Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

sooprvylyn t1_j03e4pv wrote

−9

EchinusRosso t1_j03kyl2 wrote

13

sooprvylyn t1_j04qesv wrote

Yet they havent recorded the use of aks...weird that.

0

EchinusRosso t1_j07ytg0 wrote

They have. It's often recorded as a dialectic pronunciation under the definition of "ask." It was literally used in Chaucer. The fact that you haven't looked doesn't mean records don't exist.

0

sooprvylyn t1_j087gvp wrote

So then not a legitimate word but in some backwards uneducated areas people talk funny? Got it, means my assumption about those people has been correct this whole time.

Edit: also, chaucer isnt a good reference for the modern english language seeing as how its not the modern english language. His work is pretty much unintelligible to any modern english speaker. Might as well be referencing some archaic german writer.

1

Illithid_Substances t1_j03nsko wrote

You know there was a time before dictionaries and words still existed?

Words aren't created by dictionaries, they're created by use

4

sooprvylyn t1_j03o5zh wrote

Yeah, and then we codified language into a single resource to agree on spellings of words, definitions of words and the lexicon so that we could communicate as effectively as possible.

Can you use 'aks' in casual conversation? Sure, people may infer your education level though. Can you use aks in formal communication? I'd advise against it for the same reason.

−5

HaikusAreMyKink t1_j03syvp wrote

Tell me more about this "we" you speak of.

0

sooprvylyn t1_j03wabs wrote

The royal "we" ... what an asinine reply. Like it or not the real world exists in convention, and you will be judged for violating convention. You dont have to care or get on board, but if you dont it WILL effect your life negatively.

−4