So guys (spelling and grammar)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sad Max, Jim, and others who share my sentiment, I am glad I am not alone in wanting to maintain standards in the usage of language.

Today's youth have been spoon fed poor grammar through exposure and there have not been enough people to correct it. True, there is nothing really to be done about it, they make a choice to do so, with no real comprehension on how ignorant it makes them look.

The "chain of success" has never been explained to kids today. I learned this very early in life from a mentor: "To be a successful person, you first must dress like one. When you dress like one, you will feel like one. When you feel like one, you will speak like one. When you speak like one, you will act like one. When you act like one, you are one." The word "success" can be substituted for whatever word you want.

But that is the benefit of a professional mentor who was what many term "an old school guy". I miss that guy. He helped me a lot. I have tried to pass that knowledge on wherever possible, but here, it seems to have fallen on deaf ears.
 
I am skeptical that this is a new phenomenon. I do have strong beliefs that language is a precise and powerful tool; one that is often used without enough intention. But my guess is that this is not a new conversation. I imagine it has been discussed to varying degrees whenever a generation looks back upon the successive one.

But the advice you were given is, in my opinion, good. It is often misconstrued as putting on airs, but the real value is in inhabiting the processes and principles of those that you wish to emulate in some fashion.
 
Last edited:
Jim Brennan said:
potting on airs
Click to expand...

Potting?

But back on topic... I'm quite dismayed that so many young people are allowed to graduate high school with incredibly sub-standard writing skills. If my high school hammered one thing into me, it was the importance of grammar.
 
Sad Max said:
Yup. I won't be around to toss people's resumes etc into the trash in one thousand years. But I can certainly sh*tcan every ineptly-written document that comes my way and spare myself having to deal with the people who perpetrated them, today.
Click to expand...
Good for you.:thumbsup:
 
I don't know what kind of people you hang out with, Jim, but I have never met a person who did not understand that "dunno" means "I don't know." Everyone I know understands it perfectly. And it is much shorter. And faster. Thus, better. Give it a few years and "dunno" will be in the dictionary. Language evolves just as nature does.

So, you "prove" that language is a code by quoting the definition of linguistics? How about I quote the definition of, wait for it, language and code. These are from Merriam Webster, btw.

Language: 1 a : the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community b (1) : audible, articulate, meaningful sound as produced by the action of the vocal organs...

Code: a system of signals or symbols for communication b : a system of symbols (as letters or numbers) used to represent assigned and often secret meanings

So, as you can see, it explicitly says in the definition of code that secrecy is vital. If it is not secret, then it is not code. What's more, it mentions the concept of a proxy. Code is not simply standard communication, it is a representation of standard communication - represented in such a way that only a select few will understand it.

Language is defined mostly as basic communication in an articulate manner that is used and understood by a community.

Seems pretty clear to me. If people understand that "dunno" means "I don't know," then it becomes an actual part of the language. In this context, articulation is defined not by a few guys who protest the evolution of language, but by the community that actually uses the language. If they understand it, then it doesn't matter what you think.

Turn and face the strain...
 
You don't get to have it both ways, you know. If you are going to offer dictionary definitions to support your argument, then you are stuck with precisely what those dictionary definitions actually say.
 
Dictionaries are a great, but still imperfect, way to define the current environment in language. Notice, however, that they are careful to say that the environment is always changing.

The Oxford online dictionary is updated three times a year.
 
Sad Max said:
You don't get to have it both ways, you know. If you are going to offer dictionary definitions to support your argument, then you are stuck with precisely what those dictionary definitions actually say.
Click to expand...
often > sometimes > not always
 
Jester2138 said:
Be skeptical all you want. It isn't new. It even has a name... Generationism. Use the internet.
Click to expand...

Interesting example of misunderstanding even when the proper language is used. Being skeptical of something means that you doubt it. I am doubtful this is new. That is what I meant. That is what the language I chose to use means. If I am doubtful it will rain today, it means that I doubt it will rain. I am skeptical this is new. That means I doubt it is new. This underscores exactly the point of this discussion. Common usage of that phrase in an incorrect way has made it both ambiguous and, at times, completely misunderstood. If people used it correctly that would not be an issue.

Also I do "use the internet" In fact I have quoted definitions thereof in this very thread. Your adversarial approach does nothing to further your argument.

Jester2138 said:
If codes weren't secret, they wouldn't be used. Nobody would speak in morse code just for fun.
Click to expand...

There may be a few who use it for fun. I did when I was a kid. But more to the point, Morse code was not created to be secret. It was created because it was the only viable option for instantaneous, long-distance ccommunication at the time. It is a common code, readily accessible to anyone. It is not now, nor has it ever been a "secret". Yet it is still a "code". It is called a code because it is "codified"; that is defined and regulated, just like any language.

I think you find out all about history of Morse code on the internet :beer:
 
Last edited:
What about the ones for which English is not the first language?

I mean... I think I have more mistakes in syntax than grammar itself.

But yeah, I agree with you all. I try to speak both English and Portuguese correctly, even on the internet and even on IM.

:)
 
Jester2138 said:
So, you "prove" that language is a code by quoting the definition of linguistics? How about I quote the definition of, wait for it, language and code. These are from Merriam Webster, btw.
Click to expand...

Not at all. My apologies for lacking clarity. That was not from the definition of linguistics. Linguistics is one of the bullet points under the definition of "code" from Dictionary.com. That internet thing I use.

LINK

No one here has stated that there aren't secret codes. Like many words, it has multiple and often related definitions. You are restricting the use to a single chosen one in order to support your argument.
 
Last edited:
Jim Brennan said:
Interesting example of misunderstanding even when the proper language is used. Being skeptical of something means that you doubt it.
Click to expand...

Right. And you can doubt it all you want. Yet somehow, it still remains true...

Jim Brennan said:
Like many words, it has multiple and often related definitions. You are restricting the use to a single chosen one in order to support your argument.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, you just proved my point. Thanks and goodbye.
 
Jester2138 said:
Right. And you can doubt it all you want. Yet somehow, it still remains true...
Click to expand...

I still think you are misunderstanding. I was doubting that it was new. That means, in my opinion, it isn't new, which is the same thing you said. So you implied that you disagreed with me, yet stated the same thing I did. If that tactic is intended to confuse me, it is working.

Jester2138 said:
Interestingly, you just proved my point. Thanks and goodbye.
Click to expand...

I don't see what point I proved for you, but if it makes you happy.... :beer:
 
Last edited:
Jester2138 said:
And it is much shorter. And faster. Thus, better.
Click to expand...

"Better" is a subjective term based on criteria that may not be the same for everyone. Shorter and faster don't necessarily mean better. Similarly, a Big Mac is cheaper and faster than a prime rib steak. By your reasoning, a Big Mac is better than a prime rib. Everyone who thinks a Big Mac is better than a prime rib raise your hand... I thought so.

You may think shorter and faster makes it better, I think it makes it makes one look lazy. That's not always bad, if writing something informally to a friend (or on a web forum, for that matter). But I would never dream of writing something even remotely official using words like "dunno". If I'm too lazy to write three words instead of one to someone that may be giving me money, what does that say about my work ethic?

Jester2138 said:
Right. And you can doubt it all you want. Yet somehow, it still remains true...
Click to expand...

:shocked: That makes absolutely no sense. Did you even read Jim's original post?
 
Pietro Impagliazzo said:
What about the ones for which English is not the first language?
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty easy to forgive someone who is writing in something other than their native tongue... and usually it's pretty easy to figure that out, especially on this board. Heck, you're writing one more language than I can :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top