PDA

View Full Version : Lessons in Grammar, with the forum *grin*



David Bailey
28th-April-2005, 04:49 PM
OK, this has been bugging me, is it "practise" or "practice"? I assumed the latter, but I'm willing to be corrected...

David the Pedant

Rhythm King
28th-April-2005, 05:14 PM
OK, this has been bugging me, is it "practise" or "practice"? I assumed the latter, but I'm willing to be corrected...

David the Pedant

Practise - verb

You may have freedom to practise your religion

Practice - noun

It is a common practice to tip the waiter in a restaurant, or

The Doctor's practice has a lot of patients

Needless to say the Americans use practice for both, and so the beauty of our native tongue is washed down the lavatory bowl of US globalization

El Salsero Gringo
28th-April-2005, 05:20 PM
Needless to say the Americans use practice for both, and so the beauty of our native tongue is washed down the lavatory bowl of US globalizationIf we're being pedantic, you should know that the -ise spelling of verbs is given by the OED as the alternative spelling of the verb whose primary lettering is -ize. So there isn't quite so much to criticize as one might theorize.

Rhythm King
28th-April-2005, 05:27 PM
If we're being pedantic, you should know that the -ise spelling of verbs is given by the OED as the alternative spelling of the verb whose primary lettering is -ize. So there isn't quite so much to criticize as one might theorize.


And the reason I highlighted the z was . . . ? :whistle:

Robin
28th-April-2005, 05:57 PM
Practise - verb

You may have freedom to practise your religion

Practice - noun

It is a common practice to tip the waiter in a restaurant, or

The Doctor's practice has a lot of patients



Phew ! ... I got it the right then ....
as they say " Practice makes perfect " hehehe :wink:

David Bailey
28th-April-2005, 07:06 PM
Phew ! ... I got it the right then ....
Yes, and I've been consistently wrong - hell.

So, let me get this straight, I can say "My English needs practise" or "My English needs a serious practice"?

P.S. Sorry for hijacking the thread... :blush:

Dance Demon
28th-April-2005, 07:31 PM
Practice - noun

It is a common practice to tip the waiter in a restaurant, or



Erm.....used in this context, it's also a verb is it not......

El Salsero Gringo
28th-April-2005, 07:38 PM
Erm.....used in this context, it's also a verb is it not......No, it's a noun!

Ballroom queen
30th-May-2005, 09:56 PM
Practise - verb

You may have freedom to practise your religion

Practice - noun

It is a common practice to tip the waiter in a restaurant, or

The Doctor's practice has a lot of patients

Needless to say the Americans use practice for both, and so the beauty of our native tongue is washed down the lavatory bowl of US globalization

some might say a doctor practises on his patients... :rofl:
(it was a GP friend who said that :flower: )

Yogi_Bear
30th-May-2005, 11:25 PM
Is it a desirable practice to turn this thread into one that's all about practising correct grammar?

Robin
31st-May-2005, 09:41 AM
Is it a desirable practice to turn this thread into one that's all about practising correct grammar?

It seems to have gone that way on its own .... and yes, its is spelled correctly ... had a lecturer at Uni who spent 3 years on his phd researching the word 'its'. He reckons thats how it should be spelt and the apostrophe that most people use is incorrect ! (sad huh .. 3 years on that !!!!)

Lou
31st-May-2005, 10:23 AM
It seems to have gone that way on its own .... and yes, its is spelled correctly ... had a lecturer at Uni who spent 3 years on his phd researching the word 'its'. He reckons thats how it should be spelt and the apostrophe that most people use is incorrect ! (sad huh .. 3 years on that !!!!)

The saddest thing is that it seems he ended up with the wrong answer.

The first post in this thread contains a mistake. Its "its" is wrong. It's "it's".

Hope this helps.

L-x-

Robin
31st-May-2005, 11:01 AM
The saddest thing is that it seems he ended up with the wrong answer.

The first post in this thread contains a mistake. Its "its" is wrong. It's "it's".

Hope this helps.

L-x-

Well... you'd need to take that up with him ! ... but according to his research (all 3 years of it) it's or its' does not exist. the word "its" exists by itself and therefore no usage with an apostrophe is correct. One should always use "its" or failing that ... "it is" - which is an entirely different thing ... apparently. To be honest with you the guy was a phonemes expert so I sort of got bored after the 5 minutes anyway!

