Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 76 to 78 of 78
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Barboursville, Virginia USA
    Age
    77
    Posts
    549

    Default

    Morning gents! I may get this in before Watson turns the key.

    I believe it was Noam Chomsky who said that "everyone speaks their own language perfectly." By that he meant, of course, that the speaker knows exactly what he meant to convey. But will the hearer understand it in the same way? That is the reason for grammatical rules, to enhance understanding.

    Logically, therefore, anything which inhibits clear communications should be resisted, but that which enhances it should be encouraged. The rest of the arguments are just language arrogance, one of the more common, garden-variety human traits.
    Cheers,

    Bob



  2. #77
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silentC View Post
    Is there anyone here who fits that description? I don't think anyone would suggest that the language should stay transfixed.

    There are a number of issues here. We have a language which has evolved continuously over the centuries and will continue to do so. We also have a basic set of grammatical rules and word spellings that we are taught (or should be). These allow us to understand and to be understood across the English speaking world without requiring our teenage niece to translate for us.

    I don't believe that a lot of what passes for new language use does much if anything to advance understanding or to make it easier to communicate. Most of it is just fashion,which will come and go. Put it in the dictionary by all means to preserve if for posterity.

    Adopting sayings such as "do the math" is again just fashion.

    At the end of the day, the actual 'rules' for language use haven't changed that much over the last couple of hundred years. I can read a novel written by a Scotsman in 1814 without any difficulty (except for the Latin bits, which were popular at the time). When I was a kid, it was fashionable to say things like "far out" and "cowabunga". Fortunately these have passed into history and I expect so will all the similar nonsense that goes on today, but we still say "that is amazing" or "here we go".

    For me, the most important thing is that we hold onto an agreed set of language rules - updated as needs be - which are passed on to the next generation. It needs to be consistent and stable so that it is as simple as possible to teach and to remember. I think kids should be taught that it's "should have" not "should of" so that in 100 years, people aren't scratching their heads over why the word "of" has this other odd meaning.
    Well said.
    .
    I know you believe you understand what you think I wrote, but I'm not sure you realize that what you just read is not what I meant.


    Regards, Woodwould.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Tooradin,Victoria,Australia
    Age
    74
    Posts
    2,515

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silentC View Post
    Is there anyone here who fits that description? I don't think anyone would suggest that the language should stay transfixed.

    There are a number of issues here. We have a language which has evolved continuously over the centuries and will continue to do so. We also have a basic set of grammatical rules and word spellings that we are taught (or should be). These allow us to understand and to be understood across the English speaking world without requiring our teenage niece to translate for us.

    I don't believe that a lot of what passes for new language use does much if anything to advance understanding or to make it easier to communicate. Most of it is just fashion,which will come and go. Put it in the dictionary by all means to preserve if for posterity.

    Adopting sayings such as "do the math" is again just fashion.

    At the end of the day, the actual 'rules' for language use haven't changed that much over the last couple of hundred years. I can read a novel written by a Scotsman in 1814 without any difficulty (except for the Latin bits, which were popular at the time). When I was a kid, it was fashionable to say things like "far out" and "cowabunga". Fortunately these have passed into history and I expect so will all the similar nonsense that goes on today, but we still say "that is amazing" or "here we go".

    For me, the most important thing is that we hold onto an agreed set of language rules - updated as needs be - which are passed on to the next generation. It needs to be consistent and stable so that it is as simple as possible to teach and to remember. I think kids should be taught that it's "should have" not "should of" so that in 100 years, people aren't scratching their heads over why the word "of" has this other odd meaning.
    Quote Originally Posted by Honorary Bloke View Post
    Morning gents! I may get this in before Watson turns the key.

    I believe it was Noam Chomsky who said that "everyone speaks their own language perfectly." By that he meant, of course, that the speaker knows exactly what he meant to convey. But will the hearer understand it in the same way? That is the reason for grammatical rules, to enhance understanding.

    Logically, therefore, anything which inhibits clear communications should be resisted, but that which enhances it should be encouraged. The rest of the arguments are just language arrogance, one of the more common, garden-variety human traits.
    I think these 2 quotes sum it all up.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •