It's wheelbarrow not wheelbarrel.

[luuknam]

more likely the link ccomes from friesen.

 

Yes, I've read that Frisian is more similar to English. However, I don't know any. My point was merely that "to be" is highly irregular in some other languages, including Dutch.

[luuknam]

That is the error people make.

 

It's actually a term for a fairly common logical error.  If someone maes that error, you say they are "begging the question" which means they are assuming the conclusion to the argument within the argument.

 

However, it could be seen as a natural evolution of language. It makes more sense than some other mistakes, such as "could of" (which, if it were merely a spelling error, should be 'couldof', imo, without a space).

[maize]

That is the error people make.

 

It's actually a term for a fairly common logical error.  If someone maes that error, you say they are "begging the question" which means they are assuming the conclusion to the argument within the argument.

 

 

i haven't heard 'intensive purposes' very much.  maybe a few times.  generally, I hear the correct 'intents and purposes"

 

yes you're correct - "begs the question"  (can be traced to ancient greek) is NOT interchangeable with 'raises the question'. ---   Begs the question is actually a term that comes from logic, and it's used to indicate that someone has made a conclusion based on a premise that lacks support (1, 2).  It can be a premise that's independent from the conclusion (3) or in a simpler form, the premise can be just a restatement of the conclusion itself (4, 5).   RE: it's circular reasoning. 

 

and I have a child who shortens words/phrases.   really bugs me.  (I've stopped responding unless he says the whole word, often accompanied by a lecture from me.)   and dh will deliberately mispronounce words :glare: . . . .  

 

I've taken those online "where are you from" language quizzes a few  times.  never has it been able to determine where I'm from.  (the closest might have been 1500miles?)

 

This is interesting, I was not aware of the meaning with regards to formal logic.

 

Given that people frequently use begs the question with the meaning raises the question I would not call that usage an error, rather a (more recent?) alternative usage and meaning of the phrase.

[Bluegoat]

However, it could be seen as a natural evolution of language. It makes more sense than some other mistakes, such as "could of" (which, if it were merely a spelling error, should be 'couldof', imo, without a space).

 

Well, sure, it could, but IMO not really a good one.  It's a very useful idea, to be able to express what is wrong with that sort of argument, without resorting to some designation in formal logic. 

 

It's one thing when the idea itself is more of a language based one, as in your example.  But there is, I think, a real loss of meaning if we now have two phrases that just mean "raises the question." 

[poppy]

I will say, I've loosened up quite a bit about spelling and stuff now that I have a dyslexic daughter.

 

She JUST wrote me a little note saying, "Mom I laf we fawnd orue huoes".  She is 8. I know her well enough to know she means, I love that we found our house. (We moved recently).  We're working on spelling but  I don't think she will ever be fantastic at it, despite being someone who loves books and is clever overall.  So I try to think maybe the intensive purposes people-- who are definitely WRONG -- just have some lingering auditory or spelling stuff going on.  It bugs me, don't get me wrong, but I think it's less "dumbing down of America" and more just ,  we all have our strengths.  And this person should not be the one who writes letters for the time capsule or space shuttle.

[luuknam]

But there is, I think, a real loss of meaning if we now have two phrases that just mean "raises the question." 

 

"Begs the question" sounds a bit more intense than "raises the question", so I'm not sure it's really so bad to have two different phrases for that. Now, the loss of the other (original) meaning is a different matter, but I'm not sure that that meaning is really lost, so much as the phrase just having two meanings, depending on context. I mean, sure, not many people know the original meaning, but they wouldn't automatically know it even if they were saying "raises the question" instead of misusing "begs the question".

[Ravin]

reading helped my spelling considerably.  reading helps to reinforce the "visual" of the standardized forms of the written word.  

 

I don't support allowing long-term use of non-standard spelling (baring an actual learning disability).  it interferes with written communication.  it can be useful early in the writing process.  however, it will eventually hinder written communication if everyone uses non-standard spelling because other people have to stop reading in order to decipher what they are reading.   there's a reason spelling was standardized in the first place.

