PDA

View Full Version : I've been spelling hierarchy wrong for years.



T-6005
03-09-2009, 03:18 PM
I've been writing heirarchy instead. Damn it!

The last time I suffered a blow like this was when I found out it was separate, not seperate.

_Lost_
03-09-2009, 03:23 PM
separate gets me sometimes still. also, definitely used to cause me a lot of problems. i still seem to always misspell innuendo. :-/ spelling has never been my strong suit.

randman21
03-09-2009, 03:33 PM
separate gets me sometimes still. also, definitely used to cause me a lot of problems. i still seem to always misspell innuendo. :-/ spelling has never been my strong suit.

Funny enough, it wasn't until I heard Come Out and Play that I started to spell separate correctly every time. I just think of how the guy says it. Desperate can still trip me up from time-to-time, though.

Definite(ly) was the bane of my existence for a good while. I had always written it as definate(ly).

SweetTatyana
03-09-2009, 03:35 PM
Has anyone noticed how many people spell ridiculous like rediculous ? maybe it is just a lot of people I talk to but it seems to get a lot of them.

Dont sweat it T everyone has a word like that.

0r4ng3
03-09-2009, 03:58 PM
I've noticed the one word I can never get right is "canceled". I always think it's two L's.

On a rather unrelated note, my MacBook's internal dictionary does not recognize the word "velociraptor" (at least, it didn't a while ago). It makes me sad.

randman21
03-09-2009, 04:03 PM
On a rather unrelated note, my MacBook's internal dictionary does not recognize the word "velociraptor" (at least, it didn't a while ago). It makes me sad.
velociraptor

Damn, neither does mine.

Omni
03-09-2009, 04:03 PM
The word unnecessary always gets me. And I didn't even spell check it for this post for realism. I hope I got it right.

JohnnyNemesis
03-09-2009, 04:04 PM
I've noticed the one word I can never get right is "canceled". I always think it's two L's.

Are you fucking kidding me? It's not two L's?!? I've been spelling it wrong all my life, and I find out like this? Fuck my life.

Aside from "canceled", apparently, one word that always trips me up is "surprise". I always wanna put a 'z' in there.

WebDudette
03-09-2009, 04:05 PM
I couldn't spell definitely to save my life for the longest time. Now it is pretty much engraved in my brain.

I can't think of any specifics, but I know there are still a lot of words I have trouble spelling for some unknown reason. Typically they aren't even especially hard words.

0r4ng3
03-09-2009, 04:06 PM
Aside from "canceled", apparently, one word that always trips me up is "surprise". I always wanna put a 'z' in there.
If it weren't for the internets I would spell "cheeseburger" right every single time.

Omni
03-09-2009, 04:12 PM
I like finding out the extra proper way of spelling something already proper, and then doing it everytime and looking like a douchebag. Like Halloween is actually Hallowe'en.

I also use Alt + 0133 to make an elipses, since it's different from just typing three dots

.../… Sometimes people notice.

Outerspaceman21
03-09-2009, 04:16 PM
Definitely always gets me. So does Unnecessary.

Fuck, I had to use spell check those to make sure...

Rag Doll
03-09-2009, 04:18 PM
yeah, i never get "canceled" or "separate" either.

WebDudette
03-09-2009, 04:22 PM
Oh, I have a hard time spelling remember for what ever reason. When I actually slow down and think about it its fine, but I always type out remeber or something on accident.

KHWHD
03-09-2009, 04:29 PM
I couldn't spell definitely.

Yeah, same here. I spelt it, definately for a long time. And another one I have problems with is apoligise. I want to use z instead of s.

wheelchairman
03-09-2009, 04:30 PM
All my life I've been able to spell received right.

Lately I've been trying to spell it like recieved.

Tired_Of_You
03-09-2009, 04:44 PM
Yeah, same here. I spelt it, definately for a long time. And another one I have problems with is apoligise. I want to use z instead of s.
It's not only with the s/z that you have problems.

As for me... I can't think of a word in English, besides the fact that I often type moth instead of month. It's not that I don't know/remember how to write it, but I just miss the letter for some obscure reasons. In French, there's "nécessaire" that I still sometimes write "nécéssaire".

I had a teacher who would pronoune "hiérarchie" like "hiarchie".

Alison
03-09-2009, 04:47 PM
The ones that get me are "unnecessary", "opposite"(I'm never sure how much of each letter there is). Oh and "mediterranean", hoping i spelt it right now.
"Definitely" used to get me for quite a while.
There was another i was thinking of this morning, but cant remember now.

WebDudette
03-09-2009, 04:47 PM
Wait, isn't apologize correct?

Tired_Of_You
03-09-2009, 04:49 PM
Wait, isn't apologize correct?I my be wrong, but I think apologize is more common in American English?

WebDudette
03-09-2009, 04:50 PM
Oh okay, that would make sense.

Omni
03-09-2009, 04:56 PM
I think both are correct, technically.

KHWHD
03-09-2009, 05:00 PM
It's not only with the s/z that you have problems.

Huh? :confused:

Tired_Of_You
03-09-2009, 05:01 PM
It doesn't really matter, but you wrote apoligise.

KHWHD
03-09-2009, 05:04 PM
It doesn't really matter, but you wrote apoligise.

Oh, I spelt the entire word wrong - lovely... lol. :o I normally spell it right, just mix up the s for a z.

JohnnyNemesis
03-09-2009, 05:11 PM
Also, isn't it "spelled", and not "spelt"? Or are both correct? Or maybe "spelled" is standard and "spelt" is just slang? I don't know for sure.

KHWHD
03-09-2009, 05:17 PM
Also, isn't it "spelled", and not "spelt"? Or are both correct? Or maybe "spelled" is standard and "spelt" is just slang? I don't know for sure.

I always thought spelled was past tense per se. And I thought spelt is present tense?

Tired_Of_You
03-09-2009, 05:23 PM
Past tense for both. It's the same thing as dreamed/dreamt.

Man, what did they teach you at school? ;p

KHWHD
03-09-2009, 05:24 PM
Past tense for both. It's the same thing as dreamed/dreamt.

No?

Yeah I think it's pretty much the same thing.

KHWHD
03-09-2009, 05:25 PM
Past tense for both. It's the same thing as dreamed/dreamt.

Man, what did they teach you at school? ;p

I graduated high school in 1995.. lol. My spelling and grammar is still pretty great. :p

JohnnyNemesis
03-09-2009, 05:51 PM
I believe you mean your spelling and grammar are pretty great :)

Then again, this thread is making me doubt everything, and I'm an effing English teacher...

Free?
03-09-2009, 06:30 PM
Definite(ly) was the bane of my existence for a good while. I had always written it as definate(ly).
This.

All my life I've been able to spell received right.
Lately I've been trying to spell it like recieved.
I've spelled "recieve" for a long time, lately I spell it correctly.

Also I used to spell "aswell" not "as well".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, I spelt the entire word wrong - lovely... lol. :o I normally spell it right, just mix up the s for a z.


Also, isn't it "spelled", and not "spelt"? Or are both correct? Or maybe "spelled" is standard and "spelt" is just slang? I don't know for sure.


I always thought spelled was past tense per se. And I thought spelt is present tense?


Past tense for both. It's the same thing as dreamed/dreamt.

Man, what did they teach you at school? ;p

There is no such thing as "-t" verb ending, it's usually "-ed". So not "spelt" and "dreamt", but "dreamed" and "spelled" (Slang doesn't count!!!). There are some exceptions though (build - built, bend - bent). And yes, it's past simple tense.
Present form of "spell" is "spell" (present simple tense. "I always spell "bonana" wrong."). "You have spelled it wrong" is present perfect tense (which is used for expressing actions that have been completed).

Yeah I think it's pretty much the same thing.


I graduated high school in 1995.. lol. My spelling and grammar is still pretty great. :p


I believe you mean your spelling and grammar are pretty great :)

Then again, this thread is making me doubt everything, and I'm an effing English teacher...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Epic, but ways too huge for a signature :].

