4 ms·

Why couldn't people use this more often?

epochwolf 16y ago
Because english isn't as standardized as we would like to think. The written and spoken forms are not a one to one translation. Written english could almost be classify as a seperate language that happens to share words and similar syntax. At least the written version has a modest level of standardization. The spoken language is very fragmented.
- Qz 16y ago
  From a linguistics standpoint, all paired written and spoken versions of languages are considered separate languages.
- Mithrandir 16y ago
  I wasn't referring to spoken language. I meant when people try to literally "write like they speak" and end up sounding ridiculous because, as you said, written English could almost be another language.
  - hellrich 16y ago
    Several, don't forget dialects.
- samatman 16y ago
  "at least the written version has a modest level of standardization" O rly? srsly, tho, there are lotz of ways English is writ, la? thks cellphones! lol
jamesaguilar 16y ago
Because 99% of the time English will not respond with a compile or runtime error when your input to it is slightly malformed.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
elblanco 16y ago
Because there is no such thing as correct English.
- tygorius 16y ago
  OK, so what is the politically correct term for the use of, say, a double negative in English? The preferred euphemism used to be "non-standard", which still leaves the problem of defining "standard" English.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    We need to keep adding levels of euphemism, until it's euphemisms all the way down. Only then will the egos of half-wits be completely safe.
  - elblanco 16y ago
    Right, I like to think that there are milieus of English with which knowledge and conformance can be useful. Formal writing for example. But to say that the rules of formal writing should be extended to all domains is akin to saying that all food should be stir-fried. Just like there is no such thing as standard cooking, there is no such thing as standard English.

Because english isn't as standardized as we would like to think. The written and spoken forms are not a one to one translation. Written english could almost be classify as a seperate language that happens to share words and similar syntax. At least the written version has a modest level of standardization. The spoken language is very fragmented.

Qz 16y ago
From a linguistics standpoint, all paired written and spoken versions of languages are considered separate languages.
Mithrandir 16y ago
I wasn't referring to spoken language. I meant when people try to literally "write like they speak" and end up sounding ridiculous because, as you said, written English could almost be another language.
- hellrich 16y ago
  Several, don't forget dialects.
samatman 16y ago
"at least the written version has a modest level of standardization" O rly? srsly, tho, there are lotz of ways English is writ, la? thks cellphones! lol

jamesaguilar 16y ago

Because 99% of the time English will not respond with a compile or runtime error when your input to it is slightly malformed.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

elblanco 16y ago

Because there is no such thing as correct English.

tygorius 16y ago
OK, so what is the politically correct term for the use of, say, a double negative in English? The preferred euphemism used to be "non-standard", which still leaves the problem of defining "standard" English.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  We need to keep adding levels of euphemism, until it's euphemisms all the way down. Only then will the egos of half-wits be completely safe.
- elblanco 16y ago
  Right, I like to think that there are milieus of English with which knowledge and conformance can be useful. Formal writing for example. But to say that the rules of formal writing should be extended to all domains is akin to saying that all food should be stir-fried. Just like there is no such thing as standard cooking, there is no such thing as standard English.