Its one of thos times when you really wished you'd listen to what your mother used to tell you when you were a baby .... ;)

Lou
31st-May-2005, 11:08 AM
Its one of thos times when you really wished you'd listen to what your mother used to tell you when you were a baby .... ;)
Why, what did she say?

Robin
31st-May-2005, 11:16 AM
Why, what did she say?

"I don't know .. I never listened !!!!"

ducasi
31st-May-2005, 01:44 PM
Well... you'd need to take that up with him ! ... but according to his research (all 3 years of it) it's or its' does not exist. the word "its" exists by itself and therefore no usage with an apostrophe is correct. One should always use "its" or failing that ... "it is" - which is an entirely different thing ... apparently. Nonsense.

The word its is a possessive adjective, like yours and his. Possessive adjectives don't have apostrophes.

The form it's is a contraction of it is or it has and is perfectly valid. (Though as a contraction, it's not a word, it's actually two words.)

You are correct though, there is no valid word or formation its' in standard English.

You don't need to do three years of research to know this, just a good dictionary.

Graham
31st-May-2005, 01:58 PM
You don't need to do three years of research to know this, just a good dictionary.
Presumably the expert in question was one of the contributors to said good dictionary. However I agree - sounds like one of these (arguably) pointless theses which merely seek to prove something which nobody realised was in any doubt.

Robin
31st-May-2005, 02:00 PM
Nonsense.

The word its is a possessive adjective, like yours and his. Possessive adjectives don't have apostrophes.

The form it's is a contraction of it is or it has and is perfectly valid. (Though as a contraction, it's not a word, it's actually two words.)

You are correct though, there is no valid word or formation its' in standard English.

You don't need to do three years of research to know this, just a good dictionary.

I'll quote you the paper - if I can find the reference.

ducasi
31st-May-2005, 02:09 PM
I'll quote you the paper - if I can find the reference.
Please, I'd be interested. However, it is never true to say that a particular usage is incorrect when people use it, and other people understand it. It may just not be a valid usage in Standard or Formal English.

CJ
31st-May-2005, 02:11 PM
What if the "it" in Q was a collective noun?? Say, for example, a gaggle.

So, "the gaggle (of female forumites) went down the road. It stopped before resuming its' journey...."

OK, the "it" is singular, but it refers to a plural. So, and this is according to Collins', "its'," is correct.

ducasi
31st-May-2005, 02:20 PM
You've got me there CJ. I don't know. I'm now sure what the apostrophe is telling me there. Where's my Fowler's????

ducasi
31st-May-2005, 02:30 PM
You've got me there CJ. I don't know. I'm now sure what the apostrophe is telling me there. Where's my Fowler's???? My Fowler's Modern English Usage says "apostrophes must not be used with the pronouns hers, its, ours, theirs, yours." As some of them are plural, I'd say that the other advice of putting an apostrophe after a plural possessive s is trumped by this advice.

So, I'm sticking with its' is not correct usage is Standard English.

Sorry for the diversion...

Dreadful Scathe
31st-May-2005, 02:43 PM
I've never seen anyone use its' in my life. I have however, seen the use of apostrophes after a name to state "belonging to" e.g. "ducasis' ice cream" , but it looks horrible. It often looks worse if you have a name that ends in s in the first place i.e. Guss music - should it be Gus's music, Guss' music or "bugger it it's the music belonging to Gus"?

Lou
31st-May-2005, 02:53 PM
I've never seen anyone use its' in my life. I have however, seen the use of apostrophes after a name to state "belonging to" e.g. "ducasis' ice cream" , but it looks horrible. It often looks worse if you have a name that ends in s in the first place i.e. Guss music - should it be Gus's music, Guss' music or "bugger it it's the music belonging to Gus"?
It would be Ducasi's ice cream and Gus's music. :nice:

Robin
1st-June-2005, 01:28 AM
It's OK to use an apostrophe in don't. :D

hehe - its my brain - always faster than my fingers

Yogi_Bear
1st-June-2005, 08:24 AM
It would be Ducasi's ice cream and Gus's music. :nice:
It could also be Gus' music but that wouldn't work at all well compared with, say, Charles' music, which is as equally valid as Charles's music. But don't get me started on compared with / compared to, the misuse of which is one of my pet hates...

Lory
1st-June-2005, 08:37 AM
sorry everyone i split the thread hopefully some people will read this thread and learn something about punctuation and grammar and realise its very difficult to decipher some text that has none i prefer it when people spread there text into small chunks and separate the paragraphs with a space i find it much easier to read :wink:

CJ
1st-June-2005, 11:57 AM
Practise - verb

You may have freedom to practise your religion

Practice - noun

It is a common practice to tip the waiter in a restaurant, or

The Doctor's practice has a lot of patients


So, do I practise my guitar playing at band practice?!?!!?

CJ
1st-June-2005, 11:59 AM
My Fowler's Modern English Usage says "apostrophes must not be used with the pronouns hers, its, ours, theirs, yours." As some of them are plural, I'd say that the other advice of putting an apostrophe after a plural possessive s is trumped by this advice.

So, I'm sticking with its' is not correct usage is Standard English.


I'm glad you have the courage of your convictions coa I made ther whole bloody thing up!!

Purple Sparkler
1st-June-2005, 12:05 PM
Its one of thos times when you really wished you'd listen to what your mother used to tell you when you were a baby ....


Why, what did she say?

"I don't know .. I never listened !!!!"

Sorry, just had to say: HURRAH FOR HITCHHIKERS QUOTES!
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

El Salsero Gringo
1st-June-2005, 12:12 PM
So, do I practise my guitar playing at band practice?!?!!?[Cue loud chorus of...]

Not if your performance is anything to go by!!!



(Badum - ch-sh.)

Lynn
1st-June-2005, 12:26 PM
Sorry, just had to say: HURRAH FOR HITCHHIKERS QUOTES!
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:I must be running slow today - I recognised the quote (Arthur & Ford in the Vogon ship) but was still wondering what the H2G2 stood for!!

OK - time for some coffee I think...

Stuart M
1st-June-2005, 01:29 PM
The first post in this thread contains a mistake. Its "its" is wrong. It's "it's".

Impressive last two sentences, Lou.

Reminds me of the person who had a morbid fear of large confusing shopping centres. He claimed to have a "complex complex complex" :whistle:

David Bailey
1st-June-2005, 07:19 PM
Good grief, I can't believe there's a thread devoted to this - I know, it's my post at the top, but I didn't create it. I hereby disclaim all responsibilty for, well, anything really...

Barry Shnikov
1st-June-2005, 09:20 PM
OK, this has been bugging me, is it "practise" or "practice"? I assumed the latter, but I'm willing to be corrected...

David the Pedant

The tip is, think of 'advise' and 'advice'.

If ya follow, use 'practise' where you'd use 'advise', and 'practice' where you'd use 'advice'.

Now, what about 'license' and 'licence'...

Barry Shnikov
1st-June-2005, 09:24 PM
You don't need to do three years of research to know this, just a good dictionary.

Quite. Or a decent fourth year teacher in junior school. (Hands up everyone who regrets our descent into 'year 6', 'year 9' and so forth...)

If you can say 'it is' and the sentence makes sense, then you spell the word "it's", if not then the correct spelling is "its".

Barry Shnikov
1st-June-2005, 09:28 PM
So, I'm sticking with its' is not correct usage is Standard English.

Sorry for the diversion...

Yes, because CerocJock answers his own question. It's a collective noun; when you say 'a crowd' you are referring to a single entity, it's just that the word is understood to refer to a collection of things, like a flock or a shoal. When a crowd is doing something, it's doing it collectively.

(See what I did in the last sentence?!?! I used the - o, never mind...)

David Bailey
1st-June-2005, 09:34 PM
sorry everyone i split the thread hopefully some people will read this thread and learn something about punctuation and grammar and realise its very difficult to decipher some text that has none i prefer it when people spread there text into small chunks and separate the paragraphs with a space i find it much easier to read :wink:
Sorry to have to point it out, but you spelt "separate" correctly. :rolleyes:

JoC
2nd-June-2005, 12:37 PM
Similar to 'practice and practise' is 'licence and license', same principle for each as opposed to principal. I know that was a fragment I should consider revisiting.

JoC
2nd-June-2005, 12:45 PM
Shoulda read the thread, be best if I just be quiet.

Yogi_Bear
2nd-June-2005, 01:08 PM
Sorry to be a pain, but it does bug me when someone writes lead for led in a post, as in 'the move can be lead' rather than what they really mean is
'the move can be led'. Some moves may be dull and heavy - like lead - but they still have to be led... :grin:

bigdjiver
2nd-June-2005, 01:25 PM
Henrys
Henry's
Henrys'

if the ' is so important, why is it not pronounced?

He - him - his
She - her - hers
It - it - its

We do not have a logical language. Our ancestors have not done us any favours with a lot of it. I am all in favour of letting people kick it around a bit, and hope that mutilation, mutation and evolution will give our descendandants something better.

ducasi
2nd-June-2005, 01:45 PM
Henrys
Henry's
Henrys'

if the ' is so important, why is it not pronounced?Their
There
They're

If the spelling is so important, why it is not pronounced?

Because context is usually sufficient.


He - him - his
She - her - hers
It - it - its

We do not have a logical language. Our ancestors have not done us any favours with a lot of it. I am all in favour of letting people kick it around a bit, and hope that mutilation, mutation and evolution will give our descendandants something better. No human language is logical, but then humans are not logical creatures. I think you'll find that the "mutilation, mutation and evolution" that does happen will not necessarily make the language more logical, but it should make it better. :nice:

Dreadful Scathe
2nd-June-2005, 01:50 PM
better ? we have dumbed down the English language quite a bit since TV has been on 24 hours a day. Not 2 mention txt msgs ;) No one even writes letters anymore. Big companies have printed stock letters, individuals use the phone or email. People come on the forum and use gadget as a role model! but having read widely i can say that while Gadget is guilty of bad spelling , he is still coherant (most of the time :) ) and grammatically not too bad. You cant say the same for a lot of web pages/forums and people who think they know better than everyone else. George was right, we'll see Newspeak in common use in a decade or two.

ducasi
2nd-June-2005, 01:56 PM
better ? we have dumbed down the English language quite a bit since TV has been on 24 hours a day. Not 2 mention txt msgs ;) Do you find yourself any less able to express what you want to say?

The English language is in no danger from the internet, mobile phones or TV.

stewart38
2nd-June-2005, 02:02 PM
What if the "it" in Q was a collective noun?? Say, for example, a gaggle.

So, "the gaggle (of female forumites) went down the road. It stopped before resuming its' journey...."

OK, the "it" is singular, but it refers to a plural. So, and this is according to Collins', "its'," is correct.

Im now really confused :sick: According to my dictionary its a gaggle of geese but your right Collins refers to female forumites as a 'gaggle'

Which if any is correct ? (or is it what ?)

Dreadful Scathe
2nd-June-2005, 02:10 PM
I can express myself fine - but sometimes I can't make myself understood because I use big words and have a vocabulary of more than 10 words :)

I remember one argument on one personal site where visitors criticised someone for a spelling mistake, he used the word 'inane' and they assumed he meant 'insane' as they had never heard of the word. Sad really.

So, unlike dancing, its not ME thats the problem here :)

Lou
2nd-June-2005, 02:12 PM
Im now really confused :sick: According to my dictionary its a gaggle of geese but your right Collins refers to female forumites as a 'gaggle'
:rofl: Funniest post I've read in ages. Wish I could rep you for it...

JoC
2nd-June-2005, 02:20 PM
while Gadget is guilty of bad spelling , he is still coherant
You mean coherent...? Hee-hee

Dreadful Scathe
2nd-June-2005, 02:30 PM
You mean coherent...? Hee-hee
no, that was deliberate :)

JoC
2nd-June-2005, 02:36 PM
Pants! I've had cake, it dulls the senses.

JoC
2nd-June-2005, 02:46 PM
On the bright side at least I noticed!

bigdjiver
2nd-June-2005, 02:59 PM
I can express myself fine - but sometimes I can't make myself understood because I use big words and have a vocabulary of more than 10 words :)and, oh great defender of English as she was spoke, dont forget the smilies :) :whistle:

David Bailey
2nd-June-2005, 03:22 PM
I can express myself fine - but sometimes I can't make myself understood because I use big words and have a vocabulary of more than 10 words :)

I remember one argument on one personal site where visitors criticised someone for a spelling mistake, he used the word 'inane' and they assumed he meant 'insane' as they had never heard of the word. Sad really.

So, unlike dancing, its not ME thats the problem here :)
I'd respectfully disagree. If you aren't communicating with your target audience, then you by definition are not "expressing yourself fine", as your message is not getting across.

Some of the best writing in the world is to be found in the Sun. It's targetted brilliantly for the audience, and expresses concepts very well to the readership. Whether you like the writing or not is irrelevant - it's effective communication.

So, I don't believe the language is "dumbing-down", but different dialects of English are evolving. Text messaging is one dialect.

bigdjiver
2nd-June-2005, 04:10 PM
...So, I don't believe the language is "dumbing-down", but different dialects of English are evolving. Text messaging is one dialect.There was a form of shorthand called Speedwriting a few years back. It just used the normal alphabet with words much abbreviated, just as now happening with text messaging. What the professionals failed to sell in the name of efficiency the youngsters are creating for themselves. I believe that it is genuine progress, even though I am feeling left behind.

Dreadful Scathe
2nd-June-2005, 04:27 PM
I'd respectfully disagree. If you aren't communicating with your target audience, then you by definition are not "expressing yourself fine", as your message is not getting across.


I disrespectfully (you tit) disagree with your disagreement. My only target audience is anyone who speaks english. Having a lower standard of English in society means to communicate with people you meet you must dumb down your language. Make your words simple like you know? I heard they even stopped teaching spelling in school, whats that all about?

ducasi
2nd-June-2005, 04:34 PM
I can express myself fine - but sometimes I can't make myself understood because I use big words and have a vocabulary of more than 10 words :)

{snip}

So, unlike dancing, its not ME thats the problem here :) I'd suggest that if you have a large vocabulary, you can express yourself in it, and you still can't be understood, then the problem is yours. Assuming you want to be understood, that is.

David Bailey
2nd-June-2005, 04:57 PM
My only target audience is anyone who speaks english. Having a lower standard of English in society means to communicate with people you meet you must dumb down your language. Make your words simple like you know? I heard they even stopped teaching spelling in school, whats that all about?
Ah, but it's never that simple - you've got a hierarchical model of English usage in mind, I believe, with "High" and "Low" ends, and you're automatically aiming at the "High" end.

But people aren't like that. For example, an engineer may have a low level of "proper" grammatical usage, and a relatively small vocabulary. But he or she may well be very good at communicating in "Engineer-ese", and at reading "Engineer-ese" articles. That doesn't make the engineer stupid or unworthy of communications - it means you have to target your writing correctly to the Engineer level. If you don't target, you don't communicate effectively. In my opinion.

Dreadful Scathe
3rd-June-2005, 09:47 AM
A good point well made. However, all I was saying really is that although I dont think Ive changed much over the years my ability to communicate has lessened somewhat. Now that may well be me not talking proper like, but I would suggest the dumbing down of English in newspapers and on tv are not helping to maintain a decent standard of English. e.g. Can you compare a copy of the Daily Mirror from the 1950s and a copy from today and argue that the standard of English is just as good. You certainly cannot! People aught to talk proper like what we does!


I'd suggest that if you have a large vocabulary, you can express yourself in it, and you still can't be understood, then the problem is yours

I use words that people should know but dont and its my fault?

Lory
3rd-June-2005, 10:41 AM
Can you compare a copy of the Daily Mirror from the 1950s and a copy from today and argue that the standard of English is just as good. You certainly cannot! People aught to talk proper like what we does!

Ahh but the same argument would then apply to children's classic books. ;)

Have you ever tried to read the original versions of Peter Pan, Little women, Alice in wonderland or Treasure Island? They're very hard going. :sick: Our language is evolving all the time and yes, I find some of the changes depressing but many more things quite refreshing! :)

Whilst I agree with your ire regarding lack of spelling taught in schools these days, I believe, by far the most important thing is punctuation.
As long as the writing flows, we can generally get the gist of what someone's trying to say, as we mostly 'scan' read anyway.

I think people are just being picky over words like its and it's. :rolleyes:

And this (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=67104&postcount=17) kind of proves the point! :grin:


Having a wide vocabulary is quite a different thing though and I very much enjoy listening to people who are able to express themselves eloquently. :waycool:

bigdjiver
3rd-June-2005, 11:30 AM
... Can you compare a copy of the Daily Mirror from the 1950s and a copy from today and argue that the standard of English is just as good...In my time I have been complimented on my use of language. I was brought up on the Mirror of the 50's, and I owe much of such talent as I possess to the much loved Mirror columnist William Connor, who wrote under the name Cassandra. He could make me laugh, he could make me cry, but, most of all he could make me think.

