BS: Declining Standards of English

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 01:47 PM

Kendall, I ax you, whut's wrong wit expecially and ectually? purfecly good inglesh.

(The commentator favorite that bothers me?- "The fact of the matter is:")

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 01:50 PM

I thought that was once a fine and useful rhetorical device, Q -- cutting, in theory, through a cloud of opinions to a core matter of fact. I guess it has grown over used by those who don't, in fact, fulfill its intent; but it is not an error in language, is it?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Peace
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 01:50 PM

At this point in time . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 02:18 PM

You think people should prefer "at the present location, time-wise"?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 02:21 PM

"it should be noted that "Arkansas" is pronounced "Arkansaw", "

well, *grin*...the Arkansas River is pronounced Ar-KAN-sas as it passes thru Wichita, and until it crosses the border into Ar-kan-saw.
You do NOT want to say "Ar-kan-saw" in Wichita.

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Alec
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 02:33 PM

Politicians think refute and dispute are synonyms.
Journalists think effete and effeminate are.
They also think this about noisome and noisy.

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 02:47 PM

So be careful when you say the storm was noisome.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Michael from Manitoba
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 02:49 PM

Yesterday I saw a sign outside a builder's supply store that offered a special on "Course Concrete". The store is on a street leading to the university. I bet all those undergrads are dashing in to pick up a few bags.

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Nickhere
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 03:40 PM

I think we do need a standardized spelling to maintain widespread mutual comprehension. I'm not really in favour of 'anything goes' English. It's true that some people can get hopelessly hung up on itsy-bitsy rules at school. At the same time, I'm glad I had my times tables drilled into me, or was obliged to learn to read and write (all of which involved some degree of conformity to rules). I would feel very foolish if I was unable to read the ingredients on the food container, or check my change and had to rely on a calculator all the time to know if I was being swindled. Not all conformity is bad - when it is mutually beneficial. You take the parts that are useful for the greatest good.

In the past langauges drifted due mainly to geographical divisions: it's no accident that the dialects of latin being used 2,000 years ago evolved into Spanish across the Pyrenees, French in the Gaul region, but stayed closer to the latin original (Italian) on the Italian peninsula. TV and the internet have mitigated the diversification of English to some degree, our main problem as English speakers is not dialect but understanding each others' accents. Since these vary a lot, if spelling was to reflect local pronunciation we'd quickly return to a situation as in the middle ages (before printing) where scribes wrote words as they heard / spoke them, often several different ways on the same page. That's fine if you're familiar with the accompanying accent and can 'de-code' the text, but not suitable for a more global context.

We could overhaul English and perhaps update the spelling if the changes were universally accepted - this happened with the introduction of printing in the 1400s (which demanded standarised spelling) and now we have a similar situation vis a vis the internet.

Two good books on the topic are David Crystal's "The English Language" (pub. Penguin Books) and Lynne Truss' book "Eats Shoots and leaves" (Pub. Profile Books)

Good punctuation might seem unimportant, but look at these two phrases:

Woman: without her, man is nothing.
Woman without her man, is nothing.

Spot the difference?

These are a few of my favourites, spotted from around town recently:

Note in post office: "electricity bills now excepted" - you can pay any bil you want here, but they won't take your electricity bill!
In a restaurant: "Sirlion stake €8" - but poor Sir Lion might object to being carved up like that!
Note in a pub: "sorry for the inconvience during works" - I've never seen an 'inconvience' but it might be interesting to meet one.
A friend: "a bought a few momentums while I was on holiday" - and I suppose they are still moving around as much as when he bought them?
Note on notice board: "For sale, moases basket for child" (written with the pronuciation from that part of the city)
Likewise, another note in classifieds: "Room to let - suit professional, non-smooker" (again pronounced with the typical exaggerated 'upper-class' accent of that part of town. Probably a typo, but funny for the perhaps unintended effect all the same).
Or when people & companies misuse words. The most typical example being every year around Christmas when we get yet another 'Ultimate Dance Music compilation number XYZ!!" Surely, after the last ultimate ultimate collection we had really seen the last of them?

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: kendall
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 04:11 PM

It's just the sort of thing up with which I will not put.

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 04:14 PM

Where did you put it?