 

"could of" is not non-standard spelling (both words are spelled correctly), that's a grammar issue, not spelling.

 

It's a spelling issue because "could of" and "could've" SOUND the same, the person is not replacing "have" with "of" grammatically, they are using the contraction and misspellign it.

 

Also, I think you mean barring an actual learning disability.

 

Finally, you neglected to capitalize your sentences.

 

None of those are grammar issues, either.

[Bluegoat]

"Begs the question" sounds a bit more intense than "raises the question", so I'm not sure it's really so bad to have two different phrases for that. Now, the loss of the other (original) meaning is a different matter, but I'm not sure that that meaning is really lost, so much as the phrase just having two meanings, depending on context. I mean, sure, not many people know the original meaning, but they wouldn't automatically know it even if they were saying "raises the question" instead of misusing "begs the question".

 

I think that we probably would not see the phrase having two really separate meanings in that way.  I've never met someone who uses it for the one while realizing it also means the other, for one thing.  But also, I think that it isn't always immediately clear which would be the right way to understand the speaker, which would tend to make it confusing.

 

I don't really read it as more intense. There are other words we could substitute for "raise" I think if that effect was desired. 

 

To me, this is really an error in the way that some language changes aren't - it gets used because people are simply unaware that the phrase has a specific meaning.  They would be able to say more, and understand more about what others are saying, if they knew.  So I can't see an advantage to just chalking it up to a change rather than an error.

[gardenmom5]

I will say, I've loosened up quite a bit about spelling and stuff now that I have a dyslexic daughter.

 

She JUST wrote me a little note saying, "Mom I laf we fawnd orue huoes".  She is 8. I know her well enough to know she means, I love that we found our house. (We moved recently).  We're working on spelling but  I don't think she will ever be fantastic at it, despite being someone who loves books and is clever overall.  So I try to think maybe the intensive purposes people-- who are definitely WRONG -- just have some lingering auditory or spelling stuff going on.  It bugs me, don't get me wrong, but I think it's less "dumbing down of America" and more just ,  we all have our strengths.  And this person should not be the one who writes letters for the time capsule or space shuttle.

 

I spelled like that when I was 8.   I recall how shocked I was when at 11 I spelled 'elementary' correctly - when other classmates didn't.

 

It's a spelling issue because "could of" and "could've" SOUND the same, the person is not replacing "have" with "of" grammatically, they are using the contraction and misspellign it.

 

Also, I think you mean barring an actual learning disability.

 

Finally, you neglected to capitalize your sentences.

 

None of those are grammar issues, either.

frequently.  because I don't care when I'm on a forum.  (It's also a response to my feelings about typing.)

[maize]

I think that we probably would not see the phrase having two really separate meanings in that way. I've never met someone who uses it for the one while realizing it also means the other, for one thing. But also, I think that it isn't always immediately clear which would be the right way to understand the speaker, which would tend to make it confusing.

 

I don't really read it as more intense. There are other words we could substitute for "raise" I think if that effect was desired.

 

To me, this is really an error in the way that some language changes aren't - it gets used because people are simply unaware that the phrase has a specific meaning. They would be able to say more, and understand more about what others are saying, if they knew. So I can't see an advantage to just chalking it up to a change rather than an error.

If the majority of English speakers understand the colloquial meaning, and only a small minority understand the technical formal logic meaning, then yes we are talking about a legitimate change in meaning.

 

Here's an interesting discussion I found: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2290

[Bluegoat]

If the majority of English speakers understand the colloquial meaning, and only a small minority understand the technical formal logic meaning, then yes we are talking about a legitimate change in meaning.

 

Here's an interesting discussion I found: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2290

 

Which isn't, as I said, a good change, IMO.  We would be better off to tell people what it means, really.  Especially professional writers, or their editors.  It isn't just a stylistic complaint, it's unclear or compromised meaning.

 

I would not call it a "technical" meaning either, it was still a natural language use.  One, if it is widely misunderstood, that we now need to use a technical phrase for.  And I think it also represents an impoverished thinking - people are no longer aware in the same way why that form of reasoning is wrong and I suspect are more likely to make that kind of error. 

