[mortivore]

I would argue that if a majority of an audience says something is good (subjective to them), then that thing is good objectively. If something is popular, then it is good. Not to say it is without flaws. That is different.

Take the example of spelling that another user brought up. They claimed it is objective, but that isn't really true. Is the correct spelling color or colour? The answer to that is cultural, and therefore subjective. Unless you hold as I do that popularity is similar enough to objectivity to qualify. The cultural or popular notion determine what is right regarding subjectively judged subjects. This notion, including the spelling and even usage of words, can change over time.

[thaumasiotes]

> Is the correct spelling color or colour? The answer to that is cultural, and therefore subjective.

This argument doesn't really work; it would be equally valid if you rephrased the question as "is the correct spelling 'thing' or 'thnig'?"

There is a difference of opinion on 'color', and none on 'thing', but they're equally "cultural".

[mortivore]

That proves the argument. "Thing" is only considered correct because the culture has decided it is correct. If it changes to the alternative you proposed, then that would be correct. It wasn't even always "thing". It used to be different, and that was correct too.

[thaumasiotes]

> "Thing" is only considered correct because the culture has decided it is correct. If it changes to the alternative you proposed, then that would be correct.

Sure, but it's not correct now, despite being cultural.

[mortivore]

Exactly. The culture is what determines good spelling.

[thaumasiotes]

Again, it's cultural, but that doesn't make it subjective. The fact that it will be different in the future doesn't tell you that it's already different now. There is a fact of the matter here on which everyone already agrees; it's as objective as any other fact.

[mortivore]

Yes, it does. Unless you subscribe to popular=objective, which I do. It is different now though. Looking at the past tells us that. It isn't like every other fact. There is a lot of disagreement in this thread. It isn't a fact like 2+2=4 is a fact.

[kazinator]

"-our" endings are a fairly recent British concoction based on French envy. (French spells it "couleur".) French probably has a good reason to write it that way because it captures the phonetics. The extra "u" does nothing in English other than take up space and ink.

The "color" spelling is: (1) shorter: absence of the superfluous is better than its presence; (2) etymologically correct, since the Latin original is "color"; (3) closer to the spelling of the word's cognate in a bunch of languages: Spanish: color; Basque: kolore; Italian: colore; Polish: kolor.

For at least these three reasons, it can be regarded as correct.

English dialects that use "our" endings and whatnot should rid themselves of the baggage, except in the case of direct French loanwords like "velour", pronounced "..oor".

[c22]

By the same reasoning I see you've incorrectly spelled superfluus.

[kazinator]

The reasoning is not the same at all.

Firstly, I'm not aware of a documented "superfluus" usage in English. Maybe we have to go back more than seven or eight hundred years to find it?

Secondly, "-ous" (like "-ose") functions generally as an adjective-forming suffix and is derived from the Latin "-ōsus"; it does not correspond to, and is not an expansion of the the "us" ending in "superfluus". "superflous" can be regarded as a derivation of "superfluus" that has been regularized with the "-ous" ending to make it recognizable as an adjective. This has happened with other words, like "continuus" and "contiguus". In contrast to these, many "-ous" words in fact some from ancient "-ōsus" counterparts, like "numerous" from "numerōsus".

The case for reviving "-ōsus" in English isn't very good; since neither of its "s"s are silent, it calls for a change in the actual spoken words, rather than merely spelling. Plus, it is unfamiliar to English speakers.

The case for creating a class of "-us" adjectives to restore Latin spellings like "contiguus" or "superfluus" is also not very good. It may be shorter, but adds to the proliferation of suffixes. To retain the pronunciations, we need "uu" to be rendered as the diphthong /yuə/ or /uə/, the precedent for which is scarce (being apparently limited to just "continuum"?) I'm not aware of any dialect of English in which such a restoration attempt has taken place, unlike "color" and "neighbor".

[c22]

Now you're applying different reasoning. You may be right, I don't speak latin.

[andreilys]

“I would argue that if a majority of an audience says something is good (subjective to them), then that thing is good objectively”

The majority of Nazi Germany thought Nazi literature and art was good. Does that make nazi literature/art objectively good?

[mortivore]

Yes. The culture decided it was so, and therefore it was. The majority of the United States seems to think the Bill of Rights is good, and therefore it is. The majority of Europeans seems to think the European Union is good, and therefore it is. Other cultures may not agree, but that doesn't matter.

[andreilys]

That doesn’t make it an objective good. Just because the culture at large is under delusions and hysteria does not mean their assessment of reality maps to an objective good

[mortivore]

Considering I'm saying the mapping for an objective good is popularity it does. What definition of objective good are you using?