Why is this substandard way of speaking becoming more prevalent?

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Didn't I say something earlier that language should be constructed "mathematically"?

You wouldn't get two different answers if you handed a coherent math problem to two different mathematicians (provided they are both competent).

We should not have words that mean opposite things;
We should not have verb conjugations that do not derive from a formula that can be applied across them all;
We should not have silent letters;
We should not have six different letter combinations that make the same sound;
We should be able to make plurals the same way for all words...

I disagree. Having complexity in language allows us to discern rapidly whether we are talking to an individual who pays attention to detail or one who is sloppy and careless.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Those that worry about the impact to the future of our society by the morons who can't speak the language - - DON'T PANIC. Don't even worry.

Spoken like a man who has not watched the film Idiocracy Watch it, and see if you can argue with what they're saying about the outbreeding that stupid people are doing over smart people.

Quote

Those that don't grow up end up on the fringes as prisoners, street people, French Foreign Legion, etc.

In case you were not aware, we have a record number of people in prison, and every city of any appreciable size has a significant problem with homeless "street people," although I'm not up on the numbers regarding French Legionnaires. (But Legionnaires Disease pops up on the cruise ships running out of Miami every now and then)...

There are those who believe that the decadent nature of this pop-culture, combined perhaps with the way people take it with them and feed it to themselves almost intravenously in our modern age, has a lot to do with the burgeoning prison population, or slipping place in the world (far fewer graduates in tech and science fields, for starters, than lots of other countries)...

Taking history lessons, or predictions for the future, from a comedic sci-fi B movie puts a person squarely in the camp of the accused. Pop culture and celebrity worship are a couple of the culprits, not the teacher.

Every generation is convinced they are THE revolution; while the generation before them gasps at their notorious behavior. Meet the new rebels, same as the old rebels - - just in different garb.

They exist at the margin, make a lot of noise, do manage to sometimes shape things a touch, and are then assimilated or tossed aside and forgotten.

Remember the 60's, hippies, SDS, de Mau Mau, sit-ins, love-ins, and on and on. We survived, gleened just a touch from the whole experience and moved on.

BTW - the last couple generations have got nothing on the Cavaliers (the generation of 1880 to 1900 - - I think I have the name right). Compared to the societal norms of the time, they were way way out there. Comparitavely, they made the hijinx of the current generation look as if they are studying for the seminary.

Your fear that they will overrun civil society like a herd of breeding lemmings makes it appear you are as caught up as anyone in the very pop culture you criticize.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[nerdgirl 0]

In reading through this thread, it prompted me to think about both my writing and speaking styles. I can identify at least four different writing styles.
(1) Memo: terse & concise. Emphasis on conveying the “So What? Who Cares?” Strictly follow written material guidelines.
(2) Scholarly: formal language and grammar. Detailed, extensively detailed. Rarely, if ever, written from first person.
(3) Op-ed: less formal, more conversational. This most closely resembles the majority of my writing style used on SC.
(4) Informal-close personal: Violation of standard written spelling is not uncommon, e.g., use “z” to indicate possessive (“nerdgirlz iPod”) and “x” for plural (“folkx,”). Lots of ellipses.

Recognized styles (2)-(4) ten years ago. I’ve added (1) in the interim. Use (4) a lot less.

My biggest grammar objection/peeve (constrained to usage in the first two styles) is insertion of commas before conjunctions connecting dependent phrases (as opposed to independent clauses). Comma over-use is rampant.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[shropshire 0]

Quote

We should not have six different letter combinations that make the same sound;

Ghoti = fish

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

... although I'm not up on the numbers regarding French Legionnaires. (But Legionnaires Disease pops up on the cruise ships running out of Miami every now and then)...

Isn't Legionnaires disease (or Legionellosis) named after the members of the veterans group, the American Legion, who were staying in the Pittsburgh (or Philadelphia ?) hotel who first contracted it?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

... although I'm not up on the numbers regarding French Legionnaires. (But Legionnaires Disease pops up on the cruise ships running out of Miami every now and then)...

Isn't Legionnaires disease (or Legionellosis) named after the members of the veterans group, the American Legion, who were staying in the Pittsburgh (or Philadelphia ?) hotel who first contracted it?

VR/Marg

Yes; but then we lose the romanticized image of Telly Savalas dressing down those in his command while wearing that cool hat with the drape.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Having complexity in language allows us to discern rapidly whether we are talking to an individual who pays attention to detail or one who is sloppy and careless.

What do you mean?

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

Having complexity in language allows us to discern rapidly whether we are talking to an individual who pays attention to detail or one who is sloppy and careless.

What do you mean?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[BDashe 0]

It's dat woo woooooooooooooo!!!



can someone make it clicky?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccgXjA2BLEY

So there I was...

Making friends and playing nice since 1983

[billvon 2,472]

>People who bemoan the divisions between people that keep us from
>relating peacefully should abhor the "changes" in language that occur and
>end up underscoring the divisions between us and our cultures.

Language evolves, and it evolves based on cultural usage. Nothing wrong with that. But there does have to be a "common ground," a set of vocabulary/grammar/construction that is universally understood within a language/audience. In general someone with a good command of language can write taking into account the changes you mention and be completely comprehensible. Some cannot be understood even without those cultural changes, and they tend to be the bigger problem (IMO.)

Take this forum as an example. Lots of people write well. Some people write oddly specifically to be funny, because of specific cultural influences or because of underlying language problems (English as a second language, for example.) For the most part that's OK too.

Some write so poorly that their meaning is either not understandable or is the opposite of what they have written. These people are next to impossible to communicate with, and end up annoying both themselves and others. This, I think, is a bigger problem than cultural influence on language.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Spoken like a man who has not watched the film Idiocracy Watch it, and see if you can argue with what they're saying about the outbreeding that stupid people are doing over smart people.

Taking history lessons, or predictions for the future, from a comedic sci-fi B movie puts a person squarely in the camp of the accused. Pop culture and celebrity worship are a couple of the culprits, not the teacher.

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree in this case. The film was not teaching anything, and I was not learning from the film. I simply agreed with the film's premise that--as anyone can see by a glimpse around the world, and even his home environs--it seems clear that the stupid are far out-breeding the intelligent.

Watch an episode of "COPS." You will find that, too, "instructional."

Quote

Your fear that they will overrun civil society like a herd of breeding lemmings makes it appear you are as caught up as anyone in the very pop culture you criticize.

OK, so we disagree. But I refute that I am "caught up in what I criticize," because at the same time as I criticize, I also look around and see how foolish people are in modern times to believe that WE will be the generation that achieves peace around the world, and eradicates disease, and saves the planet, etc. etc. We're just one generation in a stream of generations, I know that. But watch or listen to anyone whose voice reaches >1 million people and you will hear nonsense about how WE are the one generation that's special enough to fix it all.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I have been hearing more and more people talking in this way:

- "Why he did dat?"
- "What you said?"
- "My car run good!"
- "Why it's like dat?"

They are asking questions, in most cases, but not phrasing them as questions. They add the interrogative inflection, yes, but the syntax is what one would use when making a statement.

At work, in an office environment, a woman left her wedding/engagement rings in the washroom and later, the hunt was on for them.

I heard the woman who found them telling another woman that she had done so:

"Hey, yo, I found that lady ring."

NO possessives.
NO plurals.

What is happening to this language?! To this culture?!

You demand the use of exacting language in every forum of life. If you're at the ballpark, try being fussy franny and see which brother relocates your face. If you're writing a workplace memo, I agree, use proper grammar, punctuation, etc. On posting boards I am relaxed in most cases and use, "tho" as a replacement to, "though." So you need to less anal in certain forums and exacting in others.

In this forum you place as much precedence with grammar/punctuation as you do substance, sometimes more and that is ridiculous. You think fat-fingerring and not catching it means the other poster's message is void, which is plain lame.

But I hate to hear people using lame language in everyday life, all the time too. I dislike constant slang, ridiculous drawls and accents. The Texas Hillbilly thing is pathetic, East Coast Bwoston dorky and California Cowabunga Dude a joke. Oh, did I forget the Louisiana, 'Who Dat' just plain weird?

But lighten up, this is not a term paper and you don't win people over by being a grammar Nazi. As I've said before, I've written legal docs where I spend 1 or 2 hours screening for flow, sequence, syntax and all the goodies. I'm just not going to do that for a forum like this and you pointing it out to try to make people look illitterate comes off as pathetic on your part to most.

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(3) Op-ed: less formal, more conversational. This most closely resembles the majority of my writing style used on SC.


Right, that's my stance. I spend waaaaaaaaaaaay too much time here as it is, I'm not going to essay the deal too.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>My biggest grammar objection/peeve (constrained to usage in the first two styles) is insertion of commas before conjunctions connecting dependent phrases (as opposed to independent clauses). Comma over-use is rampant.

No way, I, for one, totally disagree. In fact, I think, commas, as a punctuation tool, are way under-used, that is, in a grammatical sense.