|
Post by Davef on Feb 27, 2004 18:09:59 GMT
Why has...
'You're' become 'Your'?
'Could have', 'Would have' and 'Should have' become 'Could of', 'Would of' and 'Should of'??
'Our' become 'are'
???
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Feb 27, 2004 18:17:17 GMT
Punctuation and grammar standards in schools have slipped since my day, Dave - and probably since yours as well. The apostrophe has become a misunderstood creature which either doesn't make an appearance or gets bored and sticks itself in any old place it can find. ;D
The use of the word "of" in place of "have" in posts by Stokies is more a localised thing. That's how many Stokies say have so that's how they write it. It is less worrying than poor punctuation as you can tell what the writer means when they use of - sometimes poor punctuation means that the meaning of a sentence is lost.
Anyway Dave, nice to see that you are prepared "to boldly question, where no Stokie has questioned before"!That's a split infinitive by the way and only interlectewals like winger are supposed to do that!
|
|
|
Post by Hooky on Feb 27, 2004 22:17:13 GMT
I always thought that languages "evolved" over time, and that was dictated by the people that use it, not by finickity people who attempt to step that natural evolution.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Feb 28, 2004 11:18:57 GMT
Least ya can get the gist of what they are trying to say. Can anyone explain these phrases to me:
If someone 'starts' on you, apparentley he is going 'sick'? ??? ??? ??? ???
If something is good, apparently we say 'safety' now? ??? ??? Or 'savage'? ??? ??? ???
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 28, 2004 11:24:21 GMT
I always thought that languages "evolved" over time, and that was dictated by the people that use it, not by finickity people who attempt to step that natural evolution. With all due respect ID, that is horseshit! Wrong is wrong is wrong, full stop. That's like saying if everyone starts saying 2+2=5 then we should just accept it as mathematical evolution?! This issue has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with slipping standards in our schools, text and msn speak and laziness. "Your" instead of "You're" will NEVER be right, it will NEVER evolve into that... it will ALWAYS be wrong! Smudge
|
|
|
Post by Chorley on Feb 28, 2004 11:40:11 GMT
Quite right Davef... I hold my hands up and admit that I type in an "accent" so to speak, but nevertheless, I use apostrophies in the correct manner. Some of the ways that our language is misused is beyond belief and I have to refrain from pointing things out at the risk of being a pedant....schoolboy errors and the suchlike. What are the chances of somebody pointing out EVERY typo you make from now on, though?!
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Feb 28, 2004 11:41:18 GMT
Ilford Dave is 10% right but no more than that. Language does evolve - it has to. You only have to look at some of the words and spellings in Chaucer's time to realise that.
BUT, language evolves very slowly (with the exception of new words) and usually by borrowing a more elegant or simple phraseology from another language. Sometimes we have to face the fact that another language can say something more concisely or less ambiguously than our own. Similarly, English (as spoken by the English) adopts words and phrases (and sadly, spellings) from the American version of English.
However, Smudge is right when he says that "you're" or "your are" will never evolve into "your" they mean different things - why would any language want or need to be amended to combine words with different meanings? That's not to say that words like bow can't have different meanings but that happened by accident not evolution.
|
|
|
Post by 339187 on Feb 28, 2004 12:03:24 GMT
"Similarly, English (as spoken by the English) adopts words and phrases (and sadly, spellings) from the American version of English."
Why "sadly"? If Americanese reverted to English spelling, would that qualify as "happily"?
Chauvinist.
Bah.
|
|
|
Post by GlennA on Feb 28, 2004 12:06:30 GMT
There's no reason why 'you're' can't evolve into 'your' if enough people start to spell it that way.
Where does the 'real' English language reside, in the dictionary or out in the real world, where people use it?
Language isn't like maths - it has a system, but not one that corresponds to an external, empirically demonstrable 'reality' like maths does.
The rules might be laid down in a dusty set of volumes somewhere, but that's irrelevant to the 99.99% of people who happily go about their business actually using the thing and inevitably reforming it in the process.
A lot of this has to do with technology - the great agent of historical change. The advent of the printing press changed English almost beyond recognition. For most people, an oral culture became a written one for the first time. There had been no such thing as the concept of correct spelling, for one thing. Language didn't just change internally - it became a fundamentally different thing.
Electronic media and broadcasting changed it again. People in the north of England started to speak like people in the south. People in Japan started hearing American English. All these developments feed back into English back here at home.
The latest technological revolution has been via e-mail and texting. These things will inevitably result in abbreviations, Americanisms and a hundred other mutations.
