4 ms·

Filing this away in my memory for future reference. It will be interesting to see if one man can change the direction of a language, even in a small way. Langu

by jobu 12y ago

Filing this away in my memory for future reference. It will be interesting to see if one man can change the direction of a language, even in a small way. Language is a fluid thing, and the phrase "comprised of" seems perfectly natural to me (and probably most people). Once something like that happens it's usually on the way to becoming grammatically correct, regardless of what the current grammar rules state.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
'Correct' because people favor an irregular usage is a weak form of correct. I favor the effort to try and keep the language regular. Following rules makes it easier to learn and teach.
- tankenmate 12y ago
  And you included my pet grammatical peeve; "try and". And so I favour the effort to try to keep the language regular; various English spellings notwithstanding.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Thank you! I'll try to do better. A preposition makes more sense there. Which preposition could be argued. In New Zealand folks say 'he is different to us' instead of 'he is different from us'. One could imagine 'he is different by us' or 'he is different beside us' as correct somewhere. Hm. Is 'try to keep' using 'to' in a prepositional sense? That's a slippery word.
    - pdpi 12y ago
      Pretty sure the 'to' there is a part of an infinitive. Replace it with a gerund and it becomes clear: "Try reading it upside down" vs "Try to read it upside down".
  - mathieuh 12y ago
    I think you should have a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_(sociolinguistics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_(sociolinguistics)
- Sir_Cmpwn 12y ago
  Something that bothers me is the recent (past few hundred years) effort by (English speaking) humans to stop the development of the language. When did it stop being okay for the language to evolve? Isn't part of the beauty of it that it changes, that people use it differently, that words have new meanings?
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    It may be beautiful, but it isn't very helpful. Imagine if computer language terms changed semantics - all the code that is destroyed. Stopping development isn't a blanket thing. Stopping vandals from painting on the train cars isn't 'stopping the development of rail travel'
  - ForHackernews 12y ago
    English is either already, or rapidly becoming, the lingua franca for the entire world. If we allow to it continue evolving without constraint, we may well wind up with numerous mutually unintelligible dialects. This is already true of many other languages like Chinese and Arabic. It would be a shame if people from India could no longer understand people from Australia, even when they were both using English.
    - notahacker 12y ago
      On the other hand, a high proportion of the most vigorously-defended aspects of the English language are at best unnecessary to aid understanding, and at worst arcane irregularities which survive as shibboleths to distinguish speakers by their level of education.
  - bmelton 12y ago
    That assumes that evolution is always good. It isn't. Consider the recent acceptance of the ironic usage of "literally" to mean "figuratively". If it wins, there will no longer be as precise a word that means only "literally", and the English language will have suffered a loss. I am all for the evolution of language where it creates new words, adopts and embraces portmanteaus, or embraces the use of easily intuited non-words into the common parlance, but not every change is an improvement, and where a non-improvement exists, it should be resisted.
- spdustin 12y ago
  Regular is measured by consensus, is it not?
NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
> Once something like that happens it's usually on the way to becoming grammatically correct, I wouldn't call that correct. Just "accepted". Accepting inconsistent grammar makes it more difficult to communicate, not less so.
- _delirium 12y ago
  None of English is correct by that standard: it's a hodge-podge of a language with inconsistencies down to the root. Hence the prescriptivist grammarians of the 19th century who tried to Latinize its grammar, reasoning that English might be improved by grafting a foreign but regular logical structure onto it. But they mainly succeeded in introducing further irregularities, throwing some Latinate bits into the mix.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
    > it's a hodge-podge of a language with inconsistencies down to the root. We fix that one inconsistency at a time. This man is doing his part, despite all the naysayers. I don't really give a shit about things like split infinitives but if you've ever seen a person struggle with speaking on a subject without the vocabulary to do so, you know how much it cripples them. Grammar is the same way. Why do descriptivists think it's ok to force everyone to invent language on the spot when people are in dire need?
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      It's the other way around. Descriptivists think that you can't force people to not invent language on the spot. Rather, they think languages cannot be prevented from changing.
- jordigh 12y ago
  Correct and accepted are the same thing. There's no Platonic perfect language. Whatever the majority thinks is good language is good language. Sometimes a minority with high social status is able to convince the plebes that their language is more correct too, but the plebes will still speak their language as they please whenever the elite minority aren't listening.

