As for splitting infinitives, I am with you. I split infinitives all the time though I was taught not to do so. I also end sentences with prepositions in spite of it being considered wrong. I read a book on English where it said that this is a hangover from Latin and that these rules came into place because educated people spoke Latin.
It is a holdover from Latin, and that's why it's the rule.
Quote:
Latin forbade split infinitives and ending sentences with prepositions, therefore it must be wrong to do so in English too.
Latin doesn't forbid it. It's impossible. Try it in any Romance language. Go ahead. Try it. Stick a phrase in the middle of the word "ser." Or in the middle of Parl-ifyoudon'tmindcouldwetryFrench-er
I would just like to point out that this is a direct result of the American School System. When I graduated from High School I had a 3.6, when I graduated from College I had a 3.8... these were beyond the average of what the others around me got. But I still felt like I was never provided the depth of what I could be learning. I also felt there was no reason to go up and beyond that as well. I came from a public school, but it was a well provided for one in the middle of a predominantly white area in the suburbs.
Too many teachers put on a video for two hours while they sit there and grade papers. Too many teachers let students get away with not learning a damn thing because if they fail or drop out of school it makes them look bad or means the school won't be getting any more money from them. Hey! who needs to learn anything when you can just become a star athlete and have all the Teachers give you BS grades you don't deserve.
Then what is is supposed to say to the students that took the time to actually learn and understand the material over the past few weeks or months if the teachers gives "Review Days" before the day of the Test that are basically nothing more than giving the questions and answers to the test for them to memorize so everyone gets good grades??? Simple, "There is no Point in Trying".
The System is Bullsh_t and no one Cares. That's the American Way.
Study after Study shows that while the American work week is longer on hours than most countries, it is way down there on the efficiency of how those hours are spent. I don't see a reason why not to believe that this is a direct result of the way the school systems are ran.
I'm sure there are some grammatical errors in there but like I said, I went to American public school. Sue me.
Midwinter, sorry, I never studied Latin or any of the romance languages. I was quoting what I read in that book The only foreign language we studied in India was English.
Re. OED, I guess it's one more thing I have to accept.
I understand the point you made concerning English being "perfect" at some point. It never was, you are right.
JohnnySmith? What was that?
BRussell, I agree it would be good to know the history. Unfortunately I do not, and there is no way I can show that it is incorrect. As I mentioned, I was going by what I was taught in school back in the sixties and seventies in India which followed the British system of education and "Wren & Martin" ruled grammar Of course, by my own argument, that could have been incorrect and I may be the one perpetuating a mistake
Giant, whatever I said to Midwinter re. OED, the same holds good for you too, thanks for the input
What I realise from this very entertaining exchange is that my whole gripe was based on accepted wisdom at a point in time when I was a student in a certain part of the world. That was a long time ago and whether I like it or not, things have changed and I must learn to go with the flow, especially what is considered acceptable in the time and place I now live in.
While in the past I enjoyed using exemplary English I found most of the time people did not really understand or connect with me.
Using slang vocabularly and grammar has helped me immensely in my day-to-day challenges. At this stage I don't see the need to speak or write perfect English. Word.
One must also remember that language is continually in transition. Ancient Greeks over the course of a few hundred years might have lamented the "dumbing down" of their language. A lot of the gospels were written in Aramaic. Eventually nobody ended up really speaking it. Olde English - People that spoke that could have complained it was losing out to the modernity of the Industrial Revolution.
I appreciate your rant. But (and apparently once should not start a sentence with But or And) the transition is upon us and to swim against the current is perhaps futile. It is simply a call for one to forgive the way of the world and be more at peace with what we see and hear and read and experience all around us
I, like Sunilraman, support the use of slang and non-standard English.
I generally support correct English, and try to use it properly, but I often make obscure grammatical errors. I feel that the important part of language is the communication aspect. If I say, "Me and my mom went to the store" as opposed to "My mom and I went to the store," the same information in conveyed in both cases. I understand that grammatical rules are in place to make sure that the communication is clear unambiguous, but more often than not, small grammatical errors can be made with no reduction in clarity. Of course, once the grammatical errors begin to impede readability, and then I agree, some issue should be raised, but largely, the posts I read here are quite readable.
Just my opinion.
(Take for example my above post. I'm sure an English professor could find some grammatical errors in it, but did it prevent you from understanding what my language was saying? Call me a pragmatist.)
Olde English - People that spoke that could have complained it was losing out to the modernity of the Industrial Revolution.
The people who spoke Old English had been dead for several, several hundred years by the time the Industrial Revolution happened.
