WTF english and false synonyms

[WolfEyes]

Yes. The phrase "all of you" has a clear definition. Just "you" has one as well. The word "y'all" is pure laziness (and is fingernails on a chalkboard to those of us from the north) however at least can be parsed to "all of you" (even though it is sometimes used for a singular person). The phrase "all y'all" is just a language obscenity.

Except it doesn't translate to "all of you". It translates to "you all". lol

/me runs

 

[Kara Spengler]

Yes! "Do no harm" is an ethical commandment that a whole bunch of people can earnestly agree to follow - but what exactly counts as "harm" is determined by each individual's morals.

Yes, and as you pointed out earlier you can have multiple people with the same definition. Either by chance or as a planned group. Then you get the REAL outliers, I am sure someone out there defines 'do no harm' as 'do not paint everything green'.

Interestingly, defining the difference between ethics and morals took more work than between spirituality and religion. Thanks for the personal/impersonal suggestion! Our sloppiness with language does not help with discussions where the difference is pretty key, since first you have to make sure everyone has a common understanding of how the terms are being used.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

What determines if a usage is "correct"?

The problem with you and your teachers is that you are prescriptivists. You believe in an abstract, "correct" version of language. I'm inclined to be a descriptivist, in that I believe that the role of language analysis and instruction is to acknowledge how people actually use language.

Again, if a large number of people regularly use and understand the phrase (and make distinctions between "y'all" and "all y'all") who has the authority to say that is wrong? It is functioning as language.

 

[Lianne Marten]

English sucks and never makes any sense. I'm glad I learned it as a native speaker because holy crap I feel sorry for anyone trying to learn it as an adult.

 

[WolfEyes]

What determines if a usage is "correct"?

The problem with you and your teachers is that you are prescriptivists. You believe in an abstract, "correct" version of language. I'm inclined to be a descriptivist, in that I believe that believe that the role of language analysis and instruction is to acknowledge how people actually use language.

Again, if a large number of people regularly use and understand the phrase (and make distinctions between "y'all" and "all y'all") who has the authority to say that is wrong? It is functioning as language.

My teachers may have been but I am definitely not. The US doesn't even have an official language.

But to answer your question so you stop repeating it

So who makes the grammar rules? In America, the grammar patterns of rich white men are the basis of Standard American English, Epstein says. Nobody will go to jail for ignoring grammar rules. But they will have difficulty getting into the best schools and finding good jobs.

Who Makes Grammar Rules?

I'm not gonna argue with Adam Brock.

 

[Kara Spengler]

What determines if a usage is "correct"?

The problem with you and your teachers is that you are prescriptivists. You believe in an abstract, "correct" version of language. I'm inclined to be a descriptivist, in that I believe that the role of language analysis and instruction is to acknowledge how people actually use language.

Again, if a large number of people regularly use and understand the phrase (and make distinctions between "y'all" and "all y'all") who has the authority to say that is wrong? It is functioning as language.

The problem is the purpose of a language, any language, is to communicate ideas. If instead you are using it to communicate definitions of relatively common words in it before you can even use it to communicate about the ideas the language needs a bit of a fix. Taking two words that are related but not the same and instead just saying 'these two things mean the same' is tossing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[Kara Spengler]

English sucks and never makes any sense. I'm glad I learned it as a native speaker because holy crap I feel sorry for anyone trying to learn it as an adult.

Yeah, when you start studying other languages you start seeing how messed up english is. Then when you look at how languages evolved from other ones you see why (for example, people debating if english is germanic or romantic, it is not a tough question). The irony is I am terrible at remembering other lexicons in non-english languages so even though I know the structures I have no idea how to carry on a conversation.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

I might (Ph.D. in Heritage Studies from Arkansas State University), but in fact he is not saying what you imply he is saying. Note how your quote makes a slight of hand and substitutes "patterns" for "rules." And patterns of language do mark region, race, and class. There is discrimination based on assumptions created by your language use, but that is not the same as setting the kind of inflexible "rules" that you seem to indicate exist. Reading the entire page, he is coming down on the side of descriptivists by examining the historical contingency of grammar and usage.

So if you hold that absolute rules exist, you ARE arguing with Adam Brock.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

The problem is the purpose of a language, any language, is to communicate ideas. If instead you are using it to communicate definitions of relatively common words in it before you can even use it to communicate about the ideas the language needs a bit of a fix. Taking two words that are related but not the same and instead just saying 'these two things mean the same' is tossing out the baby with the bathwater.

That is absolutely NOT what I am saying. I am saying that in some regional dialects of English, "y'all" and "all y'all" are in everyday usage. You don't need to describe these terms in Southern English, as they are already understood by those speakers. If you try using them in a different region, then they will not necessarily be understood (or they may be misunderstood as a close sounding phrase in the other dialect). But that's the beauty of English: there are lots of Englishes all over the world. I love the saying "America and England are two countries divided by a common language." That's pretty much how messy (and adaptable) English is.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

I believe there's a difference between evolution of language - like neologisms or even brand new definitions of existing words (which happens) - and incorrect usage of existing things.

