|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Stevie_B
Joined: 14 May 2008
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:07 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| billybrobby wrote: |
I like when people have grammar debates, they feel the need to smarten up their posts with some classy words. They usually end up sounding like a character from a 19th century novel.
"I say, sir, your debating skills are clearly without peer. Yet I must humbly and with no great eagerness insist that I stand on the correct side of this argument, albeit in solitude! In frankness, I say you are an ideological mountebank and a rapscallion! Merely by engaging in this most tiresome discussion, my humours are becomeing imbalanced. Good day!" |
Innit. It's almost as if they perceive that bedecking their dunderwitted rodomontade with superfluous sesquipedalian persiflage will vouchsafe their perspicacity and sapience. Au contraire, such inelegant adornment merely clarifies the apparence of their wankerdom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wayfarer
Joined: 05 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dpl wrote: |
for the most part, words are just randomly put together sounds that we have given meaning to through our abiliy to use language. i am so completely annoyed by pompous high horse jack as$es who think it's some concrete unbending system of prescriptive grammatical rules and exact spelling and precise pronounciation. language is for communication. as long as i understand what you are saying i could care less about the words you use.
you sons o' b!tches best be respecognizin the true nature of language. |
I disagree. The point of using language well is not to honor prescriptive rules. It's about preserving the ability of language to express distinctions.
First of all, there's nothing remotely random about the complex web of cognates, derivations, and syntactical patterns in any language. It evolves, and the relation between signifier and signified is always arbitrary, but it isn't random. I think 90% of your confusion would be cured if you absorbed that fact.
English has a thick layer of Latin on top of its Germanic roots. It was built up over centuries, mostly during the revival of classical learning in the post-mediaeval era. I think most of the dimwitted and annoying word "errors" that often disgrace contemporary English are the result of people messing about with this layer.
Take the example of "discrimination". It's a very useful latinate word that has a succinct meaning which isn't quite expressed by any other word. It definitely shouldn't be used to refer to racial bigotry, because making a discrimination is exactly what a racial bigot cannot do (i.e., cannot recognize the difference between one person who has a certain epidermal hue and another such person). When it's ignorantly misused in that context, the original, and more useful meaning, is lost, and the language edges nearer toward communicative impoverishment.
To be fair, it's also just a matter of aesthetics... it makes literate people cringe to hear "irregardless" because it sounds ugly and makes the speaker sound stupid. It's not bad because double negatives are inherently bad; it's bad because it's a double negative applied inconsistently, with no other similar or related words having synonymous affixes applied simulaneously. It adds nothing and only subtracts from the simple effectiveness of the original word.
(And yes, some distinctions are only pedantic and arbitrary... alot vs. a lot, who cares, I never could understand that one... )
Why are song lyrics, technical manuals, or academic papers written with the words that they are? Why are the respective merits of the various translations of a written work hotly debated, not only on grounds of "accuracy", but also on aesthetic and philosophical grounds as well? Why is one poet different or better than another?
If you imagine that the way you speak has nothing to do with the way you think and reason, you're only fooling yourself and others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Easter Clark
Joined: 18 Nov 2007
Location: Hiding from Yie Eun-woong
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wayfarer wrote: |
(And yes, some distinctions are only pedantic and arbitrary... alot vs. a lot, who cares, I never could understand that one... ) |
There's nothing pedantic or arbitrary about being correct though..."alot" (not "allot") is wrong. "a lot" ain't.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dpl
Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Location: Ilsan
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 2:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wayfarer wrote: |
| dpl wrote: |
for the most part, words are just randomly put together sounds that we have given meaning to through our abiliy to use language. i am so completely annoyed by pompous high horse jack as$es who think it's some concrete unbending system of prescriptive grammatical rules and exact spelling and precise pronounciation. language is for communication. as long as i understand what you are saying i could care less about the words you use.
you sons o' b!tches best be respecognizin the true nature of language. |
I disagree. The point of using language well is not to honor prescriptive rules. It's about preserving the ability of language to express distinctions.
