> if you bring up the idea of a way of speaking being "better" or "worse" to a modern linguist, trust, me: you will understand why the author uses "wildly offended" instead of just "offended".
Not all modern linguists are descriptivists; some are in fact prescriptivists. It is a pretty fundamental personality divide: some people take the world as it is, others as it could be (or ought to be).
Granted, it's from 1983, but Dr. Nunberg is still alive & writing.
My own thought is that the question, 'is linguistics descriptive or prescriptive?' is as wrong as the question, 'is salvation through faith or through works?' Linguistics can both describe language as she is spoke and prescribe the best ways to speak. There's nothing inherent in describing current practise that obligates one to applaud that practise; nor is there anything inherent in prescribing better use that prevents one from recognising that other uses exist.
The logical end of stating that all that matters is describing language as it's used, and not bothering to prescribe the best ways to use it, as to both not end up meaning-stand @talk.
Not all modern linguists are descriptivists; some are in fact prescriptivists. It is a pretty fundamental personality divide: some people take the world as it is, others as it could be (or ought to be).