Like, the thing people brought up with "you're" and "your". Using one when you should use the other isn't an evolution or a vernacular thing, it's just a mistake.

 

[NiranV Dean]

You're weird.

Now it's off to you to find out whether i meant the last poster or everyone and whether everyone means all people on this forum or just this conversation group. I bet my life you'll never find out.

 

[Kara Spengler]

That is absolutely NOT what I am saying. I am saying that in some regional dialects of English, "y'all" and "all y'all" are in everyday usage. You don't need to describe these terms in Southern English, as they are already understood by those speakers. If you try using them in a different region, then they will not necessarily be understood (or they may be misunderstood as a close sounding phrase in the other dialect). But that's the beauty of English: there are lots of Englishes all over the world. I love the saying "America and England are two countries divided by a common language." That's pretty much how messy (and adaptable) English is.

Messy, yes, but adaptable? Eww.

I once designed a language for fun (yes, this is how I define fun). While the words (well, 2 byte symbols if you want to be accurate) did have starting definitions that was only to make things shortened for communication. At the beginning of any conversation practically any word could be redefined. That is what I would call flexible.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

You're weird.

Now it's off to you to find out whether i meant the last poster or everyone and whether everyone means all people on this forum or just this conversation group. I bet my life you'll never find out.

No, if the writer thinks something she or he has written is ambiguous, it's up to the writer to correct the ambiguity if he or she doesn't intend it. Otherwise the writer can hardly complain if people do misinterpret things.

We use language to communicate meanings, after all. If the language we choose is ambiguous when we don't intend it to be, that's our problem, not the reader's.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

This thread deserves its own theme song, so here we go:

 

[NiranV Dean]

No, if the writer thinks something she or he has written is ambiguous, it's up to the writer to correct the ambiguity if he or she doesn't intend it. Otherwise the writer can hardly complain if people do misinterpret things.

We use language to communicate meanings, after all. If the language we choose is ambiguous when we don't intend it to be, that's our problem, not the reader's.

But that's the point. It's ambiguous on purpose.

The trick here is you can't tell what i mean because technically i don't mean anything.... Whenever someone says that i meant X i can simply say no i meant Y. That is until i run out of options of course.

So colour me impressed for not falling for that one.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

You're weird.

Now it's off to you to find out whether i meant the last poster or everyone and whether everyone means all people on this forum or just this conversation group. I bet my life you'll never find out.

It's true either way, so kind of a moot point. ^^

 

[Kara Spengler]

No, if the writer thinks something she or he has written is ambiguous, it's up to the writer to correct the ambiguity if he or she doesn't intend it. Otherwise the writer can hardly complain if people do misinterpret things.

We use language to communicate meanings, after all. If the language we choose is ambiguous when we don't intend it to be, that's our problem, not the reader's.

The problem is the language is usually established before a conversation. Yes, both people might spontaneously realize a concept is best expressed in, say, French, but if they do not both know French that does not help them very much. The problem is not that a concept does not fit within a language structure. For the cases that have been brought up they do, they just needed clarification. Rather the problem is that the evolution of the language rounded off the corners and started making things be synonyms where they should not be.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

English can be incredibly precise (I teach Technical Communication), especially formal English. Or it can be intentionally ambiguous (I love puns personally) or unintentionally unclear. It is a beautiful mess capable of doing many things.

 

[NiranV Dean]

English can be incredibly precise (I teach Technical Communication), especially formal English. Or it can be intentionally ambiguous (I love puns personally) or unintentionally unclear. It is a beautiful mess capable of doing many things.

I was laughing out loud at that picture when i saw the last part. I was immediately reminded of myself.

Every day i see it happen and i don't even need to look far. Every day someone asks me a question whether a feature is in the Viewer and when i answer them "No." i get answers like "WOW DON'T BE SO RUDE, DUDE" and i ask myself whether i've secretly translated my message into a language where "No" is an insult.... possibly but unlikely.

Then other times i drag out the "No" into what could only be described as writing a book, with motivations as to why i don't include and they are like "ye whatevs dude"

And lastly those people i literally tell, in their face, that they are retarded and the only answer i get is along the lines of "ok."

 

[NiranV Dean]

On another note:

English is as precise as hip firing a LMG over 20 yards trying to hit a small bird. (sidenote, why is it even called A, it sounds retarded, AN LMG sounds much better just like you don't say "a hour" but "an hour")

You are adding many descriptive words, totally obsolete i might say, whose only purpose is to describe a previously written word as precise as possible to make the target you're referring to as clear as possible when in fact the targeting word could be already crystal clear.

By now you realize that everything i've previously written might not mean what you think it means. The first thing that comes to mind is my "You're weird" was it meant as a fact? describing you simply as being weird or was it meant as an insult? Was i even talking to you? Are you going to answer it and fit the shoe? If you don't and it was meant as an insult, does that mean you accepted it? If so what does that make you? Does that make you weird and wouldn't that again make this statement true?