[Tanaqui]

It's one thing when the idea itself is more of a language based one, as in your example.  But there is, I think, a real loss of meaning if we now have two phrases that just mean "raises the question."

 

The English phrase "begs the question" - in the strict logic sense - is based on a bad translation from Latin anyway. I prefer to say "assumes the conclusion*", which may not be as pithy but has the advantage of being easy to parse.

 

The thing is, languages don't lose meaning. I mean, they can, but mostly that means the speakers didn't really need to say whatever-it-is anyway. If they do need to say whatever-it-is, and clearly, they'll find a way.

 

people are no longer aware in the same way why that form of reasoning is wrong and I suspect are more likely to make that kind of error.

Wait, are you trying some Sapir-Whorf reasoning here? Because strong Sapir-Whorf has now been thoroughly debunked.

 

I'm sure there are many people who don't really know why assuming the conclusion* is wrong, or how to recognize when they're doing it. Those are the same people who, generations ago, never were taught formal logic anyway, so there's no real change.

 

* Edit: headaches do weird things to my ability to language properly.

Edited October 5, 2016 by Tanaqui

[Bluegoat]

The English phrase "begs the question" - in the strict logic sense - is based on a bad translation from Latin anyway. I prefer to say "assumes the conclusion*", which may not be as pithy but has the advantage of being easy to parse.

 

The thing is, languages don't lose meaning. I mean, they can, but mostly that means the speakers didn't really need to say whatever-it-is anyway. If they do need to say whatever-it-is, and clearly, they'll find a way.

 

Wait, are you trying some Sapir-Whorf reasoning here? Because strong Sapir-Whorf has now been thoroughly debunked.

 

I'm sure there are many people who don't really know why assuming the conclusion* is wrong, or how to recognize when they're doing it. Those are the same people who, generations ago, never were taught formal logic anyway, so there's no real change.

 

* Edit: headaches do weird things to my ability to language properly.

 

I don't know that I think it is a bad translation from the Latin.  It might not be the one most people would make today, which isn't quite the same thing.

 

I am saying that I think that there are a lot of people who do beg the question in their arguments, and that it would generally be better if they didn't, and having language to describe it, in common use, would be useful to that end.  People often do not recognize those kinds of problems until someone points them out and categorizes them, but once they have they become obvious.

 

And while the newer use has become common in everyday speech, especially as it's wormed its way into written use in popular essays and articles, it is still quite commonly used in its original meaning in natural language amongst people who have even a little training in philosophy or classics, and it's very common in even slightly older texts.  So anyone who wants to be literate is going to have to know what it means anyway.

 

I really don't see any advantage to simply giving it up as a phrase.

[creekland]

I've taken those online "where are you from" language quizzes a few  times.  never has it been able to determine where I'm from.  (the closest might have been 1500miles?)

 

Middle son was quite pleased when he was one of only a couple of students his Linguistics prof couldn't determine where he was raised.  I guess there's something to be said for a northern NY mama crossed with a southern VA/NC papa and growing up in PA, but traveling a bit, learning some French from a Cameroon native - and a speech teacher (in his youth) who came from ???  He stymied one of the top Profs in his field.

 

Not from your post, but with regards to the "Begs the Question" conversation going on, am I the only one who has heard it used both ways and never had a problem understanding which way it was intended - sort of like the word gay with its different meanings?  I fail to understand why a word or phrase must have only one meaning.  What about train?  How many of us get confused when that one is used in different ways?  English often uses the same word and/or phrase for more than one meaning.  Maybe it's how we know the natives from the non-natives?

 

I'm with the language evolution crowd and see it similar to free rein vs free reign.  Both can make sense.  One is older than the other, but with more people currently understanding monarchs than horseback riding, saying just one is correct is kinda holding on to the past unnecessarily.

[regentrude]

Reading arguments about language evolving, dictionaries etc being descriptive and not prescriptive, all dialects being of equal value, raises the question:

do those of you who adhere to these viewpoints believe that grammar, spelling, and semantics should still be taught?

Do you teach it to your children?