There's no point worrying about whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. It just is.
|
|
|
Post by slangking on Feb 28, 2004 12:55:42 GMT
Using words correctly helps improve communication between people. Evolution is based on this concept, I'm sure we could all go back to grunting and pointing and claim it as being evolution. This laziness is just another instance of dumbing-down it isn't a case of snobs pointing out the errors of the great unwashed, knowledge is power.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Feb 28, 2004 12:57:14 GMT
Double three, I say "sadly" when referring to spellings because changing spellings to conform with US standards seems rather pointless. I am quite happy with the American colloquialisms which we adopt - if people are happy to use them, so be it and I'll wup anyone's ass if they try to make me change my mind. Similarly, Phrases like "At this moment in time" don't worry me although for the life of me I can't see why people don't just say "now". ;D Its just that when we adopt American spelling (eg color instead of colour or aluminum instead of aluminium) it is usually because people have managed to get though school without learning the correct spelling! PS - I have no problem with any of the changes the Americans have made to English - its as valid a language as ours. Its just just that I can't see the point of adopting their spellings.
|
|
|
Post by GlennA on Feb 28, 2004 13:16:34 GMT
Slang-uh! King-ah! I'm using 'evolution' in the 'random mutation' sense, rather than the 'progress towards perfection' sense
|
|
|
Post by tubes on Feb 28, 2004 15:31:00 GMT
its spelt colour. Americans are simply wrong. But then again they're led by a man who thinks that people "misunderestimate" him.
|
|
|
Post by lrb on Feb 28, 2004 18:51:26 GMT
I have to agree with the 'Management'. What annoys me is the appalling use of the apostrophe. It can be difficult to decide how it should be used but I'm sure I was taught at school. Examples such as James's penis, Sarah's fanny, the two houses' bricks spring to mind as they are by and large misused. Many people just seem to use apostrophes randomly nowadays. Don't have a problem with language evolving - it always will due to local differences and colloquialisms (spelling?) but the written English language is universal and should be used correctly. Too many people write as they would if in conversation which is clearly wrong. The two are very different. Anyway's, thats' my beef - I cant believe Im' having a rant over apostrphe's. ???
|
|
|
Post by GlennA on Feb 28, 2004 22:03:29 GMT
Don't get me wrong - I'm not suggesting that we abandon spelling or grammar. The grocer's apostrophe bugs the fuck out of me, too. I'm just pointing out that, ultimately, language cannot be contained or controlled.
|
|
|
Post by lurcherthelurker on Mar 1, 2004 14:58:26 GMT
Thanks Mr Slangking, but No thanks, one cannot go back to being how the Northern Monkey is at this moment in time ;D
|
|
|
Post by stonetezza on Mar 1, 2004 15:16:50 GMT
Had the pleasure recently of going to parents evening at school for my daughter. As we waited the mandatory 45 mins for our "scheduled" appointment, we read through some of our daughters work.
Grammatically it was a fucking shambles but........ " it's the ideas we're looking for, not the grammatical accuracy, that will come with time !"
NO IT WILL NOT.
Like everything else in life, if you get bad habits they are hard to get rid of.
Teach them correctly from the outset please !!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 1, 2004 15:32:35 GMT
Agree with that Stonetezza. I have three kids of my own and know only too well what you mean. At 12 and 13 the spelling of my two eldest children's is nowhere near as good as it should be and yet no one at school seems even remotely concerned.
The fact that they both now have mobile phones and use MSN online is only making the problem worse. They are both reasonably intelligent kids but their spelling can be a shambles.
I worry for the future, for all kids and for our language.
Smudge
|
|
|
Post by wilf on Mar 1, 2004 16:04:08 GMT
I've always been a firm believer that if I communicate my point, then I've achieved what I've set out to do. The emphasis based on grammer and spelling was reduced when they brought in GCSE's and thank fuck for me it was, as I'm sure I verge on being mildly dyslexic. Luckily I have stengths in other areas, but when I need to, I have a spell checker and writers/proof readers to make sure these things get done properly in the work place.
As for grammer/spelling within a messageboard, I could't care less. I think users that post sarcastic replies highlighting someones grammatical errors discriminating. Its hardly a nice welcome to someone limited in their/ there( ohh I don't care do I)use of the written word.
|
|
|
Post by StuttgartStokie on Mar 1, 2004 16:06:34 GMT
A great book to read about the English Language is Bill Bryson's Mother Tongue. It shows how the French had an influence on the language and how it came from being a peasants. Also tells you why the Americans have removed the 'u' from a lot words.
|
|
|
Post by GlennA on Mar 1, 2004 16:08:37 GMT
Good call...Mother Tongue is one of the most fascinating (and funniest) books I've ever read!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 1, 2004 16:18:17 GMT
I'm a big fan of all of Bill Bryson's books (even if a 'Brief History of Nearly Everything' was a real slog). Just imagine if he wrote them al in text speak though!!!
|
|
|
Post by romfordstokie on Mar 1, 2004 16:44:12 GMT
I think it’s a bit hard to blame it exclusively on teachers and the education systems chaps. Reading books is the most effective way improving vocabulary and grammar. How many parents insist on their kids reading books regulary instead of watching Neighbours or developing humungous thumbs from the PS2?
|
|
|
Post by GlennA on Mar 1, 2004 18:29:48 GMT
Smudge Ulysses, Finnegan's Wake and A Clockwork Orange might as well have been written in txtspk and it never did them any harm
|
|