[Closed] Somethink annoying

Disagree. Everyone has different rules, for language and everything else too. Obviously this impinges upon understanding, but we have enough flexibility to muddle through most of the time. Some rules make more difference than others, as "don't talk with your mouth full" is much more important than 'no apostrophe in "its" when referring to something belonging to a thing'

But, as you say, you have to muddle through and it only works "most of the time". I'm not disagreeing about talking with your mouthful, but i'd not say it was more or less important - we should strive to do things correctly if we wish to be taken seriously. Obviously correct is dependent on your context, so using legal description in a north-east youthclub wouldnt get you very far, but that is only because the people at the club do not follow the rules prescribed (hopefully) in primary school. But likewise, the "dumbing down" of the language due to adoption of lazy alternatives makes it less likely that the average person can understand anything *"more" than banter online or in a pub. *by more I mean complex use of our language such as, but not limited to, legal or academic use for example.

At some point we have to take it to extremes and say where does it end, when we regress back to grunts because we can't be bothered forming correct sentences? Sure, there are bigger problems in the world, but that doesnt mean we have to stop trying at the smaller ones.

But likewise, the "dumbing down" of the language due to adoption of lazy alternatives

I suspect people having been moaning about this since they felt grunting was being devalued. Times change, get over it 🙂

Has no-one here heard of Hart's Rules?

Sometimes people must be precise, but they meet the limits of language, and argument over meaning is then inevitable. My point is that the even most finely honed cutting edge use of language is not the cure some think it is. Legal language [i]is[/i] archaic, as recognised by Lord Woolf and the reforms he put into place. That's not always a useful criticism, though. Experts' terminology is often impenetrable to others.

Sometimes gist is more important than specific detail. It's a question of [i]register[/i]. Despite their professed level of literacy, few people are comfortable with, or able to, step out of their own register. Who is a better linguist, the specialist/one trick pony or the generalist/master of none? (rhetorical question alert)

I think people have probably always worried that we're 'all going to hell in a handcart'(™Daily Mail). I also think there's no basis for saying so. In this context, literacy levels are rising. So called 'dumbing down' is what made English the language it is today. It has followed an organic dialectic process whereby elements of different languages were simplified in order that everyone could communicate. (eg Norse met Saxon, and lost the bits of words they didn't have in common, kept the bits they did..have. etc)This led to maybe the real advantage of English per se over other languages; it's flexibility and the ease with which it can evolve.

Yes, but this ISN'T evolution, or the addition of extra languages and their advantages - it's degredation from within. If you think literacy levels are increasing I fear you dont have much contact with the current university level youth?

Times change, get over it

What a silly attitude.

What a silly attitude.

oh, you can say that in grunts then ??

uggh.ughhhh ug ugh. 🙂

uggh.ughhhh ug ugh. [:)]

ah, but surely you meant, "uggh.ughrrhhhg ug ugch." ??

I'll check that wheel out on Ebay. Sounds like a bargin.

I think you'll find that's a grocers' rr you've added there simon.

Looking anecdotally at university students' literacy is no measure of trends.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy ]As late as 1841, 33% of all Englishmen and 44% of Englishwomen signed marriage certificates with their mark as they were unable to write (government-financed public education became available in England in 1870)[/url]

I wasn't talking about the addition of extra languages and their advantages, but something quite different. Each language in the process would encounter 'degr[b]a[/b]dation', as perceived by its speakers. They would probably also say this wasn't evolution. I don't take a position on whether 'sumfink' represents an evolutionary step, in the same way that a Galapagos Islands finch couldn't take a position as to whether its chick's slightly different beak represented one. We're in it and too close to it to have such an overview.

As late as 1841, 33% of all Englishmen and 44% of Englishwomen signed marriage certificates with their mark as they were unable to write

an interesting statistic, but I wonder how one could tell in retrospect if something is a 'mark' or a signature, given the typical illegibility of most signatures ?

[i]We're in it and too close to it to have such an overview.[/i]

I don't think so - it's easy to recognise many traits and Americanisms that have become part of everday English speak eg, "Cool" "nerd", or more recently "my bad" (which isn't going to go away, unfortunately!)

