Language

[Primalex]

I assume the title will be sufficient to attract the proper regulars.

Just stumpled upon this fascinating video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY

Not sure whether I agree or not... but he does have a point, doesn't he?

 

[CurlyKat]

He does have a few points, mostly in that language is forever evolving and adapting to the communication needs of a society. I do also agree with the point made about using language as art, invoking the creative side to have fun with communication rather than just using it as a tool.

I have a few issues with the disregard for rules, however. If you lose the rules, the basic structure, then you lose the effectiveness of language. Without the meaning the known structure gives to the words, you couldn't play on construction to make those plays on words actually work. Without basic grammatical rules, we wouldn't be able to understand each other. This also plays into the point made for dressing up your speech for job interviews. The rules are there to make things make sense. You can twist them and bend them to a point, but you really need to have a firm grasp on them before you can manipulate them effectively.

 

[BiBunny]

Eh, I guess I'll just settle for being pedantic.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

... <Snippage> The rules are there to make things make sense. You can twist them and bend them to a point, but you really need to have a firm grasp on them before you can manipulate them effectively.

QFT, furreelz.

 

[Etoile]

My linguistics class has been discussing the topic of prescriptive grammar vs. descriptive grammar, and the point I keep trying to raise there is that there must be a line between "wrong" and "descriptive" - that is, when do we recognize something as bad grammar vs. just acceptable? If descriptive grammar is how grammar is used then it isn't wrong anymore - is it?

For example, "ain't" is wrong. Right? Of course it is. But it's used all the time, so how wrong is it?

Or AAVE (aka Ebonics) - well that's just bad English, right? Or is it? Is it just how some people use English?

And the important question is: how do we know? When you see a sentence written incorrectly, and you know what it means, even if it's not how you would have written it...is it really wrong, or just another approach?

 

[Netzach]

Grammar is a question of form. Form is just one factor, it doesn't create the value or negate it.

Something can be wrong and brilliant. And something can be right and horribly dull. And something can be right and brilliant. And something can be wrong and unreadably dull, also.

Bad writing is bad writing. Sometimes it's grammatically correct and sometimes not. I won't defend the use of "action" as a verb because I've never seen this deployed in a way that delights me - it's always corporate. However I do enjoy the verbs "dialogue" and "access" possibly because I have warmer feelings about the sounds of these words.

 

[ImOnIt]

Grammar is a question of form. Form is just one factor, it doesn't create the value or negate it.

Something can be wrong and brilliant. And something can be right and horribly dull. And something can be right and brilliant. And something can be wrong and unreadably dull, also.

Bad writing is bad writing. Sometimes it's grammatically correct and sometimes not. I won't defend the use of "action" as a verb because I've never seen this deployed in a way that delights me - it's always corporate. However I do enjoy the verbs "dialogue" and "access" possibly because I have warmer feelings about the sounds of these words.

'It's action time!' is empty. It is only words because you know that whoever said it won't be around to deliver.


It's action time! Everyone but me, charge!