Here's the Lord's prayer in Old English. Please note that words/phrases like "gedæghwamlican" don't exist anymore.
Contrast that with the most famous example of Middle English, Chaucer:
Quote:
Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote
\tThe droghte of March hath perced to the roote
\tAnd bathed every veyne in swich licour,
\tOf which vertu engendred is the flour;
5\tWhan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
\tInspired hath in every holt and heeth
\tThe tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
\tHath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,
\tAnd smale foweles maken melodye,
10\tThat slepen al the nyght with open eye-
\t(So priketh hem Nature in hir corages);
\tThanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages
\tAnd palmeres for to seken straunge strondes
\tTo ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
15\tAnd specially from every shires ende
\tOf Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,
\tThe hooly blisful martir for to seke
\tThat hem hath holpen, whan that they were seeke.
So, to sum up: get it straight.
Old English = the language of Beowulf. You can't read it without a grammar and a dictionary. It is literally a foreign language to a modern speaker and has loads of German origins. Spoken from roughly 500 CE to 1200 CE.
Middle English = the language of Chaucer. Spoken from roughly 1200 CE through the mid-17th century. Reflects the French influence post-Norman invasion in 1066. You can understand this with a little thinking about hard words.
Everything after that is some version of "Modern" English.
If anyone here is interested in why English is so screwed up, I highly recommend a course on the History of the English Language. Any college English dept worth its salt will offer one.
Tilt, I believe in an earlier post you mentioned "prolly" as a likely result of mishearing "probably".
I doubt that many native English speakers are under the impression that the word is actually "prolly"; however, choosing such slang can subtly signify (I'm assuming this is a feature of most, if not all languages, and one that tends to remain stubbornly opaque to non-native users).
For an educated speaker of English, "incorrect" constructions (both spoken and written) such as "prolly", "aint", "dunno", "yeah", "fella", "coulda (woulda)", "that guy, he...", "like to..." (as in 'oooh, he was like to hop out of his skin'), etc. can act as the linguistic equivalent of sticking one's hands in one's pockets and looking down modestly, i.e. a way of conveying that what you are saying is pitched at a "friendly" or "casual" level, or as a way to inflect the speaker's relationship to the information conveyed.
In the case at hand, responding to a question like "Is there going to be trouble?" with "Oh, prolly" actually means something different from "Probably".
The latter conveys "Yes, I think the odds are good that there will be trouble" while the former suggests something along the lines of "Maybe so, but it doesn't really concern me", or possibly "Isn't there always trouble? Why worry?"
Of course, these kinds of transactions are highly dependent on the specific participants for meaning and are another reason the notion of "correct" usage is so vexed, while being a source of great expository richness.
If I say, "Me and my mom went to the store" as opposed to "My mom and I went to the store," the same information in conveyed in both cases. I understand that grammatical rules are in place to make sure that the communication is clear unambiguous, but more often than not, small grammatical errors can be made with no reduction in clarity. Of course, once the grammatical errors begin to impede readability, and then I agree, some issue should be raised, but largely, the posts I read here are quite readable.
Despite my earlier post about not wanting to be pedantic, in this example I would still say "my mum and I". Why? Because grammar is not just about being understood; it's about style and grace in your speaking/writing. I can understand someone typing l33t on a forum, but I do not enjoy reading it.
Of course, in terms of style, there is nothing wrong with informed breaking/ignoring of the rules - but this is quite different from lack of linguistic education. So I believe we should teach our children well ... and then let them do what they want.
The people who spoke Old English had been dead for several, several hundred years by the time the Industrial Revolution happened............
Arghh I feel so dumb sometimes y'all so l33t sometimes man But thanks for the quick History of the English Language. *sigh* I seriously was under the impression that Chaucer was way more readable than *that*.
You prolly just got me confused with Vox Barbara. People prolly loose track of which of us is whom alla time.
I have to take issue with the "English is an evolving language" camp. Of course English is evolving, and that's great. However, it's wrong when someone (a native speaker) mangles English and then defends his grammar or spelling with "Hey, it's an evolving language so it really doesn't matter."
Grammar is the user interface of communication. Sure, you can get by with a lousy UI, but you can do much more with a decent one.
.......Grammar is the user interface of communication. Sure, you can get by with a lousy UI, but you can do much more with a decent one.
Well Windows has a bollocks UI compared to Mac OS X but guess which is used more? Heh... English usage and slang usage from a marketshare/mindshare perspective
BTW JimDreamworx your sentence really should have started with "Regardless..." There is no such word as "Irregardless"
Comments
Originally posted by tilt
[B]
As for splitting infinitives, I am with you. I split infinitives all the time though I was taught not to do so. I also end sentences with prepositions in spite of it being considered wrong. I read a book on English where it said that this is a hangover from Latin and that these rules came into place because educated people spoke Latin.
It is a holdover from Latin, and that's why it's the rule.
Latin forbade split infinitives and ending sentences with prepositions, therefore it must be wrong to do so in English too.
Latin doesn't forbid it. It's impossible. Try it in any Romance language. Go ahead. Try it. Stick a phrase in the middle of the word "ser." Or in the middle of Parl-ifyoudon'tmindcouldwetryFrench-er
Ya Heard????
Too many teachers put on a video for two hours while they sit there and grade papers. Too many teachers let students get away with not learning a damn thing because if they fail or drop out of school it makes them look bad or means the school won't be getting any more money from them. Hey! who needs to learn anything when you can just become a star athlete and have all the Teachers give you BS grades you don't deserve.
Then what is is supposed to say to the students that took the time to actually learn and understand the material over the past few weeks or months if the teachers gives "Review Days" before the day of the Test that are basically nothing more than giving the questions and answers to the test for them to memorize so everyone gets good grades??? Simple, "There is no Point in Trying".
The System is Bullsh_t and no one Cares. That's the American Way.
Study after Study shows that while the American work week is longer on hours than most countries, it is way down there on the efficiency of how those hours are spent. I don't see a reason why not to believe that this is a direct result of the way the school systems are ran.
I'm sure there are some grammatical errors in there but like I said, I went to American public school. Sue me.
Midwinter, sorry, I never studied Latin or any of the romance languages. I was quoting what I read in that book
Re. OED, I guess it's one more thing I have to accept.
I understand the point you made concerning English being "perfect" at some point. It never was, you are right.
JohnnySmith? What was that?
BRussell, I agree it would be good to know the history. Unfortunately I do not, and there is no way I can show that it is incorrect. As I mentioned, I was going by what I was taught in school back in the sixties and seventies in India which followed the British system of education and "Wren & Martin" ruled grammar
Giant, whatever I said to Midwinter re. OED, the same holds good for you too, thanks for the input
What I realise from this very entertaining exchange is that my whole gripe was based on accepted wisdom at a point in time when I was a student in a certain part of the world. That was a long time ago and whether I like it or not, things have changed and I must learn to go with the flow, especially what is considered acceptable in the time and place I now live in.
Thanks again everyone
Originally posted by tilt
JohnnySmith? What was that?
Proper English is For Fools.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/leet.php
Cheers
Originally posted by tilt
Ah OK! Now I understand what 'leet' means! I always thought it meant "lame"!
Cheers
Short for elite...
And More Than You ever wanted to know about the term...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet
Using slang vocabularly and grammar has helped me immensely in my day-to-day challenges. At this stage I don't see the need to speak or write perfect English. Word.
One must also remember that language is continually in transition. Ancient Greeks over the course of a few hundred years might have lamented the "dumbing down" of their language. A lot of the gospels were written in Aramaic. Eventually nobody ended up really speaking it. Olde English - People that spoke that could have complained it was losing out to the modernity of the Industrial Revolution.
I appreciate your rant. But (and apparently once should not start a sentence with But or And) the transition is upon us and to swim against the current is perhaps futile. It is simply a call for one to forgive the way of the world and be more at peace with what we see and hear and read and experience all around us
I generally support correct English, and try to use it properly, but I often make obscure grammatical errors. I feel that the important part of language is the communication aspect. If I say, "Me and my mom went to the store" as opposed to "My mom and I went to the store," the same information in conveyed in both cases. I understand that grammatical rules are in place to make sure that the communication is clear unambiguous, but more often than not, small grammatical errors can be made with no reduction in clarity. Of course, once the grammatical errors begin to impede readability, and then I agree, some issue should be raised, but largely, the posts I read here are quite readable.
Just my opinion.
(Take for example my above post. I'm sure an English professor could find some grammatical errors in it, but did it prevent you from understanding what my language was saying? Call me a pragmatist.)
Originally posted by sunilraman
Olde English - People that spoke that could have complained it was losing out to the modernity of the Industrial Revolution.
The people who spoke Old English had been dead for several, several hundred years by the time the Industrial Revolution happened.
Here's the Lord's prayer in Old English. Please note that words/phrases like "gedæghwamlican" don't exist anymore.
