[OT] today's random language gripe

[Syunsuke]

As a non-native English speaker, noone is VERY confusing for me. I had to consult a dictionaly and (of course) couldn't find it.

I make lots of misspelling, so I don't blame, but when I see too many noone or there / they're things, sometimes it looks actuall words. And it's confusing...

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

William Safire often strikes me as being akin to the 19th century grammarians who told us we simply must not split our infinitives.

Why?

Well, it began with a faulty premise. . .

That language had devolved from some perfect state.

For them, of course, this perfect state was Latin.

Now, in Latin, you don't split infinitives; therefore, in order to have English be nearer this "more perfect" language, they decreed that we should avoid doing so as well.

Leaving aside the obvious absurdity of believing one language to be syntactically superior to another, the punchline of this exercise is rather obvious. . .

There is a very simple reason why Latin speakers never split their infinitives. . .they can't! It's affixed to the root--unlike in English.

Where was I? Oh, William Safire. . .

He makes a habit of confusing prescriptive or learned grammar (the don't split your infinitives nonsense) with the descriptive (those rules that naturally follow from the underlying (acquired)structure of a language).

A structure such as "attorney general" would not naturally arise in modern English; and if the archaic form and its equally archaic pluralization "attorneys general" were not learned, it would properly be analyzed in accord with the "rules" of English and realized as "attorney generals". In other words, it would be analyzed as a noun (such as book-shelf), and not as an otherwise (but for the learned and accepted) "ungrammatical" noun-adjective construction (i.e. adjectives prececde the nouns they modify in English).

A problem with many of these learned forms is that they can not be readily applied to seemingly similar cases--and when they are, it is often done incorrectly. They really aren't "English", if by English you mean those constructions that are in accord with the underlying "rules".

Ironically, I think the use of these types of constructs could well serve to speed language change--by creating more opportunities for for "mis-analysis" at the acquisition stage (as happened with the shift in English from a verb second language such as German)--thereby increasing the very "ungrammatical" utterances that people such as Safire constantly complain of.

I'd better stop--this could go on indefinitely.

Here's another interesting tidbit. . .

American: "Manchester United is. . ."

Brit: "Manchester United are. . ."

Leaving aside learned behavior, it really depends what you're conceptualizing, a unified or abstract whole, or a collection of individuals and interests (or something along those lines).

BTW, for the lay person interested in linguistics, I can't recommend Steven Pinker's book "The Language Instinct" highly enough.

 

[Pielorinho]

BTW, for the lay person interested in linguistics, I can't
recommend Steven Pinker's book "The Language Instinct" highly enough.

Funny, I was just getting ready to recommend Pinker's book Words and Rules. But then, I've only read a couple chapters of The Language Instinct He's an excellent, fascinating author.

Daniel

 

[Arnwyn]

If you can't be bothered to take the time to make it easy to read, I can't be bothered to take the time to read it.

Agreed - that's generally my rule-of-thumb when going through threads on a messageboard.

 

[seasong]

Wow, so much off-topic stuff I want to comment on.

I'll be good and just say that I agree that language will change, but I disagree on what's Good or Likely to change. Capitalization, for example, is highly unlikely to go away, and it would be very sad if it did.

 

[robaustin]

My current pet peeves are more about pronunciation:

The word "nuclear" - it has three syllables - noo-clee-ar. I HATE when people say - Noo-kyul-er. Our president does. I hate him even more for making kids think its ok to say it that way. It's not.

The word "jewelry" - it has the word "jewel" in it, hence it should be pronounced - joo-wool-ree. Some folks run it together as jool-ree - but some just say joo-ree. Argh!

The worst one of all for me is the word "ask" - which many people say as "axe."

And finally - Iced Tea. It's not "ice tea" - it's ICED. Past tense as in "made cold with ice." The D is there. Say it.

--*Rob

 

[Pielorinho]

The word "jewelry" - it has the word "jewel" in it, hence it should be pronounced - joo-wool-ree. Some folks run it together as jool-ree - but some just say joo-ree. Argh!

And finally - Iced Tea. It's not "ice tea" - it's ICED. Past tense as in "made cold with ice." The D is there. Say it.

--*Rob

Joolry is perfectly acceptable, every bit as acceptable as "gonna." People often elide syllables when speaking.

And it's not "iced tea," it's "idiom." Even if it were "iced tea," it wouldn't be because "iced" is past tense; it would be because "iced" is an adjective.

Daniel

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

And finally - Iced Tea. It's not "ice tea" - it's ICED. Past tense as in "made cold with ice." The D is there. Say it.

Well. . .it is, and it isn't . . .

While spelled with a "d", depending on its environment it is either pronounced as a "d" or a "t". In the case of "iced", the preceding "s" sound causes it to be realized as "t" (devoiced).

An additional twist occurs wrt "iced tea", as the first sound of the following word is also "t"--and so the two tend to be run together into an indistinguishable whole. Except in very careful speech (which is not the same thing as more correct speech), we say "ice(t)tea", not "ice(t). . .tea". Of course, I don't doubt that because of this it is often misanalyzed in the fashion you outlined.

BTW, because doubling consonants in a word isn't meaningful in English (unlike in Italian), there is no difference to an English speaker between "ice(t)tea" and "icetea".

EDIT to insert a "not".

 

[Maggan]

Here, here!

Where? Where?

With apologies to Mel Brooks.

Cheers

M.

 

[heggland]

i like to keep up the stereotype of the seemingly rude always in a hurry at the expense of common deceny NYer.
am i suceeding?

Nah, your rudeness isn't explicit enough. Then again, I'm not all that familiar with the NY stereotype.

and i also stand by the opinion that any remotely intelligent individual reads right over most typos, misspelings and some bad grammar and punctuation, correcting it in his head as he reads.

And I agree; understanding is rarely the problem (though it may be). I am pretty sure, though, that it slows down reading comprehension, and if the time lost reading your messages exceed the time saved writing them, it is bad according to utilitarian ethics .

The point is that the grammar, punctuation and spelling standards are not necessarily more "correct" than spoken language, dialects and slang, but they are standards - sets of rules (arbitrary, perhaps) designed to ease communication. If you want to communicate efficiently with a heterogeneous community, standards are Very Good Things.

Plus, people judge you from how you write. You may not care, and you you may not like it, but it's true.

Jon