If so, why?

[creekland]

Reading arguments about language evolving, dictionaries etc being descriptive and not prescriptive, all dialects being of equal value, raises the question:

do those of you who adhere to these viewpoints believe that grammar, spelling, and semantics should still be taught?

Do you teach it to your children?

If so, why?

 

I think it should be taught - along with all the perceptions associated with different aspects (dialects, misuse, misspelling, etc), but I also think it's cool to study linguistics and the evolution of language and be willing to modify one's thoughts/behaviors to fit reality.

 

I don't believe we need to pull out a 1500's era book to see how English is "supposed" to be now.  I don't believe we need to pull out a 1900's era book to see how English is "supposed" to be now.  Both, however, can make a fun study to see that evolution in action.

 

When it is all useful?  Mainly for writing.  If my kids know they are writing something formal, they know to use what is currently accepted by the majority as correct ("correct" being based upon what the formal writing is - technical writing can be different that a persuasive essay).  When they are writing or reading informally - or talking - knowing today's patterns is also useful.

[gaillardia]

Lol. It's not like we sit in the corner with a whistle to call out offenders and a whiteboard to conduct lessons. I mean, in our imaginations, sure. But we can be polite at parties.

We don't? We can? 

Do we have our own little parties to discuss it later? Yes, we do.

[gardenmom5]

Middle son was quite pleased when he was one of only a couple of students his Linguistics prof couldn't determine where he was raised.  I guess there's something to be said for a northern NY mama crossed with a southern VA/NC papa and growing up in PA, but traveling a bit, learning some French from a Cameroon native - and a speech teacher (in his youth) who came from ???  He stymied one of the top Profs in his field.

 

 

 

 

 

it is very fun . ... =D

[Laura Corin]

Reading arguments about language evolving, dictionaries etc being descriptive and not prescriptive, all dialects being of equal value, raises the question:

do those of you who adhere to these viewpoints believe that grammar, spelling, and semantics should still be taught?

Do you teach it to your children?

If so, why?

 

I taught my boys about registers within language.  There is the register that is normally used in business, the one for academia, the one to use with toddlers, the one to use down the pub.  None of them is more correct than any other - they are just different.  

 

So yes, I wanted my boys to be able to use the appropriate register for academia and business, so I taught it.  

[regentrude]

I taught my boys about registers within language.  There is the register that is normally used in business, the one for academia, the one to use with toddlers, the one to use down the pub.  None of them is more correct than any other - they are just different.  

 

But this is about more than "register". Does "register" translate to the use of grammar and semantics?

Can a person who regularly speaks a non-standard grammar "switch" to standard grammar at will when the situation requires it? Aren't many things automatic, and a person who is used to certain ways of speech will have a very difficult time changing them at will?

 

Btw, I do not believe it is necessary to speak to children, even toddlers, with the dumbed down language that is often modeled in children's shows etc and that uses simplistic grammar and artificially limited vocabulary. On the contrary; I am convinced that exposing children to a varied vocabulary, sentence structure, and correct semantics is vital for the development of strong language abilities. 

Edited October 5, 2016 by regentrude

[luuknam]

Reading arguments about language evolving, dictionaries etc being descriptive and not prescriptive, all dialects being of equal value, raises the question:

do those of you who adhere to these viewpoints believe that grammar, spelling, and semantics should still be taught?

Do you teach it to your children?

If so, why?

 

Simple: gotta know the rules before you break the rules.

[maize]

But this is about more than "register". Does "register" translate to the use of grammar and semantics?

Can a person who regularly speaks a non-standard grammar "switch" to standard grammar at will when the situation requires it? Aren't many things automatic, and a person who is used to certain ways of speech will have a very difficult time changing them at will?

 

Btw, I do not believe it is necessary to speak to children, even toddlers, with the dumbed down language that is often modeled in children's shows etc and that uses simplistic grammar and artificially limited vocabulary. On the contrary; I am convinced that exposing children to a varied vocabulary, sentence structure, and correct semantics is vital for the development of strong language abilities.

Can you switch from English to German at will?

