The other thread got me to wondering about the etymology of peeve. It's a back-formation from peevish < Middle English peivish (MED). All sources offered the dread unknown, but offered a perhaps from Latin perversus. I found that fitting: Latin perversus 'awkward, askew' is the past passive participle of perverto, pervertere, 'to turn around or about; overthrow, subvert'. So, peevologists, in their perversity, are trying to overthrow and subvert the language. (Hey, if the etymological fallacy works for decimate and unique, why not for other Latin words?)

I see the ME version of peevish meant "Perverse, wayward, willful, capricious", which is a slight change from the current most common meaning of "mildly irratated".

Even then the peevish types were egregious.

Very interesting, z. I have to say...I love the word peevologist for a true prescriptivist.

Do we have one for a true descriptivist?

Do we have one for a true descriptivist?

Normal, sane, or rationale? For the peevologist straw-man version of a descriptivist there are some terms, my favorite of which is laxicographer.

I am trying to figure out what you mean by the "peevologist straw-man version of a descriptivist." I do like "laxicographer, though.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
I am trying to figure out what you mean by the "peevologist straw-man version of a descriptivist."

For instance some peevologists argue that descriptive linguists think anything goes in terms of language; that if someone says it, it's automatically correct. This is a straw man argument. I don't know anyone who actually holds this view (altho they might exist, they don't write books, blogs or newspaper columns).