by jobu 12y ago

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

'Correct' because people favor an irregular usage is a weak form of correct. I favor the effort to try and keep the language regular. Following rules makes it easier to learn and teach.

tankenmate 12y ago
And you included my pet grammatical peeve; "try and". And so I favour the effort to try to keep the language regular; various English spellings notwithstanding.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Thank you! I'll try to do better. A preposition makes more sense there. Which preposition could be argued. In New Zealand folks say 'he is different to us' instead of 'he is different from us'. One could imagine 'he is different by us' or 'he is different beside us' as correct somewhere. Hm. Is 'try to keep' using 'to' in a prepositional sense? That's a slippery word.
  - pdpi 12y ago
    Pretty sure the 'to' there is a part of an infinitive. Replace it with a gerund and it becomes clear: "Try reading it upside down" vs "Try to read it upside down".
- mathieuh 12y ago
  I think you should have a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_(sociolinguistics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_(sociolinguistics)
Sir_Cmpwn 12y ago
Something that bothers me is the recent (past few hundred years) effort by (English speaking) humans to stop the development of the language. When did it stop being okay for the language to evolve? Isn't part of the beauty of it that it changes, that people use it differently, that words have new meanings?
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  It may be beautiful, but it isn't very helpful. Imagine if computer language terms changed semantics - all the code that is destroyed. Stopping development isn't a blanket thing. Stopping vandals from painting on the train cars isn't 'stopping the development of rail travel'
- ForHackernews 12y ago
  English is either already, or rapidly becoming, the lingua franca for the entire world. If we allow to it continue evolving without constraint, we may well wind up with numerous mutually unintelligible dialects. This is already true of many other languages like Chinese and Arabic. It would be a shame if people from India could no longer understand people from Australia, even when they were both using English.
  - notahacker 12y ago
    On the other hand, a high proportion of the most vigorously-defended aspects of the English language are at best unnecessary to aid understanding, and at worst arcane irregularities which survive as shibboleths to distinguish speakers by their level of education.
- bmelton 12y ago
  That assumes that evolution is always good. It isn't. Consider the recent acceptance of the ironic usage of "literally" to mean "figuratively". If it wins, there will no longer be as precise a word that means only "literally", and the English language will have suffered a loss. I am all for the evolution of language where it creates new words, adopts and embraces portmanteaus, or embraces the use of easily intuited non-words into the common parlance, but not every change is an improvement, and where a non-improvement exists, it should be resisted.
spdustin 12y ago
Regular is measured by consensus, is it not?

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago

> Once something like that happens it's usually on the way to becoming grammatically correct, I wouldn't call that correct. Just "accepted". Accepting inconsistent grammar makes it more difficult to communicate, not less so.

_delirium 12y ago
None of English is correct by that standard: it's a hodge-podge of a language with inconsistencies down to the root. Hence the prescriptivist grammarians of the 19th century who tried to Latinize its grammar, reasoning that English might be improved by grafting a foreign but regular logical structure onto it. But they mainly succeeded in introducing further irregularities, throwing some Latinate bits into the mix.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
  > it's a hodge-podge of a language with inconsistencies down to the root. We fix that one inconsistency at a time. This man is doing his part, despite all the naysayers. I don't really give a shit about things like split infinitives but if you've ever seen a person struggle with speaking on a subject without the vocabulary to do so, you know how much it cripples them. Grammar is the same way. Why do descriptivists think it's ok to force everyone to invent language on the spot when people are in dire need?
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    It's the other way around. Descriptivists think that you can't force people to not invent language on the spot. Rather, they think languages cannot be prevented from changing.
jordigh 12y ago
Correct and accepted are the same thing. There's no Platonic perfect language. Whatever the majority thinks is good language is good language. Sometimes a minority with high social status is able to convince the plebes that their language is more correct too, but the plebes will still speak their language as they please whenever the elite minority aren't listening.