 

Someone who is well acquainted with two or more dialects or registers of the same language can switch just as easily.

 

Certainly not everyone who grows up with a non-prestige dialectical variant is also fluent in the more standard and formal dialect, but many are.

[TravelingChris]

Regentrude said  "Btw, I do not believe it is necessary to speak to children, even toddlers, with the dumbed down language that is often modeled in children's shows etc and that uses simplistic grammar and artificially limited vocabulary. On the contrary; I am convinced that exposing children to a varied vocabulary, sentence structure, and correct semantics is vital for the development of strong language abilities. "

 

I agree.  We didn't talk down to our kids and they developed a very good vocabulary at a much younger age than many others.

[regentrude]

Can you switch from English to German at will?

 

Actually, yes and no. In some situations, switching is very difficult, for example if one language is used more frequently in a certain area of life. It is also difficult to switch when your conversation partner is speaking in a certain language.

And it requires a conscious effort and much correction to avoid mixing the languages in one sentence, either accidentally, or because certain expressions are more precise in one of the languages. It requires discipline not to fall into a mish mash. 

 

Someone who is well acquainted with two or more dialects or registers of the same language can switch just as easily.

 

I am interacting with many people on a daily basis, and it has not been my experience that people who are used to speaking a non standard dialect can switch off the dialect at will and suddenly speak with standard pronunciation. (An academic setting would, in my opinion, be a place where using standard English would be appropriate.)

ETA: Another example would be business phone calls. I would expect a customer service representative for a company to use standard English in business, but that is most definitely not the case.

 

Certainly not everyone who grows up with a non-prestige dialectical variant is also fluent in the more standard and formal dialect, but many are.

 

Seeing some of the atrocious writing our students do, I have to conclude that many are not. 

Edited October 5, 2016 by regentrude

[Laura Corin]

But this is about more than "register". Does "register" translate to the use of grammar and semantics?

Can a person who regularly speaks a non-standard grammar "switch" to standard grammar at will when the situation requires it? Aren't many things automatic, and a person who is used to certain ways of speech will have a very difficult time changing them at will?

 

Btw, I do not believe it is necessary to speak to children, even toddlers, with the dumbed down language that is often modeled in children's shows etc and that uses simplistic grammar and artificially limited vocabulary. On the contrary; I am convinced that exposing children to a varied vocabulary, sentence structure, and correct semantics is vital for the development of strong language abilities.

Oh I talked to my sons in a varied and complex way. It wasn't quite the same as adult speech, however. It was.... if anything more colourful, more grammatical than my casual adult speech.

 

Yes, I believe that register includes grammar. I naturally speak in a more standard and formal grammar at work than I do when chatting to my husband. And in my home town it feels entirely natural to say, 'I was stood talking when I saw Tom', whereas I would not say that at work.

[creekland]

But this is about more than "register". Does "register" translate to the use of grammar and semantics?

Can a person who regularly speaks a non-standard grammar "switch" to standard grammar at will when the situation requires it? Aren't many things automatic, and a person who is used to certain ways of speech will have a very difficult time changing them at will?

 

Btw, I do not believe it is necessary to speak to children, even toddlers, with the dumbed down language that is often modeled in children's shows etc and that uses simplistic grammar and artificially limited vocabulary. On the contrary; I am convinced that exposing children to a varied vocabulary, sentence structure, and correct semantics is vital for the development of strong language abilities. 

 

Speaking is difficult to change, but not impossible.  Usually it's more like my hubby's (or kid's) case where they basically learn to use different dialects or words/phrases in different situations.  As I stated before, going from northern to southern is easier for my kids than us adults, but that makes sense considering when our brains are set up to learn language.

 

Writing is far easier to adapt if one has the time to write.  When I'm grading student projects/papers, correct grammar and spelling always count if they had time to put them together and proofread, etc, as with a project they've had days to do. I tell them to have others read over it to check for mistakes.  It never counts (or almost never) if it's on a test where they have to write quickly without sources to check themselves.  "Almost never" is because sometimes spelling is part of the test - like when learning new vocab or names of elements or something.

