What are your pet peeves re English usage?

I think that a little teeny-little-bit oversimplified.

Furthermore, it is impossible to dispute it. One doesn't dispute the faith of the faithful.

But I don't think that the world "chooses". That is almost like saying that the leopard chose to have spots or cats their whiskers. What is most fitting is shoved up its arse. Supposed adherents to the principles of evolution notwithstanding.

Quote:

One's mother tongue spoke true, the others not.

Anthony Burgess. A real expert.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I think that a little teeny-little-bit oversimplified.

Furthermore, it is impossible to dispute it. One doesn't dispute the faith of the faithful.

But I don't think that the world "chooses". That is almost like saying that the leopard chose to have spots or cats their whiskers. What is most fitting is shoved up its arse. Supposed adherents to the principles of evolution notwithstanding.

Hardly the same thing, Spendi. Had Russia been the pre-eminent Imperialist power, the world business language would be Russian. If France had had greater sticking power, then it could have been French.

0 Replies

But they weren't you see.

Like honey bees weren't gifted with a long tail.

0 Replies

Slang!!
such as:

wanna = want to
gonna = going to
gotta = got to
shoulda = should have
woulda = would have

and it gets worse
people don't just mash two words into one, but three! or more!
such as:

imma = i'm going to

argggg!
it gets me mad! Mad

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

But they weren't you see.

Like honey bees weren't gifted with a long tail.

Would you please stop talking rot?

The inability of Russia or France or Latvia or anyone else to compete historically with nations of the English-speaking world has nothing whatever to do with the languages they speak.

Or is it your position that there is, indeed, some relationship? Is it your position that China can never aspire to being a world power because those people speak Mandarin or Cantonese?

0 Replies

loveislikearose3 wrote:

Slang!!
such as:

wanna = want to
gonna = going to
gotta = got to
shoulda = should have
woulda = would have

and it gets worse
people don't just mash two words into one, but three! or more!
such as:

imma = i'm going to

argggg!
it gets me mad!

Hey Love. It's as natural as walkin' and breathin' for speakers of a language to schmooze words together. It's referred to as phonological reduction and liaison.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I think can-can dancing is the superior language.

Muchly winking.

0 Replies

loveislikearose3 wrote:

Slang!!
such as:

wanna = want to
gonna = going to
gotta = got to
shoulda = should have
woulda = would have

and it gets worse
people don't just mash two words into one, but three! or more!
such as:

imma = i'm going to

argggg!
it gets me mad!

That doesn't bother me so much as our kids not knowing what the "expanded" version is, and being unable to write it, even if they would never use it in everyday speech.

Children seem to use screens for everything nowadays, and don't read much.

0 Replies

Yeah & that's the problem. They are forgetting the expanded version by using abbreviations too much.

Oh & another one:
writing "of" instead of "have"
I mean you just have to stupid or something to write "would of".
Can't people re-read their sentences and REALIZE how stupid it looks?

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Hey Love. It's as natural as walkin' and breathin' for speakers of a language to schmooze words together. It's referred to as phonological reduction and liaison.

And I know that it has become a natural thing. That's what is so horrible about this whole thing.
And "schmoozing" words together can be ok. Such as saying "that's" instea of that is, for example. People have already schmoozed words together, so why schmooze already-schmoozed words again? =]

And I don't mind a little abbreviation every once in a while.
Like when talking on IM.
A g2g or TTYL can be ok, & so can gonnas & wannas seem normal when instant messaging.
But when it is so common that is EVERYWHERE and people just simply can't live without abbreviating, its scary.
It make the entire world seem extremely lazy.

0 Replies

Andrew wrote-

Quote:

Would you please stop talking rot?

The inability of Russia or France or Latvia or anyone else to compete historically with nations of the English-speaking world has nothing whatever to do with the languages they speak.

Or is it your position that there is, indeed, some relationship? Is it your position that China can never aspire to being a world power because those people speak Mandarin or Cantonese?

Yes. "Some relationship". I wouldn't like to try explaining it though.

The movers and shakers of all these countries speak good English. They didn't speak English in North America until we landed.

0 Replies

At the Georgian president's press conference all questions and answers were in English despite there being only one English journalist asking a question.

0 Replies

loveislikearose3 wrote:

JTT wrote:

Hey Love. It's as natural as walkin' and breathin' for speakers of a language to schmooze words together. It's referred to as phonological reduction and liaison.

And I know that it has become a natural thing. That's what is so horrible about this whole thing.
And "schmoozing" words together can be ok. Such as saying "that's" instea of that is, for example. People have already schmoozed words together, so why schmooze already-schmoozed words again? =]

It's not that it has become a natural thing, it's that it has always been a natural thing.

If we can compress some speech, then in faster speech it follows that further compression occurs. As Steven Pinker says, everyone, save for robots, uses compressed speech and we all fastidiously follow rules when we do this.

