File puptcrit/puptcrit.1003, message 444


From: Vladimir Vasyagin <vasyagin-AT-hotmail.com>
To: <puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:01:01 -0400
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] the changing tides of language



2 be sure!
I mean - to B. Shur
It is a problem not only English language. Russian suffers from it even more. Theatrical language in Russia always was considered as the great sample (or the role model). Now it is - simply horror!

Vladimir



> From: mr_utamaro-AT-hotmail.com
> To: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org
> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:53:36 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] the changing tides of language
> 
> 
> I'm going to speak out in favor of a changing language... to a point.
> 
> Widespread use of "proper" English was a historical flash in the pan. In Shakespeare's day, the intelligentsia took great pride in having a great number of ways to spell a given word. A lot of the rules and spellings we now use were only introduced by Webster less than 200 years ago.
> 
> Even now, "Ebonics" as an example, is actually just as codified and rule based as "proper English". It can even convey many subtle ideas more succinctly then "proper English". The same can even be said for the creeping menace of text-speak. For instance, I can convey in a single short acronym "tl;dr", a somewhat snarky but real impression that would take a full sentence with proper grammar. No meaning is lost, and it isn't substantially different from the way my middle school English teacher used "sp?" as a shorthand to alert me to a spelling mistake on a graded paper.
> 
> There are issues with these variations in language. If you're writing in "Ebonics" or text-speak to an audience who doesn't understand it or who views it as a sign of lower intelligence, then both your clarity and standing have been compromised. But the same can be said of speaking "proper English" in a setting where that is less respected and understood.
> 
> There are a few degradations that are objectively damaging. The use of "like" or other filler words makes it too easy to speak without expressing much of anything. The overuse of superlatives crowds out more meaningful adjectives and decreases the amount of meaning conveyed. The same could be said of profanity of other nonspecific words like "thing" or "stuff" that obfuscate specific meaning and allow one to talk without saying anything.
> 
> To the extent that changes in language are different, or sloppy, I say let it change! As long as students are taught to understand their audience. Right now, there are a few job interviews a recent graduate could go to where "proper English" would be a liability. As the language shifts, within the next few decades, many of us will be in situations where lack of familiarity with newer modes of language will put us at a disadvantage over the younger generation with their more "flawed" communication.
> 
> B. Shur
> 
> 
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_2
_______________________________________________
List address: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org
Admin interface: http://lists.puptcrit.org/mailman/listinfo/puptcrit
Archives: http://www.driftline.org

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005