"Somethink" & "nothink" are just moronic though.

(Actually I'm not that bothered by "sumfin" or "sumfink" as that's usually down to regional accent. Like what I've got.)

it's easy to recognise many traits and Americanisms that have become part of everday English speak

just because they're nominally American does not make them intrinsically bad. Language is essentially the fashion of grunts - where the fashion originates hardly matters. Also many 'Americanisms' are in fact fossilised Elizabethan Englisisms...

I know I am going to annoy SFB with that but hey I don't really care.
As foreigner I have bee in situations where my poor english and very bad knowledge of the grammar have made me look daft, or even worth, made me buy stuff I didn't really wanted or get a service I wasn't looking for.
I am most annoyed by people (french or english lets face it) that butcher the language under the so wrong excuse to sound cool, or to be an anarchist (a bit like you SFB). Grammar and other language rules exists for a purpose, make the communication between being easier. The same way traffic rules exist to make the journey easier.

You all could ask people who have meet me, and I am sure they all would be able to tell you a very shameful story where I said something and they understood something else.

So I am sorry SFB and others but grammar is useful, and do serve a purpose.

Looking anecdotally at university students' literacy is no measure of trends.

I would say that looking at (supposedly, by definition) the better educated percentage of a society for a trend in literacy is a perfect measure of trends - it is the place where the standards should have fallen the least. Regardless of perceived worth, these people should be better able to string together a sentence in their mother tongue than anyone. Its hardly anecdotal, its from a few years of working with them in a couple of institutions reviewing and marking their work. 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.

I'm all for the incorporation of new words from other areas, and to some extent I'm happy with local "mis-use" of the language, but in written form the rules exist to maintain a backbone on which evolution can run its course. But evolution does imply improvement, redusing ar sentenses and grammer t ummmm a ummmm fingy where whathizface cannt say what ee meens cz iz basic language skillz ave gone is not improvement, even if it does convey a basic "gist" of a sentence.

Anyway, I'm bored of this argument now. Have a nice day, all! I am fascinated by what "service" you accidentally bought, Juan! 🙂

[i]just because they're nominally American does not make them intrinsically bad.[/i]

I didn't say they were bad, I use them myself (Except "my bad"!)

[i]You all could ask people who have meet me, and I am sure they all would be able to tell you a very shameful story where I said something and they understood something else.[/i]

I know one... "I'd rather stay here looking at you": I'm sure you meant something else!! 😀

yes surely when was that BTW?

Southampton General. To the receptionist... 😆

ROFL yes remember now 😉 but that is what I meant she was very pretty 😉

I know I am going to annoy SFB with that but hey I don't really care

you'll have to try harder than that if you wish to annoy me

Grammar and other language rules exists for a purpose, make the communication between being easier.

however there is no defined authority to set these rules, which have arisen instead by general agreement [BTW I could have put 'instead arisen' with no change in meaning], and we are all capable of coping with a steady drift in usage, spelling and pronunciation which in due time leads to the development of new languages. I didn't say we didn't need grammar, only that it need not be immutable.

Steady drift is fine, single-generation jumps due to laziness and lack of knowledge are not. The problem is that English is an international language, in order for it to remain an international language, understandable by all of its speakers, the basic rules must remain the same, and it must be hed more rigidly than that of a small and little used language. If we dont do this we end up with different languages again, as I understand it the Chinese have a few variations on Chinese - while they may get the gist of something the other is saying as the language is similar, they need to formally learn the other language to be fluent with people in their own country?

Steady drift is fine, single-generation jumps due to laziness and lack of knowledge are not.

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

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.

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 [b]THAT[/b] 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

"Trout's back with another light"

it still doesn't mean anything to me even [b]with[/b] 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 [b]think[/b] 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 ?

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: [b]something[/b]"

As does the [url= http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=somethink ]Urban Dictionary[/url].

[b]PERFECT[/b]!!

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" ?

[i]oh, and how about "something" ? [/i]
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