 

I'll admit I'm unusual - and old fashioned - according to many teachers at our school, so not all have the same standards.

 

I fully agree with not using dumbed down language for kids.  We often let ours watch many of the older shows - like the old Batman series - because the language in those shows was far better than modern ones IMO.  I'm not talking about swearing or sexual situations - merely the vocab used.  My kids could tell the difference too.

[Lizzie in Ma]

It's pronounced 'gunnel' in Britain and written either gunwale (no 'h') or gunnel.

 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gunwale

 

ETA: Merriam Webster also give gunnel as a variant spelling:

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gunwale

 

 Thanks Laura, I know it is pronounced "gunnel" but she keeps spelling it that way and as a Cape Codder who grew up around boats and boating and with a grandfather who was in the Navy, it just bugs me.

Bit of a traditionalist when it comes to nautical terms.

[Bluegoat]

Reading arguments about language evolving, dictionaries etc being descriptive and not prescriptive, all dialects being of equal value, raises the question:

do those of you who adhere to these viewpoints believe that grammar, spelling, and semantics should still be taught?

Do you teach it to your children?

If so, why?

 

I think this is an interesting question because really it could go both ways.

 

I tend to think that all kinds of dialects and languages and forms of language are valuble, and often beautiful. 

 

I also think it's natural and even necessary that there are levels of formality or language use.  Maybe easiest to see in countries where there are a lot of small language groups - people will use those languages at home or locally, but if they are at work they may need to use a more widely spoken language, or if they are writing for a particular kind of audience.  Otherwise they won't be understood, or at the least the language will tend to be a distraction for many readers.  I think in many places dialect plays out in a similar way, for those who are operating within a larger group it will be played down as necessary to aid understanding and communication.

 

As far as descriptive vs prescriptive, I think it's always both.  Language does change, inevitably, but it's also important to facilitate good communication, and meaning and language are intertwined.  Loss of, say, indigenous language and expressions can be a real loss, something that minority language groups understand all too well.  Loss of understanding means that some ideas and forms of poetry become obscure and academic at best. 

 

And I think it is disingenuous to think we don't have any power over this - we can destroy languages, and we can take action to preserve them, we can ignore literacy or we can try and facilitate it.  There will be changes, there will be things that we can't control, but that does not mean we have to be totally without agency.

[Bluegoat]

But this is about more than "register". Does "register" translate to the use of grammar and semantics?

Can a person who regularly speaks a non-standard grammar "switch" to standard grammar at will when the situation requires it? Aren't many things automatic, and a person who is used to certain ways of speech will have a very difficult time changing them at will?

 

Btw, I do not believe it is necessary to speak to children, even toddlers, with the dumbed down language that is often modeled in children's shows etc and that uses simplistic grammar and artificially limited vocabulary. On the contrary; I am convinced that exposing children to a varied vocabulary, sentence structure, and correct semantics is vital for the development of strong language abilities. 

 

I think everyone who has a wider exposure to people will do this naturally to some extent.  We modify our expression to be more easily understood by those around us.

 

But - I also don't see that it is necessary to totally cut out people's natural accent.  For example, it wasn't that long ago in the UK that actors or people who wanted broadcasting jobs were told they all had to lose their regional and class-based accents - and there are a lot of those in the UK.  It wasn't usually that people could not understand them - someone like Ian Richardson who had a rather nice Edinburgh accent was told that he needed a standard English accent in his everyday life, and Michael Cain famously had to lose his Cockney accent to be taken seriously.

 

This isn't common now - British actors, if they want to work much, need to be able to put on a variety of accents to play roles convincingly, but they generally keep their natural accents, to the degree that you can tell where they come from, in other contexts.  And really, why shouldn't they if it doesn't impede communication?

 

Accent here doesn't just mean how things are pronounced, it also often includes grammatical conventions. 

 

I do agree that children are better served by real language, and a lot of modern kids tv and books dumb it down.  However, regional dialects aren't typically dumbed down or simplified, they have their own rules and constructions that are just as complex as those in whatever is the RP standard, and I don't see any reason to think that they are less effective at developing the language centers in the brain.  That being said, more languages and more dialects are probably of real benefit.  I think though that in many cases that is something that happens in the wider community rather than just the home.

