which no one can control

You mean like parents not being able to teach their kids?

Coffeeking have once again an very valid point. If it wasn’t for rules of english I wouldn’t have been able to learn it (ok not very well) and to be able to broadcast my work to the scientific community.
Everyone is going to understand oxford English. Not sure about brant or SFB one.

here’s a thing – there’s nothing you can do about it. Because it’s fashion, everyone gets to choose how they use it, and a dynamic consensus emerges, which no one can control

And that “fashion” should be discouraged for the sake of the language. Really, thats exactly the argument [statement] I’d expect from a 14 year old in their rebelious stage! The problem is that the supposedly hard and fast rules of english don’t appear to be taught in schools any more, without this guidance and judgement there is no wonder the language is falling to bits.

Really, I have to go now!

It’s reached the point where the majority of incoming chinese students are now more capable of writing a technical paper, with fewer mistakes in grammar, than the English students.

Interesting comment by the lead character in Sebastian Faulks’ latest “Engleby” where the narrator suggests that the issue is down to the current teachers having been taught in the 70s when the dogma of not teaching grammar had taken over. Hence they themselves aren’t even aware that they are deficient in this area and that it is important (unlike those who taught them who were aware but deliberately not teaching). Then again, the narrator is also the sort of pedant who would irritate some on this thread. BTW not sure I’d recommend the book even if you’ve enjoyed previous Faulks (as I have, even surprisingly the rather deeply intellectual “Human Traces”) – not that it’s awful, but not up to previous standards IMO, and I was left feeling disappointed.

And that “fashion” should be discouraged for the sake of the language.

but there is no mechanism for that

without this guidance and judgement there is no wonder the language is falling to bits

now I think you are delusional. Language is a tool of communication, and so long as we need it, enough will be retained. I have 2 children emerging from the recent educational system, and they are able to talk articulately though we have never discussed grammar. That abstruse and pointless grammatical forms are being discarded we should be glad, as they only serve to prop up snobbery

the narrator suggests that the issue is down to the current teachers having been taught in the 70s when the dogma of not teaching grammar had taken over. Hence they themselves aren’t even aware that they are deficient in this area and that it is important (unlike those who taught them who were aware but deliberately not teaching)

That’s probably very true. I learned most of what I know about punctuation, etc. through reading a lot and so just kind of absorbing it and through teaching it to myself while on a teacher training course.

as they only serve to prop up snobbery

Ok imagine you are on holidays in a country you don’t speak the official language.
Now imagine you want to buy some cigarette. Which one is going to be understood?
“Excuse me can you tell me where I can find cigarettes?”
“Oi matey ya’know where I can dodge some fags innit?”

Now imagine you want to buy some cigarette

Christ, I’m not THAT stupid!!

but it’s unrealistic to expect people to change their use of language for the benefit of odd aliens

if you make all the arbitrary grammatical rules into a pile:
…to be or not to be an apostrophe…
one begins to wonder if they’re not kept for any intrinsic worth but merely as a stick to beat the less well versed. To concentrate on these trivia is to deny the basic point of language, which is communication, not conformance

Though the thing is, if you don’t use language properly, you end up saying something that means something totally different to what you meant. For example: “Trouts back with another light” means something totally different to “Trout’s back with another light” 😉

“Trout’s back with another light”

it still doesn’t mean anything to me even with punctuation 🙁 I think precision is overrated, as one often has to say the same thing several different ways to get the point across.

I can only imagine that’s because you’re insufficiently educated, Simon (trying not to be insulting, just stating a fact) which might explain what it is you have against the “rules” of English. If you do understand them, then it is possible to be very precise and have other people understand exactly what you mean – having to explain things several times is a product of people not being educated properly in the basics – if people were educated in English with sufficient depth then maybe you’d avoid that, which is the whole point.

I can only imagine that’s because you’re insufficiently educated, Simon

yeah, that’ll be it sonny 🙂

If you do understand them, then it is possible to be very precise and have other people understand exactly what you mean

Oh really ? :o) I suggest you may think they’re understanding but perhaps they’re just frightened of you or too bored to protest ?

if people were educated in English with sufficient depth then maybe you’d avoid that, which is the whole point.

I which case you’d not have had to repeat yourself there, eh ?

[/quote]I have 2 children emerging from the recent educational system

Am I supposed to guess they recently left school/college/universarty or some radical change in teaching methods?

Am I supposed to guess they recently left school/college/universarty or some radical change in teaching methods?

beats me, I’m too illeducated to express myself unambiguously 🙁

sfb soz nowt pirsnal! 😀

sfb, you say

That abstruse and pointless grammatical forms are being discarded we should be glad

That’s quite an abstruse form you’ve used there yourself 🙂

What would be a ‘pointless’ grammatical form?

