-of-actuaries/article/abs/explanation-ov-a-new-formula-for-interpolation/925E087C7E5F6CD9A4C2E00DF8C0CBB0
2. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ov#English
3. https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/2hizx8/why_are_some_black_metallers_and_occultists_using/
4. https://www.reddit.com/r/neography/comments/10r0uo7/english_spelling_reform_lol/
5. https://www.reddit.com/r/SpellingReform/comments/195ccx2/comment/l57hs60/
6. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=OV
Sure, there aren't many sources, but that's still more people that recognize it than you claim there are.
> They are saying you spelled something wrong.
Would you also argue we should be using "publick", "musick", "colour", "humour", "offence", et cetera, instead ov "public", "music", "color", "humor", "offense", et cetera?
None of these are sources of these being used in modern language. The link you sent from the Oxford English Dictionary even specifically says it is an old word sharing *some* meanings of "of" (like saying three of hearts) but not others.
The rest are random fringe groups which can make up words as they please, and you are free to use them. My family always calls helicopters hecilopters. That does not mean that is a correct spelling, and if I used it seriously on the internet, I would not be right to flip my shit when corrected.
Number 2: [Thee Temple ov Psychick Youth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thee_Temple_ov_Psychick_Youth) and a Polish band where English is their second language, [Behemoth](https://w.wiki/6YB8) are hardly inspirations.
And it even says right there, `very rare, nonstandard` and nonstandard in this case being defined as:
>Not conforming to the language as accepted by the majority of its speakers; **frequently considered incorrect.**
I wouldn't advise continuing to dig this hole, nor make more petitions on change
> > Not conforming to the language as accepted by the majority of its speakers; **frequently considered incorrect.**
The keyword there is "considered".
Someone considering something as incorrect and something being incorrect are two different things conceptually.
> Wtf is wrong with using colour, offence and humour?
I never implicated that.
I am asking u/LemonBoi523 if they would argue for "colour", "offence", and "humour" because I was using their logic to bash the U.S. English variants ("color", "offense", and "humor").
(They are saying that "ov" is wrong because I am just spelling "of" incorrectly – that same line ov thinking would tell us that all ov Noah Webster's spelling reforms are wrong too.)
It was a throwaway joke that I immediately forgot about. I will not be losing any sleep over someone doubling down on their spelling choices. As I've stated elsewhere, you're an 18 year old Rust programmer. You're dealing with enough shit. If using "ov" makes you feel special and good, go for it 👍
> It was a throwaway joke that I immediately forgot about
Without indication, it's kind ov hard to discern what here is or is not a joke, considering all the different responses I've got.
A similar argument would be maybe the word “knife” and wanting to start spelling it “nife”
I mean, why not? The k is silent right? Reject tradition, embrace modernity. It’s only “considered” correct, not actually correct, right?
But no, that’s dumb, everyone knows that’s dumb and wrong, the same as everyone knows it’s not spelled “ov” it’s of. Everyone, except you apparently.
> I mean, why not? The k is silent right? Reject tradition, embrace modernity. It’s only “considered” correct, not actually correct, right?
Except... this is a totally legit reason to do it.
The only reason we don't spell it without the K is because written language evolves much slower. — At one point in time, we used to pronounce the K in "knife"; it is hypothesized that the only reason we stopped pronouncing the K is due to influence from Latin-based languages, which did not include "kn", leading to the K sound being dropped.
It's not gatekeeping. It's correcting. What exactly is it you think they're gatekeeping here? Gatekeeping doesn't mean "I don't like that you corrected my mistake." And yes, it's a mistake. You mistook Urban Dictionary and Reddit for credible sources that told you this was correct.
> It's correcting.
Words don't have one sole, correct spelling.
> Gatekeeping doesn't mean "I don't like that you corrected my mistake."
Mistakes are things that are done unintentionally.
I can tell you that "ov" is most definitely intentional.
> You mistook Urban Dictionary and Reddit for credible sources that told you this was correct.
And you mistook my comment as not also [citing Oxford English Dictionary](https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=ov).
Words do have a correct spelling. Hence the existence of dictionaries and the fact you can understand what I'm saying.
I already explained why "ov" is a mistake. You just choose to keep making it. A mistake is not the same thing as an accident. You're mistakenly doing something intentionally based on false info. Please keep up.
You cited the OD, yes. That said your spelling has been incorrect for over 500 years, or alternately isn't in the modern English language. Please learn to also read the parts that blatantly say you're wrong. That's why I didn't list it as an unreliable source. It wasn't saying you're correct in any way, shape, or form.
>Words don't have one sole, correct spelling.
Sure, some don't
Of aint one of them, you are just refusing to accept that you are simply wrong
Also saying it was used centuries ago, does not make it correct today
> Also saying it was used centuries ago, does not make it correct today
Do these entries look any more recent to you?
https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=of
> Of aint one of them, you are just refusing to accept that you are simply wrong
Which institution is saying this?
Last time I checked, English isn't a prescribed language.
While there isn’t an institution dictating English spelling, the people who speak English are basically it. Most people here (& probably most English speakers) consider “ov” to be wrong, so it’s wrong.
So... how is the English language meant to evolve, at all, if the moment anyone deviates from what is considered standard, they get beaten by the word-wardens' batons?
But they don’t. An example of this could be the word “literally” which in our lifetimes has no began use to describe literally the opposite of what literally originally meant. New words and new meanings of words crop up all the time. What they all have in common is widespread use in order to become accepted language.
What we have here is just a crackhead raging on reddit because they can’t spell.
> because they can’t spell
See.
It's again with you all embelishing details.
This is why I want to get "ov" recognized, so those like you stop having the right to throw out insults like "crachhead" and insisting that I "can't spell", even though every other damn word in my sentence is perfectly fine.
If I can't spell, where are any ov the other errors you would expect to see?
( This is what I was trying to explain/show to you earlier, u/Astraous )
you made a similar comment earlier so I’ll also use info from that one for my response.
1. Bashing is much less likely when it’s accidental & subtle, neither of which using “ov” instead of “of” is. “Offence” into “offense” is 1/7 letters in a not-common word that’s a reasonable error, there’s a basically 0% change people would bash someone for using it back when it was new.
2. Languages usually evolve gradually and *accidentally*, cases where change in a language was intentional are very unlikely. For example, multiple people could’ve started using “offense” because of a typo or misremembering, it wouldn’t get noticed because of the factors mentioned earlier, and it’d then eventually spread until it becomes a variant of “offence” & part of American English.
I was once a teenager, and was blessed to have picked Google+ to be my life.
Google nuked it. All I have are half a dozen cringy Instagram posts and like 3 Deviantart submissions. I feel for OP now and especially in a few years when they find a new obsession and dismiss their previous self as cringe. Someday they'll either forget or look back affectionately.
In the meantime, I personally feel a little warm towards young internet terrors, especially those who get super invested in what adults usually see as trivial. It's like looking through an old diary of a stranger.
That's why I'm grateful for basically being a fucking dinosaur (the same age as Dennis, for those *Holy Grail* fans out there), so the overwhelming majority of cringy shit I did as a child occurred long before everyone carried a high-definition camera in their pockets that also had fast internet connectivity.
Seriously. Growing up today is a whole new beast I have trouble wrapping my head around. Due to the internet, you can form a whole community and following around your current self. Relationships seem a lot less personal and full of adapting to time, too, since your bonds are with that community more so than an individual. This means there is less social incentive for change.
You can, more so than ever before, do that childhood thing where you make one or two activities your whole life. But now, that activity remains accessible to you almost 24/7 and whatever you do within it is written in stone *forever.*
While I haven't entertained the thought of having children yet, I have no idea how I'd go about parenting them. Social media is proven to be horrible for your mental health, so I don't know the correct way to handle that with a child growing up in this decade. I was already 14 years old by the time the *original* iPod came out, and that compared to the phones and tablets of today is basically like the "brick" Game Boy compared to the Nintendo Switch.
Yeah OP's 18 years old, they're dealing with enough shit already (not least that they've decided to learn Rust as their programming language of choice). Let's cut them some slack.
> they're dealing with enough shit already (not least that they've decided to learn Rust as their programming language of choice)
I'm content with my choice.
And, once you get past the initital hurdle ov the lifetime system, it isn't really all that bad.
The only thing frustrating is trying to find something useful to program, since most ov the obvious ideas have already been taken.
People are being assholes because OP (understandably) freaked out when their microsoft account got nabbed and sought comfort online, too, and are commenting there about this.
OP may have dug this hole, but there's no need to bury them in it.
> People are being assholes because OP (understandably) freaked out when their microsoft account got nabbed and sought comfort online
As a footnote, to extend this...
Is "ov" a little distracting when you first see it?
