I was being broad, meaning those words along with filler words and the over used words like ‘cool’, ‘dude/mate/bro’, ‘like’, ‘whatever’ and to again reference Dead poets ‘very’. Words that you can use without thinking what to say. That have such broad meaning to you you can use them in completely contrary roles and don’t supply context normally.
So is evolutionary pressure. Ban the words and you force the kids to invent new terms to divert and to evolve. Killing off dead terms (like YOLO hopefully) is how evolution of language works as much as accepting common usage an putting it into the formal language.
Only new language if it meets mass adoption and comes to some firm defined meaning such that it achieves its place in the formal language. I agree the kids should be allowed the language they want in their own time but this is a tool for the school to teach them exactly how to use correct language for those other settings. I don’t think the ban should be instituted outside of those settings that deserve it (any interaction with staff or guests etc. and lesson time) but the sign doesn’t actually provide any evidence that that isn’t exactly how the teachers treat it.
Aye, and give two people who speak a common language five minutes together, and they’ll understand each other fine. No matter where they’re from. Stop fucking showing off, man.
That is possibly the most flattering thing you could have said, thank you Shane.
Beg to differ, having worked with Glaswegians and Valleys boys and studied with Brummies and Gogs. But they find a way eventually, mostly through using proper English, which is exactly my point as to why it is necessary. Showing off? If it is about my accent it is quite the opposite, my accent is dull and flat, I sound like a posh wanker to most and like a try hard commoner in ‘polite’ circles. If not, um, sorry, I meant no offence, not entirely sure what I did wrong.
See how I lapsed into the vernacular? (that particular flip works even better verbally 
) Just being able to speak ‘well’, and not be able to snap an accent on, should the situation require it, seems like a social deficit, not an advantage to me, not that one of those forms should be considered ‘bad’, and suppressed. And howay, you were showing off. I disagree re: communication. Everyone finds a way. a few months somewhere is enough to pick up an accent and some new vocabulary. Whether you notice it or not.
1 Like
All languages are transient, with meaning and context known only to a small localised geographical and financial social set. All dialects are just like all languages, only they tend to be known to smaller groups. (Not always, of course: it depends on social, political, and historical factors, i.e. how big your country happens to be and what has happened there. Some languages are known by fewer people than some dialects.) Standard English is one such dialect.
[quote=“theograce, post:109, topic:12164, full:true”]
But the instant a word devolves to have thirty different and perhaps conflicting meanings only determinable by context then the English language has just lost a word of worth. [/quote]
Again, this is how words work. I wrote a PhD on the meaning of modal verbs (might, may, could, can, will, etc.). So did lots of other people. One thing we all agreed on (because we looked at how words work, instead of how we thought they ought to) is that modal verbs have an enormous range of readings which are different and conflicting and only determinable by context. “He must run a lot.” Does “must” mean he is required to run a lot, or it is a necessary assumption that he does run a lot? “He may not be there.” Does that mean he isn’t allowed to be there, or it is possible that he isn’t there? “I can swim now.” Does that mean I am now allowed to swim, or now capable of swimming? The answer is, you don’t know, because there is no context to determine which of these meanings (or other available meanings) is the relevant one. These different, context-dependent meanings are seen in pretty much all languages, not just English.
It isn’t just modals. “Big.” What does that mean? It depends. A big elephant and a big mouse probably aren’t the same size. A big smoker may well be small. “Beautiful.” A beautiful dancer might not be too good-looking, but they can’t half dance well.
“Draw.” I’m not even going to list the meanings. But there’s a lot of them.
You maintain language by using it. Everyone (and I don’t mean most people: I mean everyone) uses slang, filler words, ambiguous words and constructions (they don’t have a choice), incomplete sentences when they speak, and different registers depending on who they’re talking to. If one of the reasons for using a different register is to define a social subgroup, that’s a valid (and creative) use of language, and everyone can switch to a different register if they perceive a need. Sometimes people might benefit from an indication that the need has arisen, and that’s fine too - that would be teaching. Telling them not to use certain words isn’t.
6 Likes
Incidentally I can’t find any corroboration for the claim that “geek” referred to circus glass eaters. I can find corroboration for the claim that “geek” referred to performers who would chase chickens and bite their heads off (humiliating I would think). Could you provide a cite for the glass eating claim?
1 Like
Gin an wor kid.
1 Like
How I felt reading your start.