First of all, there's nothing remotely random about the complex web of cognates, derivations, and syntactical patterns in any language. It evolves, and the relation between signifier and signified is always arbitrary, but it isn't random. I think 90% of your confusion would be cured if you absorbed that fact.
English has a thick layer of Latin on top of its Germanic roots. It was built up over centuries, mostly during the revival of classical learning in the post-mediaeval era. I think most of the dimwitted and annoying word "errors" that often disgrace contemporary English are the result of people messing about with this layer.
Take the example of "discrimination". It's a very useful latinate word that has a succinct meaning which isn't quite expressed by any other word. It definitely shouldn't be used to refer to racial bigotry, because making a discrimination is exactly what a racial bigot cannot do (i.e., cannot recognize the difference between one person who has a certain epidermal hue and another such person). When it's ignorantly misused in that context, the original, and more useful meaning, is lost, and the language edges nearer toward communicative impoverishment.
To be fair, it's also just a matter of aesthetics... it makes literate people cringe to hear "irregardless" because it sounds ugly and makes the speaker sound stupid. It's not bad because double negatives are inherently bad; it's bad because it's a double negative applied inconsistently, with no other similar or related words having synonymous affixes applied simulaneously. It adds nothing and only subtracts from the simple effectiveness of the original word.
(And yes, some distinctions are only pedantic and arbitrary... alot vs. a lot, who cares, I never could understand that one... )
Why are song lyrics, technical manuals, or academic papers written with the words that they are? Why are the respective merits of the various translations of a written work hotly debated, not only on grounds of "accuracy", but also on aesthetic and philosophical grounds as well? Why is one poet different or better than another?
If you imagine that the way you speak has nothing to do with the way you think and reason, you're only fooling yourself and others. |
First off, thanks for the undergrad refresher. You are right that random is the wrong word. I meant arbitrary but only spend about a half of a second thinking when I write on here. I am not confused about anything just lazy.
I also agree with you on the use of words in certain fields i.e. academics, poetry, etc. Your "discrimination" example is quite a good one. That wasn't at all what I was talking about though. i'm talking about basic communication between regula people talking. i will use your own example. If I was talking to you and told you somebody discriminated against me because I'm black or whatever, you would totally know what I meant even though I am using the word out of its original or, for lack of a better word, esoteric usage. To most people, "discrimination" means exactly what you said it doesn't mean. IMO, that makes it mean exactly what you say it doesn't; at least in average everyday discourse. You are definitely not wrong in what you say but my whole point was about everyday discourse and people who come down on others even though they understand perfectly what the person is trying to communicate to them.
I disagree with you on your first point, however. I never said the point of using language well is to honor prescriptive rules. I know I could have said it better but all I meant was that I have a big problem with the notion of prescriptivism. I said the point of language is communication. You said it's about preserving the ability of language to express distinctions. We are both right although I think my statement sums up language's purpose more concretely and succintly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
I love 'brang'. I never heard it before. I'm definitely adding that to my vocabulary.
How about 'brung' does anyone say that? If they don't I want to introduce it to the English language.
'Bring brang brung'.
Great!
Last edited by Grimalkin on Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:40 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whistleblower
Joined: 03 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
I had one today. The conversation was about weddings and marriage. I asked the student about their honeymoon and he was talking about this place and he said that him and his wife better go back before kids come along. But he said this:
"We have to breed our kids". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thiuda
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thiuda wrote: |
| MECKWELL wrote: |
Stevie_B,
Your rapier wit and unassailable logical skills have added much to this discussion. I fear, however, that the subject matter of this discussion may be a bit beyond your grasp. My suggestion to you: get off the internet and go re-watch your pirated download of Transformers. |
Before insulting others by telling them that the subject matter of this discussion is beyond their grasp, answer my questions:
1) Who decides what is right or wrong usage?
2) Is only WASP English acceptable, like IcognitoFX seems to suggest?
3) The English you use is different from the English spoken in Elizabethan England - does that make it wrong?
4) Where are you from that you get to pass judgement on Australian, British, Canadian, Indian, Singaporean, etc... varieties of English?
