Much as I understand...

One thing I find annoying; is when people get pedantic about spellings, but I have to agree with Tom, above, that American english should not be misunderestimated for it's flexibility
 
Here is an example of the grating misuse of the plural possessive pronoun "their," taken from a major news website this morning:

"A student has a right to express their point of view in and out of class without fear or censorship or expulsion," French said.

It is quite clear in the story and in a photo that the student in question is a young woman. But instead of "a student has a right to express HER point of view," the reader gets the gutless, non-gender, incorrect "their" from the man being quoted.
 
paulfish4570 said:
It is quite clear in the story and in a photo that the student in question is a young woman. But instead of "a student has a right to express HER point of view," the reader gets the gutless, non-gender, incorrect "their" from the man being quoted.
Click to expand...

I think it's because the man was making a general comment that would apply to all students, male and female.

At one time, you would say "a student has a right to express HIS point of view." The "his" would refer to both men and women. That may have been traditional, but it failed simple logic, because women are not men.

Then for a while people would say "a student has a right to express his or her opinion." That may be an accurate way of describing things, but the text would be cluttered with clumsy "he or she's" and "his or her's".

Now I see people alternate between "he" and "she" in the text. EG, one paragraph might refer to "he", then the next paragraph might refer to "she." Still, that seems a little awkward, because you're often referring to both genders simultaneously.

Now the usage of "their" to refer to "him and her" is getting popular, which is fine by me... it solves the problem in a more elegant way than the aforementioned methods do.
 
Noooooooooooooooooooooo! It is not elegant! It is bad grammar!
And I have a cure for this sickness: write/speak around it. If Mr. French is being inclusive, all he has to do is a slight reframe: "Students have the right ..." With that structure, it is utterly clear he is speaking about a right for all students, including the young lady in question.
I fought reporters' poor grammar for more than 30 years. I never let one get away with such usage ...
 
These euphemisms/utterances exist in Canadian English, as well as Japanese (so da nee, nee!, naruhodo nee, so desu ka? ahh, so da na ...)
 
antiquark said:
Sort of like "great big elephant" or "tiny little baby."

Those are redundancies. "Tiny little" can be replaced more efficiently by either "tiny" or "little."

Of course, when referring to tiny little babies, the paramount thing should be linguistic efficiency!

However, we all speak of tiny little babies. Let he cast the first stone who has not talked of tiny little babies!

To conclude: the English language is more than just a collection of grammar rules!
Click to expand...

Thank God for that! Or, more colloquially: True 'dat! "Tiny little baby" just sounds better than "little baby."

Brings to mind one of my favorite short stories, Tobias Wolff's "Bullet in the Brain." The narrator has been shot and is dying, and this is the last thought that goes through his brain:

This is what he remembered. Heat. A baseball field. Yellow grass, the whirr of insects, himself
leaning against a tree as the boys of the neighborhood gather for a pickup game. He looks on as the
others argue the relative genius of Mantle and Mays. They have been worrying this subject all
summer, and it has become tedious to Anders: an oppression, like the heat.

Then the last two boys arrive, Coyle and a cousin of his from Mississippi. Anders has never met
Coyle’s cousin before and will never see him again. He says hi with the rest but takes no further
notice of him until they’ve chosen sides and some asks the cousin what position he wants to play.
“Shortstop,” the boy says. “Short’s the best position they is.” Anders turns and looks at him. He
wants to hear Coyle’s cousin repeat what he’s just said, but he knows better than to ask. The others
will think he’s being a jerk, ragging the kid for his grammar. But that isn’t it, not at all – it’s that
Anders is strangely roused, elated, by those final two words, their pure unexpectedness and their
music. He takes the field in a trance, repeating them to himself.

The bullet is already in the brain; it won’t be outrun forever, or charmed to a halt. In the end it will
do its work and leave the troubled skull behind, dragging its comet’s tail of memory and hope and
talent and love into the marble hall of commerce. That can’t be helped. But for now Anders can
still make time. Time for the shadows to lengthen on the grass, time for the tethered dog to bark at
the flying ball, time for the boy in right field to smack his sweat-blackened mitt and softly chant,
They is, they is, they is.


We need grammar to make sense, but sometimes we need to break those rules to make something more than that. 🙂

(Here's the link to the whole short story: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ro/www/LiteratureandMedicineInitiative/20080304/bullet.pdf)
 
paulfish4570 said:
Noooooooooooooooooooooo! It is not elegant! It is bad grammar!
And I have a cure for this sickness: write/speak around it.
Click to expand...

