Bustin' caps in the asses of Newbs, Newbies and other un-Australianisms

[silentC]

I just refuse to worry about how other people use it.

Yes to be honest that's the policy I've adopted because a) it gets you nowhere and b) it makes people dislike you.

Argument is my middle name though...

Wild Dingo I would describe as a person who uses a style of language to create a humorous effect. Maybe he talks like that too, I wouldn't know never having met him. Most people don't write the way they talk, I think there is a certain talent required to do that. I know I don't. My spoken style is a lot looser than my written, which probably comes across a bit formal at times.

Regarding the yank bashing, that's a national sport isn't it? It's a victimless crime... Or maybe not: http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...7&postcount=20

[Woodwould]

I'm a little annoyed at the Yank bashing in this thread which is a bit rude given that we have American guests, but you weren't a part of that (I mean there are 300 million of them, and we are 20 million )

I presume you're referring to me. I don't believe I was bashing anyone. It's a fact that the Septics outnumber Australians and the British and because of their dominance of the media, it stands to reason that their version of 'English' will affect our lives – like it or not.

I think it would be very sad if we all ended up speaking and talking like Septics. That's not bashing; it would be equally disturbing if we all ended up speaking like South Africans or New Zealanders.

Cultural heritage, including the vernacular tongue is being eroded at a hell of a rate. We are losing not only our identities, but also the understanding of our language and the ability to enunciate and spell it properly.

To suggest embracing the Queen's English is elitist is preposterous! Having a desire to preserve and indulge in the Queen's English is a matter of pride to me and has little, if anything, to do with my education.

[Rattrap]

I regularly have this same argument with my mum, shes been 'correcting' my english all my life & i'm 44yrs old now!
I tell her the same thing i'm going to say here (blow it out your butt mum! - oh wait i only think that. lol)
Language is a living thing, it changes as we as a people change, influenced by other peoples in our lives. Weather those people be from another country, the internet or our closest friends. Just look back into history at how peoples used to talk. Every generation changes a language to suit themselves. Well guess what, we're in the computer age so u can bet words like noob or lol or rofl etc will all make it into our vocabulary - & so it should.
To people who complain about grammar & language in general - this means u mum- i have a simple question for them;
Why arn't you talking in old english then?
Perchance thou thinkith that thou wilt soundeth like a complete bafoon?
Me, i'd rather remain contempory, comfortable & understood. I love language & am always ready to welcome new words or euphenisms tho i have found myself asking my young neice for translations & even corrected her grammer on occasion (OMG have i become my mother?? lol)
You think our language has changed now just wait & see the changes that texting is going to bring!

[Rossluck]

To suggest embracing the Queen's English is elitist is preposterous! Having a desire to preserve and indulge in the Queen's English is a matter of pride to me and has little, if anything, to do with my education.

Mmmmmm.

[Big Shed]

Those of you that think that the English language is set in stone and shouldn't be added to or tinkered with should perhaps compare a 20 year old copy of the Oxford Dictionary or the Macquary Dictionary with a current edition.

I think you will find a lot of words in the current edition that weren't in the 20 year old one.

Periodically the ditors of these august puclications get together and decide which new words have come in to common usage and should be added to their dictionary.

It is this very phenomenon that worries the French so much that they actualy have laws that state that French websites have to be in French above all else. They are finding that their language is changing so rapidly by the inclusion of English (and I use this term in its' widest connotation) words that they have had to resort to such extreme measures.

And texting isn't "going" to change our language, it IS changing our language, particularly when people send emails (now there is a word that wasn't in the Macquary Dictionary 20 years or so ago!)

[BobL]

Those of you that think that the English language is set in stone and shouldn't be added to or tinkered with should perhaps compare a 20 year old copy of the Oxford Dictionary or the Macquary Dictionary with a current edition.

I think you will find a lot of words in the current edition that weren't in the 20 year old one.

Periodically the ditors of these august puclications get together and decide which new words have come in to common usage and should be added to their dictionary.

Exactly. The OED is not an authority on the use of english language. All it does is record words in common use, a history of usage and a list of common meanings. A number of the entries in the OED came from a committed madman and supposed murderer. No slight on his ability - to the contrary, it shows the egalitarianism of english that we accept this. If so, why not other words?

[Master Splinter]

So as Chaucer (1343-1400) has been considered the father of English literature, I presume all the language luddites (for want of a better term) will now be expecting us to write along these lines:

I wolde have toold yow fully the manere
How wonnen was the regne of femenye
By theseus and by his chivalrye;
And of the grete bataille for the nones

Or will we just be sticking to the variety of English the overly pedantic learned in school? (Actually, Chaucer used 'woot' in his writing, so I score one there!!)

[Kapex]

I suggest that all those people turning our language septic should be gaoled

[prozac]

Sorry about the delay. We've got big storms heading towards us here in Brisbane and I had to check outside.

I didn't mean to attack you personally, Silent. I'm a little annoyed at the Yank bashing in this thread which is a bit rude given that we have American guests, but you weren't a part of that (I mean there are 300 million of them, and we are 20 million )

It's not Yank bashing and not elitist. Their wrong! . .......

[silentC]

Those of you that think that the English language is set in stone and shouldn't be added to or tinkered with

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.

[Groggy]

I wonder if 50,000 years ago there were complaints between tribes about how one tribe was using different grunts to the others. They probably sat around the campfire dissin' each other about it. Some things don't change.

[underfoot]

Language....schmanglidge.
it changes..... get over it
sadly......

"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
...................William Shakespeare
.
.
"Hit me, Baby, one more time"
..................Brittney Spears

[prozac]

Language....schmanglidge.
it changes..... get over it
sadly......

"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
...................William Shakespeare
.
.
"Hit me, Baby, one more time"
..................Brittney Spears

Underfoot, you're from the wrong side of the Curl Curl bridge to get involved. Know your place.

[Buzza]

This thread is prolly coming to an end eh but?

[watson]

Struth!