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Nickhere
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 04:24 PM

Kendall - very good, ha ha! I like the effort not to end with a preposition! We have a joke here about a very 'proper' sort of fellow who's going along down the street. This ruffian, maybe looking for a fight, shouts across the street at him "Whaddya' lookin' at?"
The 'proper' gent turns and replies "My good man, do you not know that one must never end a sentence with a preposition?"
The ruffian, momentarily perplexed, stops, scratches his head and replies, "a'right so. Whaddya' lookin' at, LANGER?"

(I don't know if you are familiar with the term, but 'langer' is not a compliment!)

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 04:24 PM

There's a sign for a Vacncy in a barbers shop near us... makes me cringe every time I go past it (at least 6 times a week).

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Scoville
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 04:37 PM

au contrere, mon frere

En fait, je suis votre soeur.



And, OK, I blew it. Well, the Arkansas part, at least.

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 04:39 PM

We all use "this" when referring to something. I had an English teacher who embarrassed the heck out of me when I gave a verbal book report and said, "This book.." He asked me if I had it in hand. Of course I did not, so he used that opportunity to point out he misuse of "this."

Nickhere, doesn't your second example need a comma after "Woman" i.e. Woman, without her man, is nothing.

Mike, I don't remember being taught Old English but my teachers are still old English teachers from my past.**bg**

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 04:45 PM

Nickhere- some good points. I had to smile at 'standardise' in paragraph 3. Paragraph 1 had 'standardize.*
The Oxford English Dictionary uses the spelling standardize, the ending -ize adopted for these verbs. In England, some call this Oxbridge spelling (Oxford, Cambridge).
In the UK, standardise is used by most people. In one episode of the excellent Inspector Morse mysteries, Morse identified a note as a forgery because the writer spelled recognize with an 's,' identifying himself as 'illiterate.' His sergeant, a product of average schooling, looked pained, but did not say anything. Many humorous touches in the series, based on differences in Oxbridge vs garden variety English speech.

In North America, we have standardized on standardize, recognize, etc.

*(See -ise and -ize in Oxford English Dictionary; I won't take up space by going into the reasoning here).

Amos, 'the fact of the matter is ...' is effective if there is 'fact' involved, but most talking heads mean 'My opinion is ...'

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Nickhere
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 04:48 PM

Q, You caught me!

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Mooh
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 05:04 PM

Yous, as the plural of you, drives me crazy. I once started a thread about it and got some folks in complete agreement and others (one by PM) very angry with me.

Sigh.

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 06:27 PM

that's contraire, mon vieux


A

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 06:57 PM

Too many to list!

Loan, as a verb.
"Checkout" for "till"
As noted above, the confusion of "less" and "fewer".
Also as noted above, the pompous and illiterate misuse of "refute".
"Regular" (which means recurring with a fixed periodicity) for "ordinary".
"The hoi polloi", when "hoi" means "the".

The newsreader "Its 11 o'clock and I'm Sadie Nicholas" - Doh! Who are you the rest of the time?

Three or more alternatives.

Managementspeak in general.

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Bonecruncher
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 07:08 PM

I can write English as well as you lot, in fact weller!
Colyn.

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Becca72
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 07:11 PM

Were it a shit storm it would certainly reek....

My least favorite month just ended...not because it's typically the month we get the most snow, but because I cannot stand to hear it pronounced Feb-U-ary. What happened to the first R? It's a little thing, but it sure does get up my nose. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: bobad
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 07:19 PM

"others (one by PM) very angry with me."

And well they should be, every good hoser knows the plural of you is youse, as in youse guys.

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Peace
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 07:28 PM

Not all of youses guys got it right, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: bobad
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 07:31 PM

I thought you pluralized youse when you were talking about more than six guys, but I could be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 07:31 PM

Regular has several meanings only one of which implies periodicity. The reason it gradual became a substitute for "usual" or "ordinary", in my guess, was the meaning of "average in size, or usual amounts" as in 10-regular sizes shoes. Literally, it means "by the rule", so it implies averageness or compliance with some defined order of things.

"Youse" is common in blue-collar Canadian, probably because of the French influence, perhaps?, but it is also a standard in certain regions of New York, notably Brooklyn.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 07:36 PM

And youse guys is regular guys and I don't mean not irregular but just decent what.

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Peace
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 07:40 PM

Only just?

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 07:49 PM

And, New Jersey, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: bobad
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 07:51 PM

youse Pronunciation (yz)
pron. Chiefly Northern U.S.
You. Used in addressing two or more people or referring to two or more people, one of whom is addressed.

http://www.tfd.com/youse

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 07:52 PM

as anybody who has tried to get a gig on the English folkscene knows, ones life force is pretty bloody limited.

the amount ones language limits it - well we've all heard the Wittgenstein thing - the limits of my language are the limits of my world - but I think that's a crock.

as an essay in communication the yahoo headline was entirely understandable.

the perils of pretending I don't understand things because I know too much about spelling - bold adventurer that I am, I will risk!

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Peace
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 07:53 PM

Risk is a board game.

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 08:19 PM

you, you-all, all-you-all? I think it was in Guys and Dolls that one of the characters said 'all youse.

au contraire is furrin. Contrariwise (used as early as 13 and aught something. Spelled-spelt with a 'y' at first) better.

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 08:34 PM

Wittgenstein was a ass.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Joe_F
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 09:14 PM

Posted on alt.usage.english a while ago:

[...] Relatively fewer women -- from a third to a half as many --
call themselves lesbians compared with men who identify as gay.
                   -- A political scientist in _The New York Review_

Now, class --

This fellow did have a problem, tho it probably didn't seem like one
to him. He had yoked together "fewer", which calls for "than", and
"as many", which calls for "as". His solution was to use that piece
of syntactical duct tape "compared with", which, come to think, he
might have used anyway. I sympathize. The variety of linking words
required by the various idioms of comparison in English *is* a
frequent nuisance, and must be a puzzle to learners:

as big _as_
bigger _than_
similar _to_
different _from_ (or so say the school grammars)
the same _as_
other _than_
equal _to_

etc. Every time you want to use two of those constructions together,
you have to either tread on the toes of one of them or resort to a
wordy & pointless contrast-within-a-contrast. If I were dictator, I
would be tempted to level them all -- probably to "than".

In the real world, I would say that the parenthetic construction has
less claim on the following syntax than does the initial one, and I
would lay down (if not as a rule of grammar, then as a rule of
stylistic hygiene) that comparatives should never be followed up with
anything but "than". There is a special reason to avoid "compared
to/with" after comparatives: It results in (and perhaps results from)
a confusion of two usefully distinct idioms:

The force on the earth due to Mars is smaller than that due to the
sun.

The force on the earth due to Mars is small compared with that due
to the sun.

The second statement is properly a much stronger one, roughly
synonymous with "...*much* smaller than...". It suggests that the
smaller force is negligible as a first approximation.

So I would try my luck with

Relatively fewer women [...] call themselves lesbians than men
identify as gay.

Well, not really. With some of the trash cleared away, the Elegant
Variation stands out in all its distracting silliness. "Identify as"
-- here, at least -- means the same as "call themselves". No problem,
for me, deciding which to get rid of (I think Erik Erikson was a
crackpot):

Relatively fewer women [...] call themselves lesbians than men
call themselves gay.

And now, off with its head! "Relatively" before a comparative is
usually open to the same objection as "compared with" after one -- it
mixes & confuses two constructions that ought to be kept distinct:

The moon's gravitation is the main cause of the tides; the effect
of the sun is smaller.

The moon's gravitation is the main cause of the tides; the effect
of the sun is relatively small.

The business of "relatively" here is to clarify the bearing of "small"
by harking back to the preceding clause; "relatively small" is short
for "small in relation to that of the moon". That is not quite the
same, in emphasis anyway, as "smaller"; it suggests a classification
(with the moon as standard) rather than a mere description, and it
implies *considerably* smaller.

I did say "usually", and I can imagine meaning something by
"relatively fewer":

Smoking causes most cases of lung cancer; it causes relatively
fewer cases of heart disease.

That might mean: In actual numbers, smoking may cause more heart
disease than lung cancer, but there is so much more heart disease that
smoking is more prominent in the cancer statistics. Yes, I can
imagine it, but I wouldn't write it. Slovenly use of "relatively" has
been so common for so long that most readers couldn't be trusted to
take it seriously. They would skip over it as they would a drool on
the page. Better make it "a smaller proportion of the cases of heart
disease".

In any case, such a use would be otiose in the present example,
because the numbers of men & women are near enough equal that relative
& absolute comparisons amount to the same thing.

So:

Fewer women -- from a third to a half as many -- call themselves
lesbians than men call themselves gay.

By now the parenthesis has become painful, not only in its discordant
syntax but in its interruption of the clause. One could remedy the
first problem by changing the parenthesis to "by two-thirds to
one-half", but that makes the second problem even worse, because the
reader has to stop & figure out what it means. I would be inclined to
remove that information to another sentence, or, indeed, make it

Fewer women call themselves lesbians (x to y percent) than men
call themselves gay (z to w percent).

-- whatever the numbers are.
--
--- Joe Fineman    [e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 10:42 PM

I think Kendall was quoting Churchill (there are things up with which I will not put). Now Churchiil could be described as someone who had a small way with words......

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:00 AM

That was Churchill's dismissal of the precious notion that you shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition.

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Peace
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:03 AM

Don't think so. It was something he wrote on a memo that apperaed one day and was to be circulated to members in a production factory (?). The memo had been written in a convoluted English, and the author had so twisted the sentence (in order to avoid ending the sentence with a preposition) that the meaning was lost.

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Peace
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:06 AM

HOWEVER:

"Ben Zimmer has presented evidence on the alt.usage.english list that this story was not originally attributed to Churchill at all, but to an anonymous official in an article in The Strand magazine. Since Churchill often contributed to The Strand, Zimmer argues, it would certainly have identified him if he had been the official in question. It is not clear how the anecdote came to be attributed to Churchill by Gowers, but it seems to have circulated independently earlier."

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 03:29 AM

That'd be "gradually became"?

I hate "pronounciation" too.

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Scrump
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 05:32 AM

Bernard wrote: Whilst I'm at it, has anyone else noticed that words such as 'wool' and 'wall', 'bull' and 'ball', are becoming indistinguishable in the pseudo Southern English 'corporate speak'... an accent that seems to have evolved and doesn't appear to belong to any particular area. The letter 'L' and the letter 'W' have become interchangeable, and are vowels to all intents and purposes!

Or is it just me?


The other thing that irritates me about radio/TV presenters' pronunciation of vowels is using the "ee" sound instead of "oo" - some people say "yee tee" instead of "you too" (OK, this is an approximation of the actual sound they make, which is difficult to render in text, but I hope people know what I mean). Or "Cheeseday" instead of "Tuesday". I assume they somehow think it sounds posher - does anyone know?

Or is it just me?

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Schantieman
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 06:54 AM

All of this misuse of the language - as distinct from its development (NOT evolution) - is just part of the general slovenliness and lack of rigour that typifies modern society (horrid phrase).

As a teacher for 26 years (egad!) I have become more and more frustrated at the lack of basic language, arithmetical, conceptual and social skills displayed by my 11 - 18 year old charges.   They have indeed acquired many skills - principally in computer use - that we didn't have at their age - this will certainly be useful - but they don't know how to spell, calculate, thing or blow their effing noses.   It duz my 'ed in!



Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: kendall
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 07:29 AM

When I was in school, any English paper was judged not only on the use of the language, but on spelling as well.(also)

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 08:57 AM

The Churchill anecdote - I make no claim to any insider knowledge, and these pithy sayings often get attached to some popular or at least well-known figure. The main point, of course, is that the construction "up with which I will not put" is a particularly effective illustration of the silliness of the "Thou shalt not end a sentence with a preposition" commandment - and by extension, many other prissy notions concerning the English language. Of course, I don't mean to suggest that any such prissy notions are being promoted on this thread; no, sir!

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Mooh
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:42 AM

Amos...French influence? That's laughable. Not in this part of Canada. If folks were told their use of "yous" came from Quebec they'd stop it before you could blink, such is their prejudice.

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:59 AM

Mooh:

Well ya never know where that voyageur blood is gonna end up, do you? :D I was just guessing wildly.


But it is still true that Wittgenstein was a ass.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Peace
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:02 AM

Neither do I, memyself. Churchill stories abound. I love 'em, because even if they're not true, they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 11:19 AM

A usage that irks me terribly is the "between-to" combination. As in, "I didn't count the people at the party, but I think there were between twenty to thirty there."

"Between" goes with "and"
   whereas
"From" goes with "to"

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Schantieman
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 11:33 AM

Dave - I think we are kindred spirits.

I too feel almost physical pain when I hear or read such a solecism. Apostrophes (thanks Ms Truss), incorrect participles and other parts of verbs, hanging parentheses etc. etc. .....

A particularly common one seems to be the use of a singular verb with a plural noun: "There was three of them".    Yuk!

And in speech, the substitution of 'f' for 'th' sounds. Simply laziness - probably on the part of whoever taught them to speak. Not that I'm lazy.   Oh no. No me.
(Irony, lesson 3)

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Declining Standards of English
From: Alec
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 11:58 AM

For what it's worth,here in the U.K. use of the word "youse" is associated with Liverpool.