Dodgymouse

Awwww Mel! What a shame! U coulda had the ticket m8! You shoulda hollar'd louder from (near) Whitby! U never know, I mighta heard ya! That's what made it a bit sad really; knowing there must be someone out there who really wanted to go. Hope u get to see them another time, ...Hope I do too!

I didn't go in till 7:15 and they were still buyin em! I had one spare ticket with me and was trying to find someone who wanted to go in but I never found anybody, except touts! I Just couldn't bring meself to sell it to the touts on principle! ...So if anybody was there and needed a single ticket: ..Sorry I didn't find u! I would've given it away to somebody gen rather than sell it to the touts! Yeah, Great show; great atmosphere ...Yet again! Ol 'Rubber Lips' can still strutt his stuff! And I just loved the way Woody and K R work together. Me favourite bit of the show was when ol Kieffy took the mike with the fag in his mouth! Kool ol dude or what?

I've Just Told You Once!

ME! ...Good on ya, Ditz!

I can think of many more than the (rather obvious) ‘Let’. Another example that comes immediately to mind is ‘prevent’ which in 1611 was the equivalent of our modern ‘Precede’ and again: ‘conversation’ which then referred to behaviour rather than speech. Also (another obvious one): to ‘Suffer’ which today would be rendered to ‘Allow’ or ‘permit’ …And what of the KJV words: ’wot’; trow; ‘neesing’; ‘tabering’; etc. etc. There are literally hundreds of changes that have taken place since that time. As for the implication that English has changed little since the introduction of compulsory schooling, there are many examples of words whose meaning has been at least modified within my own lifetime, let alone since the late 19th century; In particular, words that through common usage in a specific context, have had their (common usage) definitions changed, or at least limited to a specific context. Of course, the changes have been less, and fewer since the late nineteenth century and I’m sure that is, as you say, partly due to compulsory schooling; but history teaches us that popular usage will overcome established conventions. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, in its introduction acknowledges that English dictionaries generally record the language as it is being used at the time; and that because usage is constantly changing, the distinction between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ is sometimes difficult to establish. The introduction goes on to say that English is not monitored by any single authority; but the criterion used, is that of ‘established usage’; and new usage is being ‘established’ continuously. What you have said concerning the use of the personal pronouns ‘thee’, ‘thy’ and ‘tha’rt’ in Yorkshire is noted, but your comment does not address the point at hand; to whit, that those words have been dropped from common usage in their original contexts, which, in this case has significantly reduced the capacity of the user of the English language to conveniently express an important distinction; IE. that between the singular and plural, when using personal pronouns in the second person. However, as I’m sure you are aware, this thread is not a debate about proper grammar, definitions and spelling conventions, it is about the rights of people to express themselves in an informal manner if they so wish. I believe they should have that right. Of course, on this forum, the site owners and their delegates will decide whether they agree with me; …but only on this forum! I may be wrong, but I think the trend at large is ultimately unstoppable.

Thanks for your reasonable argument Darwinist, but surely ‘Ur’ IS an abbreviation of ‘You’re’ (and also of ‘Your’ for that matter.) I probably won’t live long enough to see the day, but if I thought I would, I’d be willing to wager that eventually ‘Ur’ WILL be the ‘correct’ way to spell (probably) BOTH words! The up-coming generations will see to that! Remember, not all that long ago there was a word in the English language: ‘THY’; which was the singular version of ‘Your’. It doesn’t exist anymore! (Except as an ‘archaism’) Also, when one wanted to say ‘You are’ or ‘you’re’ whilst addressing a single person, one would say: ‘Thou art’. Which made it infinitely clearer than today’s English provides for, whether one was addressing single or multiple persons. But because speech has been becoming ‘lazier by the day’ since long before mobile phones were invented, our forefathers allowed the second person singular (one possessive) personal pronouns to fall into disuse! This is my point exactly.

Owlface: I‘m sure you are aware that the English language wasn’t formulated overnight, and that it gradually evolved (some would say degenerated) into what we have today: For instance many contemporary readers of the 1611 King James Bible would argue that the ‘standard English’ spoken (just prior) to the first publication of its translation from the original Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew writings (with some reference to the Latin Vulgate), was superior to the ‘standard English’ as it is commonly used nowadays. Our language is constantly changing, and so are our spelling conventions. If that were not the case there would be no need for new editions of the Oxford English Dictionary to be published every few years. (I am only using the example of the Bible because today, it is possibly the best known piece of 17th century literature. There are others of course; notably the works of Shakespeare and of other well known classical British writers.) The King James Bible was published less than four hundred years ago, and if I were to offer you a copy as originally printed, I’m sure you would find it barely intelligible. I submit that you would have less difficulty reading the text-speak of a twenty-first century teenager than you would reading the earliest editions of the King James Bible. Not only have spelling conventions been changed since the publication of that volume, the actual meaning of literally hundreds of words has changed; and in some cases, to the diametric opposite of their original meaning! Four hundred years may seem a long time; but it’s not THAT long in the great scheme of things. Many people become alarmed as they get older, and they notice that the English language has changed slightly since they were young. Human nature has an instinctive resentment towards change; especially if that change demands that some further learning be undertaken in order to embrace it. My point is that everybody seems to demand that English should remain as it was when THEY were young! It is the natural tendency of us all to assume (albeit unconsciously), that language has been static up to the time when WE learned it; and that ‘standard English’ is the ‘English’ that WE learned at school. Hence, style changes are resented. Admittedly this new phenomenon of ‘text-speak’ has descended upon us much more suddenly, (and far less subtly) than previous style changes have; and the subsequent (and inevitable) changes to popular English language usage appear to be developing with alarming speed. However; that is no reason to mock, ridicule, or debunk users of this new spelling convention. The younger generation have as much right to communicate in the way they find the most convenient (and in some cases, for them, the most expressive) as you or I have. It appears to me (and this is my main point), that resentment, not concern, is the chief motivator behind the majority of posts in criticism of text-speak use on the Forum. To those who use it regularly, it seems a perfectly natural way to communicate. To those who don’t, it is a pain because they have to concentrate a little harder in order to read it. But that need not be a permanent state of affairs, providing one is willing to press though the learning curve. If you take the time to get used to it you might soon find it (almost) as easy to read as ‘standard English’. The Sheffield Forum may ban its use; People who haven’t the inclination to learn the new conventions may ignore it; but I’m afraid that it is becoming so popular, and so universally accepted among those of the younger generations that none of us are going to stop it! So what’s the point of whinging? Either learn to read it, or ignore it! …Oh, and by the way; since you are so keen to see only ‘proper English’ used on this forum, I thought it worth mentioning that many an English grammar pedant would enjoy reasonable sport correcting the grammar, punctuation etc. of your original post. Mine too, for that matter! …Bt im nt gna do it do cs its nt kool 2 b pedantic! PS. The reason I have written such a long response to this post is because I feel strongly that members of the younger generation are being traduced unfairly for their use of this communication convention. This is, after all an open forum, and one that claims to embrace people from all age groups, and of all social backgrounds. One can hardly blame young people (resourceful so-and-so’s that they are) for quickly discovering that they can increase their communication output via text messages if they use text-speak instead of conventional English; and naturally, as time has passed, many have become so accustomed to communicating in this way that it is now (for them) standard, and quite acceptable. …So it’s our fault for giving them mobiles in the first place! You can’t win! OK. Rant over.

...yeah! Like I said: That's Scary! (Actually, I was refering to the fact that Scutts found Ditz' comment 'funny' as being 'scary') Nonetheless, the whole thing is scary ...Not so much for us here and now; but for future generations. We are yielding to 'ze authorities', piece by tiny piece, our fundamental freedoms! Freedoms which our forefathers held to be of such high value that they considered it worth fighting two world wars to preserve. Our freedom of speech, freedom of movement etc. will all be lost sooner or later if the poulation of this country continues in its present apathetic attitude towards all of this. And ultmately, they will lose their democracy; which some of their forefathers gave their lives to win for them! QUOTE: 'That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.' -Aldous Huxley

...Now THAT's SCARY!