“Everyday use of some forms of slang seem to me to require rather more cleverness and creativity than “proper” language.”
Yet more to the good start
Dealt with in the straw man points, I never said slang should be abolished nor that it should not be allowed to become part of language, you made that argument up yourself to discredit it.
As much as I love your wiki reference I shall stick to the definition I gave from OED and use the difference in definitions to point out how firm definitions matter in the meaning of a word.
Oops, again contradicting the quote I have from you above. Ooo and again.
Really, I see several arguments not founded on claims of observations or evidence unprovided and a list of sources to credit it.
Actually the list of criteria I gave were the answer to your question. The reason a strict defined language with maintained definitions is superior to people using whatever meanings suit their whim and will. But if you’d care to clarify the point by answering the advantages to your system or clarifying how your system is any different from the interpretation I have given instead of attacking my style.
In what way? We are talking empirically as far as the system goes, but if you are talking about content then the definitions for modern English renew annually with the release of new dictionaries. Aside from some poorly managed patronising does this actually serve a purpose? Your claim makes no sense to me as it is and actually only serves to show how invalid your argument is, if you mean that English is more like Victorian than Georgian language then yes it is, in the same way it is more like the English of 2013 than 2012. Or were you tring to make some other point?
Straw men and a claim I have responded to several times already. The simple fact is that if I call someone a geek it could mean anything from a huge range of possibilities, if I call them a nerd the exact same meanings are just as valid. Yet some people are insulted by one and not the other. Using a word to mean something other than its intended use and it evolving that use does no harm, unless it means that two similar words become the same and so the fine detail is lost. It was the case that geek meant one type of what geek now means and nerd the other (with dweeb and swot often covering the remainder) now an explanation or firm context is needed. If people were educated properly on using words and corrected when calling someone a geek when they mean nerd then these words would retain independant meaning and so have use and function in being two words.
Currently the use of the word is meaningless in that you have to explain the meaning also and that as both words are identical one need not exist. Previously they served a useful function in ease of establishing which a person was. The fact that they are commonly used does nothing to discredit the meaningless of having the two words meaning the same thing. The number of rants/infographics/complaints/corrections as to what the two mean does. The fact that the loss of difference leads to insult and loss of clarity does.
You are joking right? Newspeak is a language of control and manipulation, organising thought into rigid uncreative patterns. Orwell uses it to limit free thought, meanwhile the working class (Proles) retain old thought and creative independence. Metaphors are not dependant on slang. I agree Orwell believed that a wholly hands off approach to language was best for freedom of creativity, but he also believed that dropping range and reducing language into unconscious response was the best way to limit creativity. Orwell would have a field day with ‘ain’t’ and ‘like’ and ‘mate’ and ‘alright’. However in a world where they have both the freedom to use their own vernacular (at home and in free time) and have the ability to speak properly with bosses or people from different parts of the country or anyone else, they have the best chance for creativity and success.
I deleted the comment to which you are replying because I realized we’re both just getting bugs up our arses (did I say that right?) and apparently misinterpreting everything the other says.
Read Halbert White’s comment to you above. That’s about all I have to say to you. It’s simply not worth the time or energy to hash out your myriad misinterpretations of my argument.
One thing, though.
You quote me saying this:
“Everyday use of some forms of slang seem to me to require rather more cleverness and creativity than “proper” language.”
Emphasis added. If that’s a claim that all use of slang ever is creative then I’m a duck. The “contradictions” you mention are all in your head.
2 Likes
I’m bigpicturing this for a mo. Kids nowadays, they’re growing up in a world that’s changing faster than a minister caught on the job in a hotel. The requirement for standard English, or more classically, Received Pronunciation (RP), is evaporating.
My parents and their siblings are very RP. I’m not. I have a funny accent, no-one, let alone me, can identify it with any precision. Linguists get close, but no cigar. I grew up in three countries.
As time goes on, and technologies like additive manufacturing, robotics and software development re-distribute the capability to generate capital from the capital-owning class to a much broader base, there is a going to be a parallel diminishing in the requirement to be standard. Potentially to the point where nothing need be standard at all.
Local entrepreneurs might corner a local market in, say, bike frames, and then get into export by viral association and marketing. PR interfaces will take care of the language barriers.
There’s a killing to be made in automating lawyers. A fucking killing. Automate them 50%, and anyone with any level of language, who can simply understand what the law is trying to do, can be a lawyer. Doctors - hello technology! Goodbye salary!
