Modern languages in decline
#92
BE Enthusiast





Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 530
From: Catalonia, Spain











[QUOTE=jimenato;10233595]
That's very clever - isn't language wonderful, which is why it's a shame if the teaching of modern languages is in decline.
I'm mortified to see that I misspelt rein as reign.
I'm mortified to see that I misspelt rein as reign.
#93
That's certainly true - look at Shakespeare. He didn't even spell his name the same way all the time.
However, (which I'm told is a word that should never be used to start a sentence) surely the most important point is to be understood. It's all too easy to be ambiguous when you don't use correct punctuation.
There was a very funny book on the subject a few years ago called "Eats shoots and leaves." This can either mean a gunman or a panda depending on whether you use a comma or not.
Shakespeare's "mistakes" didn't impoverish or reduce the language, whereas simply not knowing anything else does.
In my humble opinion, of course.
#94
Do people think the rules of grammar should be adapted to follow to popular usage, or that usage should follow the rules?
There is no Real Academia for English, like there is for French and Spanish, so who should make those rules?
There is no Real Academia for English, like there is for French and Spanish, so who should make those rules?
#95
[QUOTE=Rambling Rose;10233696]
Lazy sods like myself have a good excuse.
I occasionally dictate instead of typing on the keyboard, so I can blame the limitations of modern technology for not being fully aware of which sense of a particular word I meant.
I occasionally dictate instead of typing on the keyboard, so I can blame the limitations of modern technology for not being fully aware of which sense of a particular word I meant.
#96
The English language is a living language and every year new words get entered into the OED.
I'm not sure what the "official" source of correct Grammar is these days. Possibly Fowler's - A Dictionary of Modern English Usage or possibly The Oxford English Grammar - but I am not sure how either of these react to colloquial changes in modern grammar.
#97
BE Enthusiast





Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 530
From: Catalonia, Spain











Being understood is certainly important, but it's often possible to be understood even though a bit of prose is ugly, poorly constructed, and impoverished in vocabulary. And I think that's what annoys me most about poor language skills, be it a matter of grammar or vocabulary - they impoverish the beauty and power of a language and greatly reduce the effect one can have with it. It is part of the unfairness of receiving a poor education if it leaves people unable to express themselves well and fully. Shakespeare didn't have this trouble, obviously, even though grammatical rules were clearly different in his time. On the other hand, many people now forming a plural with an apostrophe do.
Shakespeare's "mistakes" didn't impoverish or reduce the language, whereas simply not knowing anything else does.
In my humble opinion, of course.
Shakespeare's "mistakes" didn't impoverish or reduce the language, whereas simply not knowing anything else does.
In my humble opinion, of course.
#99
Banned










Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,824
From: Living in a good place











The higher up you are the less you need grammar and spelling as long as you get someone else to redo everything.
I had a personal e-mail from someone who has just paid £2 million for a golf course, one bit said "I won't loose site of it"

I had a personal e-mail from someone who has just paid £2 million for a golf course, one bit said "I won't loose site of it"
#100
Lost in BE Cyberspace










Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,749











The irony of status anxiety is you only worry about those immediately above and below you. Meaning that the salt of the earth working class and the upper class are normally much more confident and pleasant people

As for the rich guy with "loose", he's probably far too busy to check whether he spelt it properly, and too rich (or satisfied) to care!
#101
What I dislike is the use of "there" when it should be "their" and "your" instead of "you're". However the use of the word "of" where is should be "have", really gets to me for some reason!!!
For example "could of", "should of" etc.
How did that come about? Is this poor spelling or just poor education?
For example "could of", "should of" etc.
How did that come about? Is this poor spelling or just poor education?
#102
What I dislike is the use of "there" when it should be "their" and "your" instead of "you're". However the use of the word "of" where is should be "have", really gets to me for some reason!!!
For example "could of", "should of" etc.
How did that come about? Is this poor spelling or just poor education?
For example "could of", "should of" etc.
How did that come about? Is this poor spelling or just poor education?
#103
What I dislike is the use of "there" when it should be "their" and "your" instead of "you're". However the use of the word "of" where is should be "have", really gets to me for some reason!!!
For example "could of", "should of" etc.
How did that come about? Is this poor spelling or just poor education?
For example "could of", "should of" etc.
How did that come about? Is this poor spelling or just poor education?

totally agree

it's nothing to do with spelling - it's just poor education
#104
Lost in BE Cyberspace










Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,426
From: Velez-Malaga











What I dislike is the use of "there" when it should be "their" and "your" instead of "you're". However the use of the word "of" where is should be "have", really gets to me for some reason!!!
For example "could of", "should of" etc.
How did that come about? Is this poor spelling or just poor education?
For example "could of", "should of" etc.
How did that come about? Is this poor spelling or just poor education?