"imma = i'm going to"

These are not equal, Love. the 'a' is sometimes added to help it flow into the 'gonna' [going to]

Imma gonna go to Paris.

loveislikearose3 wrote:

And I don't mind a little abbreviation every once in a while.
Like when talking on IM.
A g2g or TTYL can be ok, & so can gonnas & wannas seem normal when instant messaging.
But when it is so common that is EVERYWHERE and people just simply can't live without abbreviating, its scary.
It make the entire world seem extremely lazy.

Speech and writing are two very different areas of language and it's very problematic to make accurate comparisons between them. I guess that with all the new changes that have come about because of computers, text messaging, IMing, etc. some think that language is being adversely affected. but these changes won't amount to much. Language will go on as it has always gone on, quietly taking care of itself.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

loveislikearose3 wrote:
Slang!!
such as:

wanna = want to
gonna = going to
gotta = got to
shoulda = should have
woulda = would have

and it gets worse
people don't just mash two words into one, but three! or more!
such as:

imma = i'm going to

argggg!
it gets me mad!

That doesn't bother me so much as our kids not knowing what the "expanded" version is, and being unable to write it, even if they would never use it in everyday speech.

Children seem to use screens for everything nowadays, and don't read much.

Children "know" the expanded versions, McTag. Children know all of the structures of their language. You're confusing consciously knowing with the unconscious deployment of language.

By that standard, the conscious standard, the vast majority of adults know virtually nothing about their language. Writing is not a natural part of language. It has to actually be learned so it's not surprising that children will carry what they do know into the area of writing. They must be taught that certain things are not standard, not used for certain writing situations. Even adults have to be taught the intricacies of Standard Written English.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

As Steven Pinker says, everyone, save for robots, uses compressed speech and we all fastidiously follow rules when we do this.

Lately, all rules are forgotten & people deform and mutilate the English language however they want to.

JTT wrote:

Imma gonna go to Paris.

I don't see it used like that lately. People have even taken out the "gonna" when using the "imma" and they make it: Imma go to Paris.

loveislikearose3 wrote:

And I don't mind a little abbreviation every once in a while.
Like when talking on IM.
A g2g or TTYL can be ok, & so can gonnas & wannas seem normal when instant messaging.
But when it is so common that is EVERYWHERE and people just simply can't live without abbreviating, its scary.
It make the entire world seem extremely lazy.

JTT wrote:

Language will go on as it has always gone on, quietly taking care of itself.

I don't think it's taking care of itself. I think its destroying itself.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Children "know" the expanded versions.

They might know it now. But they won't soon. Slang is added more and more often into the English language and old words are forgotten.

0 Replies

loveislikearose3 wrote:

JTT wrote:
Children "know" the expanded versions.

They might know it now. But they won't soon. Slang is added more and more often into the English language and old words are forgotten.

Oh, I hate it when I find myself agreeing with JTT. But in this case I just gotta.

The only way a language is destroyed is if people stop using it in favor of some other tongue. It is never destroyed -- or even "degraded" in any meaningful sense of that word -- by universally accepted changes. Slang is a vibrant part of any language. It often provides a far better description than the "standard" word or phrase. If it catches on, after a while it stops being considered as slang and is accepted as idiom.

You say "old words are forgotten," Love. Well, of course. Language is constantly changing. In a very real sense, language is a living thing. Words die, just like people. There is no great tragedy in older words going out of use, being forgotten. Would you rather that we still used words like "forsooth" and "yclept" and "varlet"? Thankfuly, they all went by the wayside sometime during the Elizabethan era when the Queen's English was undergoing some significant changes, just as it is now.

0 Replies

Professor David Crystal, in his reputed masterpiece The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, which I have here, gives " gotta go" as an example of elision. Also "go way" for "go away" and in "try again" the "a" is almost elided.

But only in "rapid speech". Not in writing though.

I think that when employed in writing such things are friendly gestures by suggesting face to face speech and therefore not to be criticised.

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

loveislikearose3 wrote:
JTT wrote:
Children "know" the expanded versions.

They might know it now. But they won't soon. Slang is added more and more often into the English language and old words are forgotten.

Oh, I hate it when I find myself agreeing with JTT. But in this case I just gotta.

With the eminent good sense that you've shown lately with respect to language, Merry, I'd say that we agree on a lot about language.

Loveisarose3, this aspect of language that you've been discussing isn't even slang. Doesn't your name point to abuse of the language? Smile

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Professor David Crystal, in his reputed masterpiece The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, which I have here, gives " gotta go" as an example of elision. Also "go way" for "go away" and in "try again" the "a" is almost elided.

But only in "rapid speech". Not in writing though.

I think that when employed in writing such things are friendly gestures by suggesting face to face speech and therefore not to be criticised.

clap clap clap clap clap clap clap ...

0 Replies

What are your pet peeves re English usage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know