Language changes -- fight or go along?

[PennLady]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...dc2a64-60c8-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_story.html

It may be that resistance is futile...

 

[oggbashan]

It may be that resistance is futile...

The compilers of the Oxford English Dictionary agree. They note word usage and date of first use, not whether it is correct or not.

The Academie Francaise takes a different view and fulminates against incorrect usage of the French language - and are ignored. I remember when they tried to create words for computer terminology. Those using computers just used the English/American terms mainly because all the software they were using was only slightly adapted from the original US versions.

The French error messages defaulted to English whenever something went really wrong, unlike the Norwegian wordprocessing system I was unfortunate enough to be the Help Desk for. When the shit hit the fan the error messages were in Norwegian.

 

[mynameisben]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...dc2a64-60c8-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_story.html

It may be that resistance is futile...

Resistance isn't futile, but it does date you.

Miss Prim and Proper = old bag

"Hey cats! = old man

"Hey, hep cats" = tragically old man.

I admit to occasionally using "ain't" rather than "isn't," but thou shan't ever use "impactful" in place of "effective."

Some people find a hairstyle in their twenties and cling to it into their old age. Resistance isn't futile, but it does date you. So be it. If that's your bag, it's cool.

 

[oggbashan]

Resistance isn't futile, but it does date you.

Miss Prim and Proper = old bag

"Hey cats! = old man

"Hey, hep cats" = tragically old man.

I admit to occasionally using "ain't" rather than "isn't," but thou shan't ever use "impactful" in place of "effective."

Some people find a hairstyle in their twenties and cling to it into their old age. Resistance isn't futile, but it does date you. So be it. If that's your bag, it's cool.

But if you try to use youthful language when you're old and grey, you just seem pathetic.

While I might understand the latest street language, I wouldn't attempt to use it.

 

[glynndah]

But if you try to use youthful language when you're old and grey, you just seem pathetic.

While I might understand the latest street language, I wouldn't attempt to use it.

This.

 

[Handley_Page]

This.

How very cryptic

 

[oggbashan]

How very cryptic

Not as cryptic as youth slang.

It is supposed to be unintelligible to adults.

I try to pretend that it is, even when it isn't. Young people sometimes think that old people were never young.

 

[Handley_Page]

It strikes me that changes in education policy, imported Radio & TV programmes, immigration policy and a general laxity in teaching standards definitely does not help!

 

[oggbashan]

It strikes me that changes in education policy, imported Radio & TV programmes, immigration policy and a general laxity in teaching standards definitely does not help!

Especially if the teachers do not understand their own language nor use it correctly which can be a result of poor teaching and political interference when they were students.

Anyone trying to teach a foreign language to native English speakers has a considerable problem because their students do not understand the structure of English. The teacher has to teach English grammar before their students can learn the grammar of the new language.

But if the student studied Latin, or English before the 1960s, they already know about nouns, adjectives, verbs, declensions etc.

 

[sr71plt]

American publishing takes a lot of the worry out of this. Once a word/term is entered into Webster's 3rd Internaitonal (and/or Webster's Collegiate) dictionary, it's good to go in writing. And although there are numbered editions released every ten years or so, Webster's actually updates it's next print run every couple of months.

 

[oggbashan]

 

[Ironiclaconic]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...dc2a64-60c8-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_story.html

It may be that resistance is futile...

Someone who stands firm against all language change is a fool. Language changes. It has to and it needs to. Yesterday's prescriptivist rules about not splitting infinitives or using "nauseous" to describe something that evokes nausea, are historic curiosities, not rules. Some of the more annoying modern language trends, such as abuse of the word "literally" will probably be codified in usage 100 years from now.

The trick is to pick your battles. Changes that ads color ("ain't"), flavor ("bling"), or utility ("y'all") should be welcomed. Changes that cause confusion ("literally") or clunk ("utilization") should be fought.

You might not always win.

 

[Handley_Page]

Someone who stands firm against all language change is a fool. Language changes. It has to and it needs to. Yesterday's prescriptivist rules about not splitting infinitives or using "nauseous" to describe something that evokes nausea, are historic curiosities, not rules. Some of the more annoying modern language trends, such as abuse of the word "literally" will probably be codified in usage 100 years from now.

The trick is to pick your battles. Changes that ads color ("ain't"), flavor ("bling"), or utility ("y'all") should be welcomed. Changes that cause confusion ("literally") or clunk ("utilization") should be fought.

You might not always win.

I agree with the general tenor, but no the examples you give. I'm pleased to note that "Y'all" is very particularly USA and southern if I'm right. When used over here in the UK, it's a quote or a joke.

Of course, 'management speak' is another influence,.It's where half a dozen words are used to replace one !

 

[Ironiclaconic]

I agree with the general tenor, but no the examples you give. I'm pleased to note that "Y'all" is very particularly USA and southern if I'm right. When used over here in the UK, it's a quote or a joke.

Of course, 'management speak' is another influence,.It's where half a dozen words are used to replace one !

English is one of the few languages without a distinction between second person singular and plural, at least since "thou" died out. "y'all" is simply the return of the distinction in dialectical form. You might find it ugly or hickish, but it's inarguably a useful distinction. How many times have you had to use inelegant language to clarify that you are talking to one person in a group rather than multiple people? ("you 'John', not all of you").

The Joiseyish variant "youse" is another variant, but it's hard to say without spitting.

Most management speak is gibberish, but some of it has use. "impacting" is more concise than "having an impact on", and "optimize" has a distinct meaning not contained in more common English words.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Management speak tends to gibberish because many managers gibber. In their attempts to appear superior they end up as fools. Show me a manager who speaks directly and to the point and I will show you a well-run, profitable company.

