Speak English

Sun, 16 July 2006, 09:19 pm

Logos24 posts in thread

I know people are going to give me a hard time for this BUT what the hell has happened to the english language. The Brent Street thread is almost totally unintelligible (now I'm not sure that's right) a lot of the time and they are supposed to be being taught academic subjects as well as dance. In fact a great many posts on this site are grammatically awful and the spelling is atrocious. I know I'm not perfect but for God's sake. And don't tell me it's not as important as your skills, it is one of your skills. If you have no command of the language you speak how can you understand what you are saying or singing. You can't be a musician if you can't read music, how can you be an actor (in an english speaking country) if you can't use english. The words are used incorrectly and mispelled. I give up. I am considering moderating any posts I find with more than three or four spellling errors out of existence. (Just joking of course) and yes I am the grammer police.

Thread (24 posts)

Threaded Flat

LogosSun, 16 July 2006, 09:19 pm

LogosSun, 16 July 2006, 09:22 pm

Spelling

I apologise for mispelling spelling and grammar in the last post. My passion ran away with me. Life's too short to stuff a mushroom www.tonymoore.id.au

NaMon, 17 July 2006, 08:52 am

Speaking American

Half of the problem is that no one is taught the difference between American and English spelling (partly thanks to Microsoft Word). For all those spellers out there - the Americans actually chose to spell their words differently to the English as part of their transition away from the British Empire. As Australians, we spell like the British - we don't use z's, we don't remove our o's from words like colour, we don't spell theatre like 'theater'. It may not sound important, but it's a very good sign that we are being Americanised! (See, in America, they would have written that 'Americanized'.) At work, when they were interviewing new people, you'd be surprised at how much the CVs were scrutinised for mistakes. Grammar and spelling (and punctuation) go a long way to impressing potential employers. And people should read two books - Eats, Shoots and Leaves, and it's satirical take-off (I forget the name). The Prompt Copy Networking emerging theatre professionals www.thepromptcopy.com Sticky Apple Legs http://stickyapplelegs.artsblogs.com

LabrugMon, 17 July 2006, 09:45 am

Language is the Art

I hear you Logos. The written word is fast becoming a strange beast, and sad that it is too. Recent reviews have exposed the poor language skills being developed at early schooling levels, something I believe the respective state education departments are beginning to address. The question is, why did it go down in the first place?

I was recently stunned by the 'Alphabet' being taught at my daughters Kindy. I was always taught basic block letters but these days it would appear to be some hybrid breed of running writing and something else. Even the teachers, whose hands are tied by the Curriculum, agreed that is was plain strange. So if the teachers are noticing the odd commandments from on high, why is no-one upstairs listening?

As a parent, I wish to see my daughter taught in such a way as to be able to communicate clearly in a variety of forms: Language, Written, etc. If I don't agree with the way things are done at school, then obviously I need to take some responsability for that too.

I blame the Internet and Mobile Phones for the breakdown of communication skills.

Dixi

Jeff Watkins
Perth based Actor/Performer
Fight/Sword Choreographer

http://au.geocities.com/labrug

NaMon, 17 July 2006, 10:55 am

And possibly the

And possibly the Government's attitude; John Howard and his remarks about literature taught at school being too 'postmodern'. The Prompt Copy Networking emerging theatre professionals www.thepromptcopy.com Sticky Apple Legs http://stickyapplelegs.artsblogs.com

Walter PlingeMon, 17 July 2006, 05:09 pm

Why blame the Internet?

Why blame the Internet? Your posts reflect an ability to spell. The Internet as most people would agree, is a fantastic communicative device. Sadly, it just highlights that many people are a bit thick.

