Job Discussion Forums

johnslat · Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:47 pm Post subject: Their ain't no propar english

Two views are presented here:

1. http://www.wsj.com/articles/there-is-no-proper-english-1426258286

2. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/schools/god-save-the-queens-english-our-language-is-under-threat-from-ignorance-inverted-snobbery-and-deliberate-dumbing-down-2099825.html

Sew, witch won be writer?

Reguards,
Jon

buravirgil · Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 3:40 pm Post subject:

Oh, oh! I know this one!

factual

johnslat · Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 5:22 pm Post subject:

Dear buravirgil

"morally factual" = oxymoron Very Happy

Regards,
John

buravirgil · Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 5:30 pm Post subject:

The not immorally fictional one?
please...god...please...let me get this one right

My Latin teacher taught us that Romans didn't read silently, that Latin was always read aloud. She had been taught that written Latin was promulgation-- authority. Now, I didn't go on to be a classicist, so I can only guess at what theories are responsible for her telling us this, or even its veracity, but it shaped how I think about the spoken and written word. I think of what she said whenever I see the phrase "Parts of Speech" in a textbook because the phrase is the common title to how the specificity of writing is achieved, not how we learn to talk.

Like many (most) college students, learning the distinction of prescriptive and descriptive grammars was exciting, even liberating, but it's my opinion the distinction is disabused by most as an excuse to abandon standards as it suits their patience or interest. How orthographies evolve. How dictionaries came to be. Vowels and spells and all her syllabary; the science and terminology of it is fascinating stuff.

Sashadroogie · Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 6:15 pm Post subject:

Disabuse, or abuse? Which is fictional, morally, here?

buravirgil · Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 6:26 pm Post subject:

Abused, yes, thanks.

Sashadroogie · Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 6:30 pm Post subject:

I dunno, I dunno. Fits nicely into a thread such as this...

Sashadroogie · Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 6:30 pm Post subject:

Both.

Sashadroogie · Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 6:31 pm Post subject:

Fits.

Either.

water rat · Joined: 30 Aug 2014 Posts: 1098 Location: North Antarctica

buravirgil · Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:35 am Post subject: Re: Their ain't no propar english

water rat · Joined: 30 Aug 2014 Posts: 1098 Location: North Antarctica

johnslat · Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:15 pm Post subject:

I'm not so sure anyone can know ALL the rules (and ALL the exceptions to those rules). Very Happy

Regards,
John

water rat · Joined: 30 Aug 2014 Posts: 1098 Location: North Antarctica

johnslat · Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:02 pm Post subject:

Dear water rat,

Well, it's good to be king, a ruler, that is. Very Happy

What I've found over the years, though, is that my attitude towards some of the "rules" has changed considerably.
Back in my shallow youth, I was, admittedly, more of a prescriptionist,, something of a semi-pedant (which may be like saying a "semi-virgin") Very Happy

Well, just shoot me - rules are the fallback position for insecurity, I think, and I don't suppose too many of us were totally secure when we started.
But these days, now that I'm in my shallow old age, I'm (relatively speaking) much more relaxed. Oh, I still teach the "less/fewer, count/non-count" stuff, but I left a lot of the silly junk behind years ago. And the reason I teach that "less/fewer" stuff is that I think using the "right" word in some cases can still make a difference in the "real world" of job interviews and the like.
So, I'll do a "full disclosure" and reveal that while I do agree with some of what Kamm wrote (hey, I very rarely agree with ANYTHING the "Wall Street Journal publishes), I think he goes too far.
Did you read any of the "Comments" to the article? I did, and here are a few I (more or less) agree with:

"He confuses his point right in the article itself with "... whereas the real task of language instruction ... should be to help people learn how to address different types of audience at different sorts of occasions. If you mix them up, you have failed ... in standards of language..."
In other words, he suggests that there is indeed a "proper" English and as one commentator already pointed out, if you use "improper" English, you will not get the job or into the school you want to get into, never mind elected to public office. Standard English actually is "correct" in the sense that it is the correct one to use in most important environments and learning it is one of the main keys to success."

"First of all, Oliver Kamm should draw a clear line between written and spoken language. Language is what we speak; writing is a way to record it with letters or symbols. He seems to blend the two forms.

Also, when a prospective student or job applicant writes a cover letter to express what they are asking for, it's essential that it be clear to the admissions director or boss who does the hiring."

"Sure, it's perfectly acceptable to write non-standard English. Just make sure that it is clear to the person you are addressing, and that he is like-minded. Otherwise, you don't get into the school or you don't get the job."

Yes, everyone has the "right" to their own grammar and syntax. just as everyone has the right to not get the job or get into the university because of the impression their individual grammar/syntax made on the people who decide who gets hired/admitted.

Regards,
John