Thing is, the various examples of ‘grammar’ mentioned on this thread – punctuation, mainly – are only the tip of the iceberg. Most of the rules of grammar are far more complex than anything we would want to go into here, and are absorbed by humans in babyhood and tested during early speech until we all learn to talk like everyone around us.

We all use concepts like, just off the top of my head, subcategorisation, diathesis, predicate-argument structure, valence, adicity, arity, case structure and theta-role assignment every day, but I doubt many of us were taught those terms at school. Doesn’t mean we can’t put a verb in the right place and give it the right sort of subject and object. I think that’s your point isn’t it?

But, just because we can’t name these ‘abstruse grammatical forms’, doesn’t mean we should (or could) discard them.

The thing is, language is a tool for thinking. If you don’t have sufficient language skills to express fine distinctions between things, your thinking becomes sludgy, ill-defined and worthless. And that kind of thinking expresses itself with lots of filler words like ‘he was, um like totally, you know, just tootally I don’t know, he was…’.

If we all allow standards of expression to drop, the fear is we will lose the ability to discuss, argue, engage in political debate and, ultimately, the ability to think.

So we fight for clear, correct English and the front line is what we can all see: punctuation, spelling, vocabulary, clarity.

‘Somethink’ isn’t a newly negotiated word to express a fresh idea, it’s just a lazy mistake.

Googled (good example of proper evolution!) “somethink”

Google has it correct “Do you mean: something“

As does the Urban Dictionary.

PERFECT!!

What would be a ‘pointless’ grammatical form?

split infinitives – why would it matter ? Someone, sometime, must have made up this rule, I suspect only to taunt others with.

I/me – I often find myself having to think for a long period to work out which to use in some circumstances, so it’s just a barrier to expression, particularly as both words refer to the same person

the apostrophe – what’s it FOR ? We never need it in speech!

But, just because we can’t name these ‘abstruse grammatical forms’, doesn’t mean we should (or could) discard them

you are the first to suggest the names of the rules matter at all. I’m saying dump them because they’re useless, not because I don’t know what they’re called.

The thing is, language is a tool for thinking

I’d like to see some evidence for this – I think in fact the reverse is true – having to translate thoughts into words gets in the way. I suspect we can think far faster than we can translate

and, ultimately, the ability to think

very funny, but IMO completely wrong!

So we fight for clear, correct English

“Fight” ?? Fight how ? Isn’t it more a case of muttering frustratedly into metaphorical beards ? At root, there is nothing you CAN do, people will individually decide, from moment to moment, how they will express themselves without reference to your opinions.

oh, and how about “something” ?

oh, and how about “something” ?
Regional accent innit?

Tell you what though – Ginormous. What a pointless, annoying and stupid (non)word.

We all use concepts like, just off the top of my head, subcategorisation, diathesis, predicate-argument structure, valence, adicity, arity, case structure and theta-role assignment every day

A remarkable example of making the opposite argument to that which you appeared to be attempting 🙂 I don’t think I’ve ever seen a sentence with so many words I don’t know, yet I have a good vocabulary. Essentially the use of language forms to intimidate or overawe, rather than actual communication.

di·ath·e·ses (-sz)
1. A hereditary predisposition of the body to a disease, a group of diseases, an allergy, or another disorder.
2. Grammar the passive voice is also called diathesis.

I’m wondering why such a rare word is used for 2 unrelated meanings ?

adicity (plural adicities)

1. (logic, mathematics, computer science) The number of arguments or operands a function or operation takes. For a relation, the number of domains in the corresponding Cartesian product.

you’ve lost me here

oh, and how about “something” ? Regional accent innit?

Regional dialect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive

I’m none the wiser.

I’m none the wiser.

me either!

Boldly, I hit him
I hit him boldly
I boldly hit him
Him I boldly hit

all mean the same ?

simonfbarnes – Member
oh, and how about “something” ?
Regional accent innit?
Regional dialect

Now that’s pedantic!

Now that’s pedantic!

Pronunciation and vocabulary are 2 different things – they do usually go together but they need not.

lol, I knew ‘fight’ was a bad word choice.

you are the first to suggest the names of the rules matter at all. I’m saying dump them because they’re useless, not because I don’t know what they’re called

I was suggesting the exact opposite of that; I was making the point that we use these syntactic rules all the time without realising it. But it’s impossible to ‘dump them’.

having to translate thoughts into words gets in the way

Gets in the way of what? Giving form to nebulous floaty half-finished ideas in your head that you’re sure must be right because you’ve just thought them?

the apostrophe – what’s it FOR ?

As aracer’s already pointed out, it can modify meaning, sometimes crucially, in written text. No, you don’t need it in speech, which is a different system.

Anyway I don’t understand your position. You seem to be using language to argue against the systems that make language work … ?