I eagerly await your no doubt grammatical and erudite answers. |
Still waiting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wanamin
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dpl wrote: |
for the most part, words are just randomly put together sounds that we have given meaning to through our abiliy to use language. i am so completely annoyed by pompous high horse jack as$es who think it's some concrete unbending system of prescriptive grammatical rules and exact spelling and precise pronounciation. language is for communication. as long as i understand what you are saying i could care less about the words you use.
you sons o' b!tches best be respecognizin the true nature of language. |
Amen!
The English language (and every other one) is contently changing. That's why we call English 'living' and Latin 'dead'. Latin never changes.
The purpose of language is to convey meaning. Period.
Especially English, given its status as global medium of communication.
If you can't deal with 'imperfection' in the language, move back to your native speaking country where.... wait!
where people make just as many 'mistakes' with the language, and are nonetheless able to convey meaning.
You couldn't understand the English that was spoken 800 years ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wanamin wrote: |
| dpl wrote: |
for the most part, words are just randomly put together sounds that we have given meaning to through our abiliy to use language. i am so completely annoyed by pompous high horse jack as$es who think it's some concrete unbending system of prescriptive grammatical rules and exact spelling and precise pronounciation. language is for communication. as long as i understand what you are saying i could care less about the words you use.
you sons o' b!tches best be respecognizin the true nature of language. |
Amen!
The English language (and every other one) is contently changing. That's why we call English 'living' and Latin 'dead'. Latin never changes.
The purpose of language is to convey meaning. Period.
Especially English, given its status as global medium of communication.
If you can't deal with 'imperfection' in the language, move back to your native speaking country where.... wait!
where people make just as many 'mistakes' with the language, and are nonetheless able to convey meaning.
You couldn't understand the English that was spoken 800 years ago. |
That may be true, but ELL's should still learn prepositions, and use them correctly.
Otherwise, you'll just sound stupid, no matter how many PhD's you have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Young FRANKenstein
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Location: Castle Frankenstein (that's FRONKensteen)
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
I love 'brang'. I never heard it before. I'm definitely adding that to my vocabulary.
How about 'brung' does anyone say that? If they don't I want to introduce it to the English language.
'Bring brang brung'. |
Don't laugh. I grew up with idiots that said brang and brung. How I never picked up the habit, I'll never know.
They also had gems such as "conversate" and pronouncing "nuclear" as "noo-kyoo-lar". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wanamin
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jkelly80 wrote: |
| wanamin wrote: |
| dpl wrote: |
for the most part, words are just randomly put together sounds that we have given meaning to through our abiliy to use language. i am so completely annoyed by pompous high horse jack as$es who think it's some concrete unbending system of prescriptive grammatical rules and exact spelling and precise pronounciation. language is for communication. as long as i understand what you are saying i could care less about the words you use.
you sons o' b!tches best be respecognizin the true nature of language. |
Amen!
The English language (and every other one) is contently changing. That's why we call English 'living' and Latin 'dead'. Latin never changes.
The purpose of language is to convey meaning. Period.
Especially English, given its status as global medium of communication.
If you can't deal with 'imperfection' in the language, move back to your native speaking country where.... wait!
where people make just as many 'mistakes' with the language, and are nonetheless able to convey meaning.
You couldn't understand the English that was spoken 800 years ago. |
That may be true, but ELL's should still learn prepositions, and use them correctly.
Otherwise, you'll just sound stupid, no matter how many PhD's you have. |
You're right, but prepositions are unique in that linguists classify them as a 'closed class' meaning they evolve very slowly compared with the rest of the language.
As for stupidity, only native speakers sound 'stupid' to me when they make prepositional errors and others of that ilk... as ESL teachers in a non-English speaking country, we should realize that we will never be able to give students fluency. But we can get them to express themselves to others. That's the only reason we're here, IMHO.
Beyond that, I don't really care how many errors my students, or other Koreans make.
Error filled or not, 90% of (younger) Koreans can understand more English than I can understand Korean. And I live here, albeit I've only been here a short time.
Irregardless, I'm a student of the Korean language,
and I hope Koreans don't take the piss out me too much for making frequent mistakes with their language. My goal is communicability, not fluency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