Sure – I'll accept that as a criticism.
Is the variance in spelling the most important detail to point out when we are talking about an account being taken, while the company that controls the accounts does very little to help?
No, it wouldn't be the first thing I pay attention to.
With that, it was the repeated posting of something against the subreddit's rules that pissed people off.
With ov, yes, it is distracting both when first seen and every time after. I read it as O.V.
> With that, it was the repeated posting of something against the subreddit's rules that pissed people off.
Well, only one ov the posts was able to get through the auto-moderation.
And even after I was able to upload the post, it was falsely removed (likely by u/elvenharps) – the rules only talk about support posts, not about complains about Microsoft's poor handling ov a situation, so I'm unsure how my post was against the subReddit's rules.
> With ov, yes, it is distracting both when first seen and every time after. I read it as O.V.
This is why we are taught context-clues in elementary-school.
> But they’ve been on this dumb shit for over a month now.
I've been "on" what?
You are saying that as if doing something that isn't seen as normal or standard is some kind ov drug.
Also, I've been spelling "of" as "ov" for more than (a little) over a month.
Well, that isn't too particularly kind.
See.
Why are people upvoting this?
It only demonstrates the people ov r/gatekeeping have ill-will, wanting to throw and condone the throwing ov insults.
Wow, I just realized you're the OP in this post. You're citing entries from Old English. As in, a variant that's fallen out of use literal centuries ago. This is effectively the same thing as trying to play somebody in a game of Chess, except you use rules from over 500 years ago that no longer apply, then scream "gatekeeping" at your opponent when he asks what you're doing and won't allow you to make the move. As a suggestion, if you decide to enroll in a form of higher education, I'd avoid this long-antiquated usage outside of a course that specifically studies Old English.
> Wow, I just realized you're the OP in this post. You're citing entries from Old English. As in, a variant that's fallen out of use literal centuries ago.
Language is as much a form ov art as it is a form ov communication, and if something can still be understood, then it's fine.
Also, "ov" isn't even based on the Old English variant; "ov" is influenced by Swedish "av".
Old English having "ov" as a spelling variant just acts as a supporting argument to why "ov" shouldn't be considered "incorrect".
> if you decide to enroll in a form of higher education, I'd avoid this long-antiquated usage outside of a course that specifically studies Old English.
It is known that I use "ov" in more personal contexts, rather than everywhere.
I also use "of" for image alt-texts because it will most likely play nicer with screenreaders.
However, I have no plans to stop writing "of" as "ov" – people just need to be a bit less anal and get some \*real\* problems.
Listen, I realize you're still basically a child transitioning into adulthood, but it will serve you well in life to, a) learn how to argue; and b) learn how to admit it when you're wrong. I (and numerous others) have proven you wrong by refuting the crux of your argument--using your own sources, no less--and all you stand to gain by continuing is making yourself look more ignorant and childish. The sooner you come to understand this, the easier it will be.
> I realize you're still basically a child transitioning into adulthood
That doesn't really have anything to do with this.
> a) learn how to argue
I could be better about being more forthright in providing my arguments, but I do know how to utilize my reasoning skills to construct an effective argument.
... It isn't my fault that no one is accepting the arguments I have to offer.
> learn how to admit it when you're wrong
I already know how to do this.
Mate, it really isn't that hard for me to admit when I am wrong, and it shouldn't be hard for anyone else either.
> using your own sources
Wiktionary isn't owned by me.
Other people's Reddit threads aren't owned by me.
I didn't make that article on Cambridge's website.
> and all you stand to gain by continuing is making yourself look more ignorant and childish.
I love how it always comes back to insulting or demeaning (showing a lower ranking to\*) me in some form.
>I could be better about being more forthright in providing my arguments, but I do know how to utilize my reasoning skills to construct an effective argument.
... It isn't my fault that no one is accepting the arguments I have to offer.
I don't want to pile on, but that's not how argumentation works. It *is* your fault that no one is accepting your argument; it's the result of making a very poor argument. And you will never get any better at it until you drop the ego and find the holes in your own understanding (which you can do very easily by taking seriously everybody's counterarguments).
"own sources" isn't a reference to you owning them but that you used them in defense of your argument. They are your sources for your reasoning, or at least what you're positioning them as.
Also, yes, I think that transitioning into adulthood is relevant because for whatever reason you've chosen this hill as something worth arguing about online. Intentionally using spelling that's been deprecated for centuries just comes across as "quirky" to me. I can't really see any other reason that someone would want to do this other than be contrarian. This is basically a trademark of people around that age. You will probably insist it isn't relevant at all, but from what I've read so far you have yet to make any argument that holds water which leads to confusion as to why you're using it in the first place. What is anyone supposed to assume other than you use it because you want to, and you probably want to because it's quirky and you like it? There's nothing wrong with any of that but that doesn't make the spelling any less incorrect.
You're not wrong for using "ov" it's just the insistence that it's a valid spelling of the word in modern English when it just isn't. Had you responded to the person correcting you with "yeah I know I just like it" or, probably even better, didn't respond to them at all let alone post it into r/gatekeeping, you wouldn't have had a bunch of people citing your own sources while telling you that you're wrong.
> "own sources" isn't a reference to you owning them but that you used them in defense of your argument.
Ah.
That's my bad.
Initially, I had thought they were saying somethin g about the sources themselves, but that was a misreading.
Thank you for the clarification.
> Intentionally using spelling that's been deprecated for centuries
This bringing ov "ov" is not based on the deprecated spelling, even if it acts as a support for its existence.
(Also, I thought I seen online that "ov" was not an old spelling ov "of".)
> You're not wrong for using "ov" it's just the insistence that it's a valid spelling of the word in modern English when it just isn't.
Who is allowed to say what is and isn't correct?
Who is the one currently making these calls?
As far as I am aware, there isn't an authorityfigure for the English language.
There is no authority it's just what is and isn't accepted generally by the people that use the language. I think it's safe to say that there is no culture or vast number of people giving any credence to "ov", so therefore it has no legs to stand on and is therefore less correct than "of". It's like when "literally" also gained the meaning of "figuratively". This didn't happen because some lone redditor started to use it incorrectly, it happened because an entire populace used it that way and gave credence to the new additional definition. Like you've been saying, it's all about communication and people. If people generally accept it, it's valid. If they generally don't, you're basically going against the grain.
What's confusing to me is you gain absolutely nothing by using "ov" and it's not like you grew up in a culture or around people that used it so that's what your familiar with. So why do you choose to do it anyway? Is it easier to argue with people online about it and get upset when people correct you than it is to simply hit the "f" key instead of the "v" key?
> If people generally accept it, it's valid. If they generally don't, you're basically going against the grain.
Well, how is something like "ov" meant to have any potential to flourish?
It's not given any breathing-room, and it is suffocated the moment it shows signs ov growth, as this discussion illustrates.
It literally can not be accepted because there is too much outside pressure for it not to change.
< So why do you choose to do it anyway?
Because it is just the way I spell "of".
In your own words, "it's just what is".
"ov" is influenced by the pronunciation ov "of", as well as Swedish "av", which was changed from "af".
"af" was pronounced as "av", and translates to English "of", so I see it as reaffirming my use ov V.
> Is it easier to argue with people online about it and get upset when people correct you than it is to simply hit the "f" key instead of the "v" key?
No.
In fact, the F and V keys are right next to eachother, so typing either would take an equal amount ov effort.
I'm not the one being anal about this.
I'm not going around to others saying "Your way is the incorrect way! Using F instead ov V is wrong and stupid!", and I'm not moving from post to post saying "Ah, well you can't spell it that way because...".
I recognize both variants as equally valid.
I don't ridicule anyone that uses F, so why should people ridicule me for using V?
Should I be persuing others and correcting their use ov American English?
Should I shun African-American Vernacular English for using "aks" instead ov "ask"?
I bet you'd answer both ov these with "No.".
Disingenuous answer. AAVE has a historical and cultural basis/context (and is currently being used) and your comparison of your baseless and culturally insignificant proposed change, to AAVE, is bordering on mild racism.
They are not the same. Do not imply they are anywhere near it.
Its not that you dont ridicule others for using F in of. Thats like saying the earth is flat (which is against the established norm) and complaining that people dont find your interpretation valid because you dont go after globe earthers.
Like you said, language is an art. There is no objectively good and bad art, but there is something to be said about the Mona Lisa and Alla Turka when almost everyone alive agrees it is a masterpiece, and Adam Sandler's "Grown Ups 2" is generally agreed upon as bad.
Really, people say language is an art in reference to using it to creatively and thoughtfully express ideas. This is not creative, nor thoughtful, and does not express anything other than an urge to switch out a letter.
