Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 398576" data-attributes="member: 5890">ichabod - no, not really. In fact language is one of those things that isn't particularly hard-wired at all. Hence the reason that a kid can be taught a second language quite easily while an adult will have a significantly harder time.Language doesn't change rapidly because there are forces to stop it changing rapidly. People correcting you when you misuse it for instance. If noone corrects you when you speak or spell improperly, you will continue to speak or spell improperly.There are changes to language which I believe should exist - specifically those which make something which is highly unclear (inflammable for instance) clearer. Changes which seek to do the opposite (childrens, irregardless) should be avoided.From what I've read, the debate about ebonics is as follows:1) Ebonics is a dialect2) It is difficult for traditional english speakers, which far outnumber the users of ebonics, to understand.3) It is widely considered &quot;bad english&quot;Personally, given the aim of a common language, which is to communicate ideas, if 2) is true, then so is 3). If your variations on a language are sufficient that you cannot make yourself understandable, you are no longer speaking the language. If the majority of english speakers nowadays used ancient english, then modern english would be considered &quot;bad english&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Saeviomagy, post: 398576, member: 5890"] ichabod - no, not really. In fact language is one of those things that isn't particularly hard-wired at all. Hence the reason that a kid can be taught a second language quite easily while an adult will have a significantly harder time. Language doesn't change rapidly because there are forces to stop it changing rapidly. People correcting you when you misuse it for instance. If noone corrects you when you speak or spell improperly, you will continue to speak or spell improperly. There are changes to language which I believe should exist - specifically those which make something which is highly unclear (inflammable for instance) clearer. Changes which seek to do the opposite (childrens, irregardless) should be avoided. From what I've read, the debate about ebonics is as follows: 1) Ebonics is a dialect 2) It is difficult for traditional english speakers, which far outnumber the users of ebonics, to understand. 3) It is widely considered "bad english" Personally, given the aim of a common language, which is to communicate ideas, if 2) is true, then so is 3). If your variations on a language are sufficient that you cannot make yourself understandable, you are no longer speaking the language. If the majority of english speakers nowadays used ancient english, then modern english would be considered "bad english". [/QUOTE]

Verification