"Are you dumb?" part deux.

[KvHagedorn]

Heh.. target practice.

Don't you just hate it when you come up with the perfect counter to a common argument and no one takes the bait?

[UtwigMU]

I passed perfectly, however I do see problem with English language. I've noticed recently that a lot of native speakers spell poorly: moniter, warrenty, wut (instead of what) or they use slang (insert like in every sentence at least once).

I know there are people who can use both slang and quality language and in some cases sleng is more socially acceptable (for instance when speaking to average greek tourist workers, you need to tone down your vocabulary considerably), but somehow those people don't give that impression.

Here you would encounter such test in say 2nd or 3d year of gymnasium. This would make it your 6th or 7th year of English although English level on primary school is not comparable to gymnasium. For instance 4 years of German in hi-school equals roughly 6 years of English (primary school + hi school).

[Gurm]

I've been waiting for someone to make the argument that "usage makes it correct," but I guess you are all too smart for that one.. if that argument were correct, the perfect analogy would be that if you rape a woman enough times she becomes a slut.

What, you mean it doesn't work that way? I mean, in my experience... uh... maybe I'd better stop now.

[KvHagedorn]

I was wondering if someone would say something along those lines..

In practice she becomes either a slut or a homicidal/suicidal maniac.. though she might have been meant for much greater things, if the world at large had not so cruelly abandoned her.

[Sasq]

I've been waiting for someone to make the argument that "usage makes it correct," but I guess you are all too smart for that one.. if that argument were correct, the perfect analogy would be that if you rape a woman enough times she becomes a slut.

If usage did not make it correct, we would all still be grunting at each other and throwing sticks.

However your analogy is incorrect.

[Jessterw]

Have to agree with Dan on this one. Given that the English language has been driven by change, and that change has largely resulted from the gradual incorporation of slang and differing usage into the accepted range of the language.

I agree that too many English speakers, especially Americans, take too little time and effort in learning the language; however, that does not negate the fact that usage, over time, will make (at least some of) it correct. I am not implying that we should disregard proper usage with reckless abandon, but I'm not going to get all anal about it either.

[KvHagedorn]

Sasq: An attack is as correct as any analogy can be. Attack by other languages and cultures is certainly the harbinger of change in any language, and being such a universal language, English is constantly under attack. Indeed, the difficulties we are talking about are the scars of ancient changes brought about by the more or less violent impositions of other cultures and tongues upon the Old Saxon root language. Old Saxon was bombarded by Old Norse and then French, and all the while including a Celtic influence. That's three major branches of the Indo-European language tree which were included in this language over 900 years ago! It's no wonder we have lots of words which sound the same but have different meanings.

JW: Language is not driven by change, and I feel that you are probably just stating an opinion you feel is unchallengable because it is an oft-repeated Big Lie. Language does change, but this should only involve evolving to incorporate new things (such as "movies" or "automobile.") if such change is healthy.

To say that improper usage repeated over time makes something correct has no basis in logic whatsoever, as far as I'm concerned. The word "correct" has the very simple and straightforward connotation of being the one true answer, as in a mathematical equation. You cannot change the fact that 1+1=2. This is the correct answer. If you really think that generations of people loudly stating that 1+1=3 will make it so, than I am very sad for you. Correct is then perhaps not the best word to describe things linguistic. Is the word "king" correct? Is it more correct than "cyning" (Anglo-Saxon) or "kong" (Norwegian)? Of course not. In a larger sense, they are all incorrect, because they are all deviations from the root Germanic language, which in turn is a deviation from the root Indo-European language, and so on. These changes occurred over millennia, however, and before we had the aid of a written heritage or the standardization of usage that we have now. Once a language acquires a written heritage and rules of standardization, one can begin to apply the word correct in a sense relative to the vast number of written documents which follow these rules of standardization. Verily, if thou followest this logic, words which have fallen into disuse but are part of this written heritage can never really be called incorrect, as I see it.