NaMon, 17 July 2006, 06:02 pm

Walter, our posts only

Walter, our posts only confirm that we have studied our language well. Can't speak for Logos, but I in fact have a Dip in Editing and Proofreading. So I'm much more aware about the English language and its (its not it's) rules/guidelines than most people... I doubt that many teenagers or children know why theatre is spelt theater in America, nor would most people care. The fact that there are these differences are being blended out - like car-crash ads on TV or the no-smoking pictures on cigarette packs, people get used to it. After a while, they simply don't see it. Add the Internet (ps. it's not necessary to capitalise the Internet, but it depends on what dictionary you use as to the correct way; capitalise or not) to text messages (OMG! Saw an ad on Channel 10 last night, where it said, and I quote: "7.30 Nxt Saturday"), poor RRR skills at school, books that get published with both American and British/Australian spelling, and the inability to edit everything in sight And you have one very confused reading and writing audience. Yes, let's blame the Internet. Let's also blame complacency to let our language deteriorate. I just realised that even I am guilty - I used OMG instead of Oh My God. Without even thinking about it. See, it seeps in, like some insidious ivy. The Prompt Copy Networking emerging theatre professionals www.thepromptcopy.com Sticky Apple Legs http://stickyapplelegs.artsblogs.com

Rae JohnstonMon, 17 July 2006, 07:18 pm

I Agree!

I have been given an opportunity here to vent my pet hate. I constantly see commercials voicing "Smith Vs/V Evans" in a boxing match - and they say "V"!!!!! Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not "Versus"???!!?? Sorry if I am going overboard here, but it makes me so angry! Rae Johnston Actress/Voice Artist www.freewebs.com/raejohnston

NaMon, 17 July 2006, 07:24 pm

I think if you were going

I think if you were going to abbreviate it, it would be Vs. or vs. I'm not sure what the real rule is, but if you care to look it up, it would be found in the Aus. Government's guidelines for writing and publishing. And the Macquirie Dictionary is what most Australian publishers use for accurate spelling. Someone should give a couple of copies to copywriters out there. The Prompt Copy Networking emerging theatre professionals www.thepromptcopy.com Sticky Apple Legs http://stickyapplelegs.artsblogs.com

LogosMon, 17 July 2006, 08:57 pm

Qualifications

I have a BA in English Lit from the UK open University and a BA in Educational Theatre from the Adelaide University along with a variety of other qualifications that I have picked up along the way. That however is not why I am literate, I am literate because I went to school at a time when reading was treated seriously and grew up in a family were I was expected to read rather than anything else for entertainment. Even when TV (which I love by the way) came along it was secondary. I am fully aware of the differences bewteen US and Australian spelling and to an extent decry them. I am also aware odf some stupid rules we inherited from Latin ignore them if you like. What does it matter if we split an infinitive and say "to boldly go" rather than "to go boldly" I have just realised Na that this could sound like an attack on you and it isn't meant to be. I agree with you largely. My beef is that people use words incorrectly and yes I know meanings shift but that's not what I'm talking about. and certainly texting is creating a shorthand in life which I hate but I can usually understand it. You know what I've got so angry I've forgotten my original point. Rae: I agree with you this V business has been driving me mad for ages. the correct word is versus and the correct abreviation would probably be vs still pronounced versus. Life's too short to stuff a mushroom www.tonymoore.id.au

Walter PlingeMon, 17 July 2006, 09:40 pm

I don't really mind the US

I don't really mind the US spelling...English is a dynamic language.. but some of the posts are just ..... wrong!!! If we ignore typing errors, most of the mistakes are poor grammar or really bad spelling.

LabrugTue, 18 July 2006, 08:57 am

Not the internet specifically

I guess I should clarify my meaning. The internet is a great communication medium and I have ablsolutely nothing against that. It's origins are however where much of the Technological breakdown of communication come from. My degree is in Computing Science with a smattering of theatre arts included along the way. Odd mix some would say...