Tired_Of_You
03-09-2009, 06:40 PM
I've learned (learnt!) that verbs such as spell and dream in the past tense can be written spelt/dreamt. These are not slangs. Spelled and dreamed are used more often in American English while spelt and dreamt are used more often in the UK. Also, Google says I'm right.


Thank you 8th grade English teacher! But then, I probably know that because I use American/English spellings and mix them up all the time... behaviour/behavior, color/colour, grey/gray, etc.

Budzy
03-10-2009, 12:14 AM
I've been writing heirarchy instead. Damn it!

The last time I suffered a blow like this was when I found out it was separate, not seperate.

I had this problem a lot whenever we used to get spelling tests, because an 'heir to the throne' is spelt like that, so I used to assume hierarchy was aswell.

Llamas
03-10-2009, 12:45 AM
Preface: if you ever wonder about how to spell something, or the usage of a phrase, word, etc... this site is AWESOME. I'm a huge nerd and sometimes just click on various ones and read about them. haha. http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html

A few highlights that drive me NUTS:
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/everytime.html
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/login.html
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/good.html

Anyway.

I love this thread! It's so full of descriptive vs. prescriptive grammar and spelling! A few things:

Spelt is a commonly accepted way to to spell it. However, descriptive grammarians will hate you for it (myself included). It's considered correct, though.

Apologize is the correct spelling in NAE.

I don't have a hard time with any of the words mentioned so far, but I DO have a hard time with exaggerated. Hey, I actually got it right that time!! I always mix up how many g's and r's there are.


All my life I've been able to spell received right.

Lately I've been trying to spell it like recieved.
i before e, except after c
or when sounding like æ, as in neighbor or weigh
their, weird and either, foreign, seize and neither,
leisure, forfeit and height are exceptions spelled right

WebDudette
03-10-2009, 12:56 AM
I cringe when people say 'anyways'.

Llamas
03-10-2009, 01:02 AM
I cringe when people say 'anyways'.

Yes. And forwards. And towards. I hate it.

Vera
03-10-2009, 01:30 AM
Bee-tee-double-you, guys, 'angsty' is not a word.

Down with misuse of language!

Budzy
03-10-2009, 02:37 AM
I cringe when people say 'anyways'.

Oh I see. So that's why my dad goes off at me whenever I say it. I never realised how much effect it has on people.
You would hate me.

randman21
03-10-2009, 03:27 AM
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html (http://www.wsu.edu/%7Ebrians/errors/errors.html)

Favorited. I love stuff like this.

I absolutely hatehateHATE the word "normalcy," and look down upon anyone who uses it, even though it is considered a word...now. It also drives me crazy when people use "then" when they mean "than".

Heh, this thread is not about what it used to be.

T-6005
03-10-2009, 05:23 AM
I cringe when people say 'anyways'.

That reminds me of when I got yelled at on the BBS for that extra s. Or perhaps because I didn't use it. Either or.

wheelchairman
03-10-2009, 05:40 AM
This thread just reminds me of Noodles_is_Gay

Like hardcore.

T-6005
03-10-2009, 07:02 AM
I am never wrong. (http://offspring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20201)


English is my first language, and "anyways" isn't an English word.

Free?
03-10-2009, 08:10 AM
I've learned (learnt!) that verbs such as spell and dream in the past tense can be written spelt/dreamt. These are not slangs. Spelled and dreamed are used more often in American English while spelt and dreamt are used more often in the UK. Also, Google says I'm right.


Thank you 8th grade English teacher! But then, I probably know that because I use American/English spellings and mix them up all the time... behaviour/behavior, color/colour, grey/gray, etc.



Spelt is a commonly accepted way to to spell it. However, descriptive grammarians will hate you for it (myself included). It's considered correct, though.


Ohkay. I was under impression that "spelt" was either a carelessly lame and grammatically incorrect way to spell that word (really cheap slang) or an archaic form of that verb (imagine a wizard chanting some magic). I find it unacceptable anyway, imo it's polluting of the language. There is a difference between being original and being lame when it comes to spelling.

I think "anyways" is just a slang form, it's quite acceptable for me.


I am never wrong. (http://offspring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20201)
Lol! Damn, I wasn't there!

Bipolar Bear
03-10-2009, 09:49 AM
That reminds me of when I got yelled at on the BBS for that extra s. Or perhaps because I didn't use it. Either or.

How could you...you monster!

Blitzkrieg Bop
03-10-2009, 01:05 PM
Wait, isn't apologize correct?

This is definately correct.

There is not much difference between US English and UK English ... The 'z' and the 's' being one of them. The one I find the strangest is the spelling of colour (UK English) and color (US English)

wheelchairman
03-10-2009, 01:44 PM
This is definately correct.

There is not much difference between US English and UK English ... The 'z' and the 's' being one of them. The one I find the strangest is the spelling of colour (UK English) and color (US English)

It mostly definately is!

Anyways let's go back to talking about how we didn't know how to spelt things or stopped knowing how to spell things. All this pet-peeve talk has been played out 1000x times on this bbs and it just reminds me of NIG.

Free?
03-10-2009, 01:51 PM
This is definately correct.

There is not much difference between US English and UK English ... The 'z' and the 's' being one of them. The one I find the strangest is the spelling of colour (UK English) and color (US English)


It mostly definately is!

Anyways let's go back to talking about how we didn't know how to spelt things or stopped knowing how to spell things. All this pet-peeve talk has been played out 1000x times on this bbs and it just reminds me of NIG.

Lol at both of you. Definitely lol!

Llamas
03-10-2009, 02:01 PM
Ohkay. I was under impression that "spelt" was either a carelessly lame and grammatically incorrect way to spell that word (really cheap slang) or an archaic form of that verb (imagine a wizard chanting some magic). I find it unacceptable anyway, imo it's polluting of the language. There is a difference between being original and being lame when it comes to spelling.

I think "anyways" is just a slang form, it's quite acceptable for me.
Spelt and anyways are both actual words... and they both came basically from slang. That's just how language evolves.


The one I find the strangest is the spelling of colour (UK English) and color (US English)
All those "u" changes between NAE and British English just changed because NAE dropped the "u" because it's not pronounced. I have no idea why they did that with that particular situation and with nothing else, though.

JohnnyNemesis
03-10-2009, 02:12 PM
Ugh. I'm a word geek and all, but slang and such is perfectly acceptable. As has been said, this is how language evolves.

IMO, there's no such thing as "proper" English. There's "standard" English, sure, but fuck "proper", which implies that there are right and wrong ways to go about language.

_Lost_
03-10-2009, 02:24 PM
I don't know why it is, but I almost ALWAYS leave the space out between "every time". I seem to want to make it into one word. :-/

Free?
03-10-2009, 04:04 PM
Spelt and anyways are both actual words... and they both came basically from slang. That's just how language evolves.



Ugh. I'm a word geek and all, but slang and such is perfectly acceptable. As has been said, this is how language evolves.

IMO, there's no such thing as "proper" English. There's "standard" English, sure, but fuck "proper", which implies that there are right and wrong ways to go about language.
Or devolves? Honestly I feel that it's wrong thing when spelling rules change into more simple form, accepting more slang just because there are millions of lazyfucks who don't even care about grammar and it'll be easier for them. I can imagine that soon it will be acceptable of using "ther" which could mean either "there", "they're" and "their". I'm not saying that all slang is bad though.

Oh, spelling "allways" with double-L was a common error of mine.

mrconeman
03-10-2009, 04:10 PM
Or devolves? Honestly I feel that it's wrong thing when spelling rules change into more simple form, accepting more slang just because there are millions of lazyfucks who don't even care about grammar and it'll be easier for them. I can imagine that soon it will be acceptable of using "ther" which could mean either "there", "they're" and "their". I'm not saying that all slang is bad though.

Oh, spelling "allways" with double-L was a common error of mine.

I find it's people who try to defend grammar and language in this manner that are often most hypocritical. If language didn't evolve and accept slang, we'd all still be speaking like shakespear. If you're serious about you're post, go and learn shakespearian English.

And hell even Shakespearian English was a radically changed language, he invented like hundreds of words. Basically English wouldn't be the language it is if it wasn't for accepting slang terms and new words, and thus would hold general communication back a few million years.

There's probably several words in your everyday vocabulary that don't meet your standards and you don't even realise it.

IamSam
03-10-2009, 04:10 PM
Doublethink...

JohnnyNemesis
03-10-2009, 04:13 PM
accepting more slang just because there are millions of lazyfucks

See, that's the thing. You assume that everyone's just a lazy fuck who doesn't know how to spell, when really slang also comes from people who do know how to spell but prefer their own way.

IamSam
03-10-2009, 04:32 PM
See, that's the thing. You assume that everyone's just a lazy fuck who doesn't know how to spell, when really slang also comes from people who do know how to spell but prefer their own way.

Exactly. Much like Frindle. (http://www.amazon.com/Frindle-Andrew-Clements/dp/0689818769)

Free?
03-10-2009, 04:38 PM
I find it's people who try to defend grammar and language in this manner that are often most hypocritical. If language didn't evolve and accept slang, we'd all still be speaking like shakespear. If you're serious about you're post, go and learn shakespearian English.

And hell even Shakespearian English was a radically changed language, he invented like hundreds of words. Basically English wouldn't be the language it is if it wasn't for accepting slang terms and new words, and thus would hold general communication back a few million years.

There's probably several words in your everyday vocabulary that don't meet your standards and you don't even realise it.
I'm not some kind of grammar elitist who devotes his life to keep pure language. I'm fine with language evolution, as I said, I don't think that all slang is bad. But everything has it's limits. I'm not going to accept "ther"-s, it definitely isn't an example of language evolution we're talking about.


See, that's the thing. You assume that everyone's just a lazy fuck who doesn't know how to spell, when really slang also comes from people who do know how to spell but prefer their own way.
Nope, I said "millions of lazyfucks", not everyone. Of course, there are such folks as you described; what I don't like that there are too many lazyfucks who still have their negative influence.

WebDudette
03-10-2009, 04:42 PM
People who use text-esque language in an essay? lazyfucks.

Virtuoso
03-10-2009, 04:47 PM
But everything has it's limits.

Another common mistake, it's instead of its. Just to keep on topic. Feel Free? to point out my spelling/grammar errors as well.

_Lost_
03-10-2009, 04:50 PM
I'm not some kind of grammar elitist who devotes his life to keep pure language. I'm fine with language evolution, as I said, I don't think that all slang is bad. But everything has it's limits. I'm not going to accept "ther"-s, it definitely isn't an example of language evolution we're talking about.

There is a difference between re-writing "there" with one less 'e' and saying "dreamt" instead of "dreamed". The pronunciation is entirely different. "dreamed" has a long 'e'. Its not just out of laziness that such words are coming into usage. we r long rd frm typin' lyke dis 4 real. dun take it 2 srsly, k?

Free?
03-10-2009, 04:53 PM
People who use text-esque language in an essay? lazyfucks.

My bad, I may fail to see your point because I don't know what "esque" means :o.
But you mentioned an essay... If it's intentional usage of slang as the main "essay language" then they are the ones JN was talking about. If it's not intentional, but rather natural for them, then they're lazyfucks who need to learn to spell and essay is going to fail due too many grammar errors.

EDIT: Haha Lost, of course! You're the JN-type person, if you know what I mean. ;]
EDITEDIT:

Another common mistake, it's instead of its. Just to keep on topic. Feel Free? to point out my spelling/grammar errors as well. It's "it's" O_o. Mine-yours-his-her-it's... It's definitely isn't a mistake, "its" might be a correct variant too, but I'm sure that "it's" isn't wrong either.
...or?

Tired_Of_You
03-10-2009, 04:57 PM
It's really difficult to know how a language will change and to predict how it's going to be in the future and most linguists who tried to do it failed.