Funny how using archaic language makes me feel much better. I might start doing it on a regular basis.

[Jessterw]

The English language has been driven by change, with a great deal of that change occurring in the period of time where it has existed as a written language.

Comparing a fluid concept such as language to one of a rigid nature like mathematics? Laughable.

[Mehen]

1 jU57 5p34k 1|\| l337 wh3r3 7H3r3 R N0 mi5t4k3s. No one ever accuses you of spelling something in leet incorrectly.

[GNEP]

KvH - I think you'd be happier as a Frenchman

[KvHagedorn]

The English language has been driven by change, with a great deal of that change occurring in the period of time where it has existed as a written language.

Comparing a fluid concept such as language to one of a rigid nature like mathematics? Laughable.

Where do you get the reference driven? Driven to what? Some people are predisposed to worship all change as being automatically good, so your attitude does not surprise me. All change is most definitely not for the better, though, and in fact we are regressing toward the grunts and croaks Dan mentioned. Point in fact: there are a lot of archaic words which have fallen into disuse which we could be using now to make a lot of meanings much clearer. The ones which spring to mind first are ken and very. We have "streamlined" the language to bring the meanings of these two words under the umbrella of the words know and true, respectively. We have also done away with gender and now verb tense is under attack. All of this is evidence of the decline of language, and it is partly because of democracy and the underlying idea that the least educated of people who have no respect for the language now should be allowed to contribute to it freely. This is just the legitimization of ignorance and nothing more. Why do you defend it? Do you even realize what you are doing? Language is not so easily described as fluid. It should not be without any reference point like so much water rushing along.

By the way, try to support your points with examples and stop telling people who do that such points are laughable. Such insults are the things that are laughable. Shall we digress into just hurling mud at each other now?

[Jessterw]

Where do you get the reference driven? Driven to what? [...]

By the way, try to support your points with examples and stop telling people who do that such points are laughable. Such insults are the things that are laughable. Shall we digress into just hurling mud at each other now?

My points are supported by the history of the English language. It is a living language that is driven by change, for better or worse. How do you not comprehend that the state of the language now is a result of change? I never said these changes were always for the betterment of the language, as I wholly agree that common English as a spoken and written language is being degraded to its most basic forms.

Language is fluid. True, there are certain established rules that hold despite changes to a language; however, this does not change the fact that language has always reflected the culture in which it is based.

And insult? My calling your analogy laughable is hardly any more of an insult than the assumptions your presume to make regarding the beliefs and knowledge of those you do not agree with.

[Sasq]

Faeder ur pu pe eart on heofonum, si pin nama gehalgod. To becume pin rice. Gewurpe pin willa on eorcan swa swa on heofonum. Urne gedaeghwamlican hlaf syle us to daeg. And forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfae urum gyltedum. And ne gelaed pu us on costnungen ac alys us of yfele. Sodlice.

Yup lots of words there that have fallen into dissuse.

All of this is evidence of the decline of language, and it is partly because of democracy and the underlying idea that the least educated of people who have no respect for the language now should be allowed to contribute to it freely.

News flash, we all own it. We all contribute to it freely. We all take what parts of the language we like and use it, and discard the parts we don't. If enough people find a new construct useful it becomes acceptable usage. You talk about English being under attack, no KvH, English is doing what it has always done, absorbed new constructs to aid communication. It is just happening at a faster pace then before with easy international communications. English was and still is what it always has been - the bastard child of a thousand languages.

Do you realize that 10% of spoken japanese now is English, this has happened in 60 years. Everything is changing everywhere, like it or not, want to crawl under our blanky and suck our thumb or not, good or not, it is happening. All the whining in the world is not going to change that.

[xortam]

KvH - I think you'd be happier as a Frenchman

[Gurm]

KvH - I think you'd be happier as a Frenchman

WE'D all be happier if he were a Frenchman. It'd be a better reason to dislike him intensely.