Daggers Posted 12 June 2006 Posted 12 June 2006 Is anyone else as peeved as I am with phrases like: end of! simple as! ? In my days sentances had it all ~ subjects, objects AND verbs. Sometimes we would throw in a couple of subjunctives and a superlative for a giggle. Oh it was mad back then, I can tell you.
Katy Posted 12 June 2006 Posted 12 June 2006 Is anyone else as peeved as I am with phrases like: end of! simple as! ? In my days sentances had it all ~ subjects, objects AND verbs. Sometimes we would throw in a couple of subjunctives and a superlative for a giggle. Oh it was mad back then, I can tell you. That's how life is these days im afraid end of! simple as!
Daggers Posted 12 June 2006 Author Posted 12 June 2006 You what? sign of times innit? Damn! Does this mean that I am now your murked? Or is it the other way around? I can't get the hang of this new fangled Ingerlish
Katy Posted 12 June 2006 Posted 12 June 2006 Damn! Does this mean that I am now your murked? Or is it the other way around? I can't get the hang of this new fangled Ingerlish I had never heard of this 'Murked' phrase until Rio bloody Ferdinand said it like there was no tomorrow on 'his' stupid practical jokes programme the other night.
Master Fox Posted 12 June 2006 Posted 12 June 2006 That's how life is these days im afraid end of! simple as! Oh Yeah?????
macbeth Posted 12 June 2006 Posted 12 June 2006 A PEDANT REPLIES; When having a rant ,re standards of english, it is advisable to put on spell checker ( sentences not sentances)
Chairman of the Bored Posted 12 June 2006 Posted 12 June 2006 The English language is a flexible beast evolving daily just like the people who use it. Language and grammar should not be fixed. A new day, a new word, a new way of speaking. What's wrong with that? Trying to control language within a grammatical straight jacket is utterly pointless. Get over it. End of.
Phube Posted 12 June 2006 Posted 12 June 2006 A PEDANT REPLIES; When having a rant ,re standards of english, it is advisable to put on spell checker ( sentences not sentances) Surely when being pedantic one must remember that: a) Commas come directley after a word, then there is a space, b) That re. is a shortend version of the word regarding, therefore must have a full stop after it, c) English is a proper noun and must be spelt with an upper case 'E', d) That should be put on 'a' spell checker, unless it is called Spell Checker, then again upper case letters are needed.
macbeth Posted 12 June 2006 Posted 12 June 2006 The English language is a flexible beast evolving daily just like the people who use it. Language and grammar should not be fixed. A new day, a new word, a new way of speaking. What's wrong with that? Trying to control language within a grammatical straight jacket is utterly pointless. Get over it. End of. you use the word "evolving" but i think the original point was that it was degenerating, quite a different thing altogether.
Chairman of the Bored Posted 12 June 2006 Posted 12 June 2006 you use the word "evolving" but i think the original point was that it was degenerating, quite a different thing altogether. I don't see it degenerating in the English language novels I read, in the magazines and newspapers I buy or in the way I hear it used by proponents of the fine art of poetic discourse. You may think it is degenerating in forums on the Internet (or the like), but the English language has a wide, wide usage across many different media. Surely you have not surveyed all these to come to your conclusion?
macbeth Posted 12 June 2006 Posted 12 June 2006 I don't see it degenerating in the English language novels I read, in the magazines and newspapers I buy or in the way I hear it used by proponents of the fine art of poetic discourse. You may think it is degenerating in forums on the Internet (or the like), but the English language has a wide, wide usage across many different media. Surely you have not surveyed all these to come to your conclusion? i didn't make the original point; and largely agree with you that language must evolve, but i think that gross misuse eg.using words such as wicked to mean very good could cause great confusion to future generations. imagine if mrs thatcher was described as wicked 20 years ago and again today , historians surely would not be able to discern what was meant.
macbeth Posted 12 June 2006 Posted 12 June 2006 Surely when being pedantic one must remember that: a) Commas come directley after a word, then there is a space, b) That re. is a shortend version of the word regarding, therefore must have a full stop after it, c) English is a proper noun and must be spelt with an upper case 'E', d) That should be put on 'a' spell checker, unless it is called Spell Checker, then again upper case letters are needed. very good but i did it in a hurry before someone else got in first
Chairman of the Bored Posted 12 June 2006 Posted 12 June 2006 I'm sure there are hundreds of words throughout history that change their meaning over time. 'Gay' is one such. This is simply an inevitable consequence of linguistic evolution. In consideration of the use of language it is important that we apply a degree of historical context. If we are unable to do this then contemporary meanings will be lost. Hey ho. The only thing that doesn't change is the will to change.
macbeth Posted 12 June 2006 Posted 12 June 2006 I'm sure there are hundreds of words throughout history that change their meaning over time. 'Gay' is one such. This is simply an inevitable consequence of linguistic evolution. In consideration of the use of language it is important that we apply a degree of historical context. If we are unable to do this then contemporary meanings will be lost. Hey ho. The only thing that doesn't change is the will to change. do you ever wonder though if translations of ancient scripts ; while accepting they may have been correctly translated, could mean almost anything if words can have almost polar reversals in meaning. all written artefacts could be totally unreliable sources of history; and so the point these self styled guardians of language make. is surely a valid one.
