You know your old when

[AndyF]

Who actually defines what is "proper English", and what it right and wrong....?

It stems from an 18/19th century obsession with analysis and regularity. As the language evolved no middle ages bod sat down and though, "hmmm, I haven't got the right irregular verb for this job, best I define one", or , "you know, I think I'll create an new class of word called reflexive pronouns". It never happened. The language created and evolved through peoples usage of it.

The "rules" of grammer and punctuation were created by academics, and are of no relevence in day to day life, other than keeping English teachers in jobs. Tell me where in my life I actually need to know what a "disjunctive pronoun" is...!

The problem is that these rules have not changed in a hundred years, whereas the language has. It has been influenced by population migration, technology and simple natural evolution.

Try applying the "rules" to, say, Chaucer.....then tell me how he broke so many rules that he was writing sloppy English!

Of course he wasn't, he was using the "rules" of his day, which are not the same as the 19th century ones. Now extrapolate.....

The OED seem willing to accept new words into the language, why can't they accept new forms of grammer....?

 

[Peter Burgess]

Language evolves. There was once an empire that stretched across Europe, and the universal language widely used throughout that empire was Latin. From this language, a number of our European languages evolved - Italian, French, Spanish, Romanian, to name but four. Here is the evidence of it, and it is something that just happens. The same has happened with English. There wasn't a date on which everyone stopped speaking anglo-saxon, and started speaking middle english, and then another date on which everyone started speaking modern english. But this should not be an argument for discouraging standardisation. A loose parallel could be made with currency. Without standardisation, we might have Surrey shillings, Cornish pennies, and Yorkshire mungo beans, just because the people there preferred to use them. Standardisation improves trade. Likewise standardisation of language eases communication. Like currency, language can be debased. People all over the world are striving to learn english - it is still the preferred second language for many millions of people. What must they be thinking when they see what we, the 'owners' of that language, are doing to it. Dr. Johnson is turning in his grave.

 

[graham]

Whilst it is true that language evolves, always has and always will, it is also the case that the job that language is asked to do - communication - can only be achieved when both sides are using the same set of symbols to represent the same set of ideas. Thus the cheerful acceptance of changes in meaning must be tempered by the fact that some people

Won't understand what the f**k you are on about!!!​

 

[Peter Burgess]

Very succinct, Graham. 

 

[andymorgan]

My boss and myself don't always understand each other: he is American.

I think if anything, the English language is becoming more and more standardised through migration and the media. Regional dialects and accents are dying out, which is very sad. For example west country English still has a lot of German throwbacks the word 'bist' as in "How bist 'ee" (how are you) is the same as the German 'bist': du bist (you are).

What's this got to do with caving?

 

[graham]

What's this got to do with caving?

Nowt, which is why it is the forum called "Idle Chat".

 

[AndyF]

.... People all over the world are striving to learn english - it is still the preferred second language for many millions of people. What must they be thinking when they see what we, the 'owners' of that language, are doing to it. Dr. Johnson is turning in his grave.

Actually, people all over the world are learning American, and we are not the owners of that language....

Even the BBC language courses teach "color", "garbage" etc.

 

[Peter Burgess]

The Americans call it 'english'. I used the term 'owner' in a loose sense. I thought people might understand my drift, but clearly not. Perhaps I need to brush up on my 'english'.

What I can tell you is that people I have met from other countries would rather learn their english from a British person than from an American.

 

[andymorgan]

What I can tell you is that people I have met from other countries would rather learn their english from a British person than from an American.

Not the people I have met. I am trying to educate my girlfriend (who is French) that they are crisps not chips, trainers not sneakers etc.  :spank:

 

[Peter Burgess]

French? When was the last time anyone from France chose to learn anything from the British? And vice versa?

 

[racingsnake]

French? When was the last time anyone from France chose to learn anything from the British? And vice versa?

Not like me to agree with a mendipper but while France has superb caving ( like Yorkshire) I could not agree more with Peter. I hate the French.
France should be turned into a giant carpark.   

 

[Bob G]

In the spirit of the original thread, it seems to be generally true that those who understand the subtlety and richness of the English language would like to see it preserved, while the uneducated don't see the problem. I think it's fair to say that this division is generally age-based, and is due to a decline in formal language teaching over the last 30 years or so.
The emergence of the internet means that we are now exposed to written English produced by the unskilled; this forum is not without examples, and I am irritated by authors who can't be bothered to use basic punctuation or to spell-check their contributions. 

 

[Peter Burgess]

It is very difficult to point out any serious problems with 'bad' english without appearing to be patronising. But if you are an old git like me, you get used to being told to naff off. I dunno - the yoof of today - not like when I were a lad... rant rant rant.....

 

[racingsnake]

In the spirit of the original thread, it seems to be generally true that those who understand the subtlety and richness of the English language would like to see it preserved, while the uneducated don't see the problem. I think it's fair to say that this division is generally age-based, and is due to a decline in formal language teaching over the last 30 years or so.
The emergence of the internet means that we are now exposed to written English produced by the unskilled; this forum is not without examples, and I am irritated by authors who can't be bothered to use basic punctuation or to spell-check their contributions. 

Fair point bob, but please read the rules of this site. Criticism of other people spelling is not liked here. There are various reason for this

a) People may be posting in a hurry if private uses of the net is prohibited at work.
b) They may be dyslexic

 

[paul]

Who actually defines what is "proper English", and what it right and wrong....?

There is the everyday vernacular which most people use and understand. And that's fine.

However for a Language to be useful in technical terms and other cases where meaning must be precise (in case of the Law, Medicine, Science, etc.) there must be standard meanings and usage otherwise the consequences of a misunderstanding could be very serious.

 

[Sid Weighells Dog]

I know I'm a bit late with this, but I do object to the idea that dyslexia is some sort of made up condition. PM me and I'll provide any number of peer-reviewed references as to its reality. We wouldn't (I hope) take this attitude to someone with a speech impediment, so why take it with regard to other forms of language difficulty? I hope this won't be taken as an attack, just an attempt to put the record straight. Right, back to the topic... You know you're old when you really hate the fact that ... seems to count as some form of punctuation but you can't stop doing it yourself....

 

[andymorgan]

In the spirit of the original thread, it seems to be generally true that those who understand the subtlety and richness of the English language would like to see it preserved, while the uneducated don't see the problem. I think it's fair to say that this division is generally age-based, and is due to a decline in formal language teaching over the last 30 years or so.
The emergence of the internet means that we are now exposed to written English produced by the unskilled; this forum is not without examples, and I am irritated by authors who can't be bothered to use basic punctuation or to spell-check their contributions. 

By preserved do you mean all forms of the English language, such as local dialects as I mentioned earlier in this thread? I think your comment about being 'exposed to to written English by the unskilled' is an extremely arrogant comment. Do you hark back for times where plebs knew their place and wouldn't (shock, horror) consider writing?

Another annoyance: why do you hate the French, Racingsnake?

 

[Peter Burgess]

Do you hark back for times where plebs knew their place and wouldn't (shock, horror) consider writing?

There are a great many 'plebs' (your word, not mine) who are highly literate, properly educated and equally protective of their language heritage as everyone else, whoever 'everyone else' might possibly be.

Unless you have a condition that inhibits your ability to spell and write correctly, what excuse is there for using bad grammar, poor punctuation, and that horrible txt.spk?

a) because it's fashionable
b) because you are lazy
c) because you know it annoys old people.

BTW, it's "times when", not "times where" 

 

[Bob G]

... Right, back to the topic... You know you're old when you really hate the fact that ... seems to count as some form of punctuation but you can't stop doing it yourself....

You know you're old if you know that ... is ellipsis, and you can resist the use of the smug coffee-drinker emoticon at times like this.

 

[AndyF]

Do you hark back for times where plebs knew their place and wouldn't (shock, horror) consider writing?

There are a great many 'plebs' (your word, not mine) who are highly literate, properly educated and equally protective of their language heritage as everyone else, whoever 'everyone else' might possibly be.

Unless you have a condition that inhibits your ability to spell and write correctly, what excuse is there for using bad grammar, poor punctuation, and that horrible txt.spk?

a) because it's fashionable
b) because you are lazy
c) because you know it annoys old people.

or

d) Because you only get 160 characters in a text, so an abrreviated language conveys more for less.....OK

OK??  ..now where did that come from, is that "proper English"