It is London, all righty. I had a very nice time, thank you.
I mention Boswell and Johnson because they had such a lot to do with building up the magnificent edifice which is the English Language, the very language which I stoutly defend against all those who would damage and dilute it.
McTag wrote:It is London, all righty. I had a very nice time, thank you.
I mention Boswell and Johnson because they had such a lot to do with building up the magnificent edifice which is the English Language, the very language which I stoutly defend against all those who would damage and dilute it.
Glad to see you back, McTag and I'm glad you had a nice time.
Would you perchance be referring to Samuel Johnson?
======================
Whenever any of us gets grumpy about some change in usage, we would do well to read the words of Samuel Johnson in the Preface to his 1755 [Dictionary], a reaction to the Jeremiahs of his day:
When we see men grow old and die at a certain time one after another, from century to century, we laugh at the elixir that promises to prolong life to a thousand years; and with equal justice may the lexicographer be derided, who being able to produce no example of a nation that has preserved their words and phrases from mutability, shall imagine that his dictionary can embalm his language, and secure it from corruption and decay, that it is in his power to change sublunary nature, and clear the world at once from folly, vanity, and affectation. With this hope, however, academies have been instituted, to guard the avenues of their languages, to retain fugitives, and to repulse intruders; but their vigilance and activity have hitherto been vain; sounds are too volatile and subtle for legal restraints; to enchain syllables, and to lash the wind, are equally the undertakings of pride, unwilling to measure its desires by its strength.
http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html
==========================
I have read, and cannot vouch for the accuracy, an anectdote that when a woman challenged Johnson on why he had not correctly defined the word palfry, he replied without a pause: "Ignorance, Madam, pure ignorance . . . "
I never really liked the old bastard, though . . .
Touche, JTT, nice find.
I have written about the changing nature of language before, of course. Who could disagree. But I will not accept each fashion as a worthwhile change, nor each change as a step forward. No way, Jose.
Quote:I have read, and cannot vouch for the accuracy, an anectdote that when a woman challenged Johnson on why he had not correctly defined the word palfry, he replied without a pause: "Ignorance, Madam, pure ignorance . . . "
I can't vouch for it either, but I remember the word was
pastern, which he had defined as "the knee of a horse".
Yes, something to that effect . . . i had read it when in a literature course at university, almost 40 years ago.
McTag wrote:Touche, JTT, nice find.
I have written about the changing nature of language before, of course. Who could disagree. But I will not accept each fashion as a worthwhile change, nor each change as a step forward. No way, Jose.
Who could disagree? Hmmmmm, let me count the dilettants; [__], yeah and then there's [___], uh-huh and what about [___] and ...
JTT
I have been patient but you have not answered my questions:
1. What is your motivation for your involvement in this thread?
2. It seems that "anything goes" for you - is there a line you draw on any issue of the use of English which defines what you find acceptable, beyond which you would also express a "peeve"?
I'm waiting...
KP
JTT....... mystical? ,.......... I was expecting to be called stuborn, or pigheaded. You're so kind.
JTT
I'm disappointed by your response. It was not meant to be an attack and my re-wording of it was, perhaps, unfortunate. Had you responded to my first questioning of your motivation then you might have seen that I am genuinely interested in understanding where you are coming from on this thread.
"It was stunning that so many falsehoods were being spread unchecked." - it is my view that the "peevists" are not necessarily spreading falsehoods as much as their understanding/view of what constitutes acceptable language use.
My "anything goes" question is equally valid. It is not an old and tired argument but a genuine question - do you believe that there are matters on which a more "firm/traditional" application of language is better than a freeform use of words in whatever manner the speaker/writer wishes?
I don't want to get into an argument here but I am still looking for answers to the questions I raised and hope that you can see that I have entered into a dialogue with you on the matter with the intention of learning/better understanding your views rather than criticising them.
Please take my comments in that light.
KP
Do you say "try to" or "try and" or both?
Most older people, I think, would say that only the former is strictly correct, but most people in my experience use both.
Try to climb a tree
Try to balance a plate on a stick
Try and do better
Try and not annoy me
You hear these and similar things....are they wrong?
(I believe they are...but you see how cautious I'm getting
)
Well, even if KP and McT are not necessarily willing to engage in an outright criticism of JTT, i am.
The tenor of JTT's posts has been that of expertise dictating to the less well-informed, or the less perceptive. Throughout the long life of this thread, its participants have discussed the dynamic of codification versus usage, without necessarily having achieved any resolution, any consensus. Given the tone of most of the thread, that is not a problem. The topic does not require anyone to have expertise, the topic asks people, basically, what they do not care for in the popular usages of our time. JTT makes statements from authority, while conceding that authority in this matter may well not be entitled to consider itself established. If find JTT's tone to be didactic if not to say actually condescending.
Language and its use are the province of the speakers of a language, without regard to the pronouncements of those claiming expertise in the language. If usage leaves those experts behind, inevitably, those experts are obliged to revise their statements. The "logic" of language is not an acceptable guide, either. Experts in the English language--a most unruly language always loathe to admit of regimentation--are largely self-appointed. We have no equivalent of the French Academy, and given the variety of expression from Oz to Oshkosh, would likely laugh such an institution to scorn. "Logic" in English purports that multiple negatives are illogical and not to be used. Major European languages, however, use multiple negatives without doing violence to the logical capacities of those who speak the said languages, and apparently without impairing the function of those languages for communication. There is a good deal of freedom to decide what one wishes to say, and how one wishes to say it, in this language--which i consider the source of its continuing vigor and flexibility. In the United States, it is considered very bad form to correct someone else's speech, and the more so because of significant regional differences--we understand one another in conversation, and eschew that casual form of pedantry in favor of social harmony.