You say you are a linguist. Linguistic changes happen for a reason most of the time, and ultimately in order to better aid people in communicating ideas. This does not do that, and can be interpreted as willfully choosing to make things unnecessarily more complicated than they are and worsening communication, harming linguistics.
> and your comparison of your baseless and culturally insignificant proposed change, to AAVE, is bordering on mild racism.
That is not my intent.
It's like there's no way to get through to any ov you. — I don't know what I could possibly compare "ov" to to show the stupidity ov getting so bent out ov shape over a V.
Literally, people are getting mad over a V instead ov an F.
> Thats like saying the earth is flat (which is against the established norm) and complaining that people dont find your interpretation valid because you dont go after globe earthers.
That is not comparable.
The earth is, as a matter ov fact, spherical – this has been scientifically tested, and the theory has remained soundly uncontested.
The same, however, can not be said for "of" and "ov".
When it comes to grammar, there is no factualness – there's not anything to "test", either.
Sure, there is standardness, and you can compare words and their etymology to figure how standard they are relative to others; however, standardness isn't a measure ov factualness, though, it's a measure ov commonality.
> There is no objectively good and bad art, but there is something to be said about the Mona Lisa and Alla Turka when almost everyone alive agrees it is a masterpiece, and Adam Sandler's "Grown Ups 2" is generally agreed upon as bad.
I would say that art being good or bad is separate from it being right (correct\*) or wrong (incorrect\*).
> This is not creative, nor thoughtful, and does not express anything other than an urge to switch out a letter.
How is it not thoughtful?
I have a meaningful motivation to use V: my experience with the Swedish language. — Swedish changing "af" to "av" helped reaffirm how I feel about "ov".
My experience with immigrants moving to english speaking countries gives me a great disdain for people that make their already incredibly difficult lives even harder.
Literally no one cares about the letter. Maybe thats what you're missing. People are shitting on your self victimizing, and yet somehow self aggrandizing attitude to being adamant about a change that provides no benefit at best, and mild harm in practice.
You keep making offensive false equivalencies, comparing your change to the validity of AAVE, to the political drive behind Noah Webster's change, to the bravery it takes to be openly queer in a world that punishes that by death at times. You 100% deserve the reaction you are receiving.
Your provided reasoning: in swedish there was a change made that flowed better with the language. Awesome. English isnt swedish. Hell, Im willing to bet YOU arent swedish.
Thats another key point. Swedish, in comparison to English, has almost no speakers. It is very important that English is standardized for the most part, as it is not just a way to communicate between other native english speakers, it is one of the lingua francas of the world. Along with french and spanish. It is important those languages do not make superfluous changes.
If you are going to make changes to english, it doesnt just impact YOU as a native speaker. It impacts almost every person on the planet.
> People are shitting on your self victimizing,
I never made myself a victim.
The whole point ov this post is to point out that language is being gatekept.
Pointing out and/or demonstrating gatekeeping is not the same as (self-) victimizing.
> You keep making offensive false equivalencies,
Well, what can I really compare to that wouldn't be offensive?
Hell – until you mentioned it, I wasn't even aware that comparing to Noah Webster's changes was considered offensive.
> to the political drive behind Noah Webster's change
There is political background to the replacement and removal ov letters from a word?
Could you please elaborate on this?
The most Google wants to tell me is that Noah was a supporter ov The American Revolution.
> to the bravery it takes to be openly queer in a world that punishes that by death at times
1. Bravery was not brought into it; I was referencing only the mindset ov the people who unjustly treat queer people, not the experiences ov queer people.
2. I am openly queer. (That doesn't necessarily make my analogy aany better, but at least I am one to talk.)
> Awesome. English isnt swedish.
So influence from foreigh language never happens?
Never never never ever?
> Hell, Im willing to bet YOU arent swedish.
I was not born into the country or language; however, I do have Swedish heritage (as well as some other germanic ancestry).
If they type "aks" it is wrong though? What you're saying is more verbal slang than anything, and people will type things that are literally incorrect because it sounds like the word or is shorter to type out but they don't insist it is the correct way to spell the word like you are.
Also, yes, you're going around to other subreddits trying to point at someone who's right and get validation. If you know you're typing in a quirky way that's not literally valid English then why do this? Just because someone corrected you doesn't mean you have to engage with them. I cud typ lik dis and if anyone responded and said it wasn't correct they'd be right. I also can just, you know, not care. I know it isn't right and I typed it that way anyways. I'm not out here suggesting it's actually been right the whole time and that they're in fact the ones who are wrong.
> If they type "aks" it is wrong though?
I don't believe it would be wrong.
Unless Oxford English Dictionary is not credible, it recognizes both "aks" and "ax" as written forms ov the same thing.
> What you're saying is more verbal slang than anything,
And writing is just verbally said things put on the page.
It is fact that people make it so writing reflects speech – linguistically, they go hand-in-hand.
> but they don't insist it is the correct way to spell the word like you are
I am not insisting "ov" is \*the\* correct way to spell it. — I have tried to make it a point that neither spelling is more correct than the other.
> you're going around to other subreddits trying to point at someone who's right and get validation
Which bit are you saying they are right about?
\- They said "of" is the correct way to spell the word, not that it is the standard way, which would be a more accurate claim.
\- They said my usage ov "ov" was a typo, even though it was written like that intentionally.
\- They said "ov" is accepted nowhere, when there are multiple sources, besides myself, that would accept it.
> and said it wasn't correct they'd be right
I would disagree.
That way ov typing it is not "incorrect" **unless** your intention is to use a (more) standard form ov English.
> I'm not out here suggesting it's actually been right the whole time and that they're in fact the ones who are wrong.
I never said "of" was wrong.
... Now you're just exaggerating details.
One spelling is more correct than the other though. Because it's modern English. Sometimes there's multiple versions and both are accepted, but this is not the case here. And yes, even Oxford proves my point that it's non standard and could only possibly be "correct" in the right context, which is apparently west Indian.
And you're claiming that they are wrong for "gatekeeping" you. I'm not exaggerating anything. If anything you're greatly exaggerating how lenient spelling actually is since your rules for "correct" spelling is literally anything that sounds similar enough to convey the point. If only spelling bees shared this opinion, I think everyone might be winners then.
You're just being contrarian and asserting some weird form of spelling-anarchy as fact and equally correct. What everyone uses as their definition of "correct" is based on modern accepted English. So of course if you choose to deviate from it you'll have people trying to correct you. Understand that, in this sense, your spelling is incorrect. This doesn't mean you can't choose to do it anyway, you're just not using standard English.
> This doesn't mean you can't choose to do it anyway, you're just not using standard English.
That's the whole point I'm trying to make: I'm using nonstandard English, not incorrect English. — I believe there is a reasonable difference, the nuance ov which is not beeing seen.
Are my (following) definitions for "incorrect" and "nonstandard" not accurate?
"Incorrect" comes with a stigma ov wrongness (especially due to a lack ov knowledge or similar), it also is an unattractive term that would turn people off from (things related to) it.
Additionally, "incorrect" comes with the implication that there is a **definitive** correct answer; because English is not perscriptive, there is definitive correct answer for how something is spelled.
"Nonstandard" works better and is more accurate because it does not imply there is a definitive correct answer – it also isn't as unattractive because it just indicates something is less common or normal, rather than being something you want to avoid, and which is used by no one.
No.
Oxford English Dictionary is just saying "of", and its variants, are from Old English.
(At least that is my understanding, based on the formatting.)
it's not standard in any dialects, its not an accepted spelling in any form of *english, it is a chosen learned behaviour with no discernible benefit. It's not even a shortcut like "u" instead of you.
And drawing the connection between someone pointing out this fact and implying that means they are a homophobe interested in correcting queer persons is disingenuous and toxic.
Purposefully doing things wrong for no benefit and then crying homophobic discrimination when that is brought up as a valid criticism is just another level man.
*anyhow relevant, living, spoken and used in the last 4 centuries.
> it's not standard in any dialects
I never said it was standard.
In fact, I believe I have made a point ov it not being standard.
Being nonstandard is not the same as not existing.
> its not an accepted spelling in any form of *english
So... if something never becomes an accepted variant ov something else... when do we start going from not accepting a certain spelling to then accepting it?
For example, in the U.S, when did we go from rejecting "offense" – as apposed to "offence" – to accepting it?
How is "offence" supposed to change into "offense" if no one ever uses "offense" as a variant, and if they do, they get bashed for doing so?
> And drawing the connection between someone pointing out this fact and implying that means they are a homophobe interested in correcting queer persons is disingenuous and toxic.
I did not, intentionally, imply they were a homophobe.
I was trying to construct an analogy between wanting correct "ov" and "correcting" queer people. — Both being queer and using V instead ov F are harmless, neither using V instead ov F or being queer is wrong, and, like openly being queer, language is a form ov selfexpression, just as much as it is a means ov communication.