 

I remember hearing some interviews with a scientist who had a very strong Newfoundland accent - I could understand him but clearly he had outport origins and had he been speaking in his own community,  I suspect I might not have understood him.  In a national interview however, he lost his more obscure expressions and structures and modified his pronunciation somewhat, so that it was suitable for his audience.  Had he been writing an academic book, I would imagine his language would have been even more formal.  Now, a few generations ago he likely would not have had the opportunity to have higher education, and if he had, he would have felt the need to totally lose his accent.  Which seems like a lot of work that benefits no one.

 

I think that it is pretty typical in places where there are many regional dialects and languages to be able to identify groups by them.  And they don't always have negative class connotations either.

[Lady Florida.]

How about not using the suffix ly when appropriate?

 

I've heard multiple people - newscasters and emergency management people - say serious when they meant seriously. Sure there are other things to worry about, but it still hurts my ears. 

 

I just heard a sheriff's dept. spokesman say "We're taking this storm serious and we hope our citizens take it serious as well."

[nd293]

Voila, not wallah or wah-lah. (looking at you, internet)

I just came to post about that one! It's not just in writing, either - there is a V there, people! Yes, combined with the vowels it comes out VW, but there is still a V.

[IsabelC]

I am always curious: why don't people care to use the spelling/pronunciation that has been established as (even arbitrary) standard? Why do people choose to use dialects that are associated with negative prejudices, for example make the speaker sound uneducated to many listeners? Surely, everybody is aware that deviations from standard dialect are perceived a certain way. Do people not give a hoot what others think? Or is it a matter of actively protesting the stereotype?

 

I grew up in a region with a strong local dialect that is perceived as uneducated and sloppy, and my parents insisted that we speak the standard dialect, because they wanted us to sound articulate and educated. So I have a hard time understanding how dialects work once they are associated with any kind of stigma. (Now, if I could cultivate a British accent, I'd be all for it...)

I know I would come across as less professional if I spoke with a strong accent or used the local dialect of the region where I live now - so I choose not to speak like that.

 

ETA: I am aware that some groups cultivate their (non-standard) dialect to purposefully distinguish and separate themselves as a group. I guess that enhances feelings of group identity? Fascinating subject...

I must admit that I am aware of and respond to this kind of thing. My 'natural' accent is the one usually termed 'educated Australian' which is basically a little less broad and more 'posh' sounding. (Every so often other Aussies will ask me whether I'm English because they think they can hear that, despite the fact that I sound completely Strine to English people.) But if I'm interacting with people who speak differently from me, I will - almost subconsciously - start using a broader, more 'ocker' accent to blend in better. Similarly, I do make choices about vocabulary - to use a term that will indicate precisely where I'm from, or select another more generic term. (Although I realise that all Aussie speakers sound much the same to non Australians lol)

Edited October 7, 2016 by IsabelC

[Guest]

I will say, I've loosened up quite a bit about spelling and stuff now that I have a dyslexic daughter.

 

She JUST wrote me a little note saying, "Mom I laf we fawnd orue huoes". She is 8. I know her well enough to know she means, I love that we found our house. (We moved recently). We're working on spelling but I don't think she will ever be fantastic at it, despite being someone who loves books and is clever overall. So I try to think maybe the intensive purposes people-- who are definitely WRONG -- just have some lingering auditory or spelling stuff going on. It bugs me, don't get me wrong, but I think it's less "dumbing down of America" and more just , we all have our strengths. And this person should not be the one who writes letters for the time capsule or space shuttle.

I'm moving this way as well. My oldest misspelled a bunch of things on a picture she drew and I could laugh and appreciate it anyway - the kid drew up plans for a working seismograph. So what if she can't spell worth beans?! She tried, spellcheck exists, and she's brilliant and awesome in other ways that don't involve the butchering of the English language.

 

/reformed grammar and spelling nazi

Edited October 7, 2016 by Arctic Mama