Yes! They most certainly are! And it comes right from the ‘top’. The society we now live in has become obsessed with material prosperity and the elimination (wherever possible) of every element of risk. Every department of government, industry and academia is, in reality more accountable to the banks, accountants and insurance companies than they are to the people they purport to serve. It has therefore been imposed upon us, (by whom, exactly, no-one seems to know) that we should keep tight accounts, and be made to be accountable for every penny we spend, every action we take and every word we say in the name of the institution that employs us. Similarly, we must be able to demonstrate in some material ‘scientific’ way (usually by means of a spreadsheet) that we are continually improving on our (already improved) productivity. (Much demands more!) Academic institutions are certainly no exception. It is demanded of them that they prove to the education department that their (already ‘good’) results are ‘improving’ so that the government can ‘prove’ to the voter that they are worth electing back into power on the grounds that they have ‘bettered’ our education system. In order to do this they have to come up with ‘proof’ statistics and the only statistics that are easily quantifiable, and which are capable of being put on a spreadsheet are those of exam passes. It matters little, about teaching all of our younger people things like: The value of their present (relative) freedom (a ‘freedom’ that is now being stolen from them piece by piece); the price their grandparents were willing to pay in order to win that freedom for them; the enjoyment and quality of life; moral decision making; the privileges and responsibilities of relationship building etc. etc. The outcome of these things can’t be quantified so easily or quickly as exam passes can. We live in a ‘push button’ age, a society that demands instant results, quantifiable results, and results that can be ‘proved’ to be making society materially better off (but at what price to the quality of life?) And of course the upshot of all this is that our young people are being used as a ‘political football’ for the government and the voter to kick around! What’s more, it seems that the people who are getting kicked the hardest are the very ones who are trying hardest to achieve something! Try going through your son or daughter’s homework with them, and then ask yourself: ‘Did I have this level of pressure placed upon me when I was that age?’ …Unless you are under 25, the answer is: No! I have every sympathy!

Well done! I too have long thought that I was alone in my perception of this matter. Part of the problem lies in the inadequecy of the English language. There are so many different and complex emotions at play in what our language terms as 'love' If only we, like the Greeks (and others) had an appropriate vocabulary to define these complex emotions and states of mind! Why is it that that the English speaking people have been so long, content to bundle them all together under the vague heading: 'Love'? I salute you, and your pen! (The computer keyboard *seems* so inappropriate a medium for the conveying of such prose, and yet; apparently it is not so!)

Understandable, (to be cautious after having been 'once bitten') but it's not a good basis for any relationship. Most people of any experience whatsoever have been hurt at some point in their lives, but if on that basis we all bacame guarded in our approach to any subsequent relationships, we would be living in a sad world indeed! Yes; you take a risk everytime you open yourself up to someone, and yes; that risk seems the greater when you have been hurt in the past, but no; you should never, for that reason stop being open with the people who come into your life. That is to deny others (and yourself) the opportunity to share your life with them! Who knows how much happiness has never been realised simply out of the fear of exposing ones self to being 'twice bitten'? Better to have been bitten many times if neccessary, and then to go out and risk yourself again, than to bunker down and never get to know the people who could potentially bring you happiness.

Can anybody remember the parody he did of Joe Cocker's version of 'With a Little help From My Friends'? From what I remember it was a similarly arranged version of the traditional Yorkshire song: 'On Ilkley Moor Baht 'At' complete with girlie backing vocals etc. I've been trying to get hold of a copy of that recording for years without success! I'm not sure what I'd think now, but at the time I thought it was very cleverly done and very funny. ...Not to detract from Joe btw, I'm a long time fan of his.

The term 'Bass Line' is originaly a reference to the lower clef (or C clef) in written music. However it has come to be used as a more generic term for any accepted bass pattern in a peice of music as played by the bassist of a combo. The term: 'riff' is reasonably accurately described in several postings above. I.E. a repeated and distinctive pattern (usually, but certainly not always, performed on guitar) that is fundamental to the accepted sound of a particular piece of music: E.G. 'Sunshine of Your Love'; etc. ...But I suggested (and it was only my opinion) that the bass part in the Animals' hit: 'We Gotta Get Outa This Place' constitutes, by the previously offered definition, a riff.

'We Gotta Get Outa This Place' by the Animals (circa 1966) Presents an excellent example of the bass guitar holding the main riff of a popular song. Although it is just basically a variation on the 'boogie' theme, it constitutes such a key feature of the recording that I think it can be classed as a 'riff' As well as it being the opening feature and the instant recognition point of the number, the same 'bass riff' continues throughout the verses of the song, breaking into a more simple rock 'bass line' (Root notes) in the choruses. ...and that was recorded on a bass guitar.