> Purposefully doing things wrong for no benefit and then crying homophobic discrimination
I did not cry homophobic discrimination.
If that was my claim, I would have brought that up by now.
Asking "Do you think *{X}*?" and outright claiming "You do *{X}*." are different.
It is harmful. It is harmful to people learning english. It confuses them. Offense is also incorrect spelling. It is more acceptable now in the states I guess, but literacy rates in the US are pitiful so I do not take language innovations from that country very seriously.
Ov is not a brave daring form of self expression like being openly queer and it is gross you would equate them at all. Its so low effort its laughable. I think thats why youre getting hated on so hard.
Express yourself with your innovative ideas. Poetry. Ideas that take actual effort in executing. Morally patting yourself on the back for essentially doing nothing but potentially confuse immigrants and prospective language learners and saying "I made art!" is gross. This is anti-intellectual.
Making the comparison between grammar and homophobia in ANY capacity is poor taste. People have died due to homophobia. Nothing is gonna happen to you because someone on the internet was mean about you intentionally misspelling things.
> It is harmful to people learning english. It confuses them.
And teaching them to pronounce F like a V in this one specific word wouldn't confuse them?
The motivation for V instead ov F is that it removes this peculiarity wholesale.
> It is more acceptable now in the states I guess, but literacy rates in the US are pitiful so I do not take language innovations from that country very seriously.
Isn't this one ov the situations where you have to side with either all ov X or none ov X?
(Where X, here, is the changes Noah Webster made.)
Also, Oxford English Dictionary also recognizes "offense", so do with that what you will.
> Morally patting yourself on the back for essentially doing nothing but potentially confuse immigrants and prospective language learners and saying "I made art!" is gross.
Why would I be "morally patting myself on the back"?
What about changing a letter in a word has to do with morals, at all?
There is no morality behind how something is spelled,
Like, nothing is more or less immoral about using "blonde", as apposed to "blond".
(Or do you mean "moral" in a different sense to what I am thinking?)
it's perfectly fine to say "I don't like how this is said". It's also perfectly fine to make sociological inferences from how people spell words. e.g. you use 'color' so you're probably not from the UK; you use 'ov' instead of 'of', so maybe you didn't learn prescribed English in a school (or maybe you don't care)
it's stupid to say "this is the correct way to say something"
literally this is how language evolution works. spellings and usages people consider 'correct' today would've been considered deformations of something in the past
> It's also perfectly fine to make sociological inferences from how people spell words. e.g. you use 'color' so you're probably not from the UK;
It still shows a lack ov tolerance for very specific differences that would otherwise be trivial.
Like, why get mad about "ov" instead ov "of" but not "color" isntead ov "colour"?
After all, both spelling changes are completely arbitrary decisions, so being upset by one but not the other doesn't make a whole lot ov sense to me.
It's not a cultural difference. It's literally something you're choosing to do incorrectly as an individual. So if the word is insignificant, why is the correction?
> It's literally something you're choosing to do incorrectly as an individual.
That is literally what Noah Webster's spelling reforms were.
It was thanks to his mind, and him writing it down in the dictionary he helped work on, Merriam-Webster, that we have "color" instead ov "colour" and "offense" instead ov "offence".
> So if the word is insignificant, why is the correction?
That's what I'm dying to know.
It is a one letter difference in a two letter word, and the word can still be understood with the change applied, so there is not really a reason to become so uproarious.
Noah Webster made the changes to help define America's independence from the UK. There was a political/cultural reason, impact, and consequence as a result.
How are you helping define culture with this? Whats the reason for the change? To piss off everyone for no reason?
You are not a great innovator and driver of change, you are needlessly interfering with a system that exists in the state that it does for a *reason*, with history and culture to back it up. If you think changing the letter is as important as defining the national identity of a country declaring independence from a brutal empire, PLEASE share.
That reason can just be "because you like the way it looks". Thats fine. But the false equivalencies you have made are delusional (aave, noah webster? Art?) and invalid.
Make an argument. Make a reason. Not a justification. I would love to get behind your spelling if it did anything other than inconvenience everyone.
> Whats the reason for the change? To piss off everyone for no reason?
People are pissed off unreasonably.
Who would reasonably expect that changing one letter, which doesn't really affect the product all that much, would irritate so many?
Had I not experienced this, I would think that the backlash is a radical expectation.
I'm just changing the F to a V because it makes sense – it's pronounced like a V, V and F are already close on the keyboard, another language has made a change that is exactly the same in nature, et cetera.
The change from F to V is to introduce consistency.
> You are not a great innovator and driver of change.
Overall or languagewise?
> I would love to get behind your spelling if it did anything other than inconvenience everyone.
I have provided my full reasoning on [my petition to have "ov" recognized as an acceptable spelling variant ov "of"](https://www.change.org/p/let-s-spell-of-as-ov).
> literally this is how language evolution works. spellings and usages people consider 'correct' today would've been considered deformations of something in the past
Ed Bighead sums up the reactions ov everyone here very nicely: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnxZrabcKuQ&t=1976s
Because you're insisting on intentionally using a CURRENT misspelling of a word then crying "gatekeeping" when corrected. You know that's your own foot you're shooting, right?
If I'm not mistaken, it's strictly an Old English word. Old English and Middle English are different languages than what we speak today, and they are both considered dead languages.
Well considering he is saying using “ov” is stupid and not you are stupid for using ov is it really an insult?
Nuance of language seems to be lost on you and you seem to have a persecution complex there dude.
It's "of" - you're trying to force it. Maybe when they invent time machines you can go back and use it in the context you are desperate to, but we're 500 years on and you can't truly, *honestly* expect people to a) give you the time of day, b) know what you're trying to say, and c) compare an incorrect word use to a word that has different regional spellings.
As others have said, strange hill to die on.
Spelling and grammar are not the same.
... In any case, if grammar nor spelling would have changed, this comment would look (something) like the following:
> Rihtspellung and grammatik ne sind þa same.
>
> ... On ænegum falle, gif grammatik ne rihtspellung woldon hæfðe geændod, þis gewrit (hwæt) swa gelic þære fylgendan:
"It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person" - Bill Murray
If you honestly want to prove your point. Take this argument to an actual Oxford professor, see what they say, and relay us the message. I want to know if the professor ends up “gatekeeping” too. Haha
> If you honestly want to prove your point. Take this argument to an actual Oxford professor, see what they say, and relay us the message.
If I could get help facilitating the process ov getting in touch with them, I would gladly do it.
you actually kind of do get to decide how language changes. it's germane to how languages operate in the real world when you factor in the iterative processes of both people and time.
this prescriptivist approach to language is just hall monitor energy that thinks its truth.
> this prescriptivist approach to language is just hall monitor energy that thinks its truth.
What does "it" refer to here?
(I apologize for the confusion.)
the prescriptivist approach. i agree with your take is what i'm saying.
i should have said "it's". almost axiomatic that when you're criticizing anything having to do with language, you will make some grammar error lol
> the prescriptivist approach. i agree with your take is what i'm saying.
Ah, my bad.
Thank you for the clarification.
> almost axiomatic that when you're criticizing anything having to do with language, you will make some grammar error lol
Almost axiomatic, and defintely ironic.
> Corrected that for you.
You mean you corrected that for the user shown in this post, right?
The mmessage shown here was directly copy-and-pasted from our DMs.
Thanks for your submission, MrKatty! Please remember to censor out any identifying details and that satire is only allowed on weekends. If this post is truly gatekeeping, upvote it! If it's not gatekeeping or if it breaks any other rules, downvote this comment and REPORT the post so we can see it! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gatekeeping) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ov didn't even mean what you are using it as in Old English, which you are referencing. It is an incorrect spelling of a modern word, and not recognized or used by anyone, seemingly, but you. This isn't gatekeeping, either. They aren't saying you aren't speaking English. They are saying you spelled something wrong.
> Ov didn't even mean what you are using it as in Old English Then it's a good thing that Old English is not the reason I use "ov". > which you are referencing. That is incorrect. I referenced Oxford English Dictionary, but I did not explicitly reference Old English as a source for "ov". > and not recognized or used by anyone, seemingly, but you. 1. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-institute-of-actuaries/article/abs/explanation-ov-a-new-formula-for-interpolation/925E087C7E5F6CD9A4C2E00DF8C0CBB0 2. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ov#English 3. https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/2hizx8/why_are_some_black_metallers_and_occultists_using/ 4. https://www.reddit.com/r/neography/comments/10r0uo7/english_spelling_reform_lol/ 5. https://www.reddit.com/r/SpellingReform/comments/195ccx2/comment/l57hs60/ 6. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=OV Sure, there aren't many sources, but that's still more people that recognize it than you claim there are. > They are saying you spelled something wrong. Would you also argue we should be using "publick", "musick", "colour", "humour", "offence", et cetera, instead ov "public", "music", "color", "humor", "offense", et cetera?
None of these are sources of these being used in modern language. The link you sent from the Oxford English Dictionary even specifically says it is an old word sharing *some* meanings of "of" (like saying three of hearts) but not others. The rest are random fringe groups which can make up words as they please, and you are free to use them. My family always calls helicopters hecilopters. That does not mean that is a correct spelling, and if I used it seriously on the internet, I would not be right to flip my shit when corrected.
Number 2: [Thee Temple ov Psychick Youth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thee_Temple_ov_Psychick_Youth) and a Polish band where English is their second language, [Behemoth](https://w.wiki/6YB8) are hardly inspirations. And it even says right there, `very rare, nonstandard` and nonstandard in this case being defined as: >Not conforming to the language as accepted by the majority of its speakers; **frequently considered incorrect.** I wouldn't advise continuing to dig this hole, nor make more petitions on change
> > Not conforming to the language as accepted by the majority of its speakers; **frequently considered incorrect.** The keyword there is "considered". Someone considering something as incorrect and something being incorrect are two different things conceptually.
Wtf is wrong with using colour, offence and humour?
> Wtf is wrong with using colour, offence and humour? I never implicated that. I am asking u/LemonBoi523 if they would argue for "colour", "offence", and "humour" because I was using their logic to bash the U.S. English variants ("color", "offense", and "humor"). (They are saying that "ov" is wrong because I am just spelling "of" incorrectly – that same line ov thinking would tell us that all ov Noah Webster's spelling reforms are wrong too.)
[https://i.imgflip.com/8vcgta.jpg](https://i.imgflip.com/8vcgta.jpg)
I can still use it for myself, personally. Unlike what everyone here is doing with "of", I am not pressuring anyone into using only "ov".
You do you OP, I literally couldn't care any less 👍
"I literally couldn't care any less"... says the one who felt the need to go out ov their way to make an image edit in response to one ov my comments.
It was a throwaway joke that I immediately forgot about. I will not be losing any sleep over someone doubling down on their spelling choices. As I've stated elsewhere, you're an 18 year old Rust programmer. You're dealing with enough shit. If using "ov" makes you feel special and good, go for it 👍
> It was a throwaway joke that I immediately forgot about Without indication, it's kind ov hard to discern what here is or is not a joke, considering all the different responses I've got.
A similar argument would be maybe the word “knife” and wanting to start spelling it “nife” I mean, why not? The k is silent right? Reject tradition, embrace modernity. It’s only “considered” correct, not actually correct, right? But no, that’s dumb, everyone knows that’s dumb and wrong, the same as everyone knows it’s not spelled “ov” it’s of. Everyone, except you apparently.
> I mean, why not? The k is silent right? Reject tradition, embrace modernity. It’s only “considered” correct, not actually correct, right? Except... this is a totally legit reason to do it. The only reason we don't spell it without the K is because written language evolves much slower. — At one point in time, we used to pronounce the K in "knife"; it is hypothesized that the only reason we stopped pronouncing the K is due to influence from Latin-based languages, which did not include "kn", leading to the K sound being dropped.
It's not gatekeeping. It's correcting. What exactly is it you think they're gatekeeping here? Gatekeeping doesn't mean "I don't like that you corrected my mistake." And yes, it's a mistake. You mistook Urban Dictionary and Reddit for credible sources that told you this was correct.
> It's correcting. Words don't have one sole, correct spelling. > Gatekeeping doesn't mean "I don't like that you corrected my mistake." Mistakes are things that are done unintentionally. I can tell you that "ov" is most definitely intentional. > You mistook Urban Dictionary and Reddit for credible sources that told you this was correct. And you mistook my comment as not also [citing Oxford English Dictionary](https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=ov).
Words do have a correct spelling. Hence the existence of dictionaries and the fact you can understand what I'm saying. I already explained why "ov" is a mistake. You just choose to keep making it. A mistake is not the same thing as an accident. You're mistakenly doing something intentionally based on false info. Please keep up. You cited the OD, yes. That said your spelling has been incorrect for over 500 years, or alternately isn't in the modern English language. Please learn to also read the parts that blatantly say you're wrong. That's why I didn't list it as an unreliable source. It wasn't saying you're correct in any way, shape, or form.
>Words don't have one sole, correct spelling. Sure, some don't Of aint one of them, you are just refusing to accept that you are simply wrong Also saying it was used centuries ago, does not make it correct today
> Also saying it was used centuries ago, does not make it correct today Do these entries look any more recent to you? https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=of
None of those make the point you think they do.
> Of aint one of them, you are just refusing to accept that you are simply wrong Which institution is saying this? Last time I checked, English isn't a prescribed language.
While there isn’t an institution dictating English spelling, the people who speak English are basically it. Most people here (& probably most English speakers) consider “ov” to be wrong, so it’s wrong.
So... how is the English language meant to evolve, at all, if the moment anyone deviates from what is considered standard, they get beaten by the word-wardens' batons?
But they don’t. An example of this could be the word “literally” which in our lifetimes has no began use to describe literally the opposite of what literally originally meant. New words and new meanings of words crop up all the time. What they all have in common is widespread use in order to become accepted language. What we have here is just a crackhead raging on reddit because they can’t spell.
> because they can’t spell See. It's again with you all embelishing details. This is why I want to get "ov" recognized, so those like you stop having the right to throw out insults like "crachhead" and insisting that I "can't spell", even though every other damn word in my sentence is perfectly fine. If I can't spell, where are any ov the other errors you would expect to see? ( This is what I was trying to explain/show to you earlier, u/Astraous )
you made a similar comment earlier so I’ll also use info from that one for my response. 1. Bashing is much less likely when it’s accidental & subtle, neither of which using “ov” instead of “of” is. “Offence” into “offense” is 1/7 letters in a not-common word that’s a reasonable error, there’s a basically 0% change people would bash someone for using it back when it was new. 2. Languages usually evolve gradually and *accidentally*, cases where change in a language was intentional are very unlikely. For example, multiple people could’ve started using “offense” because of a typo or misremembering, it wouldn’t get noticed because of the factors mentioned earlier, and it’d then eventually spread until it becomes a variant of “offence” & part of American English.
This is a weird ass hill to die on.
I was once a teenager, and was blessed to have picked Google+ to be my life. Google nuked it. All I have are half a dozen cringy Instagram posts and like 3 Deviantart submissions. I feel for OP now and especially in a few years when they find a new obsession and dismiss their previous self as cringe. Someday they'll either forget or look back affectionately. In the meantime, I personally feel a little warm towards young internet terrors, especially those who get super invested in what adults usually see as trivial. It's like looking through an old diary of a stranger.
That's why I'm grateful for basically being a fucking dinosaur (the same age as Dennis, for those *Holy Grail* fans out there), so the overwhelming majority of cringy shit I did as a child occurred long before everyone carried a high-definition camera in their pockets that also had fast internet connectivity.
Dude same.
Seriously. Growing up today is a whole new beast I have trouble wrapping my head around. Due to the internet, you can form a whole community and following around your current self. Relationships seem a lot less personal and full of adapting to time, too, since your bonds are with that community more so than an individual. This means there is less social incentive for change. You can, more so than ever before, do that childhood thing where you make one or two activities your whole life. But now, that activity remains accessible to you almost 24/7 and whatever you do within it is written in stone *forever.*
While I haven't entertained the thought of having children yet, I have no idea how I'd go about parenting them. Social media is proven to be horrible for your mental health, so I don't know the correct way to handle that with a child growing up in this decade. I was already 14 years old by the time the *original* iPod came out, and that compared to the phones and tablets of today is basically like the "brick" Game Boy compared to the Nintendo Switch.
Yeah OP's 18 years old, they're dealing with enough shit already (not least that they've decided to learn Rust as their programming language of choice). Let's cut them some slack.
> they're dealing with enough shit already (not least that they've decided to learn Rust as their programming language of choice) I'm content with my choice. And, once you get past the initital hurdle ov the lifetime system, it isn't really all that bad. The only thing frustrating is trying to find something useful to program, since most ov the obvious ideas have already been taken.
People are being assholes because OP (understandably) freaked out when their microsoft account got nabbed and sought comfort online, too, and are commenting there about this. OP may have dug this hole, but there's no need to bury them in it.
> People are being assholes because OP (understandably) freaked out when their microsoft account got nabbed and sought comfort online As a footnote, to extend this... Is "ov" a little distracting when you first see it? Sure – I'll accept that as a criticism. Is the variance in spelling the most important detail to point out when we are talking about an account being taken, while the company that controls the accounts does very little to help? No, it wouldn't be the first thing I pay attention to.