Anyways, one of my teachers was very concerned with the 'new' language of the techies - a bizzar mixture of acronyms and programming terminology. Many of the terms such as LOL ROFLMAO and such come from these very early days of computer communications, even before the Internet proper was born. It is no longer a fad but an actual language that has a degerenerative effect on the spoken and read language around the world. Since these early days, this language has only continued to grow and change, bit like a malignant cancer really, and is fundamentally changing the way we think and communicate with each other. This techie language is basically the lazy man's english designed specifically to reduce the number of keyboard strokes use when communicating rapidly. The proliferation of chat rooms, SMS technology and such only propels this problem further.

While the technology itself is incredible, the methods of its use and the influence of that mentality has directly influenced the appathy of everyday users and those they associate with.That is not to say that the Internet and technology is the Sole problem. It just provides a medium for its further spread into everyday communication.

A thought strikes me while I type this. One of the newer aspects of the techie lingo I've noticed is the growing use of Iconic symbology. ;-) for example. If we project this forward, will we develop a picto-graphic version of English? Shall we start speaking Egyptian maybe?

Dixi

Jeff Watkins
Perth based Actor/Performer
Fight/Sword Choreographer

http://au.geocities.com/labrug

NaTue, 18 July 2006, 12:19 pm

I totally agree Logos - no

I totally agree Logos - no attack taken. There is a difference between breaking the rules knowledgeably and breaking the rules simply because you don't know them. Yes, splitting infinitives is quite an old rule, and one that really makes no little difference in language. The one rule in editing and proofreading - does what you're doing make things easier to read (and therefore understand), or does it make it worse? This is why there are so many discussions on the role of punctuation, grammar and spelling. Because many of the rules are in fact guidelines, and depending one's tastes, you can chuck them out altogether or use them as you wish. The Prompt Copy Networking emerging theatre professionals www.thepromptcopy.com Sticky Apple Legs http://stickyapplelegs.artsblogs.com

NaTue, 18 July 2006, 12:41 pm

Basically it's like the law

Basically it's like the law - the technology is moving too fast for language to keep up with. Of course languages move and change and grow and die. But generally speaking, that happens over generations, not in one decade or lifespan. The Prompt Copy Networking emerging theatre professionals www.thepromptcopy.com Sticky Apple Legs http://stickyapplelegs.artsblogs.com

LabrugTue, 18 July 2006, 12:55 pm

Rapid Decline

Maybe the very pace of technological change is a driving fact in the increasing decline. One things is for certain, many a technical journal and scientific expert agree that the rapidly changing telecommunications are dragging along most other things with it. The rate of change is increasing at a logarithmic pace meaning that we are advancing today twice as fast as we did yesterday and tomorrow will be twice as fast as today, in basic terms.

Technology and all that it entails is for all intents and purposes the backbone of modern living. It's progress directly influences everything it supports which includes language. You are right from an historical perspective when you say languages change over generations. I think the context is important. Where once the life-span of a human was the driving force behind what was a 'generation', now many computing experts see that the lifespan of technology is taking over that role, and as we all know, the lifespan of a computer, well you'd be lucky to 5 months out of it.

Don't mind me, just a little fear mongering.

Dixi

Jeff Watkins
Perth based Actor/Performer
Fight/Sword Choreographer

http://au.geocities.com/labrug

LogosTue, 18 July 2006, 03:06 pm

Grammar

I shouldn't have brought up the split infinitive thing because it is a rule in English that got foisted on us about the time of Johnson (Samuel). It comes from Latin where it is physically impossible to split an infinitive so somebody decided that we shouldn't in English. And yes English is a growing and evolving language as it should be. Have you heard the story about what Charles 2nd said when he saw Wren's plans for St Pauls. He called it awefull (deliberate spelling) pompous and artificial. It was a compliment in those days meaning full of awe, inspiring pomp and a great work of artifice. And yes Labrug, I actually have little problem with shorthand of any kind be it precisionist or simply jargon in the environment where it belongs. You are correct the spread of this shorthand is corrupting the most versatile and fluid langauge in the world. Will it make it more fluid? I am afraid not. I believe it will drive the musical amd fluent language of Shakespeare into a corner until our descendants become semi literate barabarians. Boy, I'm really having a downer this week, I think I need to go and get drunk or something, it might cheer me up. Life's too short to stuff a mushroom www.tonymoore.id.au

LabrugTue, 18 July 2006, 03:19 pm

A Pint and a Half

Yes indeed, this shorthand nonsense is not making things fluid at all, IMHO. I mean, I like a challenge and mind games, but not those that take you half an hour to decipher 'RU12?'

For those of you who speak in lingo, try this, I am sure you've all heard it before;

1 1 was a race horse. 2 2 was 1 2. 1 1 1 1 race. 2 2 1 1 2.

Logos, have a drink for me.

Dixi

Jeff Watkins
Perth based Actor/Performer
Fight/Sword Choreographer

http://au.geocities.com/labrug

Walter PlingeWed, 19 July 2006, 02:03 pm

mult-lingual

Whilst I agree with much of the sentiment behind your post, you are far too quick to malign modern alterations and advancements in language. Sometimes I wonder how people like you thought language started: a book sent to us from on high perhaps? Language EVOLVED through use - i.e. the language that we now consider 'proper' english only became proper english because people en masse accepted it. If someone is communicating in the language that is commonly accepted in that era than they are not using 'bad' grammar - they are using the grammar of the day. Given your superb knowledge of language, I can only assume that you are well-versed in the history of the english language and that you are familiar with the changes over time? You know, those really obvious changes: like how until the middle ages english would use strict tenses and gendered verbs, like the German language still does. You'd also be aware how by Shakespeares day people had stopped using such tenses and gendered verbs because it was far simpler to use a narrower grammatical system that didn't distinguish between superflous tenses and arbitrarily classify inanimate objects into genders with completely different verb structures. Now given your obviously deep knowledge of linguistics, I think you should clarify the point of your post? Are you saying that for the past 1600 years people haven't learnt true english and we should go back to gendered verbs and so on? Or are you restricting it to saying that we should use Shakespearean English? Or are you commenting upon the far more minor recent alterations to the language brought on by some SMS and net-chat users? If you are referring purely to the minor recent abbreviations, why are you allowing the much wider problem of the use of 'words' like 'don't' and 'won't' and that atrocity 'isn't'? After all those words didn't come into common usage until WELL into the middle ages - they certainly aren't the 'original' english language? The test of a language isn't its stability - a language that fails to adapt to new mediums of communication is a dead language (latin anyone?). The real question is are the people using such abbreviations able to communicate with each other? If they are and they aren't losing expressiveness (many would argue that abbreviations like ROFL have taken on emotional expressiveness that can't be adequately communicated in 'old' language), then the language is doing just fine. If you disagree - well frankly you should be taking on the far larger problem of the loss of gendered verbs and the introduction of abbreviations that has been plaguing us for about 1000 years now.

LabrugWed, 19 July 2006, 02:17 pm

The tip of the point

I think Logos's original posting was more to do with the deterioration of understanding language in itself (correct me if I am wrong). I then brought forth the example of lazy language (SMS etc) being a pro-active agent in that downturn. We all understand that language evolves and adapts, that is a given. The comments are more to do with the de-evolution of language into gibberish and babling.

Dixi

Jeff Watkins
Perth based Actor/Performer
Fight/Sword Choreographer

http://au.geocities.com/labrug

NaWed, 19 July 2006, 02:23 pm

I'm not sure who this

I'm not sure who this comment is directed at... But here goes - I'm suggesting not that language should be stable (and no, I don't profess to be an expert on language, just an interested party), but that more care should be taken to not destroy language completely by ignorance. I have nothing against modern changes, but have everything against people writing illiterate messages not realising that some good punctuation or spelling might in fact, help their message get through more. Understanding language makes it easier to use and communication clearer. Part of the reason why people get so heated on this site is because each of us is talking different angles, and after all, 70% of communication is non-verbal. I'm not saying preserve language, I'm saying preserve understanding of it. The Prompt Copy Networking emerging theatre professionals www.thepromptcopy.com Sticky Apple Legs http://stickyapplelegs.artsblogs.com

