“Ax” vs. “Ask”: Unraveling Linguistic Prejudice and the Myth of “Correct” Language

The "ax" vs. "ask" debate goes beyond mere pronunciation. This article explores the historical roots of "ax," challenges linguistic prejudice, and examines how language variation intersects with identity and culture. It calls for embracing linguistic diversity and rethinking what "correct" language truly means.
"Ax" vs. "Ask": Unraveling Linguistic Prejudice and the Myth of "Correct" Language"

Hey there, language enthusiasts! Today, we’re diving into a linguistic controversy that’s been “axing” for attention.

We’ve all seen it. Someone says “Can I ax you a question?” and immediately, judgments start flying. I’ve seen comment sections explode with people claiming this pronunciation is “insulting to intelligence” or a sign of poor education. But hold onto your grammar guides, because were about to flip this script.

During my undergrad years at UCLA, I took a linguistic anthropology class that completely transformed my understanding of language. One of the most eye-opening topics we covered was the use of “ax” for “ask.”

The Historical Plot Twist

Here’s the kicker: “ax” isn’t a modern mispronunciation or a sign of lower intellect. In fact, it has some serious historical validity.

Believe it or not, “ax” has been around since the days of Old English. Both “ascian” and “acsian” were common forms of the word back then. This means that “ax” has been a legitimate alternative pronunciation for over a thousand years!1

Even the legendary Geoffrey Chaucer, father of English literature, used “ax” in his writings. If it’s good enough for Chaucer, it’s good enough for me!2

The Prejudice Problem

This revelation completely shattered the misconception that using “ax” somehow correlates with a lack of intelligence or education. It’s simply a different pronunciation that has persisted in various dialects, including African American Vernacular English (AAVE).3

So why do people still jump to negative conclusions when they hear “ax”?

It all boils down to linguistic prejudice. We often make unfounded assumptions about people’s intelligence or education based on how they speak. But as we’ve seen, these assumptions are often rooted in ignorance of language history and evolution.

The Man-Made Nature of Language

Here’s something we often forget: language is entirely man-made. Every rule, every “correct” pronunciation, every grammatical structure – it’s all invented by humans. There’s no universal, cosmic rulebook for language.

When we say something is “correct” or “incorrect” in language, we’re really just referring to a set of arbitrary rules that humans came up with and agreed upon at some point in history. These rules can (and do) change over time, and they vary across cultures and communities. E.g. saying “I’m good” vs “I’m well” when someone asks how you are doing. 4

The Takeaway

Language is alive, constantly evolving, and beautifully diverse. What we often label as “correct” or “standard” is often just the result of historical chance and human decision-making rather than any inherent superiority.

So, the next time you hear someone say “ax,” remember: they’re not butchering the language or displaying lower intellect – they’re keeping a piece of linguistic history alive. And they’re reminding us that language is a flexible, human-created tool for communication, not a rigid set of unbreakable rules.

If you catch yourself making judgments based on someone’s speech, take a moment to reflect on the rich, complex, and entirely human-made history behind our words.


Further Reading

  1. The ‘ax’ versus ‘ask’ question ↩︎
  2. Why Chaucer Said ‘Ax’ Instead Of ‘Ask,’ And Why Some Still Do ↩︎
  3. Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader – 2nd Edition ↩︎
  4. I’m Good or I’m Well? ↩︎

More to think on...

A shadowy, faceless man in a suit stands at the center of a grand courthouse, surrounded by silhouettes of powerful figures, as dozens of red strings radiate outward to security cameras and others—symbolizing Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged web of blackmail, intelligence connections, and systemic cover-up as explored in the article. The moody, investigative atmosphere reflects themes of secrecy and institutional power.

The Epstein Enigma: Why Intelligence, Cover-Ups, and Systemic Power Protection Aren’t Just ‘Conspiracy Theories’

Explore the Jeffrey Epstein case through evidence-based analysis of his intelligence connections, alleged blackmail operations, and patterns of systemic cover-up. This article challenges the “conspiracy theory” label by highlighting institutional protection, unresolved questions, and the critical need for transparency—revealing why the Epstein saga still matters for justice and accountability today.

Read More »
A flat, conceptual illustration showing five fragmented shards rising from a cracked stone tablet. Each shard contains a symbolic image, from left to right: a lit candle, an ancient scroll, barbed wire, the Israeli flag, a Palestinian olive tree, and the Palestinian flag on the right side of the tablet. The background is composed of muted earth tones, with no text or vivid colors, creating a thoughtful and neutral atmosphere. The image symbolizes the fractured and complex meanings of the word “Zionism.”

Why the Word “Zionism” Has Lost Its Meaning—and Why That Matters

Zionism once referred to a 19th-century movement for Jewish self-determination, but in 2025, the word has fractured into so many meanings that it’s become nearly unusable in rational discourse. For some, Zionism signals cultural identity or emotional attachment to Israel; for others, it represents settler colonialism, apartheid, or religious supremacy. This article traces Zionism’s evolution—from Theodor Herzl’s secular vision to today’s political, religious, and militant interpretations—and explains why its modern use obscures more than it reveals. Drawing on data from Pew, AJC, Amnesty, and others, Sherafgan Khan explores how semantic dissonance leads to miscommunication, fuels polarization, and silences meaningful debate. Ultimately, the piece argues that replacing “Zionism” with precise, transparent language may be the only way forward for anyone seeking justice, clarity, or peace in the Israel-Palestine discourse.

Read More »