One pathway might be a mass of highly localized patois, with neighbouring linguistic regions accomodating minor adjustments - much like all the people from the USA put up with my added 'u’s in colour, my occasional omission to correct “-ise” to “-ize”, but everyone gets what I mean.
And as Aldous Huxley famously pointed out, humans are not social animals. We socialize to the extent we need to in order to fulfill our needs and wants, but no more.
So in terms of societal development, limiting people’s vocabulary isn’t just wrong - it’s wonky, anachronistic, musty-smelling, and a sorry echo of a long-forgotten Victorian framework for education.
2 Likes
That is well dench.
I got a little into linguistics in my undergrad, studying French, and a bit more with NLP. It’s fascinating, and powerful - especially the internal dialogue that accompanies the usage of the modal verbs. Someone who responds angrily to “you should do that” might respond harmoniously to “you can do that [very same thing]”, and actually do it.
I agree with the latter and realise I did a poor job arguing my pint. Which was that a word with a meaning that is precise and useful becomes worthless as a word when it and another word converge to cover the exact same broad meaning.
I realise the importance of words fitting such roles in English, it is the progression of a pair of words with nuanced meaning to a pair of words that mean the same thing which requires context to mean anything that reduces them to meaningless. From a creative standpoint words like big comfort and make for easy writing not creative writing, however they still serve great purpose (as does great) but what word is there that conveys what geek once did and what function save variety is served by having nerd mean the same thing? Confusion and insult abound by the loss of function of these words and now two words cover a range. This goes to the concept of the many Arabian words for love or the (somewhat debunked) many Eskimo words for snow. We used to have 4 words for specific types of geek, now we have 3 words that mean geek with no difference between them and one word which covers the pejorative meaning only.
As to the transient nature of language, I accept and support this, however that doesn’t mean that English as a whole should change because 5 guys in the Midlands use a new word. We have a formalised form of English that largely separates from the local variants and forms a common tongue across Britain and more or less between all English speaking nations. This far exceeds the context you give. Standard English is not a dialect in the same sense that Yorkshire English is a dialect.
I am not going to look as it is a redundant point and not one I care about, they were carnies famous for eating all manner of things. I know I saw an example that was a glass eater but don’t remember what it was featured in (I think it may have been older than geek as we know it today and referring to a court fool). But that is the best of my recall. The point was in the outlandish eating. While the most famous ate fearsome or grim things others ate bizarre things (I definately recall one who ate bowls of nails to astonish audiences).
We are. (yes, spot on)
Or to defend the myriad of false claims you have made about mine it seems.
I never said every form of slang had to. I asked for the evidence that it was common (as you claim it is more common than in regular language) and the everyday part. Neither of which did you ever provide evidence for despite demanding evidence in three posts and being provided with a list of sources from myself. The only references you gave were that some creative people can use these for creative ends in exceptional circumstances. Now your use of the word some also refers to the word forms not use which means you were talking about some forms almost always being more creative. I never claimed that you said all slang is always more creative, just that you never provided even the slightest back-up for your claim that ANY everyday use of slang is more creative.
The contradictions I mentioned are not what you are claiming I said.
But that is why you ended the chat (and then insisted on one last effort to correct me, which I have now reciprocated. I am calling it a day here, respond however you wish)
They don’t mean the same things. As is pointed out by the full definition of each from the very same OED you cherry-picked your definitions from, they can, in a narrow sense, be synonymous, but, they are two different words with two different meanings. You’re arguing some very small points, here.
Of course we have standardised forms of English. Lots of them. Academic English is very different from legal English, is very different from formal English, is very different to me being Geordie as fuck for effect. They are, however, all English, and all equally valid given context. There is no Perfect Form, not anywhere, certainly not yours.
2 Likes
I’m the opposite of a track star, but when my cousin and I were 12, we made up an awesome three-legged racing team. I was much bigger than average, he was small enough that I could pick him up. This let us go quite fast as a team, but slower than either of us individually. Here’s where your analogy break down though. Three-legged racing isn’t about the individuals, it’s about cooperation and coordination. It’s about learning to work as a team. Figuring out how to work with people of different skill levels is important. Because in the work world, they’re going to run into a variety of people (assuming there are any jobs for them).
3 Likes
Well, there is a patriotic sentiment that there is no room for advancement from PotUFSGA. It might be a dead-end job, too, though I understand they often go on to a career of speaking engagements.
