RootsBooster Posted November 16, 2015 Author Share Posted November 16, 2015 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? 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. Skitts and Muphry then, is it? just look at the weasel words of poliitiicans. They mislead people, often disastrously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 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?! You mean she wiped the floor with you..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) 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 Edited November 16, 2015 by aliceBB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiseOwl182 Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 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. 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 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). ---------- Post added 16-11-2015 at 20:54 ---------- You mean she wiped the floor with you..? No, not at all, but how do you know it's a "she"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) 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!) Edited November 16, 2015 by aliceBB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 No, not at all, but how do you know it's a "she"? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiseOwl182 Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 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!) 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiseOwl182 Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 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! My latest bugbear is "noo" instead of "new". Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now