Also, on the subject of simplification, or as Free said "the lazyfucks" who use slangs... well, change can go in plenty of directions and we can say that of slang as well, that it's not necessarily simplified words. As an example, in Quebec French, an informal way of saying "ils jouent" (they play) is "ils jousent" (and the pronounciation is different enought, let me tell you). It's a slang, and it's definitely not a simplification of the language. Also, I'm not sure we can judge if a change in language is bad or good...

Now, I'm sorry I use French as an example, but it's my first language, so it's much easier to do for me. Also, I'm not exactly only responding to Free, I'm just really bored.

_Lost_
03-10-2009, 04:57 PM
EDIT: Haha Lost, of course! You're the JN-type person, if you know what I mean. ;]
i really don't know what you mean.

WebDudette
03-10-2009, 05:00 PM
My bad, I may fail to see your point because I don't know what "esque" means :o.

Basically, when people write essays using words like this:


we r long rd frm typin' lyke dis 4 real. dun take it 2 srsly, k?

You'd be surprised how often it happens.

Llamas
03-10-2009, 05:03 PM
Or devolves? Honestly I feel that it's wrong thing when spelling rules change into more simple form, accepting more slang just because there are millions of lazyfucks who don't even care about grammar and it'll be easier for them. I can imagine that soon it will be acceptable of using "ther" which could mean either "there", "they're" and "their". I'm not saying that all slang is bad though.

Oh, spelling "allways" with double-L was a common error of mine.


I find it's people who try to defend grammar and language in this manner that are often most hypocritical. If language didn't evolve and accept slang, we'd all still be speaking like shakespear. If you're serious about you're post, go and learn shakespearian English.

And hell even Shakespearian English was a radically changed language, he invented like hundreds of words. Basically English wouldn't be the language it is if it wasn't for accepting slang terms and new words, and thus would hold general communication back a few million years.

There's probably several words in your everyday vocabulary that don't meet your standards and you don't even realise it.

See, actually, we'd probably all still be speaking some sort of proto-indo European language. English evolved from German which evolved from some extinct proto-indo European language... and most evolution in language is due to simplifying things. Even double negatives such as "I didn't get no sleep" are now considered grammatically correct. It's fine to be annoyed by these things, but to argue against these changes is pretty archaic. Most linguists and grammarians have learned to accept these things, and so should you.

WebDudette
03-10-2009, 05:04 PM
It's "it's" O_o. Mine-yours-his-her-it's... It's definitely isn't a mistake, "its" might be a correct variant too, but I'm sure that "it's" isn't wrong either.
...or?

'It's' is a contraction of 'it is'. So technically you said 'everything has it is limits'.

Free?
03-10-2009, 05:12 PM
i really don't know what you mean.
That kind of person
||
\/

See, that's the thing. You assume that everyone's just a lazy fuck who doesn't know how to spell, when really slang also comes from people who do know how to spell but prefer their own way.
It's an intentional usage of "esque-text". (!)(:))


Basically, when people write essays using words like this:
You'd be surprised how often it happens.
You mean the essays they write for studying? Well, I'm really surprised if such freedom is allowed in your country. I mean... yes, it's a good thing to try to put something original in your work (when it will be well accepted), but it's not something that should happen regularly in your essays.

Llamas
03-10-2009, 05:12 PM
Erm. "I didn't get no sleep" doesn't look like formal usage to me.

I didn't say it was formal usage; I said it was considered grammatically acceptable in NAE. As a teacher of English as a second language, I am supposed to accept double negatives because it is truly considered dialectual.

"See you later" isn't formal usage, but it's accepted as correct in NAE.

Free?
03-10-2009, 05:23 PM
'It's' is a contraction of 'it is'. So technically you said 'everything has it is limits'.
Yes, I know about that. Follow the post :).

Erm. "I didn't get no sleep" doesn't look like formal usage to me.

"its" is adjective possessive. "It's" is "it is".
In short, if you imply possession for a neutral noun, it's "its".

Very interesting, thank you :)! I thought it's the same rule as for "Bob's".
Darn, gotta hate my English teachers! They left so many holes in me. ;]

Llamas
03-10-2009, 05:24 PM
I will assume you meant "dialectal", and will proceed to mention that as a former diligent student of English as a second language, I readily gathered that I could use double negatives for fun, but not in a goddamn essay. It's all about putting a little effort into your speech, if one starts to talk like a jackass, one will sound like an effing jackass and will be considered as such.

Yes, dialectal... typo, which is suited to this thread. :P

And right, it's not formal usage. I would certainly suggest students don't use double negatives in papers or in letters, but it's not wrong to say it or write it. A lot of people will have a hard time taking it seriously, though, if used in the wrong situation.

Llamas
03-10-2009, 05:44 PM
It's informal, just like saying "me no understandy" is an informal phrase - we're all agreed the syntax doesn't look too good, I think. But using such bad grammar in a job interview would be akin to showing up in your pyjamas.
Ah, but not necessarily. In areas where double negatives are considered normal and part of the dialect, it's completely acceptable to use them in something like a job interview.


And on a more personal basis, I feel convinced we can use ANY style, provided we understand what we're saying (as Rick mentions) and we master the language. Some people would let the language master them, and that's not good, to me. Cause they simply don't know any better, which is sad. There are times when you have to show you've got some education. Language isn't only a communication tool. Its purposes include discrimination. Talk like a scholar, and you'll pass off for one. Talk like a gangsta rappa, and you'll pass off for one. Both "groups" might like - for any reason - to discriminate. So talk wisely...

Just wanted to point out that your English communication skills have vastly increased in the time I've been at this bbs. You have stopped typing here like you would type a formal paper, and you use words that part of your everyday vocabulary, rather than trying to use extremely complex sentences with as many non-common words as possible. I just wanted to give you props for your progress. It's so much less irritating to communicate with you now. :)

Free?
03-10-2009, 05:53 PM
Andrei, what do you mean "your teachers left holes in you"? Did they use gimlets or sth? Central Europe is so barbaric. :p Well, I wouldn't know, in France we use two genres, feminine and masculine, we don't have neutral, so we have to learn it, but it's not too difficult, is it? You just learn "his/her/its" and Bob's your uncle.

Bah, even Englishmen confuse their "it's", so no bother...

I like to use phrases that could have different meanings, I like it even more when someone can "use" them :).

And actually "Bob's your uncle" would be a wrong example of what I was trying to say; it was meant to be like "Bob's socks", the possession, not contraction of "Bob is".
...or it's me who didn't get the inside joke of you this time ? :o

_Lost_
03-11-2009, 12:54 PM
That kind of person


o i c. i lrn2type real gud n stuff.

Vera
03-11-2009, 09:40 PM
See, actually, we'd probably all still be speaking some sort of proto-indo European language. English evolved from German which evolved from some extinct proto-indo European language... and most evolution in language is due to simplifying things. Even double negatives such as "I didn't get no sleep" are now considered grammatically correct. It's fine to be annoyed by these things, but to argue against these changes is pretty archaic. Most linguists and grammarians have learned to accept these things, and so should you.

Once heard an argument against this, asking why would these complex forms develop in the first place if they would be eliminated by language "evolution"? It might be the case for English but if all languages are constantly becoming more simple, how come Finnish and other languages still have 15-20 grammatic cases?

Llamas
03-11-2009, 09:57 PM
Once heard an argument against this, asking why would these complex forms develop in the first place if they would be eliminated by language "evolution"? It might be the case for English but if all languages are constantly becoming more simple, how come Finnish and other languages still have 15-20 grammatic cases?

lol yeah, Finnish is pretty fucked up.

A lot of complex forms developed due to a couple things. First of all, when language is at its very youngest, it's the most complex due to the fact that, when people start creating/speaking a language, they don't have the knowledge that there are easier ways to do it. There's no groundwork, there's nothing to compare it to... there's a Demetri Martin joke that sort of fits with this, about how, when they were naming fruits and vegetables, they must have named the orange before they named the carrot :P Just the idea that language was sort of made up as it went along, and as it was necessary to come up with new words, tenses, etc. I'm no Finnish expert, but part of the reason it has not evolved toward simplicity as well as a language like English is just due to the sheer numbers of people who speak it. The more people there are that speak a language, the more it's going to evolve. Finnland, as far as I know, is the only place in the world where people speak Finnish (obviously besides people who moved to new places and whatever). Only the people IN Finnland need to be able to understand each other... there is less influence from other dialects across the world, or even within the country... it's just less people. So the language does not evolve so well.

