[OT] today's random language gripe

[Hardhead]

To paraphrase one of my grade school english teachers, "get up and transition for me." You can't do it. If you can't do it, it's probably not a verb.

That's a terrible definition, I'm surprised a teacher would give it. Get up and melt for me. Or get up and implode for me. Or any other number of verbs that are rarely, if ever, applied to human beings.

What does make it correct? The Word Fairy?

Words can be used incorrectly, it's possible, but as for who determins what's "right" and "wrong," well, there's not Word Comitte that sits in judgement.

How a language is used, and what is an acceptable use of a word and what isn't, is determined by the people speaking the language. If I say to you, "When it get's hot, water transitions from a solid to a liquid state," and you understand the sentance, it's probably correct usage.

There are many differnent rules depending on location, as well. If I typed this post the way I talked in real life, you'd find a post full of swear words, double negatives, and vast amounts of grammer that would be considered improper in all but the rural South. I don't type the way I talk, because many people have the opinion that someone not using the standard written dialect is uneducated. Especially towards people that use the rural southern dialect (it is, oddly enough, one of the last enduring negative stereotypes that those of us in South are uneducated cousin-marrying hicks, but that's another topic).

But this isn't a new stereotype. The idea that you're supposed to write in an "educated" fashion, as opposed to how you acutally talk, is old and enduring. But you must remember that the written dialect is just that - a dialect like any other. It is *not* more correct than a New York or a Southern Californian or a Deep Southern dialect. It's just the one we use when we write things down. It is not, in any way, more "correct" than the way you or I talk to our friends.

And no one sets these rules, really, except the people that use them. And those rules *do* change over time. They've never stoped. That's why we have different languages in the first place! They all evolved seperately from the same primordial language, and branched out many, many times, sometimes twisting and combining back again. That constant changing is the *beauty* of languages. It's what makes them interesting in the first place, and it's what has made them so robust and full-featured. We can talk about anything, because language changes with time to suite the needs of the population speaking it. People that rail against the evolution of language, such as nouns becoming verbs are almost invaraiably people *without* a degree in English (or at least and English teacher who is trying to teach their students to write in the standard written dialect, so they don't come across as uneducated in the written form. It's like what Terry Pratchett said: you lie to your students until they're ready for the next lesson, which is just a smaller lie).

Anyway, the point is, language changes. That's just what it does.

 

[Praeco]

This thread is making me wonder how many new English words have been formalized since the beginning of the 20th century. I imagine the number is pretty staggering.

 

[dagger]

In the 3 years I have been lurking and typing on these boards my grammar, sentence structure, and spelling has improved (I'm serious). I know, they still need lots of work.

Thats one thing Eric has done for me!

 

[TechnoLurker]

Originally posted by wighair

"i could care less"

Now that really makes me mad! ;-)

What about those of us who really could care less?

 

[tarchon]

The one that has us use words according to what they mean.

Alright (a non-standard variant of all right--in other words, an abrieviation), I will concede that the evolution of language is allowing "quote" to develope a new context and may not be wrong forever (some would say the point is already passed). I concede this only because the only grammatical error is the one I suggested above.

However, phrases such as, "from whence" will never be correct, because they break more solid rules. Namely, in this case, the phrase is repetitive.

"Whence" means from where.

Pragmatically, you have to say "from whence" because most contemporary English speakers don't have any idea what "whence" really means. It's like the optional "-m" in "whom" - you can use it if you want, but it can't be relied upon to convey meaning to 99% of the intended audience.
In very early stages, BTW, IE languages tended to treat so-called prepositional phrases more like appositive constructions. The noun that we now regard as the object derived its function from the inflection and the "preposition" was added to clarify the sense of the inflecetion, like the genitive in "whence"
conveys (in PGmc) the generic idea of the ablative (which had collapsed into the genitive by then) and the "from" is attached to clarify what particular kind of ablative it is. This is still very evident in Classical Latin. Only in later periods was the original appositive construction reanalyzed into an object phrase.

 

[bwgwl]

Now, I'm not saying I am a genius, but you would never hear a phrase such as "Where them reports be at?" come out of my mouth, unless I was being sarcastic. This woman says things like that on a regular basis, in meetings, to our boss etc.

i hate to go off on a tangent here, but i've read some pretty convincing linguistical research that posits "African American English" isn't just "proper English" spoken poorly or in an uneducated manner.

it's a creole. like most creole languages, it generally follows the vocabulary of the conquerors (English words, in this case), but follows the grammatical structure of the underclass. there are many similarities between the grammatical structure of African American English and West African languages.

and AAE does have grammatical structure. it doesn't sound right to speakers of more mainstream English but sentence constructions like "He is late.", "He be late.", and "He late." are grammatically correct and consistent in AAE and even mean specific and different things.

i agree with you in that i believe in a professional environment one should default to "standard English", but i wouldn't call someone who speaks AAE ignorant, uneducated, or lacking proper language skills. (i'm not saying you are, but there are people who do feel this way.)

if you'd like to talk about this (or other linguistical discussions) further, feel free to email me. there's no need to bog down this thread with a tangent like this.

 

[Umbran]

But, I'll continue to assert, as I did above, that language is not subjective--only it's interpretation is.

It it isn't subjective, then it must objective - meaning that it has a single definition that is not subject to human interpretation.

No language has such a definition. Language, instead, is defined by humans. People write the dictionaries and books on grammar, based upon other books and how they see the language used in practice. So, the books themselves are based upon human interpretation. In addition, the books do not all agree on all topics, meaing then that application fo the rules of language is up to human interpretation as well. I don't see how language can then fail to be subjective.

The words on the page - in terms of molecules of ink or sound waves - may be objective. But their meaning - in terms of what the writer/speaker intended to get across and what the reader/listener gleans from them - is pretty much subjective.

 

[Fauxargent]

Language evolves over time, and in this age of rapid and nearly overwhelming amounts of communication it is natural to see the abbreviation and condensation of commonly used phrases as well as the erosion of grammar conventions.

Actually I believe the opposite is true. Languages are evolving less quickly now due to spread of literacy and the written word standardising spelling and grammar.

(I've just finished reading "The Power of Babel" (A Natural History of Language) by John McWhorter - I thoroughly recommend it)

 

[Conaill]

My thing is people who try to make words into a different part of speech.

My current, most hated example is the word "transition." Transition is a noun, not a verb. You make a transition from one thing to another. You don't transition from one thing to another.

Oh, I don't mind the verbing of nouns. It's the nounification of verbs that bugs me!

 

[Praeco]

Actually I believe the opposite is true. Languages are evolving less quickly now due to spread of literacy and the written word standardising spelling and grammar.

Well I would agree that language isn't changing as much as it used to in some ways. There is less likelihood of diversification to the point where people can't communicate, but I feel the common dialect has become very loose and forgiving in structure. I think that a lot of this has to do with the rise of business terminology and the growth of the Internet. New words and accepted abbreviations are becoming commonplace, especially in written language. For example people are willing to accept IMO and YMMV as typical grammar on messageboards. I feel like that is pointing to a trend where people simplify for the sake of brevity.
Of course, judging by this post I apparently don't fall into that category, but I know, for example, when I send an email at work I tend to ignore the rules of grammar in exchange for speed of delivery.