Chairman of the Bored Posted 12 June 2006 Posted 12 June 2006 do you ever wonder though if translations of ancient scripts ; while accepting they may have been correctly translated, could mean almost anything if words can have almost polar reversals in meaning. all written artefacts could be totally unreliable sources of history; and so the point these self styled guardians of language make. is surely a valid one. A very good point. That's why I would never in a million years trust anything written in such worthy tomes as the Bible, the Quoran etc (apart from which these texts have politically manipulative messages). I'm sure there's an 'ology' for it, but the interpretation of ancient texts is a science, albeit an imprecise one. Throw in those cultures that communicated through visual representation, such as The Aborigines, and the past is more of a foreign country then we might imagine.
The People's Hero Posted 12 June 2006 Posted 12 June 2006 'I would of', 'I should of' get my vote. It's 'I would/should have' - shortened to would've/should've.
Daggers Posted 12 June 2006 Author Posted 12 June 2006 Erm... Look what gets caused by a light-hearted dig at the inane destruction of language, I am terribly sorry I mind not that language evolves and the meaning of words shift over time, more than that ... I applaud its growth. What I find irksome is the dumbing down of language to a guttural level of communication that renders its proponents little better off than the ape. The inability to spell anything without inserting a number or removing a vowel is simply lazy. A large number of university students fail to match the literacy and numeracy skills of their bygone peers; this situation can not be right. Mark you, I am not accusing undergraduates of being less intelligent than their forebears but I am highlighting an all to evident problem existing within the current schooling system. No wonder we, as a nation, are hopeless at foreign languages when we have such a tough time mastering our own. Daily communication is now impossible without, like, you know, like whatever… Phrases garnered from reality shows illustrate this paucity of ability ~ everyone knows it is totally bogus dude. Or should that be M8?
macbeth Posted 12 June 2006 Posted 12 June 2006 glad you came back on this one; i gingerly picked up the baton didn't have an axe to grind and was caught well out of my depth ( mixed metaphors thread soon to appear no doubt)
Nationwider Posted 12 June 2006 Posted 12 June 2006 There's nothing nicer than a properly spelt and punctuated text message. Well, in the world of telecommunications at least. On a slightly different note, I did a bit of application form screening the other day. It's unbelievable how many allegedly educated people can't spell or follow simple instructions such as "Please complete this form with black ink". Some Dilbert managed to use a green biro. Straight in the bin, that one went.
Daggers Posted 13 June 2006 Author Posted 13 June 2006 There's nothing nicer than a properly spelt and punctuated text message. Well, in the world of telecommunications at least. On a slightly different note, I did a bit of application form screening the other day. It's unbelievable how many allegedly educated people can't spell or follow simple instructions such as "Please complete this form with black ink". Some Dilbert managed to use a green biro. Straight in the bin, that one went.
Rincewind Posted 13 June 2006 Posted 13 June 2006 Seeing as previous posters posts are being scrutinised. b) That re. is a shortend version of the word regarding, therefore must have a full stop after it, shortened. My turn to be picked on I do believe. Do the French opr Spanish have this trouble? Las negras vacas=the black cows. La negros vacas would mean a single black cows. Hey up. Just realised I have an automatic translator. I moved my mouse over vaca and cows=vaca appeared. It's on the Google toolbar under options. I have a spellchecker but I sometimes like to see if others notice mistakes in my text. Keeps the old ones memories refreshed and active and also gives the young 'uns some practice. More words are being added to the OUD every year but sometimes misuse of words or phases can cause trouble. Take 'I didn't win nothing' which is heard in bookies throughout Britain. (and told to wives) So if this person did not win nothing it must mean they won something. Now if the wives were astute they would realise this and grill the poor hubby as to the whereabouts of her shopping money. The black ink situation is quite understandable. When I had my SIA application signed by 'a professional person' they had to do it in black ink. The reason being certain information is scanned and ink colours such as blue and green don't show up and therefore makes the form and the information contained in it unusable when the applicants credentials are checked out.. Go on folks check my text for mistakes.
macbeth Posted 13 June 2006 Posted 13 June 2006 the KEEP RIGHT sign is pointing left; sorry if it was irony ;i dont get irony
DanTheFoxBhoy Posted 13 June 2006 Posted 13 June 2006 My pet hate is when people confuse 'its' and 'it's' It's (it is) happening; The fox played with its toy (possessive). The other one is ditzes who couldn't use English if it were a key to a lock. Dunno if anyone reads Maddox, but he is a funny bugger and the picture in this article sums it up nicely: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=aliens
macbeth Posted 13 June 2006 Posted 13 June 2006 My pet hate is when people confuse 'its' and 'it's' It's (it is) happening; The fox played with its toy (possessive). The other one is ditzes who couldn't use English if it were a key to a lock. Dunno if anyone reads Maddox, but he is a funny bugger and the picture in this article sums it up nicely: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=aliens i hate it when people use anthropomorphic fallacies such as the fox played with its toy foxes don't have toys
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.