I think this should apply to this thread. JTT risks appearing the same type of pedant he (?) has herein condemned in taking this didactic tone with the rest of, and especially in contending that anyone here is "spreading falsehoods." A falsehood is a lie in formal dress, dolled up to avoid presenting itself as harshly to the target of the criticism. In America, people are fond of what they are pleased to name "calling a spade a spade." By that criterion, JTT is calling people here liars. I'll warrant to no one who has participated here has willfully lied about this goofy, ill-bred language which so many of us from so many parts of the world speak in so many different ways. Those divergences run a gamut from nuanced to mutually incomprehensible.
This thread has been very entertaining. It can continue to be so. It will not continue to be so if any one of us think to set up as the resident arbitror of what the rest of us may come here to resent or laugh at in usages. The unruly and willful child which is this language, the factor which both unites and distinguishes all of us who speak it, one from the other, is an ill-chosen candidate for regimentation at this late stage in its life. Let us once again regale ourselves with our peevish responses to how some one else chooses to express themselves for the simple entertainment value of the exercise.
I for one intend to consider no one participant here as uniquely qualified to pass judgment on the contributions of any other participant here.
Or as the down-home boy would say: "Who don't care is me."
Noah Webster set out with the intent of providing to American school children a rationalized spelling of the language, and in his correspondence envisioned a day when an American language would exist. I believe that it now does, and that it is as close to English as the slavic languages of the Croats and Serbs are to one another.
And these languages "cross-polinate" one another. Webster dropped the "u" from words such as colour and humour--and yet we understand one another well enough despite the divergence. He dropped the "k" from words such as magick and musick, and the change has been accepted by all speakers of English.
This thread is just for fun, or so i have always thought. We have always understood each other well in this thread, and i believe there is no reason that this cannot continue. People can come here to vent their virtual spleens, and others can take issue with them, or nod their agreement. I don't think this thread was ever about definitively establishing "the rules" of English/American.
JTT
It appears that I'll have to content myself with your response, for now.
To give you my personal view, I'm fine with the development of language in whichever direction it takes.
I don't like some of the forms in which the changes take place, as I fear that they lose clarity and/or just "don't sound right" to my ears. I've noted some of those in this thread.
I agree with you that language is constantly changing and believe that the success of English as a global language is as much a result of its flexibility as it is a result of British Empire and US Commercial/Military influence.
I'm still none the wiser as to your motivation or boundaries in this matter. Perhaps I'll never know. You seem content to label opinions "falsehoods" and quote names and acronyms which are unfamiliar to me.
I'm pleased that Setanta has entered this debate with a very considered view, much of which I appreciate. He has the advantage of commanding my respect, based upon past interactions on this forum - something you have not yet earned.
I hope you will return to deal with our criticism in a manner which does you credit.
Until then, good luck with your busy days.
KP
Re: What are your pet peeves re English usage?
Grand Duke wrote:ailsagirl wrote:2) Saying, "Sam gave the coin to Jeff and I."
4) Not using the serial comma (Ex. "The red, white and blue")
I'm not sure whether I am remembering incorrectly, or if it is due to cultural differences, but (as a Briton) I would say that both of these are correct. Anyone care to agree/disagree? I'm confused!
Without wishing to sound either snobbish or xenophobic, one of my main peeves about the use of English in my country is the amount of 'Americanization' of our language that has happened here. I suspect that the main cause of this is TV & films (as 95% of films shown here are American, and a lot of TV drama, comedy & children's programmes as well).
Actually, my main peeve is how the American way of writing the date is becoming more common here, especially post-'9-11'. If it had happened here, we'd have called it 'the terrorist attacks of 11th September'. It's not as bad in words, but I will never see the logic of writing the date i.e. 9-11-01, when i.e. 11-9-01 makes more sense to me.
PS. Despite appearances, I do like the US!
I don't know if this will help, but here is my humble attempt to explain the "Jim and I" thing:
The method used to teach English Crammer when I was young insisted on the logic of the sentence (probably not the best way to describe it) What I mean is that although you will occassionally hear said that "Sam gave the coin to Jim and I" How does it sound when you take out the name Jim? Then your sentence reads "Sam gave the coin to I". Then to be equally confusing "Jim and I got the coin from Sam" would not sound awkward if you took out the name Jim, as in "I got/received the coin from Sam". In all fairness, every language (even the same language spoken over several large regions) has some peculiar and illogical exceptions to the rules.
Setanta wrote:
This thread is just for fun, or so i have always thought. We have always understood each other well in this thread, and i believe there is no reason that this cannot continue. People can come here to vent their virtual spleens, and others can take issue with them, or nod their agreement. I don't think this thread was ever about definitively establishing "the rules" of English/American.
Setanta,
As I read the website's name, it leads me to believe that it certainly isn't about perpetuating 'rules' that aren't rules. Able2know must surely entail that falsehoods are not part of the scheme and where they are, they will be rectified.