Contrast that with the most famous example of Middle English, Chaucer:
Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote
\tThe droghte of March hath perced to the roote
\tAnd bathed every veyne in swich licour,
\tOf which vertu engendred is the flour;
5\tWhan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
\tInspired hath in every holt and heeth
\tThe tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
\tHath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,
\tAnd smale foweles maken melodye,
10\tThat slepen al the nyght with open eye-
\t(So priketh hem Nature in hir corages);
\tThanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages
\tAnd palmeres for to seken straunge strondes
\tTo ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
15\tAnd specially from every shires ende
\tOf Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,
\tThe hooly blisful martir for to seke
\tThat hem hath holpen, whan that they were seeke.
So, to sum up: get it straight.
Old English = the language of Beowulf. You can't read it without a grammar and a dictionary. It is literally a foreign language to a modern speaker and has loads of German origins. Spoken from roughly 500 CE to 1200 CE.
Middle English = the language of Chaucer. Spoken from roughly 1200 CE through the mid-17th century. Reflects the French influence post-Norman invasion in 1066. You can understand this with a little thinking about hard words.
Everything after that is some version of "Modern" English.
If anyone here is interested in why English is so screwed up, I highly recommend a course on the History of the English Language. Any college English dept worth its salt will offer one.
Tilt, I believe in an earlier post you mentioned "prolly" as a likely result of mishearing "probably".
I doubt that many native English speakers are under the impression that the word is actually "prolly"; however, choosing such slang can subtly signify (I'm assuming this is a feature of most, if not all languages, and one that tends to remain stubbornly opaque to non-native users).
For an educated speaker of English, "incorrect" constructions (both spoken and written) such as "prolly", "aint", "dunno", "yeah", "fella", "coulda (woulda)", "that guy, he...", "like to..." (as in 'oooh, he was like to hop out of his skin'), etc. can act as the linguistic equivalent of sticking one's hands in one's pockets and looking down modestly, i.e. a way of conveying that what you are saying is pitched at a "friendly" or "casual" level, or as a way to inflect the speaker's relationship to the information conveyed.
In the case at hand, responding to a question like "Is there going to be trouble?" with "Oh, prolly" actually means something different from "Probably".
The latter conveys "Yes, I think the odds are good that there will be trouble" while the former suggests something along the lines of "Maybe so, but it doesn't really concern me", or possibly "Isn't there always trouble? Why worry?"
Of course, these kinds of transactions are highly dependent on the specific participants for meaning and are another reason the notion of "correct" usage is so vexed, while being a source of great expository richness.
Ain't it grand?
Cheers
Originally posted by tilt
Interesting observation Addabox. However it was VoxApps who mentioned "prolly", not I
Cheers
Dadgummit.
Originally posted by david christ superstar
If I say, "Me and my mom went to the store" as opposed to "My mom and I went to the store," the same information in conveyed in both cases. I understand that grammatical rules are in place to make sure that the communication is clear unambiguous, but more often than not, small grammatical errors can be made with no reduction in clarity. Of course, once the grammatical errors begin to impede readability, and then I agree, some issue should be raised, but largely, the posts I read here are quite readable.
Despite my earlier post about not wanting to be pedantic, in this example I would still say "my mum and I". Why? Because grammar is not just about being understood; it's about style and grace in your speaking/writing. I can understand someone typing l33t on a forum, but I do not enjoy reading it.
Of course, in terms of style, there is nothing wrong with informed breaking/ignoring of the rules - but this is quite different from lack of linguistic education. So I believe we should teach our children well ... and then let them do what they want.
While we're getting up on soapboxes...
The people who spoke Old English had been dead for several, several hundred years by the time the Industrial Revolution happened............
Arghh I feel so dumb sometimes y'all so l33t sometimes man
Absolutely.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Irregardless, I myself feel prioritizing good English is needed.
Absolutely.
Arrrrgh, I tried my best to restrain myself, but I couldn't. "Irregardless"???????
Originally posted by addabox
Dadgummit.
You prolly just got me confused with Vox Barbara. People prolly loose track of which of us is whom alla time.
I have to take issue with the "English is an evolving language" camp. Of course English is evolving, and that's great. However, it's wrong when someone (a native speaker) mangles English and then defends his grammar or spelling with "Hey, it's an evolving language so it really doesn't matter."
Grammar is the user interface of communication. Sure, you can get by with a lousy UI, but you can do much more with a decent one.
.......Grammar is the user interface of communication. Sure, you can get by with a lousy UI, but you can do much more with a decent one.
Well Windows has a bollocks UI compared to Mac OS X but guess which is used more?
BTW JimDreamworx your sentence really should have started with "Regardless..." There is no such word as "Irregardless"