Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 396776" data-attributes="member: 5890">Pielorinho - what's your stance on 133+ 5P33|&lt;? Do you consider it a viable part of the english language? What about so-called ebonics?If forces to maintain a language as it currently is, without unneccesarily redifining it, do not exist, then what is to stop it changing overnight? And if such overnight change does occur, how is it possible for someone to learn the language or interact with the people who've made the changes when they've been taught some other variation? Students who speak ebonics supposedly have serious problems when they go to school or university (just do a quick web search), directly caused by their inability to communicate in what is generally accepted as english. Dialects should be considered in a negative light for this reason - speaking a dialect of a language which is sufficiently different from the originating language defeats the purpose of speaking that language in the first place. Avoiding dialectizing (which is probably not a word - anyone help me here?) of a language can only be done by attempting to follow the existing rules of that language. Thus, any misspelling or misuse of a word should be corrected. In days of yore, there wasn't really a solid concept of what the english language consisted of. Prior to the dictionary, people spelt words how they believed they should be spelt, and thus a lot of words are spelt in really wierd ways. Now we have multiple dictionaries. They tend to agree most of the time. In those cases where they don't agree, using the definition given in one of them is probably sufficient. Using childrens isn't. Accepting it's use will lead to the same unnecessary childer-children mistake that was previously made. History is there so we can learn from it and not repeat our mistakes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Saeviomagy, post: 396776, member: 5890"] Pielorinho - what's your stance on 133+ 5P33|<? Do you consider it a viable part of the english language? What about so-called ebonics? If forces to maintain a language as it currently is, without unneccesarily redifining it, do not exist, then what is to stop it changing overnight? And if such overnight change does occur, how is it possible for someone to learn the language or interact with the people who've made the changes when they've been taught some other variation? Students who speak ebonics supposedly have serious problems when they go to school or university (just do a quick web search), directly caused by their inability to communicate in what is generally accepted as english. Dialects should be considered in a negative light for this reason - speaking a dialect of a language which is sufficiently different from the originating language defeats the purpose of speaking that language in the first place. Avoiding dialectizing (which is probably not a word - anyone help me here?) of a language can only be done by attempting to follow the existing rules of that language. Thus, any misspelling or misuse of a word should be corrected. In days of yore, there wasn't really a solid concept of what the english language consisted of. Prior to the dictionary, people spelt words how they believed they should be spelt, and thus a lot of words are spelt in really wierd ways. Now we have multiple dictionaries. They tend to agree most of the time. In those cases where they don't agree, using the definition given in one of them is probably sufficient. Using childrens isn't. Accepting it's use will lead to the same unnecessary childer-children mistake that was previously made. History is there so we can learn from it and not repeat our mistakes. [/QUOTE]

Verification