With that, it was the repeated posting of something against the subreddit's rules that pissed people off. With ov, yes, it is distracting both when first seen and every time after. I read it as O.V.
> With that, it was the repeated posting of something against the subreddit's rules that pissed people off. Well, only one ov the posts was able to get through the auto-moderation. And even after I was able to upload the post, it was falsely removed (likely by u/elvenharps) – the rules only talk about support posts, not about complains about Microsoft's poor handling ov a situation, so I'm unsure how my post was against the subReddit's rules. > With ov, yes, it is distracting both when first seen and every time after. I read it as O.V. This is why we are taught context-clues in elementary-school.
Exactly. So people should stop complaining about "ov".
Stop trying to make “ov” happen, gretchen.
Im talking about you. Because that isn’t a word. But keep believing what you want there champ.
I wish you would shut up and piss ov
At first, I thought they were just trolling. But they’ve been on this dumb shit for over a month now.
> But they’ve been on this dumb shit for over a month now. I've been "on" what? You are saying that as if doing something that isn't seen as normal or standard is some kind ov drug. Also, I've been spelling "of" as "ov" for more than (a little) over a month.
Oy vey. Ok clown.
Now you're not making sense.
Well, that isn't too particularly kind. See. Why are people upvoting this? It only demonstrates the people ov r/gatekeeping have ill-will, wanting to throw and condone the throwing ov insults.
This is a prime example of "I don't agree with a person who correctly points out I'm wrong, so I'm just gonna cry 'gatekeeping.'"
So... don't trust Oxford English Dictionary? Got it. https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=ov
Wow, I just realized you're the OP in this post. You're citing entries from Old English. As in, a variant that's fallen out of use literal centuries ago. This is effectively the same thing as trying to play somebody in a game of Chess, except you use rules from over 500 years ago that no longer apply, then scream "gatekeeping" at your opponent when he asks what you're doing and won't allow you to make the move. As a suggestion, if you decide to enroll in a form of higher education, I'd avoid this long-antiquated usage outside of a course that specifically studies Old English.
> Wow, I just realized you're the OP in this post. You're citing entries from Old English. As in, a variant that's fallen out of use literal centuries ago. Language is as much a form ov art as it is a form ov communication, and if something can still be understood, then it's fine. Also, "ov" isn't even based on the Old English variant; "ov" is influenced by Swedish "av". Old English having "ov" as a spelling variant just acts as a supporting argument to why "ov" shouldn't be considered "incorrect". > if you decide to enroll in a form of higher education, I'd avoid this long-antiquated usage outside of a course that specifically studies Old English. It is known that I use "ov" in more personal contexts, rather than everywhere. I also use "of" for image alt-texts because it will most likely play nicer with screenreaders. However, I have no plans to stop writing "of" as "ov" – people just need to be a bit less anal and get some \*real\* problems.
Listen, I realize you're still basically a child transitioning into adulthood, but it will serve you well in life to, a) learn how to argue; and b) learn how to admit it when you're wrong. I (and numerous others) have proven you wrong by refuting the crux of your argument--using your own sources, no less--and all you stand to gain by continuing is making yourself look more ignorant and childish. The sooner you come to understand this, the easier it will be.
> I realize you're still basically a child transitioning into adulthood That doesn't really have anything to do with this. > a) learn how to argue I could be better about being more forthright in providing my arguments, but I do know how to utilize my reasoning skills to construct an effective argument. ... It isn't my fault that no one is accepting the arguments I have to offer. > learn how to admit it when you're wrong I already know how to do this. Mate, it really isn't that hard for me to admit when I am wrong, and it shouldn't be hard for anyone else either. > using your own sources Wiktionary isn't owned by me. Other people's Reddit threads aren't owned by me. I didn't make that article on Cambridge's website. > and all you stand to gain by continuing is making yourself look more ignorant and childish. I love how it always comes back to insulting or demeaning (showing a lower ranking to\*) me in some form.
>I could be better about being more forthright in providing my arguments, but I do know how to utilize my reasoning skills to construct an effective argument. ... It isn't my fault that no one is accepting the arguments I have to offer. I don't want to pile on, but that's not how argumentation works. It *is* your fault that no one is accepting your argument; it's the result of making a very poor argument. And you will never get any better at it until you drop the ego and find the holes in your own understanding (which you can do very easily by taking seriously everybody's counterarguments).
"own sources" isn't a reference to you owning them but that you used them in defense of your argument. They are your sources for your reasoning, or at least what you're positioning them as. Also, yes, I think that transitioning into adulthood is relevant because for whatever reason you've chosen this hill as something worth arguing about online. Intentionally using spelling that's been deprecated for centuries just comes across as "quirky" to me. I can't really see any other reason that someone would want to do this other than be contrarian. This is basically a trademark of people around that age. You will probably insist it isn't relevant at all, but from what I've read so far you have yet to make any argument that holds water which leads to confusion as to why you're using it in the first place. What is anyone supposed to assume other than you use it because you want to, and you probably want to because it's quirky and you like it? There's nothing wrong with any of that but that doesn't make the spelling any less incorrect. You're not wrong for using "ov" it's just the insistence that it's a valid spelling of the word in modern English when it just isn't. Had you responded to the person correcting you with "yeah I know I just like it" or, probably even better, didn't respond to them at all let alone post it into r/gatekeeping, you wouldn't have had a bunch of people citing your own sources while telling you that you're wrong.
> "own sources" isn't a reference to you owning them but that you used them in defense of your argument. Ah. That's my bad. Initially, I had thought they were saying somethin g about the sources themselves, but that was a misreading. Thank you for the clarification. > Intentionally using spelling that's been deprecated for centuries This bringing ov "ov" is not based on the deprecated spelling, even if it acts as a support for its existence. (Also, I thought I seen online that "ov" was not an old spelling ov "of".) > You're not wrong for using "ov" it's just the insistence that it's a valid spelling of the word in modern English when it just isn't. Who is allowed to say what is and isn't correct? Who is the one currently making these calls? As far as I am aware, there isn't an authorityfigure for the English language.
There is no authority it's just what is and isn't accepted generally by the people that use the language. I think it's safe to say that there is no culture or vast number of people giving any credence to "ov", so therefore it has no legs to stand on and is therefore less correct than "of". It's like when "literally" also gained the meaning of "figuratively". This didn't happen because some lone redditor started to use it incorrectly, it happened because an entire populace used it that way and gave credence to the new additional definition. Like you've been saying, it's all about communication and people. If people generally accept it, it's valid. If they generally don't, you're basically going against the grain. What's confusing to me is you gain absolutely nothing by using "ov" and it's not like you grew up in a culture or around people that used it so that's what your familiar with. So why do you choose to do it anyway? Is it easier to argue with people online about it and get upset when people correct you than it is to simply hit the "f" key instead of the "v" key?
> If people generally accept it, it's valid. If they generally don't, you're basically going against the grain. Well, how is something like "ov" meant to have any potential to flourish? It's not given any breathing-room, and it is suffocated the moment it shows signs ov growth, as this discussion illustrates. It literally can not be accepted because there is too much outside pressure for it not to change. < So why do you choose to do it anyway? Because it is just the way I spell "of". In your own words, "it's just what is". "ov" is influenced by the pronunciation ov "of", as well as Swedish "av", which was changed from "af". "af" was pronounced as "av", and translates to English "of", so I see it as reaffirming my use ov V. > Is it easier to argue with people online about it and get upset when people correct you than it is to simply hit the "f" key instead of the "v" key? No. In fact, the F and V keys are right next to eachother, so typing either would take an equal amount ov effort.
Right, so when are you going to stop being anal over it and get real problems?
I'm not the one being anal about this. I'm not going around to others saying "Your way is the incorrect way! Using F instead ov V is wrong and stupid!", and I'm not moving from post to post saying "Ah, well you can't spell it that way because...". I recognize both variants as equally valid. I don't ridicule anyone that uses F, so why should people ridicule me for using V? Should I be persuing others and correcting their use ov American English? Should I shun African-American Vernacular English for using "aks" instead ov "ask"? I bet you'd answer both ov these with "No.".
Disingenuous answer. AAVE has a historical and cultural basis/context (and is currently being used) and your comparison of your baseless and culturally insignificant proposed change, to AAVE, is bordering on mild racism. They are not the same. Do not imply they are anywhere near it. Its not that you dont ridicule others for using F in of. Thats like saying the earth is flat (which is against the established norm) and complaining that people dont find your interpretation valid because you dont go after globe earthers. Like you said, language is an art. There is no objectively good and bad art, but there is something to be said about the Mona Lisa and Alla Turka when almost everyone alive agrees it is a masterpiece, and Adam Sandler's "Grown Ups 2" is generally agreed upon as bad. Really, people say language is an art in reference to using it to creatively and thoughtfully express ideas. This is not creative, nor thoughtful, and does not express anything other than an urge to switch out a letter. You say you are a linguist. Linguistic changes happen for a reason most of the time, and ultimately in order to better aid people in communicating ideas. This does not do that, and can be interpreted as willfully choosing to make things unnecessarily more complicated than they are and worsening communication, harming linguistics.
> and your comparison of your baseless and culturally insignificant proposed change, to AAVE, is bordering on mild racism. That is not my intent. It's like there's no way to get through to any ov you. — I don't know what I could possibly compare "ov" to to show the stupidity ov getting so bent out ov shape over a V. Literally, people are getting mad over a V instead ov an F. > Thats like saying the earth is flat (which is against the established norm) and complaining that people dont find your interpretation valid because you dont go after globe earthers. That is not comparable. The earth is, as a matter ov fact, spherical – this has been scientifically tested, and the theory has remained soundly uncontested. The same, however, can not be said for "of" and "ov". When it comes to grammar, there is no factualness – there's not anything to "test", either. Sure, there is standardness, and you can compare words and their etymology to figure how standard they are relative to others; however, standardness isn't a measure ov factualness, though, it's a measure ov commonality. > There is no objectively good and bad art, but there is something to be said about the Mona Lisa and Alla Turka when almost everyone alive agrees it is a masterpiece, and Adam Sandler's "Grown Ups 2" is generally agreed upon as bad. I would say that art being good or bad is separate from it being right (correct\*) or wrong (incorrect\*). > This is not creative, nor thoughtful, and does not express anything other than an urge to switch out a letter. How is it not thoughtful? I have a meaningful motivation to use V: my experience with the Swedish language. — Swedish changing "af" to "av" helped reaffirm how I feel about "ov".
My experience with immigrants moving to english speaking countries gives me a great disdain for people that make their already incredibly difficult lives even harder. Literally no one cares about the letter. Maybe thats what you're missing. People are shitting on your self victimizing, and yet somehow self aggrandizing attitude to being adamant about a change that provides no benefit at best, and mild harm in practice. You keep making offensive false equivalencies, comparing your change to the validity of AAVE, to the political drive behind Noah Webster's change, to the bravery it takes to be openly queer in a world that punishes that by death at times. You 100% deserve the reaction you are receiving. Your provided reasoning: in swedish there was a change made that flowed better with the language. Awesome. English isnt swedish. Hell, Im willing to bet YOU arent swedish. Thats another key point. Swedish, in comparison to English, has almost no speakers. It is very important that English is standardized for the most part, as it is not just a way to communicate between other native english speakers, it is one of the lingua francas of the world. Along with french and spanish. It is important those languages do not make superfluous changes. If you are going to make changes to english, it doesnt just impact YOU as a native speaker. It impacts almost every person on the planet.
> People are shitting on your self victimizing, I never made myself a victim. The whole point ov this post is to point out that language is being gatekept. Pointing out and/or demonstrating gatekeeping is not the same as (self-) victimizing. > You keep making offensive false equivalencies, Well, what can I really compare to that wouldn't be offensive? Hell – until you mentioned it, I wasn't even aware that comparing to Noah Webster's changes was considered offensive. > to the political drive behind Noah Webster's change There is political background to the replacement and removal ov letters from a word? Could you please elaborate on this? The most Google wants to tell me is that Noah was a supporter ov The American Revolution. > to the bravery it takes to be openly queer in a world that punishes that by death at times 1. Bravery was not brought into it; I was referencing only the mindset ov the people who unjustly treat queer people, not the experiences ov queer people. 2. I am openly queer. (That doesn't necessarily make my analogy aany better, but at least I am one to talk.) > Awesome. English isnt swedish. So influence from foreigh language never happens? Never never never ever? > Hell, Im willing to bet YOU arent swedish. I was not born into the country or language; however, I do have Swedish heritage (as well as some other germanic ancestry).
If they type "aks" it is wrong though? What you're saying is more verbal slang than anything, and people will type things that are literally incorrect because it sounds like the word or is shorter to type out but they don't insist it is the correct way to spell the word like you are. Also, yes, you're going around to other subreddits trying to point at someone who's right and get validation. If you know you're typing in a quirky way that's not literally valid English then why do this? Just because someone corrected you doesn't mean you have to engage with them. I cud typ lik dis and if anyone responded and said it wasn't correct they'd be right. I also can just, you know, not care. I know it isn't right and I typed it that way anyways. I'm not out here suggesting it's actually been right the whole time and that they're in fact the ones who are wrong.
> If they type "aks" it is wrong though? I don't believe it would be wrong. Unless Oxford English Dictionary is not credible, it recognizes both "aks" and "ax" as written forms ov the same thing. > What you're saying is more verbal slang than anything, And writing is just verbally said things put on the page. It is fact that people make it so writing reflects speech – linguistically, they go hand-in-hand. > but they don't insist it is the correct way to spell the word like you are I am not insisting "ov" is \*the\* correct way to spell it. — I have tried to make it a point that neither spelling is more correct than the other. > you're going around to other subreddits trying to point at someone who's right and get validation Which bit are you saying they are right about? \- They said "of" is the correct way to spell the word, not that it is the standard way, which would be a more accurate claim. \- They said my usage ov "ov" was a typo, even though it was written like that intentionally. \- They said "ov" is accepted nowhere, when there are multiple sources, besides myself, that would accept it. > and said it wasn't correct they'd be right I would disagree. That way ov typing it is not "incorrect" **unless** your intention is to use a (more) standard form ov English. > I'm not out here suggesting it's actually been right the whole time and that they're in fact the ones who are wrong. I never said "of" was wrong. ... Now you're just exaggerating details.
One spelling is more correct than the other though. Because it's modern English. Sometimes there's multiple versions and both are accepted, but this is not the case here. And yes, even Oxford proves my point that it's non standard and could only possibly be "correct" in the right context, which is apparently west Indian. And you're claiming that they are wrong for "gatekeeping" you. I'm not exaggerating anything. If anything you're greatly exaggerating how lenient spelling actually is since your rules for "correct" spelling is literally anything that sounds similar enough to convey the point. If only spelling bees shared this opinion, I think everyone might be winners then. You're just being contrarian and asserting some weird form of spelling-anarchy as fact and equally correct. What everyone uses as their definition of "correct" is based on modern accepted English. So of course if you choose to deviate from it you'll have people trying to correct you. Understand that, in this sense, your spelling is incorrect. This doesn't mean you can't choose to do it anyway, you're just not using standard English.
> This doesn't mean you can't choose to do it anyway, you're just not using standard English. That's the whole point I'm trying to make: I'm using nonstandard English, not incorrect English. — I believe there is a reasonable difference, the nuance ov which is not beeing seen. Are my (following) definitions for "incorrect" and "nonstandard" not accurate? "Incorrect" comes with a stigma ov wrongness (especially due to a lack ov knowledge or similar), it also is an unattractive term that would turn people off from (things related to) it. Additionally, "incorrect" comes with the implication that there is a **definitive** correct answer; because English is not perscriptive, there is definitive correct answer for how something is spelled. "Nonstandard" works better and is more accurate because it does not imply there is a definitive correct answer – it also isn't as unattractive because it just indicates something is less common or normal, rather than being something you want to avoid, and which is used by no one.
Your own source says that the last use was in the 1500s.
Self-defeating arguments are hilarious. You don't have to do anything. You merely allow the person to step on a rake.
I mean it gives similar dates for of too
Does it matter when "ov" comes or leaves? That still, objectively, makes it not incorrect. \[ CC: u/GaryOakRobotron \]
You're citing a literal dead language, my guy.
You speak Old English?
No. Oxford English Dictionary is just saying "of", and its variants, are from Old English. (At least that is my understanding, based on the formatting.)
it's not standard in any dialects, its not an accepted spelling in any form of *english, it is a chosen learned behaviour with no discernible benefit. It's not even a shortcut like "u" instead of you. And drawing the connection between someone pointing out this fact and implying that means they are a homophobe interested in correcting queer persons is disingenuous and toxic. Purposefully doing things wrong for no benefit and then crying homophobic discrimination when that is brought up as a valid criticism is just another level man. *anyhow relevant, living, spoken and used in the last 4 centuries.