That's a tough way to fix the problem. It's not always obvious how to reframe the sentence to get it to work without "his or her." For example, fixing some of these search results isn't really obvious.

My solution is to help the English language evolve by throwing in a "their" whenever a "his or her" would be more correct. I'm even teaching the new rule to my kids!

The English language is democratic in that way. If enough people talk or write in an unconventional way, then it will eventually become the rule. Long live democratic languages!
 
This is an interesting concept, Roger. Its one that I've thought about too, but I think I am on the other side of the fence on this. Robert M. Pirsig expressed an idea that:

it doesnt really matter if something is gramatically correct - its the idea behind the words that counts. Its not the language thats beautiful, but the concept behind the language.

Something like that. I more or less agree with what he expressed. But, as you said, "...english is an evolving language..." - so is my thought process, and a week from now - a year from now - a decade from now - I will probably feel different about the subject.

Jim
 
F456 said:
Well, at the end of the day we all have to get up in the morning.

John Major, British Prime Minister sometime in the 80s/90s, really mixed his metaphors - something along these lines:

'There is a tide going out which we must grasp with both hands and build upon.'

Tom
Click to expand...

Oh, yes. Dear old, grey, John did have, a, not inconsiderable talent, for mixing his metaphors; punctuation, however, was, conversely, one of his stronger points.

However, I do feel the use of Grasp and John Major in consecutive sentences is inappropriate, given subsequent revelations

Roger; just reread Naming of Parts which lead me to High Flight, both from my O level year iirc, thanks
 
anu L ogy said:
This is an interesting concept, Roger. Its one that I've thought about too, but I think I am on the other side of the fence on this. Robert M. Pirsig expressed an idea that:

it doesnt really matter if something is gramatically correct - its the idea behind the words that counts. Its not the language thats beautiful, but the concept behind the language.

Something like that. I more or less agree with what he expressed. But, as you said, "...english is an evolving language..." - so is my thought process, and a week from now - a year from now - a decade from now - I will probably feel different about the subject.

Jim
Click to expand...

Dear Jim,

I don't think we necessarily disagree about everything. Part of the point is that "Much as..." and "As much as..." don't actually mean the same.

Also, the language often does matter. Compare the Authorized Version and the Good News Bible. An atheist can admire the language of the Authorized Version, whether he agrees with the sentiments or not. But you have to be a rabid believer to put up with the clunking infelicities of the Good News Bible.

Or think of some of the great speeches of the 19th and 20th centuries: Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, Churchill's "the Few" speech or "Blood, toil, tears and sweat," Nehru's "Midnight's Children," Ronnie's "Tear Down The Wall." It's not hard to translate them into plodding management-speak.

Cheers,

R.
 
Sparrow said:
Oh, yes. Dear old, grey, John did have, a, not inconsiderable talent, for mixing his metaphors; punctuation, however, was, conversely, one of his stronger points.

However, I do feel the use of Grasp and John Major in consecutive sentences is inappropriate, given subsequent revelations

Roger; just reread Naming of Parts which lead me to High Flight, both from my O level year iirc, thanks
Click to expand...
Dear Stewart,

Ah, yes. What's grey and smells of curry? Or Currie? (Obscene joke accessible only to those with a good knowledge of British politics).

Cheers,

R.
 
Without common rules of grammar, we end up with vernaculars and dialects impossible for all who supposedly speak/read a common language to understand one another from one region to the next.
Example: I cannot understand spoken Cockney dialect. But if the speaker knows rudimentary grammar, I at least can understand his written message.
Another example: I cannot follow the spoken dialect of American inner-city teenagers. But I understand - usually - what they write because of the rules of grammar.
We need the rules for normal, day-to-day communication. We may break the rules when we write dialect for a short story - or speak among our cliques ...
 
I had my say earlier but I can't resist another one:

Advertising copywriters, who think up things to say about food on television in order to make you want to eat one of those things, have fallen into another trap. They all are compelled to use the word decadent. Anything that tastes good is suddenly decadent. Chocolate is decadent. Seafood is decadent. I suppose if they were selling me an apple that it, too, would be decadent. Here are some definitions:

Main Entry: 1dec·a·dent
Pronunciation: \ˈde-kə-dənt also di-ˈkā-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: back-formation from decadence
Date: 1837

1 : marked by decay or decline
2 : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the decadents
3 : characterized by or appealing to self-indulgence <decadent pleasures>

Obviously, they have over-used the the third case and totally neglected the first two.

My suggestion to the advertising people is to bypass the euphemisms and call their products what they are — not decadent but poisonous!
 
I do not remember a thread that I have enjoyed so much as this one in a long time.

Anyhow - being a non native English speaker, but working in an international environment (physics) I started to wonder, whether all those misuses, mistakes and inconsistencies have been introduced by us - non native speakers.

At least in high energy physics in Europe (Germany) in an international lab (GSI) the English is the main language, but as there are very few native English speakers and with the rest having very different level of knowledge - the language can easily be steered away from its original form.

A few examples:
- plural form of 'index' written as 'indexes' (even in our software!) - fortunately not always.
- 'chisquare' (square of the greek letter 'chi') pronounced as spanish 'x' instead of 'k'
- past tense of the verb 'fit' written as 'fitted' (in the meaning of approximating a discrete distribution with a mathematical function)
- pronouncing the word 'determined' as '***mined'
- screwing up the more complex sentences just because simple ones are not cool enough ...

I do feel bad for that and I apologize for screwing up your language. I know I do ...

Still - to my opinion the ENglish language suffers from its apparent simplicity - in other words to reach the level sufficient for basic communication is rather easy, but learning all the necessary exceptions and idioms is not.

So, dear native English speakers here at RFF, bear with us non natives. We do our best as much as we can 🙂
 
Bike Tourist said:
I had my say earlier but I can't resist another one:

Advertising copywriters, who think up things to say about food on television in order to make you want to eat one of those things, have fallen into another trap. They all are compelled to use the word decadent. Anything that tastes good is suddenly decadent. Chocolate is decadent. Seafood is decadent. I suppose if they were selling me an apple that it, too, would be decadent. Here are some definitions:

Main Entry: 1dec·a·dent
Pronunciation: \ˈde-kə-dənt also di-ˈkā-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: back-formation from decadence
Date: 1837

1 : marked by decay or decline
2 : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the decadents
3 : characterized by or appealing to self-indulgence <decadent pleasures>

Obviously, they have over-used the the third case and totally neglected the first two.

My suggestion to the advertising people is to bypass the euphemisms and call their products what they are — not decadent but poisonous!
Click to expand...
Dear Dick,

And of course:

4: Having ten teeth

Cheers,

R.
 
Matus said:
I do not remember a thread that I have enjoyed so much as this one in a long time.

Anyhow - being a non native English speaker, but working in an international environment (physics) I started to wonder, whether all those misuses, mistakes and inconsistencies have been introduced by us - non native speakers.

At least in high energy physics in Europe (Germany) in an international lab (GSI) the English is the main language, but as there are very few native English speakers and with the rest having very different level of knowledge - the language can easily be steered away from its original form.

A few examples:
- plural form of 'index' written as 'indexes' (even in our software!) - fortunately not always.
- 'chisquare' (square of the greek letter 'chi') pronounced as spanish 'x' instead of 'k'
- past tense of the verb 'fit' written as 'fitted' (in the meaning of approximating a discrete distribution with a mathematical function)
- pronouncing the word 'determined' as '***mined'
- screwing up the more complex sentences just because simple ones are not cool enough ...

I do feel bad for that and I apologize for screwing up your language. I know I do ...

Still - to my opinion the ENglish language suffers from its apparent simplicity - in other words to reach the level sufficient for basic communication is rather easy, but learning all the necessary exceptions and idioms is not.

So, dear native English speakers here at RFF, bear with us non natives. We do our best as much as we can 🙂
Click to expand...

All good points. My favourite from an Englishman trying to return the compliment, in the process of complaining to a waiter about tardy service: "Ich bin hier seit 10 minuten. Warum bin ich nicht ein wurst?"

Cheers,

R.
 
Perhaps those of you who are from the UK can enlighten me on the word 'aluminium' vs the American 'aluminum'. How did the 'i' get dropped? Or, how did it get shoved in there where it's not supposed to be?!
 
haha

haha

I remember talking to a UK friend and they asked something like if I recycled my "alumininium" cans, and I said "What??" When I finally figured out what they were referring to, I thought they must still use steel cans and the term was very new for them 😛

Vince Lupo said:
Perhaps those of you who are from the UK can enlighten me on the word 'aluminium' vs the American 'aluminum'. How did the 'i' get dropped? Or, how did it get shoved in there where it's not supposed to be?!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom