[Forum game-ish] Grammar Knights Unite!

General Discussion
22

@Smokestacks, I agree with every word you said in that post, which for a post of that length is certainly noteworthy. Also, I do believe you used “whom” correctly there.

I would just add that I favor a kind of “live and let live” attitude toward language use. If a person wants to use textese or otherwise be fast (or what others I suppose might call lazy) with their use of language, that is fine by me. On the other hand, if a person likes to type things out in full and use, as you described it rather nicely, “pleasant, roundabout ways” to communicate their point, that is equally fine. Language, as was stated before, is meant to be a tool for communication, but more can be communicated than just the semantic content of your utterances or writings. Style, word choice, prosody, and other aspects also contribute implicitly or explicitly to a person’s overall meaning. And if a person wants to use these aspects in a more artistic manner as a secondary use of language while still performing the main task of communicating, that is fine as well, if you ask me.

This secondary aspect can, by the way, also be achieved using various styles; I don’t mean to suggest it’s only the more traditional way with full sentences and fully spelled-out words that can do this. That may be the style I personally prefer, but I think any style can be artistic and pretty. In fact, I mentioned Helen DeWitt before. A major theme in one of her books, Your Name Here, is that the (more or less) main character was smitten by the “voice” of a person who sent her some emails, which included language such as the following:

dewitt
yes tuff tug o warped moniker making. what is in the na-I-me? Perhaps steve
coogan as steve coogan/tristram shandy/sir walter shandy rather than malkovich/
“malkovich” is my true progenitor in this fact/fiction, a fictional name & false
beard or shandean wig & high-heeled shoes required to assist the reader ?
perhaps misha krapponov from drinking bleach, makes an early appearance?
\ ilya alledgely or some random generated spam personna offering names
does rachel take on a name when pulling tricks?
ilya

I can completely understand—although it may be difficult to see in a short excerpt like this, there really is a certain charm to his writing.

I just wish we could avoid judgmental terms like “lazy” and “elitist” and just allow a person to speak and write the way they like to speak and write. Excepting of course such contexts where a certain mode of communication is explicitly required, this forum ‘game’ being one such context.

@TobiasSabathius, I agree with you as well, although I must confess I don’t know Cnut or his use of language. I’ll just take it as a reference to anyone living in northern Europe centuries ago, generally :wink:

2 Likes
23

I think your argument would carry greater weight if we were conversing in a language like French, which thanks to the Académie française always has a “correct” version. However, the English language is a notoriously democratic language: that is, there is no such authority on the language, and so English is inherently mutable. Now of course, whilst the purpose of all languages is to enable communication, a language that does not alter, or which alters too slowly, might be expected to be used less in the face of more useful languages. However, a language that mutates too much will find itself splintering into various local dialects and the like, rendering communication between individuals difficult if said individuals are used to very different versions of the “same” language. Accordingly, it seems to me a most sensible and practical idea to encourage a common set of rules or conventions for any one language, in order not to wholly retard any changes, but rather to slow the rate of change to a more manageable one for all those who speak it. Given that a great many English-speaking humans can quite easily end up communicating with people four generations removed from their own, a common language is essential, even if aspects of it, such as slang, change with bewildering rapidity. This will of course produce a kind of tension in the language, but I would argue that this tension is beneficial precisely for the reasons mentioned above.

Finally, one should be aware that progress is not the same as change, and indeed the two concepts may be diametrically opposed to one another. The misuse of the apostrophe is an example of change, but given the potential for confusion inherent in such a thing, it cannot be objectively considered “progress”, unless by progress one means progression towards a more confusing mode of speech or writing.

TL;DR version:

No.

A little something that certainly deserves linking in this thread…


1 Like
24

If you don’t mind, I’m copypasting this as a reply in case I need it :D!

2 Likes
25

Perhaps yes, in terms of language my ideas are a fairly radical change and maybe too much, but I do feel things have come to a stranglehold. People want to use a word in a new way? Nope, people don’t like it and you get shot down for your use of it, whether the word’s useful or not. Sure it’s good to have a defined set of rules, but I think some leeway should be given to give the language to adapt and evolve.

If I’m honest, I’m not speaking to four generations removed is very common at all, I certainly haven’t done so as far as I’m aware, and it isn’t either likely that the language will evolve so much that there is an issue in communication nor would it be really that big of a deal. I apologise if my comment suggested I wanted rid of the apostrophe, I’m very happy to have it, it has plenty of use and I agree that it isn’t something we should move away from. The changes I intended to suggest however I do see as progress and not just change.

@Swift_Cube be my guest! :smile:

2 Likes
26

I think that, for English at least, we have that leeway already. Whether the language is at present changing too rapidly or too slowly is probably a matter of opinion more than anything else.

You might be surprised. Now granted, not many of us talk to WW1/2 veterans these days, but when a child from London says how peng* you are for a pensioner… was that a compliment being paid to you or was that kid using language you’d have been belted for as a child?

*Good-looking

Not to worry - I just used it as an obvious example of where change does not equal progress.

One thing though, I do find it a pleasure when you pick up a book and the author clearly has a good command of the English language. I don’t mean so much in terms of the quality of the story as in the use of unusual, rare or correct terms for things.

2 Likes
27

In this specific situation, yes there’s an issue. Why a child is calling a pensioner ‘peng’ is beyond me, but I’ll go with it, I’m a lot worse at coming up with examples. :blush: But colloquialism is always something that has existed and is indeed hard to understand for those not of the region or age group, it’s nothing really new.

Oh agreed, changes ought to be useful, there’s no reason to change it detrimentally just for the sake of it. :smile:

1 Like
28

so wat dis convosatin bout me luv grummar knites

29

No, I am sorry to have to tell you this but you are incorrect sir. This is a thread about knitting.
(Confession: I suck at grammar Solution: this may help me learn better grammar)

Now I have only knit a few times in my life and each time I was learning from my mother. She knows how to knit, crochet and sew; and in those moments when I was a bored little child she would teach and re teach me. The only thing I ever made while knitting was a washcloth and a poor example of one at that. My mother has made many different types of clothing and other useful devices, the largest and most time consuming of these was a blanket for my father. This crocheted blanket weighs around 21 pounds and took her two years to make. Albeit sat this time she had to deal with a baby me who would chew on it and get in all other sorts of mischief as well as take care of the house. The second time around she took it apart and put it back together in three months because she could do it better.

30

Oh no @Phagocytosis did I kill your game with knitting!? I’m so sorry if I did.

31

They’re is no need to excuse yuorself. There have probably moved on already to another thread, probably because this one has fullfilled its purpose :smiley:

2 Likes