Some of his finest columns, published as a book, are recorded here:

http://www.lorry.org/cassandra/

"To satisfy Cassandra's fans -- and the more literate of his enemies --
in one book is a powerful problem indeed. These pages can only skim the
cream of his genius. Included is some of his finest and best remembered
writing side by side with certain jocular items (Much relished by Mirror
readers) such as the saga of the Goose-Egg Man, the Fourteen Day Soup,
and Cassandra's private collection of Square-Wheel English.

This is a book for all occasions and all moods, a delight for those who
love to see their own language used stylishly, a primer for young
writers who are willing to learn from a master of words."

ducasi
3rd-June-2005, 11:47 AM
I use words that people should know but dont and its my fault? Who's to say what words people should know?

It's not about whose fault it is, it's about being able to communicate. If you are unable to communicate effectively with someone, it's a problem. If you particularly want or need to communicate effectively with someone, it becomes your problem.

azande
3rd-June-2005, 12:00 PM
Who's to say what words people should know?

It's not about whose fault it is, it's about being able to communicate. If you are unable to communicate effectively with someone, it's a problem. If you particularly want or need to communicate effectively with someone, it becomes your problem.

So does that mean I also need to spell things wrong because otherwise people might have problem understanding me? IE. your / you are / you're ..etc...

ducasi
3rd-June-2005, 01:19 PM
So does that mean I also need to spell things wrong because otherwise people might have problem understanding me? IE. your / you are / you're ..etc...
You don't need to... but if it helps, why not? In text messages I've used "ur" to mean your or you're. Like I said, it's about communication, not about being right.

Dreadful Scathe
3rd-June-2005, 01:46 PM
You don't need to... but if it helps, why not? In text messages I've used "ur" to mean your or you're. Like I said, it's about communication, not about being right.
So language should degrade whilst we all try to communicate with the lowest common denominator? In this technological age, communication happens across continients instantaneously. Millions of people on the internet who do speak English do not have it as a first language. And you can see no logic in what Im saying? Your line "it's about communication, not about being right" I totally agree with, but communication is suffering because of a lazy media dumbing it down and poorer education in some cases. If we do not correct faulty language, do not have a structure to adhere to, do not have rules, grammar and structure, then how in the future can we communicate effectively? What you suggest is a "cant beat em join em" attitutude, which frankly sucks! :)

CJ
3rd-June-2005, 01:52 PM
...can we communicate effectively? What you suggest is a "cant beat em join em" attitutude, which frankly sucks! :)

Well, I've never beat 'em til they suck but, DS, I like your style...

Gadget
3rd-June-2005, 01:53 PM
So language should degrade whilst we all try to communicate with the lowest common denominator?
ug.

:whistle:

David Bailey
3rd-June-2005, 04:25 PM
So language should degrade whilst we all try to communicate with the lowest common denominator?
No - but language use should be targeted to the audience. If the audience is "everyone", then yes, you are forced to only use a minimal set of vocabulary - Basic English, basically :)

But I don't think anyone writes for everyone :grin:

So use of language, terminology, and yes, even grammar / spelling, should alter, to be more effectively targetted at the audience. If you don't target, you don't communicate well.


Millions of people on the internet who do speak English do not have it as a first language.
Even in this case, you are targetting "Internet users who may not speak English", so you are already defining your audience to a point. In that case, I would avoid culture-specific terms, colloquial terms, contractions and so on. I would also be wary of "High English", as you could not assume the same level of grammar knowledge as, say, a grammar-schoolboy :)

Whenever you write, you are writing for a target audience - if you know your audience, you'll write more effectively.

Or so I've heard...

bigdjiver
3rd-June-2005, 04:44 PM
English, as it is now, is different from that which Chaucer or Shakespeare wrote. It has changed. How does it happen that English has reached its peak in 2005, and at this point it should be frozen?

There is no commitee to decide what changes are desirable. The scholars report what is now the consensus of usage, and mourn the passage of their learning. We now live in a wider world that is changing faster that at any previous time in history. Language and custom have to change and adapt, and we have to adapt with them, even if we often disapprove. I still resent the loss of "gay" to the sexual revolution.

My Father taught me:
YY u r
YY u b
I c u r
yy 4 me

Lory
3rd-June-2005, 05:20 PM
Well, I've never beat 'em til they suck but, DS, I like your style...
Cj, you never fail to come into my life and make me smile with your little gems :whistle:

MartinHarper
3rd-June-2005, 06:48 PM
Language and custom have to change and adapt

Yes.
Many changes and adaptions to the language fail to take root, as society rejects them. By choosing not to use English in ways that I find ugly or unhelpful, I am playing my tiny part in this process.

ducasi
3rd-June-2005, 10:54 PM
So language should degrade whilst we all try to communicate with the lowest common denominator? No, we adapt. We do this naturally because we are human, and not machines.

