RE: Correct use of language

RE: Correct use of language (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

lazarus1983 -> RE: Correct use of language (2/8/2011 12:29:11 PM)
My experiences dealing with fundamentalists is to witness their mind snap shut and their castle walls put up at the mere idea that their texts can be interpreted in many different ways because of the changing nature of languages. According to those I've encountered, the word is the word is the word, it is forever unchanging because it's the word of god. That's where my aversion to fundamentalists come from.

mnottertail -> RE: Correct use of language (2/8/2011 12:31:39 PM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WNrx2jq184

TotallyDude -> RE: Correct use of language (2/8/2011 12:32:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lazarus1983 My experiences dealing with fundamentalists is to witness their mind snap shut and their castle walls put up at the mere idea that their texts can be interpreted in many different ways because of the changing nature of languages. According to those I've encountered, the word is the word is the word, it is forever unchanging because it's the word of god. That's where my aversion to fundamentalists come from. Fair enough, bro. I have a similar problem with all dogmatists, religious and otherwise. And the argument for Inerrant Scripture as the Received Word of G_d always struck me as absurd on the face of it. Thanks for your time!

kalikshama -> RE: Correct use of language (2/8/2011 1:19:15 PM)
[image]http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/d6d80100-9dc0-4e30-9b3d-f2859d425248.jpg[/image]

lazarus1983 -> RE: Correct use of language (2/8/2011 1:22:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TotallyDude quote: ORIGINAL: lazarus1983 My experiences dealing with fundamentalists is to witness their mind snap shut and their castle walls put up at the mere idea that their texts can be interpreted in many different ways because of the changing nature of languages. According to those I've encountered, the word is the word is the word, it is forever unchanging because it's the word of god. That's where my aversion to fundamentalists come from. Fair enough, bro. I have a similar problem with all dogmatists, religious and otherwise. And the argument for Inerrant Scripture as the Received Word of G_d always struck me as absurd on the face of it. Thanks for your time! Well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

angelikaJ -> RE: Correct use of language (2/8/2011 3:24:57 PM)
I hate text-speak, mainly for what it is doing to the laguage usage of our young people. However, as a kind of language snob, this gave me serious pause when it was shown here the first time on a different channel. He makes some wonderful points. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY edit error

TotallyDude -> RE: Correct use of language (2/8/2011 3:37:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lazarus1983 quote: ORIGINAL: TotallyDude quote: ORIGINAL: lazarus1983 My experiences dealing with fundamentalists is to witness their mind snap shut and their castle walls put up at the mere idea that their texts can be interpreted in many different ways because of the changing nature of languages. According to those I've encountered, the word is the word is the word, it is forever unchanging because it's the word of god. That's where my aversion to fundamentalists come from. Fair enough, bro. I have a similar problem with all dogmatists, religious and otherwise. And the argument for Inerrant Scripture as the Received Word of G_d always struck me as absurd on the face of it. Thanks for your time! Well that's just, like, your opinion, man. Ha ha. Well played. I've got my eye on you, duder.

VaguelyCurious -> RE: Correct use of language (2/8/2011 7:00:46 PM)
FR I really, really, really don't see the problem with text-speak. The idea of formalised, consistent spelling in English is very new when compared to the age of the language itself. To use the obvious example, Shakespeare couldn't spell for shit - or, rather, he didn't bother - and at the time nobody perceived that as a deficiency. Why insist on caring now? That whole Victorian control-freakery about language and spelling can't die soon enough, if you ask me. And as for hoodies with 'limited' communication skills: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq0ZDnshYkU (ignore the fact that it's hiphop; just try to keep up with the definitions as they flash past, because some of them are hilarious [8D])

Killerangel -> RE: Correct use of language (2/8/2011 7:08:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sundowner Er ... would it be alright if I had your babies? Why yes, get over here and let's make some especially since I don't have to actually have them. What a deal [:D]

Killerangel -> RE: Correct use of language (2/8/2011 7:11:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop shoves SD aside no.. ME, I want to have angels babies!! and learn to drive on the correct side, will ya? toad. Shoot, how did I manage to get out of all this baby-having? Great!

PeonForHer -> RE: Correct use of language (2/8/2011 7:43:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious FR I really, really, really don't see the problem with text-speak. The idea of formalised, consistent spelling in English is very new when compared to the age of the language itself. To use the obvious example, Shakespeare couldn't spell for shit - or, rather, he didn't bother - and at the time nobody perceived that as a deficiency. Why insist on caring now? That whole Victorian control-freakery about language and spelling can't die soon enough, if you ask me. Aha! Why didn't you help it to die by spelling at least one of those words wrongly, then? Probably the same reasons I wouldn't have done, either. It's sown too deeply into us that bad writing is indicative of a lack of an 'adequately cultured mind'.

