GRAMMAPOLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter Ted Wolff
- Start date
grandmagoodtimes
Rookie
My view is that you wrote way too damn much to read. You should probably take out the spaces, then it would be shorter.
i wouldn't want language to stay the same over time. But I'm a willy nilly man, little changes are good! I cant think of any examples though (apart from the word MILF practically being in our dictionary now).
If i was frozen, then awoke in 1000 years (much like Fry), i'd love it if everyone spoke a different language, and that I'd have to learn it!
If i was frozen, then awoke in 1000 years (much like Fry), i'd love it if everyone spoke a different language, and that I'd have to learn it!
maca2kx
Rookie
I must admit that when I saw this topic again I didn't expect a serious one, you've pleasantly surprised me. I feel that language should change but grammar and spelling should remain relatively consistent to ensure things don't get too weird but people should use language in more adventurous ways.
Sam
Sam
malakian
Rookie
Language change, in my opinion, can be drawn as a parallel with something like technology. Without it's constant advance, the well of possibilities for a writer really does run dry.
I would describe myself as a go between when it comes to those two stances on language change. I do not consider myself a 'grammar nazi', but I don't believe in complete anarchy considering the written word. With interesting and justifiable uses, though, I totally embrace throwing the rule book out the door! I enjoyed our spat of adopting a Spanish-esque syntax in the live chat the other day for instance, Teddy. Of course, I'm referring to our controversial stating of the question or exclamation mark at the front of a sentence! Considerably joyous.
As a linguist, I have spoken to a few people on both sides of the fence. One of the most interesting things about the people who were for a 'frozen language' was that they still embraced a lot of elements of a changing language, such as metonymy. This begs the question, where in the evolution of language should it be frozen? Clearly they have reaped the benefits of change to a certain point to influence their lexicon already, in my eyes making it slightly hypocritical! As the philosopher Keenan noted, this really is pissing on certain black kettles, particularly of future generations.
It's also been a tough kidney to slice on where exactly and why it occurs, which makes it even more ridiculous to propose a strict control on it (as can be seen by the failing attempts in France - language is just a thundercloud explodin' and it's free at last!). One of my favourite linguists, David Crystal, wrote that it is nearly impossible to predict language change, or pinpoint the exact origin of changes. He gives reasons such as theology, climatology and the pessimistic view of no causes at all as considered triggers, but acknowledges that scientific research has shown that there is no single reason, and often it's a melting pot of the nature of language and the nature of society and culture!
It'd take more than a few bold men to chain it, so my final word would be embrace it and push it to the limit!
Also Ted, as a lover of the linguistic, I'd recommend reading a summary of William Labov's study of change from below/above (historians will recognise such a terminology!) in language. They revolved around an island called Martha's Vineyard and three New York department stores, respectively. I know the latter was around the 1970's. Interesting stuff!
I would describe myself as a go between when it comes to those two stances on language change. I do not consider myself a 'grammar nazi', but I don't believe in complete anarchy considering the written word. With interesting and justifiable uses, though, I totally embrace throwing the rule book out the door! I enjoyed our spat of adopting a Spanish-esque syntax in the live chat the other day for instance, Teddy. Of course, I'm referring to our controversial stating of the question or exclamation mark at the front of a sentence! Considerably joyous.
As a linguist, I have spoken to a few people on both sides of the fence. One of the most interesting things about the people who were for a 'frozen language' was that they still embraced a lot of elements of a changing language, such as metonymy. This begs the question, where in the evolution of language should it be frozen? Clearly they have reaped the benefits of change to a certain point to influence their lexicon already, in my eyes making it slightly hypocritical! As the philosopher Keenan noted, this really is pissing on certain black kettles, particularly of future generations.
It's also been a tough kidney to slice on where exactly and why it occurs, which makes it even more ridiculous to propose a strict control on it (as can be seen by the failing attempts in France - language is just a thundercloud explodin' and it's free at last!). One of my favourite linguists, David Crystal, wrote that it is nearly impossible to predict language change, or pinpoint the exact origin of changes. He gives reasons such as theology, climatology and the pessimistic view of no causes at all as considered triggers, but acknowledges that scientific research has shown that there is no single reason, and often it's a melting pot of the nature of language and the nature of society and culture!
It'd take more than a few bold men to chain it, so my final word would be embrace it and push it to the limit!
Also Ted, as a lover of the linguistic, I'd recommend reading a summary of William Labov's study of change from below/above (historians will recognise such a terminology!) in language. They revolved around an island called Martha's Vineyard and three New York department stores, respectively. I know the latter was around the 1970's. Interesting stuff!
voice-
Rookie
I'm fond of the adaptation of language over time, but I must admit to being easily annoyed at the simplifications. "i luv u m8" and sentences like it hurts in my grammar-bone.
When I see words blatantly, purposely and repeatedly misspelled I tend to conclude whoever does this is either a moron or demanding, the former because he doesn't know the word "you" has three letters, the latter because he knows this full well and yet demands others adapt to his own silly language vaguely based on English.
I see the dilemma I create here. Languages need to adapt and this happens only when experimental forms of words and grammar get widely used, I am blocking this progress by not embracing "luv" as a word, I can't help but feeling not everything should be changed to kindergarten language.
When I see words blatantly, purposely and repeatedly misspelled I tend to conclude whoever does this is either a moron or demanding, the former because he doesn't know the word "you" has three letters, the latter because he knows this full well and yet demands others adapt to his own silly language vaguely based on English.
I see the dilemma I create here. Languages need to adapt and this happens only when experimental forms of words and grammar get widely used, I am blocking this progress by not embracing "luv" as a word, I can't help but feeling not everything should be changed to kindergarten language.
Ted Wolff
Rookie
MattAY said:
Here's one change that's taking place currently, more so in American English: the subjunctive. The traditional, prescriptive rule states that 'were' should be used when speaking hypothetically, about situations that have not occurred. It should read: "If I were frozen..." â€â€