In this technological age, communication happens across continients instantaneously. Millions of people on the internet who do speak English do not have it as a first language. And you can see no logic in what Im saying? I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make here. Because we have to communicate sometimes with people who's first language is not English, we have to adapt. We can't expect everyone to be skilled in English grammar and spelling.

Your line "it's about communication, not about being right" I totally agree with, but communication is suffering because of a lazy media dumbing it down and poorer education in some cases. Can you give me an example of communication suffering? We've always had bad spellers – in Shakespeare's time there wasn't any spelling rules, but it didn't do him any harm. The media are better reflecting how people actually talk. This is a good thing.

If we do not correct faulty language, do not have a structure to adhere to, do not have rules, grammar and structure, then how in the future can we communicate effectively? What you suggest is a "cant beat em join em" attitutude, which frankly sucks! :) It is certainly important for us to have rules, grammar and structure in our language. In fact even the most colloquial and slovenly forms of English have rules, grammar and structure. They may just be different from the ones you are used to.

Here's how I see the English language...

For any large country or region you will have a "Standard" English and a "Formal" English. They are usually quite close to each other, but very few people will speak Formal English day-to-day, and some people might not even understand it. Formal English is used by lawyers and the like. It's very rigid, and it needs to be in order that the meaning of what is being said is unambiguous.

Standard English is the voice used for most communication. It's what you'll hear being used between people who maybe don't know each other well, don't have a common background, or who need to be particularly clear. The media have moved from using Formal English to Standard English. As I said, this is a good thing.

Between friends, relations and in tight communities you'll get variation away from the Standard. This doesn't mean that the variation is bad – usually the variation is a result of local circumstances, or simple evolution of the language. These dialects can have variation in words, spelling and grammar. In these days of mass communication and the internet, "local" and "community" no longer mean what they used to.

Just so long as the speakers of these dialects are still able to speak Standard English, and understand some amount of Formal English, they won't go far wrong.

Over time these variations from the Standard can spread out and become part of the Standard, can remain a local feature, or can die out.

Schools and the media can do little to reinforce non-Standard English, so for a change to happen there has to be a larger force acting. The larger force is common usage, and for common usage to happen there has to be an improvement in the language - otherwise people will stick with what they know.

There are many battles ranging within our language at present to decide what is an improvement and what is not – we've been discussing some of them.

Fortunately there are (and will always be) sufficient intelligent people who speak our language to ensure it has a healthy future.

In summary...

I understand most formal English, and can even write it on occasion.

I understand many Standard dialects of English, including Scots English, British English, and American English. I usually speak and write Standard Scots English, but can have a go at some of the others.

I understand a number of non-standard dialects of English and can speak a few, including most regional Scottish dialects (in particular Glaswegian,) computer jargon, "txt spk", and I'm improving in dance-speak.

Just because someone chooses to use one of these dialects, it doesn't mean they're ignorant.

Just because it doesn't match the grammar rules you were taught, doesn't mean it's not grammatical.

Just because it's spelt different, doesn't mean it's wrong.

However, if you decide to declare in public what you think is "right" or "wrong", you'll find people can check with what they believe to be "Standard" and either agree or disagree. (Not saying you did this DS, but others have. I probably have too, but I'll always come back to the one golden rule of language – it's about communication, not rules.)

Basically it comes down to "live and let live". If you don't understand, ask. If you're not being understood, try to put what you're saying into different words. And hopefully we'll all get along. :hug:

(Sorry for going on at such length. :flower: )

Piglet
4th-June-2005, 10:28 PM
My Father taught me:
YY u r
YY u b
I c u r
yy 4 me

I remember this being used in a billboard ad, at least 1000 years ago, but don't remember what it was advertising - anyone any idea?

Barry Shnikov
6th-June-2005, 09:01 PM
It is certainly important for us to have rules, grammar and structure in our language. In fact even the most colloquial and slovenly forms of English have rules, grammar and structure. They may just be different from the ones you
In summary...

Hmm.

Grammar! Hurgh!! What is it good for? (doesn't scan, but I like it!)

I write the best English I can. I use difficult words, sometimes - but usually when they are the best alternative available. For example, I will use 'dissemble' when 'lie' isn't adequate. If there are those who don't know the word I use, they can either use a dictionary or, if they haven't got one (!!) they can ask me.

When I was learning my vocabulary (OK, I still learn words, but not at the rate I used to) I loved coming across a new word, working out from the context what it meant, automatically comparing a second encounter with a word with the first, to see if I could grasp any nuances. And from time to time I'd need to use a dictionary - hurrah! You might find any number of new interesting words on the same page! If other people don't get that same enjoyment, then that is sad.

Communication. Yerss. I had a trainee last year and I had to struggle to get him to use plain english - both vocab and construction - in his letters. He had a tendency to use technical words and tortuous sentences, full of conditional clauses and the passive mood. I explained to him that our clients pay us to explain what they need to know, and it is our job to do so as clearly as we may. If this means having to use four sentences instead of one long one with a subjunctive clause, so be it.

But if I address an anonymous audience - such as those here - I pay it the compliment of assuming that its members are as capable as I am with the English language. Though I may use SMS abbreviations on my mobile, that's because the length of the messages is tiny. It's worth the extra effort needed to read the message. In ordinary written text like this, such shortcuts are an obstacle to swift comprehension, just as BLOCK CAPITALS ARE DIFFICULT AND TIRING TO READ.

Also, it can be horribly patronising if one starts trying to write in an Essex vernacular or scouse slang. One will probably get it wrong and one's audience will probably be disgusted as well as insulted.

Some people might find the sentence above jars: "...if one starts trying...", etc, but I used it deliberately. The more common "...if you start trying..." can make it seem as if I mean you personally which was not my meaning. There are a lot of helpful devices that developed in English speaking and writing over the centuries which are very helpful, but often fall into disuse because they are not used often enough.

Zzzzzz...O I'm sorry, I was boring myself there...

ducasi
6th-June-2005, 11:18 PM
Also, it can be horribly patronising if one starts trying to write in an Essex vernacular or scouse slang. One will probably get it wrong and one's audience will probably be disgusted as well as insulted.

Some people might find the sentence above jars: "...if one starts trying...", etc, but I used it deliberately. The more common "...if you start trying..." can make it seem as if I mean you personally which was not my meaning. I don't personally have a problem with other people using "one", but I have no wish to sound like a member of the royal family when I talk...

Instead I pluralize into "folks", "people", "they", etc. So your paragraph, rendered by me would be:

Also, it can be terribly patronising when people try to write in, e.g., Essex or Scouse slang. They'll probably get it wrong and their audience will quite likely feel disgusted as well as insulted. How do folks feel about the two different versions? (Maybe I should have limited myself to the pronouns.)

I know some people don't like the artificial use of plurals, more commonly in connection with avoiding the gender-specific "he" or "she". If you've been paying attention, you'd already have guessed that I have no problem at all with that.

What I do mourn is the loss of a good singular "you" which would avoid the use of things like "yous" or "y'all" to make explicit a plurality.

I'm also rather partial to the odd use of "whom", which is losing out to "who". But that's just a foible, and I recognise that the standard is changing.

El Salsero Gringo
6th-June-2005, 11:47 PM
Grammar ... What is it good for? I think you mean, "Grammar ... For what is it good?"

El Salsero Gringo
6th-June-2005, 11:50 PM
What I do mourn is the loss of a good singular "you" which would avoid the use of things like "yous" or "y'all" to make explicit a plurality.Now, what *I* mourn is the loss of a good singular "thee" - or "thou" - which would enable the use of things like "you" to make explicit a plurality.

Whitebeard
7th-June-2005, 12:24 AM
I still resent the loss of "gay" to the sexual revolution.
With you there. Expropriating, and rendering unusable in any other context, this word has done more to reinforce my rejection of their revisionism than even my natural revulsion. Oh dear .....

MartinHarper
7th-June-2005, 01:25 AM
Wikipedia claims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay) that the newer meaning of "gay" dates from the interwar period. I feel free to use the original sense with gay abandon.

Dreadful Scathe
7th-June-2005, 01:40 AM
Wikipedia claims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay) that the newer meaning of "gay" dates from the interwar period. I feel free to use the original sense with gay abandon.
The james bond books use gay in its traditional sense quite a lot. "Gay" now has a new meaning too, in internet gaming circles it has come to mean "total loser or idiot" :)