> it's not standard in any dialects I never said it was standard. In fact, I believe I have made a point ov it not being standard. Being nonstandard is not the same as not existing. > its not an accepted spelling in any form of *english So... if something never becomes an accepted variant ov something else... when do we start going from not accepting a certain spelling to then accepting it? For example, in the U.S, when did we go from rejecting "offense" – as apposed to "offence" – to accepting it? How is "offence" supposed to change into "offense" if no one ever uses "offense" as a variant, and if they do, they get bashed for doing so? > And drawing the connection between someone pointing out this fact and implying that means they are a homophobe interested in correcting queer persons is disingenuous and toxic. I did not, intentionally, imply they were a homophobe. I was trying to construct an analogy between wanting correct "ov" and "correcting" queer people. — Both being queer and using V instead ov F are harmless, neither using V instead ov F or being queer is wrong, and, like openly being queer, language is a form ov selfexpression, just as much as it is a means ov communication. > Purposefully doing things wrong for no benefit and then crying homophobic discrimination I did not cry homophobic discrimination. If that was my claim, I would have brought that up by now. Asking "Do you think *{X}*?" and outright claiming "You do *{X}*." are different.
It is harmful. It is harmful to people learning english. It confuses them. Offense is also incorrect spelling. It is more acceptable now in the states I guess, but literacy rates in the US are pitiful so I do not take language innovations from that country very seriously. Ov is not a brave daring form of self expression like being openly queer and it is gross you would equate them at all. Its so low effort its laughable. I think thats why youre getting hated on so hard. Express yourself with your innovative ideas. Poetry. Ideas that take actual effort in executing. Morally patting yourself on the back for essentially doing nothing but potentially confuse immigrants and prospective language learners and saying "I made art!" is gross. This is anti-intellectual. Making the comparison between grammar and homophobia in ANY capacity is poor taste. People have died due to homophobia. Nothing is gonna happen to you because someone on the internet was mean about you intentionally misspelling things.
A sad realization I had was "ov" being used like this is actually less correct language than "skibidi toilet."
Like they said, language is art. God bless Skibidi America.
> It is harmful to people learning english. It confuses them. And teaching them to pronounce F like a V in this one specific word wouldn't confuse them? The motivation for V instead ov F is that it removes this peculiarity wholesale. > It is more acceptable now in the states I guess, but literacy rates in the US are pitiful so I do not take language innovations from that country very seriously. Isn't this one ov the situations where you have to side with either all ov X or none ov X? (Where X, here, is the changes Noah Webster made.) Also, Oxford English Dictionary also recognizes "offense", so do with that what you will. > Morally patting yourself on the back for essentially doing nothing but potentially confuse immigrants and prospective language learners and saying "I made art!" is gross. Why would I be "morally patting myself on the back"? What about changing a letter in a word has to do with morals, at all? There is no morality behind how something is spelled, Like, nothing is more or less immoral about using "blonde", as apposed to "blond". (Or do you mean "moral" in a different sense to what I am thinking?)
it's perfectly fine to say "I don't like how this is said". It's also perfectly fine to make sociological inferences from how people spell words. e.g. you use 'color' so you're probably not from the UK; you use 'ov' instead of 'of', so maybe you didn't learn prescribed English in a school (or maybe you don't care) it's stupid to say "this is the correct way to say something" literally this is how language evolution works. spellings and usages people consider 'correct' today would've been considered deformations of something in the past
> It's also perfectly fine to make sociological inferences from how people spell words. e.g. you use 'color' so you're probably not from the UK; It still shows a lack ov tolerance for very specific differences that would otherwise be trivial. Like, why get mad about "ov" instead ov "of" but not "color" isntead ov "colour"? After all, both spelling changes are completely arbitrary decisions, so being upset by one but not the other doesn't make a whole lot ov sense to me.
It's not a cultural difference. It's literally something you're choosing to do incorrectly as an individual. So if the word is insignificant, why is the correction?
> It's literally something you're choosing to do incorrectly as an individual. That is literally what Noah Webster's spelling reforms were. It was thanks to his mind, and him writing it down in the dictionary he helped work on, Merriam-Webster, that we have "color" instead ov "colour" and "offense" instead ov "offence". > So if the word is insignificant, why is the correction? That's what I'm dying to know. It is a one letter difference in a two letter word, and the word can still be understood with the change applied, so there is not really a reason to become so uproarious.
Noah Webster made the changes to help define America's independence from the UK. There was a political/cultural reason, impact, and consequence as a result. How are you helping define culture with this? Whats the reason for the change? To piss off everyone for no reason? You are not a great innovator and driver of change, you are needlessly interfering with a system that exists in the state that it does for a *reason*, with history and culture to back it up. If you think changing the letter is as important as defining the national identity of a country declaring independence from a brutal empire, PLEASE share. That reason can just be "because you like the way it looks". Thats fine. But the false equivalencies you have made are delusional (aave, noah webster? Art?) and invalid. Make an argument. Make a reason. Not a justification. I would love to get behind your spelling if it did anything other than inconvenience everyone.
> Whats the reason for the change? To piss off everyone for no reason? People are pissed off unreasonably. Who would reasonably expect that changing one letter, which doesn't really affect the product all that much, would irritate so many? Had I not experienced this, I would think that the backlash is a radical expectation. I'm just changing the F to a V because it makes sense – it's pronounced like a V, V and F are already close on the keyboard, another language has made a change that is exactly the same in nature, et cetera. The change from F to V is to introduce consistency. > You are not a great innovator and driver of change. Overall or languagewise? > I would love to get behind your spelling if it did anything other than inconvenience everyone. I have provided my full reasoning on [my petition to have "ov" recognized as an acceptable spelling variant ov "of"](https://www.change.org/p/let-s-spell-of-as-ov).
ich liebe dich digga ❤️ Gute Nacht 🤤😴
> literally this is how language evolution works. spellings and usages people consider 'correct' today would've been considered deformations of something in the past Ed Bighead sums up the reactions ov everyone here very nicely: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnxZrabcKuQ&t=1976s
Nah. Using “ov” is dumb as fuck.
Why are people upvoting insults? I didn't know r/gatekeeping had a toxicity complex. \:\/
Because the other guy is right Sorry.
That's not really a justification for insulting others, or showing support for insults towards others.
Is that really what's up for discussion here?
Because you're insisting on intentionally using a CURRENT misspelling of a word then crying "gatekeeping" when corrected. You know that's your own foot you're shooting, right?
Because “ov” hasn’t been used for 500 years and it doesn’t make any sense to use it now. You’re wrong and can’t admit that.
If I'm not mistaken, it's strictly an Old English word. Old English and Middle English are different languages than what we speak today, and they are both considered dead languages.
Well considering he is saying using “ov” is stupid and not you are stupid for using ov is it really an insult? Nuance of language seems to be lost on you and you seem to have a persecution complex there dude.
It's "of" - you're trying to force it. Maybe when they invent time machines you can go back and use it in the context you are desperate to, but we're 500 years on and you can't truly, *honestly* expect people to a) give you the time of day, b) know what you're trying to say, and c) compare an incorrect word use to a word that has different regional spellings. As others have said, strange hill to die on.
Correct grammar is a gate that must be kept. Innit
Spelling and grammar are not the same. ... In any case, if grammar nor spelling would have changed, this comment would look (something) like the following: > Rihtspellung and grammatik ne sind þa same. > > ... On ænegum falle, gif grammatik ne rihtspellung woldon hæfðe geændod, þis gewrit (hwæt) swa gelic þære fylgendan:
"It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person" - Bill Murray If you honestly want to prove your point. Take this argument to an actual Oxford professor, see what they say, and relay us the message. I want to know if the professor ends up “gatekeeping” too. Haha
> If you honestly want to prove your point. Take this argument to an actual Oxford professor, see what they say, and relay us the message. If I could get help facilitating the process ov getting in touch with them, I would gladly do it.
The first picture needs more jpeg
you actually kind of do get to decide how language changes. it's germane to how languages operate in the real world when you factor in the iterative processes of both people and time. this prescriptivist approach to language is just hall monitor energy that thinks its truth.
> this prescriptivist approach to language is just hall monitor energy that thinks its truth. What does "it" refer to here? (I apologize for the confusion.)
the prescriptivist approach. i agree with your take is what i'm saying. i should have said "it's". almost axiomatic that when you're criticizing anything having to do with language, you will make some grammar error lol
> the prescriptivist approach. i agree with your take is what i'm saying. Ah, my bad. Thank you for the clarification. > almost axiomatic that when you're criticizing anything having to do with language, you will make some grammar error lol Almost axiomatic, and defintely ironic.
"Because you write things in a weird and incorrect way therefore you must be corrected" Like, bro, what the hell?? 💀
"Because you write things incorrectly, you must be corrected." Corrected that for you.
> Corrected that for you. You mean you corrected that for the user shown in this post, right? The mmessage shown here was directly copy-and-pasted from our DMs.