 

[Noor]

English is one of the few languages without a distinction between second person singular and plural, at least since "thou" died out. "y'all" is simply the return of the distinction in dialectical form. You might find it ugly or hickish, but it's inarguably a useful distinction. How many times have you had to use inelegant language to clarify that you are talking to one person in a group rather than multiple people? ("you 'John', not all of you").

The Joiseyish variant "youse" is another variant, but it's hard to say without spitting.

Most management speak is gibberish, but some of it has use. "impacting" is more concise than "having an impact on", and "optimize" has a distinct meaning not contained in more common English words.

Pittsburghese "Younse" as in younse guys (all of you)

 

[R. Richard]

Especially if the teachers do not understand their own language nor use it correctly which can be a result of poor teaching and political interference when they were students.

Anyone trying to teach a foreign language to native English speakers has a considerable problem because their students do not understand the structure of English. The teacher has to teach English grammar before their students can learn the grammar of the new language.

But if the student studied Latin, or English before the 1960s, they already know about nouns, adjectives, verbs, declensions etc.

I have yet to meet the English teacher who has a real understanding of English grammar. When I was forced to take German in college, I realized that I didn't have an understanding of English grammar and probably never would have. My lack of understanding of English grammar has not really proved to be a handicap, as the college graduates that I sometimes deal with also don't have an understanding of English grammar.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

English grammar is a fraud anyway. Today's grammar books are based on the books written a couple of hundred years ago when 'educated' folk all believed that since Classical Latin was the language of languages and since the Romans had once occupied Britain, English must be a Latin based language. The authors then attempted to force a Germanic tongue's usage into Latin rules. Doesn't work. I can't diagram a sentence to save my neck and don't care. The woman who taught in the next room over loved making the kids diagram sentences. She's never written a thing. I'm published. So much for the necessity of grammar.

 

[Euphonic]

I have yet to meet the English teacher who has a real understanding of English grammar. When I was forced to take German in college, I realized that I didn't have an understanding of English grammar and probably never would have. My lack of understanding of English grammar has not really proved to be a handicap, as the college graduates that I sometimes deal with also don't have an understanding of English grammar.

Ha ha ha!
My house mate during my university years was a woman training to be an English teacher. She was grading papers and was quite upset that the students didn't know the difference between the words THERE and THEIR. She said, "There are only two words to learn that sound alike here. Gawd! Why can't they take a minute and memorize these two words?"
"Um", I said.
Then I stated that there are actually three words that sound the same. I then spelled the contraction of "they are", which of course is THEY'RE.
She said she'd forgotten about that. I then suggested she not be so hard on the students as English is a difficult language.

 

[Handley_Page]

English grammar is a fraud anyway. Today's grammar books are based on the books written a couple of hundred years ago when 'educated' folk all believed that since Classical Latin was the language of languages and since the Romans had once occupied Britain, English must be a Latin based language. The authors then attempted to force a Germanic tongue's usage into Latin rules. Doesn't work. I can't diagram a sentence to save my neck and don't care. The woman who taught in the next room over loved making the kids diagram sentences. She's never written a thing. I'm published. So much for the necessity of grammar.

English owes it's roots and construction to more than a 'Latin impress'. There were also the Saxons, various types of Goth and then, finally, the Normans with their totally illogical 'French'. Put those on a base resembling Gaelic and you have a recipe for a problematic language.

I've never heard of "diagram sentences"; we never did it at my school.

Ha ha ha!
My house mate during my university years was a woman training to be an English teacher. She was grading papers and was quite upset that the students didn't know the difference between the words THERE and THEIR. She said, "There are only two words to learn that sound alike here. Gawd! Why can't they take a minute and memorize these two words?"
"Um", I said.
Then I stated that there are actually three words that sound the same. I then spelled the contraction of "they are", which of course is THEY'RE.
She said she'd forgotten about that. I then suggested she not be so hard on the students as English is a difficult language.

And kids still cannot get it!"

 

[Cleophila]

Way back in the 1940s, the great socialist, essayist and novelist George Orwell already took issue with the circuitous and convoluted phrasing of 'modern English' a couple of years before he played with reinventing language with the concept of 'newspeak'. Orwell suggested that a culture of politicians (and, I guess, management speak) being based around pointless jargon was part of a self perpetuating decline, saying:

"A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. The English language becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."

The thing is, though, that the very fact that the debate has existed for decades, and probably a lot longer, suggests actually that the development of superfluous jargon has nothing to do with the internet era but is an eternal problem.

 

[kbate]

Any speech in any language newer than Roman Latin (the adapted Greek-Latin of Romulus) is improper. Your so-called "English" language is nothing but a bastardised version of true speech.


When do we decide that linguistic evolution is complete?

PIE perhaps?

 

[Ironiclaconic]

Any speech in any language newer than Roman Latin (the adapted Greek-Latin of Romulus) is improper. Your so-called "English" language is nothing but a bastardised version of true speech.


When do we decide that linguistic evolution is complete?

PIE perhaps?

PIE, proto-Nostratic, proto-pre-Babelian, or proto-Neanderthalic.

 

[sr71plt]

When do we decide that linguistic evolution is complete?

For American publishing, it's when it's listed in Webster's 3rd International Dictionary (of which Webster's Collegiate is a condensed version). American writers who worry about this outside of the simple fix American publishing has given them, are worrying needlessly.

 

[Ironiclaconic]

For American publishing, it's when it's listed in Webster's 3rd International Dictionary (of which Webster's Collegiate is a condensed version). American writers who worry about this outside of the simple fix American publishing has given them, are worrying needlessly.

Dictionaries can only retroactively describe language change which is already underway. Linguistically, the acceptability of language change is determined by usage, with dictionaries playing catch-up. That's one of the nice things about the linked article, how it demonstrates that certain style battles (could care less) have already been lost.