Actually I think we’re talking about different things. You’re talking about the things English teachers might tell you that you can’t do: split infinitives, hang participles, blah blah. I’m not. I’m thinking about psycholinguistics and how language conveys meaning, so I think I’ll depart this debate before I get accused of being a troll, again.

No, you don’t need it in speech, which is a different system

Is that so ? How is meaning changed by transcription ?

I was suggesting the exact opposite of that; I was making the point that we use these syntactic rules all the time without realising it.

But you said:

But, just because we can’t name these ‘abstruse grammatical forms’, doesn’t mean we should (or could) discard them.

, which evoked my reply:
[/quote]you are the first to suggest the names of the rules matter at all.

Anyway I don’t understand your position. You seem to be using language to argue against the systems that make language work … ?

I’m only arguing against officious stickling to the ‘rules’ as a barrier to relaxed speech. I think language allows for creative/negligent input

I’m thinking about psycholinguistics and how language conveys meaning

EXACTLY!! The meaning trancends the grubby details of expression 🙂

so I think I’ll depart this debate before I get accused of being a troll, again.

this isn’t “Just a minute”, you’re allowed to change the subject!

Giving form to nebulous floaty half-finished ideas in your head that you’re sure must be right because you’ve just thought them?

I often noticed myself stumbling over the words because they couldn’t keep up with what I was thinking. Ideas requiring whole sentences can flick into the mind in a fraction of a second

Simon – I’m not a fan of sticking to the rules just because, hence I couldn’t care less if you decide to wantonly use a split infinitive (irony intended). Not particularly bothered about the use of me instead of I if that’s what comes naturally, though using I where me would be correct because the speaker has this half-baked idea about being correct does grate. Plenty more like that, where the “rules” don’t actually help with the meaning and accuracy – though I’m a little cautious as this can be the thin end of the wedge. What I am bothered by is inaccurate usage, or plain laziness which results in ambiguity or incorrect meaning – either because the speaker/writer can’t be bothered or they’ve not been correctly educated (which isn’t their fault).

ALso worth pointing out that there is a difference between speech and writing – shortcuts in the former are far more acceptable.

partial electrocutions can wind some people up apparently

😈

which results in ambiguity or incorrect meaning

this is a particularly rich field for entertainment and irony

ALso worth pointing out that there is a difference between speech and writing

I would say speech was the authentic basis of language (etymology ‘tongue’) and writing an attempt to mimic and record it. Punctuation is there to cope with its limitations

I feel it’s time..

we’ve hardly started yet :o)

the blatant mis-use and mis-understanding of numbers, fractions, percentages and ratios. Lazy numerical journalism really pisses me off.

Got bored reading this but – many terms have a technical definition and a common-usage one, as explained in dictionary definitions. Saying ‘decimate’ or ‘a fraction of’ carries a commonly accepted meaning. So it’s okay, and there are loads of examples of the same thing of which you are probably not aware. If you get too hung up on the technical definitions of words then you are a dweeb, a geek, or a nerd. Or you are functionally autistic but with anger issues and an inflated sense of self-importance 🙂

we’ve hardly started yet

Quite – plenty more left in this one, given it’s now going in a slightly different direction 8)

I would say speech was the authentic basis of language (etymology ‘tongue’) and writing an attempt to mimic and record it.

From a historical perspective you’re right. However the written word is nowadays an important thing in it’s own right, and certainly from a legal perspective carries far more weight than the spoken word.

I regularly get into arguments with yoofs who declare that old cars/bikes/phones etc are ‘retro’. No young man, they are not, they are old. Retro is when things are designed to look old but are new, as distinct from actually old. You idiot.

But they argue that all of their mates use the word retro in the same way and that I should get with the times, as young people naturally have the right to reassign words for their own usage.. No no no! Then they start talking about the word ‘gay’ and how the young people of the world have very succesfully redeployed that for their own use.

Alas I cry, gay still means happy, still means homosexual, but also now means stupid. What are we going to use to replace retro now that it’s clarity has been muddied by a new meaning in a very similar area? It is enough to drive a man to distraction.

Sodding yoofs.

Tormski – Retro is Gay you mean Old Skool

No young man, they are not, they are old

interpreting a word differently does not make one an idiot, unless perhaps your definition of idiot is ‘someone who thinks differently to me’ ?

By the way, which means good at the moment – Hot or Cool?

Trying to explain to a German girlfriend many years ago about Hot and Cool being the same thing when describing stuff. Then she went and told her friends I was cold in bed. 🙁

interpreting a word differently does not make one an idiot

It does if you’re interpreting that word differently because you don’t understand what the word actually means and think it means something different. I’d suggest that’s the likely case with the word “retro”, as it seems like it might mean what they think it does.

Oh and 200!