drop grammar and rules?

conchubhar1

is it time that all grammar in english be dropped or simplified

it is growing as a world language, second but still.



the one reason i love and use english as much as irish (despite neccessity) is how malleable it is - im aware you can do these with nearly all langauges but in english it is just accepted as the meaning is well recognised by most

for example you can take an noun mash it in with another word and make it into a verb or whatever and your meaning will be understood

thoughts?

FlutterinBantam

No, never, no way.!!!

It would just end up as a "wanker's charter" then Con.

English properly spoken and written, is a great way of finding out what type of person,and publication, to avoid.

Look at the "Redtops" the way they have bastardised the language and given the two fingers to society.

Dumbing things down to accommodate the lowest denominator is not the way to go.If some people are too lazy to use proper grammar and spelling and make no attempt at punctuation,well let them stew in their own juice.

lazy sods!!





rant over

conchubhar1

communication is the point of language

if you cant tell what type of person or publication is, well thats laziness on your part

it is not dumbing it down - it is making it more accessible

more flexibility....

Some people are lazy, therefore it's not accessible?
The grammar and rules are there so we can all understand each other. Believe it or not, some people sounding/typing like monkeys on coke are NOT necessarily understandable to everyone else.

You're right. Communication IS the point of language. Glad we're agreed.

Fluffybums

Grammer (loose as it is in English) and punctuation make sense of the words. They can add subelty to the language. If you wan to get rid of them then why bother with spelling - at some point when all the rules are gone none of would understand each other because we would all have our own personal language.

As it is English evolves (compare Shakespearing English to modern English) which is its strength.
The flexibility of the spoken language makes it accessible to non-native speakers.

pickarooney

the one reason i love and use english as much as irish (despite neccessity) is how malleable it is - im aware you can do these with nearly all langauges but in english it is just accepted as the meaning is well recognised by most

This is a prime example of someone just throwing words together and making no sense.
"Do these" has no referent in the sentence so it's impossible to know what you're trying to say. Likewise "it is just accepted" - what is, and by whom?

ColmDawson

pickarooney wrote: »

This is a prime example of someone just throwing words together and making no sense.
"Do these" has no referent in the sentence so it's impossible to know what you're trying to say. Likewise "it is just accepted" - what is, and by whom?

I know you're trying to make a point, but it certainly is possible to understand what he was saying.

conchubhar1

ColmDawson wrote: »

I know you're trying to make a point, but it certainly is possible to understand what he was saying.

in fact, my wording was chosen to make that point

conchubhar1

pickarooney wrote: »

Likewise "it is just accepted" - what is, and by whom?

by people who just get on with it once they grasp the meaning of what people say.

what = sentences which the meaning is there but may not be fully correct english (what this is is debateable as there is no body governing it).

who = see above the ''what'' point.

Soulja boy

removing punctuation from forum posts can create a stream of consciousness flow while scrolling through a thread

however there are very few other situations where this applies

conchubhar1

punctution is important obviously, as it distinguished where words start and end as with sentences and paragraphs. grammar not so much, spelling is in the middle once the meaning stays it is grand - except for official purposes that would look bad if it was spelt wrong etc..

FlutterinBantam

Looks we are practicing what we preach here.

conchubhar1

Oh you get the point now.


Now, do you want to make any actual points?

FlutterinBantam

See post #2 Conch.

Personally I class myself as an erudite incisive kind of person, I don't keep labouring points ad infinitum(Latin phrase= to infinity, or endlessy)

Yoda

If one has low standards one gets what one deserves.

I don't think that excuses should be made for carelessness. It is never "too much trouble" to use capital letters or apostrophes, or to go back and correct a misspelling when one writes a posting.

English could use a measure of spelling reform. I like Axel Wijk's Regularized English. But "dropping grammar" makes no sense.

spacetweek

conchubhar1 wrote: »

is it time that all grammar in english be dropped or simplified

it is growing as a world language, second but still.

Don't mix up malleability and understandability.

Saying something like "I'll Fed-Ex you the package" is an example of "verbing a noun". That's malleability - English is a language with a great capacity for invention and playfulness.

Dropping grammar altogether would result in stuff like "This sentence no verb". You've lost understandability.

The point of grammar and spelling is to improve understandability in spoken and written language. It's not there for no reason. It's essential.

For example, look at txtspk. It's horrific. No understandability whatsoever.

Having said that, I am strongly in favour of spelling reform in English, as we currently have no or poorly enforced rules.

Yoda

Not really true to say we have "no rules". "Poorly enforced" is a question of the education system.

Axel Wijk proposed to regularize English, not to toss out all its conventions. For instance, there's nothing wrong with the silent -e, which in general is quite regular in its application. Mat, mate. Hat, hate. Sit, site. Cap, cape. Wijk proposed to extend its use, so one would write Foot, shoote. He'd extend the conventions for derivatives, too: matted, mated; hatter, hater; sitting, siting; capping, caped; footting, shooting.

Wijk does not abandon -igh as in night because it's always pronounced that way. He did get rid of some examples of -ough. I forget which ones he kept. I think he kept thought, bought, and got rid of tough, though, bough.

Wijk's was a very well-thought out scheme. It doesn't change the orthography so much that would cause difficulty of access to old literature. It just regularizes useful conventions already present in our orthography.

Wijk hoped that the foreigners of the world (who must learn English) would implement the reform, as they would not necessarily have the attachment to current orthography that native speakers do.

conchubhar1

spacetweek wrote: »

Dropping grammar altogether would result in stuff like "This sentence no verb". You've lost understandability.

The point of grammar and spelling is to improve understandability in spoken and written language. It's not there for no reason. It's essential.

For example, look at txtspk. It's horrific. No understandability whatsoever.

Having said that, I am strongly in favour of spelling reform in English, as we currently have no or poorly enforced rules.

no one would realisticly write that sentence, mute point.

i understand text speak, generaly you shorten words and/or take out vowels

the language should be simplified - it is slowly becoming a second language to a lot more people from every country

conchubhar1

good post yoda

i am reminded of this poem -

http://pauillac.inria.fr/~xleroy/stuff/english-pronunciation.html

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

conchubhar1

no - that would be pointless ^

FlutterinBantam

conchubhar1 wrote: »

no one would realisticly write that sentence, mute point.

i understand text speak, generaly you shorten words and/or take out vowels

the language should be simplified - it is slowly becoming a second language to a lot more people from every country

Conch...please forgive me for exposing the definitive argument to your suggestion

It's moot point.

That's what happens when people ignore spelling and grammar and just shunt out any auld stuff which sounds near enough.

I see that on Boards.ie where people who take others to task for lack of technical skills let themselves down with a clanger like yours.

Conch,it's experience which counts,deep down learning,ability to construct sentences and articulate in a clear concise and erudite way.

That what counts Conch,with people like me, I can see the chancers and harlequins from miles off.

Just letting you know.

conchubhar1

well bant im just saying i am going to rabble on and every so often make another sentence and use bant again because i cant be arsed to right conchubhar1 - but wont shorten sentences or words, when the meaning is clear as you understood

''right'' - lets see if you get why i used that spelling this time because leaving it to you to figure out was obviously asking 2 much

conchubhar1

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

That what counts Conch,with people like me, I can see the chancers and harlequins from miles off.

Just letting you know.

if that could be any more pretentious

''people like me'' = http://www.bbc.co.uk/gloucestershire/content/images/2007/11/24/gloucester_harlequins_12_400x300.jpg ?

conchubhar1

people are forgetting the history of english it has adapted so well in the past

imagine its possibilties as a real global language spoke by most if it took some reforms to be simpler like chinese and others yet still have a very very large vocab if one so wishes, my dear sir...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FlutterinBantam

conchubhar1 wrote: »

if that could be any more pretentious

''people like me'' = http://www.bbc.co.uk/gloucestershire/content/images/2007/11/24/gloucester_harlequins_12_400x300.jpg ?

Conchubhar1 I am not trying to annoy you or anything near it, but when people say language rules should be dropped,I always feel that they are trying to cover up some deficiency in their own skills.

Not in any way referring to anyone,you are obviously interested in language as you post here and in gaeilge,but to me language does evolve slowly to take account of changing times, as does most things.

I happen to think that grammar and rules are important and make no apology for that stance.

What always puzzles me on this site is that people "attack" others in a racial, ageist,ethnic,stereotypical way,(including myself;)and get away with it,but someone who draws attention to appalling grammar and basic spelling mistakes is a pariah !!!

Work that one out.

conchubhar1

well i am more than able to write in proper english - but this is a forum and its easier and quicker to not
(in fact i did in english in colege for two weeks, reading was too vast to cover along with history and i had no real interest in the topics)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FlutterinBantam

Indeed.

Imagine if you received a letter from a firm which you wished to do business with,which was riddled with grammatical and spelling errors,would you be keen to continue the business interest.?

I certainly would not.

pickarooney

conchubhar1 wrote: »

well i am more than able to write in proper english - but this is a forum and its easier and quicker to not
(in fact i did in english in colege for two weeks, reading was too vast to cover along with history and i had no real interest in the topics)

Even your sig is contradicting itself now... why would you want people to correct something if it can't, by (your own) definition, be wrong?