Linus
Star
Life is complex; it has both real and imaginary components
Posts: 614
|
Post by Linus on Jun 20, 2011 12:37:04 GMT -5
Oh by the way, "confines" would have been a better word than "region" for that sentence, but I suppose that's not within your "region" anyway. Maybe... but there's no need for snide remarks In any case, yes you might be "educated" in the sense that your are well-read. I'll give you that. It was actually meant more as a tease than anything else ;P Even just now, Linus, you have demonstrated that most of the potential nit-picky "know-it-alls" don't even have a basic understanding of what they are trying to say, so they use a word that sounds right when it clearly is not. ... do explain how did I demonstrate it?
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jun 20, 2011 12:39:16 GMT -5
A bit of both. As I indicated in the post, teachers are hamstrung by the Board of Education. A teacher is forbidden from correcting certain grievous errors in speech because those errors have been deemed a "dialect." I wouldn't blame the educational system for this one. This one falls squarely on the shoulders of parents, students and society in general.
|
|
Linus
Star
Life is complex; it has both real and imaginary components
Posts: 614
|
Post by Linus on Jun 20, 2011 13:19:33 GMT -5
I don't think there's anything that can really stop it, since the new expressions/blend of words/whatever that actually do become more widely used becomes used, over time, more or less subconsciously by people, like a reaction to adapt to changing surroundings. Therefore, the ones that actually notice the flaws, points them out and tries to counteract them will always be in a minority. Because if (lets say) an expression, regardless of if it is grammatically incorrect or not, becomes accepted and a few people out of a large group points it out, the group in general will feel somewhat alienated from those people, which might actually strengthen the mentality of the large group in general that the expression is okay to use; and it might not even be a conscious move. If the people who points it out on top of that does it with a more radical approach (angry choice of words etc.), the response will be even more radical, and it will in course of time lead to a stagnant conflict of sides unable to accept each others viewpoints.
I can see the point to the "it's-just-because-the-language-is-evolving" side of things, but it's silly to, for example and as you stated, Asher, start forbidding teachers to correct certain words or expressions. The rules concerning the usage of language could probably gain from being more liberal in both directions. However, I agree on your stance regarding Ebonics that you wrote about in your blog; it was stupid to accept it as a dialect and through that prohibit any form of correction from usage of it in its present form, since it actually contains a lot of grammatical flaws. However, let's say that it hadn't been accepted as a dialect to English. If it then lives on spontaneously, shouldn't it be allowed to? To force young african americans to learn "proper English" would then be wrong in the same sense, but in the other direction, no?
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jun 20, 2011 13:41:41 GMT -5
There is a difference between the evolution of language and the degradation of a language. Contracting a language limits it, minimizes it in scope. Would you say that pidgin is an acceptable form of formal speech? Would you want to hear it during a job interview? How about if education is stopped after 5 years of age, and therefore language stagnates at a five year old level, is that evolution or a tragedy?
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Jun 20, 2011 16:22:45 GMT -5
To answer your question Linus:
Region defines a physical area. You understood the meaning of this word as an area, but did not understand the limits of the word to physical areas. Therefore, when you meant to say that something was out of your area of expertise (as area is not limited by the defining physical element that region is) you took it upon yourself to use something you thought of as synonymous to area, region. But these words are not synonyms and you used the word region incorrectly, describing a limitation of your understanding when region only defines limits of physical areas.
So yeah - you did demonstrate how the understanding of the language is degrading. Even among those who might point out the mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Jun 20, 2011 23:58:34 GMT -5
^pwnt
Wait, that's not proper English... uhh... you've just been corrected!
|
|
|
Post by Raydawn on Jun 21, 2011 5:02:50 GMT -5
what is going on in this thread
aw fuck
|
|
Linus
Star
Life is complex; it has both real and imaginary components
Posts: 614
|
Post by Linus on Jun 21, 2011 8:10:53 GMT -5
To answer your question Linus: Region defines a physical area. You understood the meaning of this word as an area, but did not understand the limits of the word to physical areas. Therefore, when you meant to say that something was out of your area of expertise (as area is not limited by the defining physical element that region is) you took it upon yourself to use something you thought of as synonymous to area, region. But these words are not synonyms and you used the word region incorrectly describing a limitation of your understanding when region only defines limits of physical areas. So yeah - you did demonstrate how the understanding of the language is degrading. Even among those who might point out the mistakes. You know... I'm not a native speaker, and I'm not american. So go pick on someone who went through your own damn school system instead by "my own language" I was not referring to English, but Swedish; I would never correct anyone's english grammatically unless I was 100% certain of it. I fail to see where an attack on me as a "potential nit-picker" concerning the english language is justified since I actually never claimed to correct people's english grammar. Also, I don't think that the usage of the word "region" in any way changed the meaning of the sentence, so... deal with it.
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jun 21, 2011 8:30:19 GMT -5
We all knew what you meant, but the usage of the word was improper. As for an inadequate educational system, I went through high school, I have no desire to ever step foot into a college unless there is either a gun pointed at my head or I'm in desperate need of better paying job than the ones I can get as a high school graduate, and I know the language better than most college graduates. (Barrring, of course, those English and literature majors out there.) Now, I know that I'm a bit of an anomaly, but I only attended high school. No college. High school. Surely you're not going to go so far as to say that by the time a person finishes college or university they still have an excuse to be illiterate.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Jun 21, 2011 11:56:53 GMT -5
Linus - I did not attack you, I pointed out what you wanted me to point out.
And this thread is about the degradation of the English language I believe...Unless I missed something along the way when we applied to all other languages....
EDIT: Zang....what are you talking about? My post was proper and grammatically correct.
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Jun 21, 2011 18:31:52 GMT -5
I meant that you corrected Linus
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Jun 21, 2011 20:40:04 GMT -5
OOooh I see now. Nevermind.
|
|