Another thing about Finnish is that it doesn't have a history of being used as much in the nation's history, especially with the status of the written language. It really truly just has not had much of a chance to evolve the way the Germanic languages, for instance, have.

bighead384
03-11-2009, 10:00 PM
I don't understand the desire to learn another language unless somehow you're going to make a shitload of money off of it. Some people really like to learn I guess.

Llamas
03-11-2009, 10:06 PM
I don't understand the desire to learn another language unless somehow you're going to make a shitload of money off of it. Some people really like to learn I guess.

There are a lot of reasons people choose to learn a foreign language. It's fun, it can come in useful at various points in your life, you may learn something about a new culture or country that you didn't know, etc etc etc. Plus, learning a language helps your brain with acquiring other things, too. It's a different kind of learning from a lot of things, so it works out different parts of your brain.

Not everyone focuses what they study or do in life around money... I study German and teaching English as a second language because I truly enjoy these subjects and they're just what I want to do in life. Make sense? :P

Vera
03-11-2009, 10:10 PM
Bit of a too evolutionist model for me to fully accept - also stinks of ethnocentrism (European languages are simple, therefore all other languages must be evolving to become more simple). Most languages are spoken by small groups of people, but there's constant interaction from language to language in even the most secluded, complex languages. And it's not like English has been the connecting language of the world for a long while; the change in the language of science towards English dominating it has been quite recent, in fact.

Llamas
03-11-2009, 10:20 PM
Bit of a too evolutionist model for me to fully accept - also stinks of ethnocentrism (European languages are simple, therefore all other languages must be evolving to become more simple). Most languages are spoken by small groups of people, but there's constant interaction from language to language in even the most secluded, complex languages. And it's not like English has been the connecting language of the world for a long while; the change in the language of science towards English dominating it has been quite recent, in fact.

But English has been around and actively used for a much longer time than a lot of other languages, especially because English is closer to the very first German than even modern German is.

Again, I'm not an expert on other languages like Finnish and such (I keep trying to make this clear :P), I'm just going off of what I've learned from linguists. It's theory, of course. The bigger and more common/powerful a language is, the more it tends to evolve, though. I'm not even really sure what we're debating here, lol... damn it.

Vera
03-12-2009, 03:58 PM
But English has been around and actively used for a much longer time than a lot of other languages, especially because English is closer to the very first German than even modern German is.

Again, I'm not an expert on other languages like Finnish and such (I keep trying to make this clear :P), I'm just going off of what I've learned from linguists. It's theory, of course. The bigger and more common/powerful a language is, the more it tends to evolve, though. I'm not even really sure what we're debating here, lol... damn it.

I guess I'm sort of getting these vibes off the whole language evolution thing that because English is simple (and not in all ways it really isn't, but you probably know that), it's more evolved than the complex languages and therefore "better". Which is really just all sorts of questionable on so many levels (not to mention offensive). Like I said, why would any language have complex forms just for them to be stripped off by the process of evolution? A language is as it needs to be - while I'm kind of falling into a functionalist fallacy here headfirst, I do rather believe in this - and it evolves as it does as the world of the people using it re-shapes itself.

So basically, I'd say, to say "English evolved like this" is fine but to apply that to all languages everywhere? Hold your horses. A lot of data is missing to track down some languages that haven't really had a written language for over a thousand years or so (Finnish was written for the first time in 1450) so who's to say how it's evolved before that? I suppose a lot of very good work is done by linguists but it's got to be hugely hypothetical. Has Finnish become more simple, I honestly don't know. It's changed, for sure, to fit the needs of modern Finns but evolved into something more simple, wouldn't be too sure.