aliceBB

We can set it to go off when we go to bed and to come on just before we get up in the morning.

 

Can't everyone?

Partly because it just sounds wrong

You mean it doesn't sound like the way you say it?

 

and partly because I dislike the pretentions of people shallow enough to adapt the way they speak just to try to feel belonging and acceptance.

With the greatest respect, that's nonsense. Everyone 'adapts the way they speak' all the time, to 'feel belonging and acceptance'. We go to great lengths to try to make other people like and respect us and to do what we want them to do, and much of the time we do it with language. Think about how you vary the way you speak when talking to your work colleagues, your children, your mates, your grandparents, customers/clients. Think about the way you use (or don't use) slang/swearing, regional dialect words or a regional accent in certain contexts. (I refuse to believe that you always speak in standard English, using Received Pronunication, regardless of context!)

 

It's called 'accommodation', by the way

 

It's ironic -hypocritical, even! - that you are so quick to condemn the way some people speak on the grounds that they are just trying to 'fit in' socially - yet in the same breath you are trying to tell us that we should all adopt your way of speaking... which is, in the end, just another variation of English which you have ended up using because it makes you feel that you 'belong' (in your social class, your employment, family, etc).

My latest bugbear is "noo" instead of "new". Discuss.

 

It's American English pronunication, as opposed to British English.

 

There are a number of reasons why some people might choose to use it :

 

(i) it is easier to pronounce 'noo' than 'new' (it requires fewer maxillo-facial muscle movements). Ditto 'toona' (tuna). But you don't hear 'moosic', interestingly.

(ii) they are influenced by American films/TV, which are very popular in the UK. It seems Americans love our 'British' accent (not that there is only one!) and we love their vocabulary and to a lesser extent, their pronunciation. Well, some of us - mainly younger people. It's perceived as culturally desirable/cool/upbeat.

 

Why do you dislike it so much?

I've not missed the point. I did GCSE English Language too. The point you're missing is that sometimes a harmless and light hearted moan about how people speak/write is a welcome distraction from the depressing state of the world right now and, consequently, the threads on here relating to it.

 

Please explain why a load of ill-informed, would-be pedants unrhythmically grumbling affords any kind of distraction from the sorry state of the world. Arguably, the drivel most contributors come out with when invited to catalogue their their particular linguistic pet hates in this way, simply creates the impression that the world is full of intolerant ignorance. Hardly uplifting.

 

I'd rather have an intelligent discussion, if that's OK with you. If you don't find the English language as fascinating as others do, there's no requirement to participate. Just carry on listing your prejudices and leave others to debate!

how do you know it's a "she"?

Perhaps cassity has read some of my other posts/threads and worked it out from what I have said about myself.

 

---------- Post added 16-11-2015 at 22:33 ----------

 

I don't, in the same way I know you're not a 'wise owl'. I'll put a fiver down as a wager Alice is though.

Why, thank you, cassity. I don't claim to be wise about everything, by any means, but I do know about the following things:

 

(i) the way humans acquire and use language

(ii) what babies and children need in order to be happy

(iii) English Literature from Beowulf onwards, but missing out Jacobean Revenge tragedies, because they're frankly appalling.

I understand the premise of your argument. Language evolves. If people can spontaneously redefine "of" to be a verb, I can do the same with "off topic" (new meaning being free from long winded and overly patronising rants that derail what started off as a light hearted thread).

 

You have missed the point. People (and certainly not individuals like you or me) cannot spontaneously redefine the meanings of words. If you try to do that (e.g. say 'off topic' when you mean 'too subtle for me to understand'), you run the obvious risk that few people will understand you, especially on an internet forum. You'll just come across as a bit odd, or silly. There is, interestingly, a correlation between how high profile someone is socially/culturally and how quickly their neologisms or nonstandard usage of language pass into the general linguistic consciousness. But nonentities like us don't get to redefine the meanings of words by ourselves. Sorry!

 

Linguistic change is (on the whole) a long and winding road. It starts in a small way, in one context and well, evolves. It's faster these days (than in previous centuries), because we have the technology enabling more people to communicate with many others than ever before. As I said before, if enough people use a word in a certain 'new' way often enough, it will de facto acquire that meaning, whether you like it or not. Do you object to the way the word 'gay' (original meaning bright or happy) is now used to mean homosexual? (Or perhaps, head in sand, you would deny that it means that at all!)

Yawn.

 

This thread is off topic because, by your own flawed logic, I've single handedly redefined language to mean whatever I want it to. Not such a (self appointed) English language authority after all! Alice? Who the %#@& is Alice?!

 

No it isn't, and patently you haven't. If you think that, then you have failed to grasp the basic premise of my argument about semantics. On balance I must conclude that is your fault, not mine.

 

If you are bored by the topic, feel free to stay out of the thread. Go and moan in one you think is more interesting. Have a nice day

Sometimes this forum needs the odd light hearted thread to break up the rest of it. Somehow this thread has taken another turn instead. So, back on topic...

How sanctimonious! The thread was never off-topic, by the way. Just because it became an informed discussion rather than an uneducated general whinge, doesn't mean it was 'off topic'. Not such a Wise Old Fart, sorry Owl, after all!

 

Another bugbear of mine is the trend to pronounce "new" as "noo".

Then get over yourself.

Either way, pacific does not mean the same as specific.

Clearly it does, to some people.

 

 

You say that, but you've also said it annoys you when people use "evidently" instead of "apparently"

I was being postmodernly ironic.

 

How blunt an instrument must someone's mind be for them to not see the interchangeability of these two words?

They are only interchangeable in the minds of people who cannot appreciate the subtle difference between them. It's a matter of semantic degree, rather than phonics (as with specific/pacific). And I did add that I can cope with people misusing them. The irony is, it's usually people who moan about other people's linguistic failings who mix up 'apparently' and 'evidently'...and the other old chestnut favoured by those who think (incorrectly) they are being 'correct' when they say 'between you and I'.

 

 

That's an assumption you've made about me which isn't true., I've asked others what they think, particularly when these words are used in such a way within professional journalism.

You can, I'm sure, spot the non-standard spelling, punctuation and grammar yourself. Ask if you need any help. However, if you read what I said about context, you will have understood that professional journalism is one of those contexts in which standard English grammar is important. Any journalist who writes 'would of' is not really a professional, is he/she?

 

 

If 'of' has come to mean the same as 'have' then surely the people who use it this way would know what you mean if you asked them "Did you of a nice birthday?"If you were speaking, then yes, I'm sure they would.

Have course they would.

Ditto. I have however never seen anyone mix up 'have' and 'of' in writing, except after modal verbs (would, could, should, must), where the contraction 've tends to morph in speech to 'of'. You can see how it happens. It's not a hanging offence. And people do generally understand what is meant, which is the important thing, in the end.

aleckPP, you do realise that Pacific is an ocean, don't you?

 

Of course, although when you first quoted it, you didn't capitalise it. Without the capital P, the standard semantic meaning of 'pacific' (when written, obviously), is peace-loving or peace-seeking. There are indeed many English words and terms which can mean more than one thing.

 

Your question shows just how blunt an instrument your mind is!

 

Context is all. If someone uses 'pacific' when they mean 'specific', we will probably grasp their meaning in context and especially in conversation. If it annoys the hell out of you, then you will probably choose not to converse with that person unless you are obliged to. The real problem with people using words language whose meaning is not transparent is...well, just look at the weasel words of poliitiicans. They mislead people, often disastrously.

 

But please stop assuming that you (or anyone) owns the monopoly on 'meaning'. The meaning of bits of language has changed - sometimes beyond recognition - since the grammar books of the 19th century by which some people seem to set such store.

 

Words and phrases mean what they mean - in their context (time, place and social/cultural situation), to their audience, by popular agreement. Standard English is very useful as it means that on average more people can understand you than if you speak or write in a dialect or an accent unfamiliar to your audience. But it's not the Holy Grail and the language people use when they are not addressing a wide audience, or someone unknown to them, is up to them, not you!

 

So the answer to your original question ('Has would of become acceptable now?) is clearly 'yes', to some people and 'no' to others.

 

Next question?!

In the cases of using "of" instead of "have", "been" instead of "being" or "pacific" instead of "specific", completely different words with different meanings are being used, rather than non-standard form.

You are confusing grammatical and lexical non-standard forms. 'Would of'/'Would have' and 'Been ridiculous/Being ridiculous' confusion is a grammatical issue. 'Specific/pacific' is a lexical issue. Non-standard lexis or grammar can become standard if enough people use it enough times. The same word can acquire a different meaning over time. The meaning of a word is exactly that - what it conveys to the people who hear/read it. It's not some pre-ordained concept which can never change. (Think of the words 'wicked' or 'enthusiastic', for example. Look up their etymology and you'll see how their meanings have changed radically). It can be irritating(to purists) if someone says 'pacific' when they mean 'specific', but it only matters if it causes genuine confusion (unlikely, in most contexts) or it's used in a situation (like an English exam) where not knowing the standard word can be detrimental to your chances of success.

 

It's like someone referring to you as "aleckPP"

No, it isn't.

 

FWIW, the one which gets my goat is 'evidently' being used where 'apparently' would be more appropriate. But I cope.

Most contributors to this thread seem to think there is an indisputably 'correct' and a 'wrong' way to say or write something. They are misinformed/uneducated. Linguistics is more complex than that.

 

'By 'correct' we may perhaps assume that the self-proclaimed purists mean 'standard', although standard English is not some kind of linguistic and moral absolute, nor is it an insect in amber. It evolves. It is not so long ago, for example, that the verb 'to be' was used as the auxiliary to form the perfect tense of some verbs : 'They are arrived', etc. It may well be the case that 'would of' will eventually become standard.

 

Non-standard forms of English are just that - non-standard. Although some people are desperate to heap moral judgment on their users ('lazy', 'sloppy', etc.), they are not indicators of intellectual depravity or of the fall of civilisation. In some contexts they may be perfectly appropriate, as long as everyone involved in the interaction understands readily what is meant. Whoever speaks standard English 100% of the time during a conversation in the pub with mates? It's the failure to grasp when non-standard forms are appropriate and when they are not, which limits an individual's life chances. Speech is generally less formal than writing, but there are contexts where standard grammar (including punctuation, in writing), and lexis need to be employed, whether in speech or writing. Writing a formal letter in textspeak will not (usually) get you a job interview. Texting a message to your mate in formal standard English may or may not be necessary, or even appropriate. Notes to the milkman or your teenage child do not need to be written in complete sentences, in fact they might sound odd if they were.

 

It would however be good to see more standard written English on forums, where we generally do not know each other and where some non-native speakers might find non-standard forms difficult to understand.

If people want wacky unproven remedies, let them pay the full cost of them, themselves.

Halloween night is paedophiles paradise.

 

Sad, sad, sad.

A significant number of headteachers (and deputy heads) are also Ofsted inpsectors although they they would not inspect their own schools.

 

El Cid, why do you have a problem with that?

1. Steve Wright and his deluded sense of his own importance - always reading out messages (probably invented) about how much people love his show.

 

Bleeuughhh.

 

2. When you go on a course where the provider is being paid silly amounts of money to run it, and they get in you groups with a felt pen and tell you to come up with all the ideas/solutions/information because they feel it's important that you 'have ownership' of the course.

I guess the high school kids and those that live close by should walk, but a school bus is the best option for those living beyond walking distance.

 

That doesn't really answer the question. Local education authorities are under a statutory responsibility to provide school transport for children aged 5 - 16 if they attend their nearest school and it is more than (I think) three miles away).

 

If a bus is provided, children should be on it, not brought by their parents in a car.

I work at a school like this, funding is much harder to get these days.

We even have the occasional 56 seater coach parking on the zig zags. There is little action against bad parkers because the wardens are afraid of issuing tickets, in my opinion.

 

Please explain why funding has got anything to do with the stupidity of parents when dropping their children off at school.

Plus, it is possible to be fully employed, yet on benefits, especially in London.

 

For example, someone working 40 hours p.w. on the minimum wage in London will struggle to afford a room in a shared flat (as well as heating it and feeding and clothing themsleves) and may well qualify for Housing Benefit.

I live opposite a primary school and twice a day it is total mayhem outside as parents battle for the parking spaces nearest the school (including double lines, zigzag lines and the school bus place), unwilling to drive even 100m further on (where there is much more room) and walk back with their precious spring-offs. Most of them live within easy walking distance of school, yet choose to drive; others qualify (by distance) for free school transport on a minibus with CRB checked driver and seatbelts, yet feel their child is 'too young' to travel 2 miles in this way.

 

The example being set to their children by these lazy/selfish/obsessively protective parents is woeful.

My money's on Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.

You can trust teachers and doctors.

How old is the daughter?

 

I may have missed something but what children did he advocate punching in the face?

 

Read the post to which Halibut referred:

 

The problem is there are no consequences. People act like this and then hide behind stuff like the "human rights act". In the past someone would have punched them in the face at a young age and they'd have learnt their lesson then and there

 

It is difficult to interpret that as anything other than condoning violence, specifically the punching of children in the face. It is being offered to us, is it not, as a solution to a problem which is (regrettably, according to HappHazzard) no longer available. The clear inference is that if it were [available], the world would be a better place.

 

Women drivers are more likely to be involved in an accident, according to scientists.

 

Researchers looked at 6.5million car crashes and found a higher than expected number of accidents between two female drivers.

 

They also discovered that women have a tough time negotiating crossroads, T-junctions and slip roads.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2012188/Women-drivers-ARE-dangerous-wheel-scientists-discover.html#ixzz3bELTOKkJ

Or you could believe this study, which suggest the exact opposite:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/577366/women-better-drivers-men

 

Don't believe everything you read in the papers, Mrs Troll.

 

---------- Post added 27-05-2015 at 15:18 ----------

 

You’re protected from discrimination in these situations:

 

• at work
  
• in education
  
• as a consumer
  
• when using public services
  
• when buying or renting property
  
• as a member or guest of a private club or association
  

 

(From HM Gov website on discrimination)

 

I would interpret that as meaning that a pub landlord could not legally refuse to serve a group of males simply because they were male. He could refuse to serve 'large groups' of either gender; he could refuse to serve a group of males on the grounds that they are already drunk/behaving antisocially.

 

The same problem arises at times for students trying to find shared houses to rent. My son was one of a group of 6 lads who were told by several letting agents 'Sorry, the landlord won't let just to boys as they are more likely to trash the place. He'll only let to all girl groups, or mixed'. It is of course illegal but how many letting agents care about that?