Oolite Bulletins

Ahruman wrote:

downt u under stand?

Unner stand, shirley?

Personally I do like following current standards, it kind of helps easing communication, if you know what I mean!

Kaks wrote:

Ahruman wrote:

downt u under stand?

Unner stand, shirley?

Personally I do like following current standards, it kind of helps easing communication, if you know what I mean!

Uda I think you'll find, is the correct usage of the vernacular. In some areas "udaSnd!!??" emphasising the third syllable, turning a question into an insult.

U guyz r soopr cool.

Cowabunga doodz!

they iz not cool they iz book

Tbh I don't think there is any disagreement. Language does evolve. Certain vernacular usages become 'prestige' and are widely adopted. Eventually, if they hang around long enough/become popular fast enough, they enter the language (i.e. 'cowabunga' - who the hell says that anymore? Yet it was once 'prestige'. Poro's use I take as ironic...unless it's 'come back' ).

But o' course the mistake is in thinking there is one English and anything else is poor/slack usage. There are in fact many, and the number is expanding all the time as each variant evolves.
However, if evolution isn't balanced out somewhere, the language flies apart and communication becomes difficult and ultimately impossible - even though both speakers would say they are using perfect 'English'.

And...cider, ClymAngus? Somerset Engine Oil! I'll have a pint of real ale.

Scowpilot wrote:

But o' course the mistake is in thinking there is one English and anything else is poor/slack usage. There are in fact many, and the number is expanding all the time as each variant evolves.
However, if evolution isn't balanced out somewhere, the language flies apart and communication becomes difficult and ultimately impossible - even though both speakers would say they are using perfect 'English'.

Case in point, pigeon English. It started out as the Queens English in the 18th and 19th centuries in the colonys of South East Asia, and has evolved to the point that speakers of it are given subtitles on TV documentaries etc.

JazHaz wrote:

Case in point, pigeon English. It started out as the Queens English in the 18th and 19th centuries in the colonys of South East Asia,

“Pidgin”. Also, no.

Ahruman wrote:

JazHaz wrote:

Case in point, pigeon English. It started out as the Queens English in the 18th and 19th centuries in the colonys of South East Asia,

“Pidgin”. Also, no.

Are you talking to pigeons again JazHaz? Hmmm?

Poro wrote:

Are you talking to pigeons again JazHaz? Hmmm?

Coo, coo!

Scowpilot wrote:

Tbh I don't think there is any disagreement. Language does evolve. Certain vernacular usages become 'prestige' and are widely adopted. Eventually, if they hang around long enough/become popular fast enough, they enter the language (i.e. 'cowabunga' - who the hell says that anymore? Yet it was once 'prestige'. Poro's use I take as ironic...unless it's 'come back' ).

But o' course the mistake is in thinking there is one English and anything else is poor/slack usage. There are in fact many, and the number is expanding all the time as each variant evolves.
However, if evolution isn't balanced out somewhere, the language flies apart and communication becomes difficult and ultimately impossible - even though both speakers would say they are using perfect 'English'.

And...cider, ClymAngus? Somerset Engine Oil! I'll have a pint of real ale.

Ale fair play. Of course we haven't looked at cultural over writing. Invading populations using language to single out individuals as part of the "old order" for brutal oppression. Language as a friend or foe trigger has been very important throughout history. Language eradication is a benchmark in the process of cultural murder.

The welsh knot being a perfect example. Lack of understanding also aids action. It is much easier to kill someone if you don't understand their plea for mercy. Culture can be more easily disregarded if it is not understood.

Languages (and their detailed grammatical structures that under pin them) go to the wall every year. The problem here is to assume that evolution can be balanced at all. Language in essence, is arguably meme like (if you buy into that sort of thing) lasting only as long as its carriers.
Strictly defining any one of them is at best a thankless task at worst an object lesson in futility.

It is an additive science, building up and up and up, new inventions need names as do new jobs and the tools by which they are used. Jobs spawn sub-languages of operation specific terms. As do flights of fancy Etc etc etc. These boards are a good example; anyone without specific knowledge of this game could assume we are all snake handlers. However many meaning any specific word may acquire it is all still quintessentially English.

<sips dry cider ruefully>

I think the issue here is perhaps perspective, your thinking very specifically within the boundaries of one specific language. The mechanisms that maintain its mutual understanding between those that utilise it. The bones of one, if you will. I'm thinking more about the over arching forces that work between languages, to split, destroy amalgamate and reform them.

As one appears to be a subset of the other it may be difficult I fear to come towards any sort of adequate and mutually satisfactory conclusion.

More ale?

Cheers! <gulps ale>

True. Some African writers who *can* write in English due to their education choose not to, because of the Colonial issues it raises (i.e. telling an African (Nigerian, Kenyan, whatever, or indeed tribal) story through the medium of the 'oppressor'/invader). And of course similar issues arise in Wales, where Welsh is resurgent (similar situation in Scotland, too). It's understandable, really, considering that English forces the Welsh to refer to themselves using a word that is derived from the Anglo-Saxon for 'slave' or 'foreigner'.

The 'good' thing about languages (and discussions of language) is that there's no real right or wrong in any case, is there? Two things that might appear to be contradictory (and perhaps are) can also lend strength to the opposing argument in certain circumstances.
For example, you're right that everything shifts, etc, and there are convergences of language as well as splits (pidgins are one thing, another is the way that, even in England, we can have British Standard English that is the 'benchmark', but other, equally valid/understandable Englishes occur in established dialects and even newer varieties (though things like 'I iz' and 'Dat iz', etc aren't new even at this point).
In all living languages, you've got two opposing forces at work (which I think I've already mentioned)...and yes, that means even 'Standards' are always changing - if it weren't so, we'd still be running around using inflectional endings and spouting stuff like "Sing me hwaetwugu" (where the 't' is the old 'eth' grapheme - or maybe a thorn).
An obvious neologism to enter everyday use - internet.

I think the basics of what we're saying are more or less the same - linguistics is not an exact science (though it should be treated as a science and not an art, IMO; I think it is in America - iirc Stephen King is a BA in Literature/Creative Writing and a BSc in Language Studies (or whatever they chose to call his courses)).
Either way, there are two ways of coming at it, neither of which will really affect the language as it is used. One is to want the language to give in to centrifugal forces and essentially fly apart; the other is to favour centripetal forces that will inevitably crush and stifle the life of the language, and therefore the language itself. In that sense, there is a balance between the two in any and all living and vibrant languages: enough cohesion to reinforce understanding, enough diversity to ensure life and an expansion to cater to/for others.

Maths is easier, you know. At least it leads to shorter debates:
'That is the answer, I tell you!'
'You're wrong.' (or 'You're right' )

I concede the main point that fundamentally working with short time scales with people without a personal axe to grind ( ). Fundamental understanding of the structures of the written language in which people of the same culture (with no agenda) wish to converse is essential to understanding.

To clarify I feel our focus is different and capitulation in no way invalidates the main point (of my argument at least), that there are many factors looking to dynamically (and will eventually) change a language.

The written word does act as a buffer to the more verbose alterations of phonetics (buy the nature of its written durability) but still there is the wanton alteration of sub-culture (the Steganographical bane of both set language and set grammar).

Also there is the never ending act of re-examination of the work of our fore-fathers, is this grammatical rule REALLY the best solution? Or just another thing that came into being because "it just is". Can we not re-examine the working out and maybe find it wanting?

Is the grammar of a language dogmatic, to the minds of future generations? Or should it be?

For example the single "there, their, they're". Then we have to contend with the foreshortening of language as seen in 1984 as a hall mark of stifling free speech.

As a side note would reductionism reduce the access of language to the ideal of truth? All interesting topics!

My round I feel. One ale, one cyder. By the way the table is a broad one. If anyone else wants to bring their drink to the table they are more than welcome.

ClymAngus wrote:

My round I feel. One ale, one cyder. By the way the table is a broad one. If anyone else wants to bring their drink to the table they are more than welcome.

Were allowed/available I prefer to perch in the rafters.

I'm quite happy with txt speech - in text messages. I can just about cope with it in emails, but the fact that teachers are now issued with instructions to be more tolerant of it in exams (where the meaning of the answer is "clear") clearly shows that giving in a little to the tide of change can have unforeseen consequences.

DaddyHoggy wrote:

Were allowed/available I prefer to perch in the rafters.

I'm quite happy with txt speech - in text messages. I can just about cope with it in emails, but the fact that teachers are now issued with instructions to be more tolerant of it in exams (where the meaning of the answer is "clear") clearly shows that giving in a little to the tide of change can have unforeseen consequences.

I have been told, by a trainee teacher of English, that they're not supposed to correct spelling mistakes now unless it's an "important word" – this being defined by what the written piece is about. Personally, I find that grotesquely unfair: surely it makes it much harder to learn, if no-one tells you when you've made a mistake?

This is supposed to be "the Information Age". We should value accuracy in the transmission of information. English is particularly bendy, it must be admitted: ultimately some disputes boil down to "my style guide's better that your style guide". But poor grammar, spelling and punctuation can disrupt the smooth and easy flow of information.

There are aspects of grammar which are purely pedantic: the split infinitive, for example. There is no reason why anyone should get their knickers in a twist over a split infinitive. However, I think that, from a craft perspective, people should try to know as much as possible about the "right" way to do things: once they have that firmly under their belts, they can go on to start bending the rules, confident that they know what it is they're bending in the first place.

Disembodied wrote:

I have been told, by a trainee teacher of English, that they're not supposed to correct spelling mistakes now unless it's an "important word" – this being defined by what the written piece is about. Personally, I find that grotesquely unfair: surely it makes it much harder to learn, if no-one tells you when you've made a mistake?

This is supposed to be "the Information Age". We should value accuracy in the transmission of information. English is particularly bendy, it must be admitted: ultimately some disputes boil down to "my style guide's better that your style guide". But poor grammar, spelling and punctuation can disrupt the smooth and easy flow of information.

There are aspects of grammar which are purely pedantic: the split infinitive, for example. There is no reason why anyone should get their knickers in a twist over a split infinitive. However, I think that, from a craft perspective, people should try to know as much as possible about the "right" way to do things: once they have that firmly under their belts, they can go on to start bending the rules, confident that they know what it is they're bending in the first place.

Like Les Dawson murdering the piano - he was a brilliant pianist and only once he became good, could he so brilliantly play badly, and so it is with language I think.