Walter PlingeWed, 19 July 2006, 04:37 pm

everything in its right place

It's interesting that you cite SMS. That's precisely an example of language adapting to a new medium where the old language is inadequate. The shortening of words (and even sentences) for SMS is a product of people trying to leave written messages in a manner that takes up as little text space as possible, hence reducing the cost of the SMS. Funnily enough this is actually a return of an older means of communication - that of telegraph abbreviations. Seriously - you compare SMS-speak to an old telegraph message and they are extraordinarily similar - and for the precise reason that both mediums encouraged the invention of strong abbreviations to reduce sending costs. And net-chat is probably the most obvious case for linguistic change. Now I'm not particularly into net-chat myself, but I do play a few online games (counterstrike et al) when I have too much free time, and a similar system of real-time typed communication is used. Net-chat abbreviations were invented because the conversation is going on 'in real time' - i.e. there are 2 people both typing to each other simultaneously. Shortening sentences into abbreviations allows the conversation to flow like a verbal conversation. Over time some of those abbreviations took on their own connotation, so that you could still communicate the literal meaning of the abbreviation by using the old english equivalent, but you'd be giving a slightly different connotation to the words. Again, if people can understand each other with the same level of expression then the language isn't deteriorating. Of course people who aren't familiar with new mediums are likely to be frustrated - if you warped a literate individual from 450AD into the 1950s I'd imagine the person from 450AD speaking an older version of the language would be similarly frustrated. But few people, if any, would choose to readopt the old language. Language will always adapt to its needs - if people are finding it easier to communicate in a certain way then there are usually good reasons for that. That's a different thing to literacy - the ability to communicate verbal language in a written form - but I see no reason why the changes you have mentioned would in any way hamper the verbal to written transition. If anything they would assist it, as those changes actually ORIGINATED in written communications - indicating an increase in literacy.

LogosWed, 19 July 2006, 05:25 pm

My fourth attempt

I am having real problems posting tonight. My messages keep disappearing into limbo. Mr Edwards; I do have a reasonable grasp of the history of the english language having studied English Literature from Chaucer to the 19th Century. I read middle english slowly with a dictionary and also speak a little German (very badly). I do not in anyway decry the loss of gendering of nouns as it made the language more versatile and fluid. I do rather regret the loss of the familiar in day to day conversation as "thee" and "thou" are softer and friendlier sounding. Use of the familiar lasted well into the 19th century particularly among Quaker groups by the way. Also we speak the same language that Shakespeare wrote in. Modern English, some words have ceased to be used some new words have been invented but it's the same langauge. I would bet someone from today could get by in Shakespeares London. My problem is not with the ever shifting face of english but with the misuse of the language. Mispellings, incorrect use of words that demonstrates a failure to understand the real meaning and grammar so bad that statements can mean the opposite of what was intended. I have no problem with the use of precisionist langauge and this includes the issue of SMS english that has been discussed here. In my humble opinion use of SMS abbreviations in normal conversation or even in posts here is laziness. Life's too short to stuff a mushroom www.tonymoore.id.au

Daniel KershawWed, 19 July 2006, 05:35 pm

the per centage of

the per centage of non-verbal communication is not scientifically verified. It has varied everywhere from 90 to 40. Though it is not surprising that a few thespians get heated on this site.

LabrugThu, 20 July 2006, 11:12 am

Miissing the target

Again, I feel you mis-understand. Language changes, that is a given. As I joking suggested previously, even if the we evolve into heirogliphics. The problem, as Logos has succintly put it, it is the way in which it is used. Even iconographic languages have structure and grammatic rules. SMS and similar, while an evolution of communication, has aided in the breaking down of these structures and rules. That's where the problems rest.

Dixi

Jeff Watkins
Perth based Actor/Performer
Fight/Sword Choreographer

http://au.geocities.com/labrug

← Back to Billboard Bulletins