TheHeretic -> RE: Correct use of language (2/8/2011 8:50:56 PM)
Language evolves, and is full of fads and subcultures. I was at an eighties party the other night, and I have to admit, the Valspeak contest was totally like, ohmigod. Most of it washes back away. I'm a lazy typist, and quick, easily understood, abbreviations often appeal to me, but not much of this. It just looks, and reads, stupid. Here's a thing, though. I'm one of those people who always tries to pronounce the acronym. It's not the A-m p-m when I need to correct my fluid levels on a road trip, it's an Ampam. I much prefer a word to speaking a string of letters. LOL works, but it's smoother off the tongue to say "wathafuck" than "w-t-f." Some of this crap is probably going to enter the vocabulary. Maybe send a note to Roget's, huh? I'm just waiting for the day I overhear a parent explaining to a child, that it means "who's that fool."

Arpig -> RE: Correct use of language (2/8/2011 9:05:21 PM)
~FR~ I love the English language in all its glory and oddity, I love the bizarre spellings and hold-overs from ages past. But what I love most about English is that it is a living language that grows and expands and changes all the time...we grab words and phrases from other languages with an almost giddy abandon, which gives our language a certain je ne sait quoi compared to others. We have no Acadmie Anglais to define words and usage for us, we have no Standard English, rather we have every English speaking country having its own usages and spellings (color/colour, etc comes first to mind), and even there it isn't really a standard as each of these countries has a miriad of regional and local usages an such. English is, in my not so humbe opinion, simply the most versatile language there is...if you need a new word you just make it up, and, strictly entre-nous, if you find a foreign phrase that perfectly captures what you want to say...just grab it and use it. What other language offers you that freedom and flexibility. It comes as no surprise to me that the English speaking world is also, for the most part, also the bastion of personal freedom and liberty, though I suspect that the language takes after us rather than the other way round. The "rules" were developed to assist us all in communication, but in all honesty how much of your grade school grammer do you actually remember? I would hazard not enough to really know what a preposition is or why it shouldn't dangle (or exactly how it might do so). I love the inconsistency of our language as well, the way every one of the rules has a plethora of exceptions and nothing really is hard and fast. Did you know that originally English had genders for its words, and that our verbs had complex conjugations akin to French et. al.? Sure did, but over time, popular usage dropped them, and they became irrelevant, though certain oddities and hold-overs from that time remain (that's why a ship is always a "she", because the original word for ship was feminine). The fact that we raise sheep/cows/pigs/chickens but eat mutton/beef/pork/poultry as well, why on earth do we have different words for it depending on if its food or not? Easy, way back when, the people who actually raised the animals spoke a Germanic language and the ones who got to eat it spoke a form of French...and eventually the two languages merged, but the words stayed the same...gotta love it. So to end my long semi-coherent ramble & to actually address the OP, no we should not in any way limit our lexicon, for each synonym has its own nuanced variation on the theme, and provides English speakers with a wealth of options to express precisely what they mean to, and to do so in a manner that also conveys more than just meaning, but mood, history, personality, and so much more.

VaguelyCurious -> RE: Correct use of language (2/9/2011 4:58:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Aha! Why didn't you help it to die by spelling at least one of those words wrongly, then? Probably the same reasons I wouldn't have done, either. It's sown too deeply into us that bad writing is indicative of a lack of an 'adequately cultured mind'. Look at my signature line, fella [8D] ETA: also, can you not see the difference between 'I don't see the problem with x' and 'I must use x all the time'? I don't see the problem with people eating bananas, but that doesn't mean I'd ever eat one - I just don't think criticism of those who do is particularly valid. I use proper spellings because I type almost as fast as I'm thinking, and my fingers automatically use them (and automatically backspace if I hit the wrong key, which is a really bad habit from a touch-typing point of view, but that's a whole nother conversation... [8D][8D]) EATA: also also, I used the term 'control-freakery'. That is not a word. What more do you want from me?!?

Sundowner -> RE: Correct use of language (2/9/2011 5:17:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious And as for hoodies with 'limited' communication skills: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq0ZDnshYkU It was, like, a really cool dude, right, saying stuff quick, innit, ok? an when he was saying stuff, right, he just come out wiv the words, right, and said them quick, right, and it was well good, ok? an, like, that's not what I mean, right, ok? 'cos I mean people wiv, like, only some words, innit, right? an, like, this bloke was well good, right, and thas not, like, what I meant, right?

RCdc -> RE: Correct use of language (2/9/2011 5:29:33 AM)
Hello Mr SD quote: But for the hoodie to tell you that a bloke is like well out of order innit - does it matter if his communication skills are limited? Is it like the vowel-dropping - a little harder to follow but you get the gist. I find that to be a form of intellectual snobbery. Coming from East London, and having relatives in North London, the above kind of stereotypes everyone with that kind of accent as a hoodie. But is it really that much harder to understand - that a bloke is like well out of order innit from take it from me, that gentleman is quite incorrect in his manner? From someone (ie me) who spews paragraphs sometimes (ie who goes on and on) take it from me (innit) sometimes the less said, the easier it is. quote: Do you feel we should worry about the "correct" use of grammar and vocabulary or are we now in a world where we should focus on the elegant economy of txt speak? No - I do not find grammar as important as all that. It's really simples.[;)] Otherwise you risk losing out of fab opportunities just because of your own misconceptions.

VaguelyCurious -> RE: Correct use of language (2/9/2011 5:31:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sundowner It was, like, a really cool dude, right, saying stuff quick, innit, ok? an when he was saying stuff, right, he just come out wiv the words, right, and said them quick, right, and it was well good, ok? an, like, that's not what I mean, right, ok? 'cos I mean people wiv, like, only some words, innit, right? an, like, this bloke was well good, right, and thas not, like, what I meant, right? That wasn't what I meant. Did you totally miss the 100 different pieces of Bay Area slang, and the definitions on the screen? That's the real richness of a language that's in constant development, and something I don't think the linguistically stagnant upper classes have a right to criticise [8D]. (Also, all the rights and wells and innits you've come out with are UK slang. I'm willing to bet there wasn't a single one of those in the song. But hey, way to stereotype without actually listening...)

RCdc -> RE: Correct use of language (2/9/2011 5:39:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious FR I really, really, really don't see the problem with text-speak. The idea of formalised, consistent spelling in English is very new when compared to the age of the language itself. To use the obvious example, Shakespeare couldn't spell for shit - or, rather, he didn't bother - and at the time nobody perceived that as a deficiency. Why insist on caring now? That whole Victorian control-freakery about language and spelling can't die soon enough, if you ask me. I think also that people tend to forget just how expensive it was at first, when texting was introduced. Today, you can write almost an entire paragraph in what people deem to be 'proper' language and it costs nothing (essentially)... but if you are payasyougo, or do not have unlimited texts (like the good old days in the way back) then you didn't just send one text, you could send half a dozen ... texting evolved as a means to save money also. I do not see what is so wrong in that.

Sundowner -> RE: Correct use of language (2/9/2011 5:51:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious quote: ORIGINAL: Sundowner It was, like, a really cool dude, right, saying stuff quick, innit, ok? an when he was saying stuff, right, he just come out wiv the words, right, and said them quick, right, and it was well good, ok? an, like, that's not what I mean, right, ok? 'cos I mean people wiv, like, only some words, innit, right? an, like, this bloke was well good, right, and thas not, like, what I meant, right? That wasn't what I meant. Did you totally miss the 100 different pieces of Bay Area slang, and the definitions on the screen? That's the real richness of a language that's in constant development, and something I don't think the linguistically stagnant upper classes have a right to criticise [8D]. (Also, all the rights and wells and innits you've come out with are UK slang. I'm willing to bet there wasn't a single one of those in the song. But hey, way to stereotype without actually listening...) Now look. It's simply impossible that my skilled use of language has been capable of mis-interpretation. Clearly it's your fault. What I meant was that your tube example is great - it shows a vibrant example of new language (a growth which is firmly not my beef) and - my implicit point - didn't contain a single "innit" (I listened). My example was intended to illustrate my original whinge - that some people (ok so I lazily used a stereotype of hoodies) don't make the effort to learn or use a richer vocabulary. So my post was - effectively - suggesting that you are wonderfully right and should, in a better world, be placed on a pedestal. And what do I get? Abuse! Being a sensitive, needy sort of bloke, lacking in self-confidence, I'll now have to crawl away and have a little cry. Oh cruel world.

VaguelyCurious -> RE: Correct use of language (2/9/2011 5:58:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sundowner Now look. It's simply impossible that my skilled use of language has been capable of mis-interpretation. Clearly it's your fault. What I meant was that your tube example is great - it shows a vibrant example of new language (a growth which is firmly not my beef) and - my implicit point - didn't contain a single "innit" (I listened). My example was intended to illustrate my original whinge - that some people (ok so I lazily used a stereotype of hoodies) don't make the effort to learn or use a richer vocabulary. So my post was - effectively - suggesting that you are wonderfully right and should, in a better world, be placed on a pedestal. And what do I get? Abuse! Being a sensitive, needy sort of bloke, lacking in self-confidence, I'll now have to crawl away and have a little cry. Oh cruel world. Heh. Sorry. My bad. [8D] But I contest your claim that some people don't make the effort - slang only gets to be slang rather than gibberish because people use it. It would be interesting to do some kind of vocabulary analysis on you and a hoodie, and see how many different words either of you actually use in a day. My money's not necessarily on you having the wider range.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625