legov Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) Definitely, definitely. Unfortunately, the language school I was sent to (by the government) didn't teach Spanish, for some reason. Edit: fwiw, I was 12/13 when I started taking French lessons. so. Edited September 12, 2013 by legov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted September 12, 2013 Moderator Share Posted September 12, 2013 Ignoring my bias against France and everything French* for a moment. I honestly don't see why someone would choose to learn that language instead of Spanish or even German. Unless you plan on moving to France, Quebec or North Africa. Spanish gives you so much more and German is more relevant within Yurp. In a way it's a remarkable achievement by France to dupe the world into perceiving that their language is more relevant than it actually is. * excluding Audrey Tautou 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted September 12, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) In many ways Latin is easier than any modern language. The grammar in particular is very structured and logical. As a kid, it annoyed me having to learn all the word endings. Here's second declension noun "dominus" (a master). (From which we get words like "dominate" and "dominant") If you can get your head around all that, you're laughing (Lat: ridens, from which we get ridicule, etc.) Edited September 12, 2013 by mjmooney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 mjmooney, on 12 Sept 2013 - 12:04 PM, said: In many ways Latin is easier than any modern language. The grammar in particular is very structured and logical. As a kid, it annoyed me having to learn all the word endings. Here's second declension noun "dominus" (a master). (From which we get words like "dominate" and "dominant") Case Singular Plural Nominative (when the subject of a clause) dominus domini Vocative (addressing - "O master") domine domini Accusative When the object of a clause) dominum dominos Genitive ("of a master") domini dominorum Dative ("To or for a master") domino dominis Ablative ("By, with or from a master") domino dominis EDIT: Damn, that table didn't format correctly in VT. Hang on a minute.... If you can get your head around all that, you're laughing (Lat: ridens, from which we get ridicule, etc.) I'm sure I heard some smart bloke on the radio say that Latin is the true world language .. reckons if you were lost in a desert / jungle / whatever anywhere in the world you'd be able to communicate what a local in basic terms ... i.e with medical terms , animal and plant names all having a Latin origin or something The flaw in his plan from my pov being I don't have a clue about any Latin .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 I'm still campaigning for the word 'performant' to be accepted as common use. At the moment it's a protologism, because, well, only I use it. It needs to become a neologism. One particularly worrying way in which the English language is evolving is the convergence of 'you're' and 'your'. It now seems that most people who post on the internet don't actually know the difference and we're losing the battle. It saddens me deeply. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted September 12, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) Yes, the your/you're thing comes up time and again in this thread, along with there/their/they're. It shouldn't annoy me but it does. I rather like "performant", BTW. Edited September 12, 2013 by mjmooney 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Devil's advocate time. Language evolves. If people spell it 'ur' all the time, what difference does it make if it is understood in context? Ur a boob. Give me ur money. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phumfeinz Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 At my school they taught French or German. I asked for German, got French. Subsequently didn't give a shit and got an F. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted September 12, 2013 Author Share Posted September 12, 2013 Devil's advocate time. Language evolves. If people spell it 'ur' all the time, what difference does it make if it is understood in context? Ur a boob. Give me ur money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted September 12, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted September 12, 2013 Devil's advocate time. Language evolves. If people spell it 'ur' all the time, what difference does it make if it is understood in context? Ur a boob. Give me ur money. That's the David Crystal stance. I would argue that the current trends in English are increasing ambiguity and weakening precision. I find this regrettable, to say the least. Let confusion reign, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Devil's advocate time. Language evolves. If people spell it 'ur' all the time, what difference does it make if it is understood in context? Ur a boob. Give me ur money. It does. And it's good that it does, otherwise we'd be running out of Y letters for signs. That's the conflict. Evolve, or evolve partially? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 When I did English language a level, we did a big bit on language change. Really interesting and we had the debate about whether we should criticise or embrace the changes that are currently happening. If people 250 years ago looked at the language now, they'd be similarly critical of us as we are of the current generation bastardising it. I'm sure in another 250 years, it will be the same. To be honest, I'm not sure how important spelling and grammar will be in the next 10/20 years. What with one being able to search anything at the touch of a button right now, the technology will get better and better, quicker and quicker. Seems to be an upward trend in how fast we invent and discover new technologies as time goes by. Will kill off pub quizzes mind. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 I wish my language teachers had taught me that in school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troon_villan Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 I wish I had that schooling. I'm sure I would have detested it at the time, but what a solid basis for language learning it would have given me. I'm from a lost generation where grammar seemed to be, on the whole, ignored at school, and I still struggle with it to this day. Comma splicing. Other than that; not a bad effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted September 12, 2013 Moderator Share Posted September 12, 2013 I would argue that the current trends in English are increasing ambiguity and weakening precision.That's not even an argument. That's exactly what it does.Plus CED isn't even arguing the same point. There's nothing inherently wrong with; for example; the word 'your' becoming the word 'ur' over time. That's not Mike's grievance though. "Your" and "you're" MEAN 2 different things and to make them dual-purpose through ignorance means that there will be instances where something simply isn't clear in its meaning. Particularly if (when) that starts happening to other words aswell.I've often read sentences and not known what the person meant, because they misused a word. The problem is that people of average intelligence are the driving force through sheer force of numbers and that's an awful thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) I would argue that the current trends in English are increasing ambiguity and weakening precision.That's not even an argument. That's exactly what it does.Plus CED isn't even arguing the same point. There's nothing inherently wrong with; for example; the word 'your' becoming the word 'ur' over time. That's not Mike's grievance though. "Your" and "you're" MEAN 2 different things and to make them dual-purpose through ignorance means that there will be instances where something simply isn't clear in its meaning. Particularly if (when) that starts happening to other words aswell.I've often read sentences and not known what the person meant, because they misused a word. The problem is that people of average intelligence are the driving force through sheer force of numbers and that's an awful thing. And I'd argue that some trends do lead to confusion, but others do not. I agree with you that the blurring of the "your/you're" dichotomy is worrying. It impedes communication, which arguably is the main purpose of language. But I don't see any harm in some of the other trends - for example, the one we were discussing earlier (none was/were) Edited September 12, 2013 by BOF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted September 12, 2013 Moderator Share Posted September 12, 2013 But I don't see any harm in some of the other trends - for example, the one we were discussing earlier (none was/were)That one I'm less of a stickler on because as you say, while it is wrong and bad grammar, it doesn't add ambiguity. But just from my point of view I'm interested in the 'right way' to say things and I like to know why something is the way it is. If more people had that desire to know the right way then we'd be in better shape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 But I don't see any harm in some of the other trends - for example, the one we were discussing earlier (none was/were) That one I'm less of a stickler on because as you say, while it is wrong and bad grammar, it doesn't add ambiguity. But just from my point of view I'm interested in the 'right way' to say things and I like to know why something is the way it is. There is no objective "right" or "wrong" way to say things. Words change over time and so do grammatical rules. Language is very democratic - whether a word or sentence is used correctly is entirely up to the people speaking the language. But yes, studying etymology/linguistic history is fascinating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted September 12, 2013 Moderator Share Posted September 12, 2013 But I don't see any harm in some of the other trends - for example, the one we were discussing earlier (none was/were)That one I'm less of a stickler on because as you say, while it is wrong and bad grammar, it doesn't add ambiguity. But just from my point of view I'm interested in the 'right way' to say things and I like to know why something is the way it is. There is no objective "right" or "wrong" way to say things. There absolutely is an 'objective' way to say the right thing. They're called rules and they're there whether we choose to follow them or not. You're saying there is no subjective right or wrong way to say them because you would rather leave it down to the person themselves to choose (subjectively) what they want to bother saying. I don't doubt that maybe 80 out of 100 people would think that 'None of the footballers were able to score' is the correct way to say it and I don't mind hearing it said that way. But that doesn't make it the right way. It used to be cool to slag intelligence but it used to be limited to the schoolyard. Now it's being embraced everywhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts