Puzzled

[Worthy4England]

I think he has a point about the Spanish though - If more of us took the trouble to learn it, more of us would understand it....

But why would I want to? (Not knocking anyone who has a burning desire to do so....)

personally you may not need to but i do think we as a nation are quite arrogant when it comes to foreign languages. thats not to say everyone should get fluent in every language, i personally know next to no spanish but if i were to go there on holiday i think it makes a big difference to buy a phrasebook and try the odd phrase. it just creates a bit of goodwill as opposed to the typical English lager lout shout loudly in english then trash the place because they dont understand.

sweet jesus i've become a hippy!

Nowt wrong with hippies. Don't get me wrong, I've got a smattering of "travellers language" from everywhere I've been. That doesn't create a need. I travel around a bit in my work, and have never "needed" anything other than English yet.

[TANGODANCER]

My many trips to Spain have been made utterly joyful since bothering to learn some of the language. You can hardly blame the natives for being somewhat offended at their treatment because visitors think they should all speak English. I can remember a silly woman on a TV programme complaining: "How are we supposed to communicate when they don't speak bloody English"?......or words to that effect.

[Prufrock]

I think he has a point about the Spanish though - If more of us took the trouble to learn it, more of us would understand it....

But why would I want to? (Not knocking anyone who has a burning desire to do so....)

personally you may not need to but i do think we as a nation are quite arrogant when it comes to foreign languages. thats not to say everyone should get fluent in every language, i personally know next to no spanish but if i were to go there on holiday i think it makes a big difference to buy a phrasebook and try the odd phrase. it just creates a bit of goodwill as opposed to the typical English lager lout shout loudly in english then trash the place because they dont understand.

sweet jesus i've become a hippy!

Nowt wrong with hippies. Don't get me wrong, I've got a smattering of "travellers language" from everywhere I've been. That doesn't create a need. I travel around a bit in my work, and have never "needed" anything other than English yet.

thats fair enough worthy wasnt directed at you per se, i just think as i nation we are very arrogant when it comes to trips abroad, particularly holidays in the med.

i dont't think anyone can argue with the sentiments of hippyism (tis a word i'm sure), but god they can be soft b*stards

[Bruce Rioja]

are you a farmer?

Go on. Let's have your idea of a Farmer?

[Worthy4England]

are you a farmer?

Go on. Let's have your idea of a Farmer?

I suspect the reality might not live up to the speculation. I'm now officially off to t'pub. Can't wait to find out upon my return.

[Prufrock]

are you a farmer?

Go on. Let's have your idea of a Farmer?

I suspect the reality might not live up to the speculation. I'm now officially off to t'pub. Can't wait to find out upon my return.

im with you worthy, things like this are always better after a few ales. ciao ciao everyone

[communistworkethic]

We don't speak latin for a start.

Language has become more complicated naturally, though I can see you would prefer we revert to a series of grunts as per our ancestors. If you think language doesn't evolve to something more complex then I suggest you go spend a bit of time with some law students in their lectures or with some phisics students. Or if you really want to see language evolved to something so complex as to be unintelligible get yourself along to see some management consultants.

no true, a differention between nouns and verbs for example will always exsist. we are talking about fine grammar and punctuation. the ancients for example had no punctuation, yet communicated easily enough. my point to those who wish to preserve elements that are not essential to communication is why, and where do you draw the line?

sunshine, you said language doesn't evolve to become more complicated that it always gets simpler. That's just not true, as my pointed remark about grunts demonstrated. Languague, spoken language as you seem fixated on it, has eveolved to be way more complicated than it was. The youth of today, however, do seem intent on bringing it down to nothing more to grunts.

[Worthy4England]

We don't speak latin for a start.

Language has become more complicated naturally, though I can see you would prefer we revert to a series of grunts as per our ancestors. If you think language doesn't evolve to something more complex then I suggest you go spend a bit of time with some law students in their lectures or with some phisics students. Or if you really want to see language evolved to something so complex as to be unintelligible get yourself along to see some management consultants.

no true, a differention between nouns and verbs for example will always exsist. we are talking about fine grammar and punctuation. the ancients for example had no punctuation, yet communicated easily enough. my point to those who wish to preserve elements that are not essential to communication is why, and where do you draw the line?

sunshine, you said language doesn't evolve to become more complicated that it always gets simpler. That's just not true, as my pointed remark about grunts demonstrated. Languague, spoken language as you seem fixated on it, has eveolved to be way more complicated than it was. The youth of today, however, do seem intent on bringing it down to nothing more to grunts.

My dad said similar about me....and I'm a long time out of yoofdom...

[communistworkethic]

Maybe the reference to spanish was due to the fact that it is derived from Latin, which in some respects makes it similar to English, yet spanish is much simpler - it not using personal pronouns, for example. And in conversational spanish you can be quite lax and nobody bats an eye lid - los, las, el and la are all but interchangeable when speaking.

[Prufrock]

We don't speak latin for a start.

Language has become more complicated naturally, though I can see you would prefer we revert to a series of grunts as per our ancestors. If you think language doesn't evolve to something more complex then I suggest you go spend a bit of time with some law students in their lectures or with some phisics students. Or if you really want to see language evolved to something so complex as to be unintelligible get yourself along to see some management consultants.

no true, a differention between nouns and verbs for example will always exsist. we are talking about fine grammar and punctuation. the ancients for example had no punctuation, yet communicated easily enough. my point to those who wish to preserve elements that are not essential to communication is why, and where do you draw the line?

sunshine, you said language doesn't evolve to become more complicated that it always gets simpler. That's just not true, as my pointed remark about grunts demonstrated. Languague, spoken language as you seem fixated on it, has eveolved to be way more complicated than it was. The youth of today, however, do seem intent on bringing it down to nothing more to grunts.

no no no flower (you called me sunshine)people have evolved, individual languages get more simple in themslelves, as a general rule one particular language simplies and becomes more like the spoken language over time. you say some of the things i, and 'the kids of today' use is laziness. yet you used the example of split infinitives. you still havent answered why they have gone, if its not through what you call laziness and i call ease of communication.

[Montreal Wanderer]

As an aside.... I wouldn't dream of using a split infinitive in an academic essay. Perhaps I am not brave enough to be the man to boldly go down that path, at the head of PF's revolution.

That I would never say 'an historical fact' has more to do with a change in common pronunciation than it does with a change or lapsing of any rules of grammar.

Perhaps you are correct in saying that bare understanding is all that's important. My only concern for you is that you might encounter people with the power to open and shut doors for you who don't share this view.

You are a little young to remember this, PB, but when Star Trek first came to the UK in the very late 60's the Radio Times reported the Enterprise's five year mission was "Boldly to go where no man has gone..." Obviously the Beeb had higher standards back then.

[Dujon]

prufrockiwillgobacktomyoriginalcommentwhichwasgoodgriefbutthatrelatedtothefactthatthisthreadstartedasareferenceandqueryastohowotherpostersrelatedtocapitalorlowercaselettersonthebackof footballplayersnamesonshirtsbutexpandedtowhatitisnow.

Many on this site are far more educated than I can ever hope to be. Whilst I always try I doubt that my phraseology really transmits my true feelings, as evidenced by comments regarding my paternalistic or patronising waffling. I would guess that nine times out of ten anyone listening to me would understand what I was 'getting at'. There are so many nuances (read inflexions) in language that, at least in my experience, are nigh on impossible to convert to written expressions.

Anyway, we're waffling along and spilling out some of our preferences and dislikes. I have a BWFC shirt which has nothing on the back (apart from my shoulder blades) and think I should do something about it. A felt tipped pen could be ideal. I was thinking about a capitalised up arrow.

Thoughts?

[Prufrock]

prufrockiwillgobacktomyoriginalcommentwhichwasgoodgriefbutthatrelatedtothefactthatthisthreadstartedasareferenceandqueryastohowotherpostersrelatedtocapitalorlowercaselettersonthebackof footballplayersnamesonshirtsbutexpandedtowhatitisnow.

Many on this site are far more educated than I can ever hope to be. Whilst I always try I doubt that my phraseology really transmits my true feelings, as evidenced by comments regarding my paternalistic or patronising waffling. I would guess that nine times out of ten anyone listening to me would understand what I was 'getting at'. There are so many nuances (read inflexions) in language that, at least in my experience, are nigh on impossible to convert to written expressions.

Anyway, we're waffling along and spilling out some of our preferences and dislikes. I have a BWFC shirt which has nothing on the back (apart from my shoulder blades) and think I should do something about it. A felt tipped pen could be ideal. I was thinking about a capitalised up arrow.

Thoughts?

this did make me laugh. obviously im not advocating everyone typing/writing like your first few lines, in fact in my state its given me a small headache, but yes tango's original question regarded the use of capitals (i hate the word capitalisation, its a horrible amercanisation, whats that, hypocrite you call him? perhaps but i have rarely defended shoddy punctuation, merely used it as an example of change. there are certain things i dont like but since i cant be arxed following every gramatical law to the full i dont pick them up because then i would be a hypocrite), and as an example chelsea's kit.my points purely had to do with a. language is all about easy communication and being understood, and b. certain rules have, and will in the future, change, and who are we to form a brigade to stop this, and if so where do we draw this line?

as for your shirt, i suggest a fitting thing to have would be 'wndrez yeah!' not sure if club shop do exclamation marks though??

[qwertywarrior]

are you a farmer?

Go on. Let's have your idea of a Farmer?

it is from Catherine Tate

is a way of saying am i bovvered

[Prufrock]

are you a farmer?

Go on. Let's have your idea of a Farmer?

it is from Catherine Tate

is a way of saying am i bovvered

No offence qwerty, because it's not your fault, but given expectations, i think that may have been an anticlimax!

[Bruce Rioja]

are you a farmer?

Go on. Let's have your idea of a Farmer?

it is from Catherine Tate

is a way of saying am i bovvered

Oh right. A further stunning contribution.

[communistworkethic]

We don't speak latin for a start.

Language has become more complicated naturally, though I can see you would prefer we revert to a series of grunts as per our ancestors. If you think language doesn't evolve to something more complex then I suggest you go spend a bit of time with some law students in their lectures or with some phisics students. Or if you really want to see language evolved to something so complex as to be unintelligible get yourself along to see some management consultants.

no true, a differention between nouns and verbs for example will always exsist. we are talking about fine grammar and punctuation. the ancients for example had no punctuation, yet communicated easily enough. my point to those who wish to preserve elements that are not essential to communication is why, and where do you draw the line?

sunshine, you said language doesn't evolve to become more complicated that it always gets simpler. That's just not true, as my pointed remark about grunts demonstrated. Languague, spoken language as you seem fixated on it, has eveolved to be way more complicated than it was. The youth of today, however, do seem intent on bringing it down to grunts.

no no no flower (you called me sunshine)people have evolved, individual languages get more simple in themslelves, as a general rule one particular language simplies and becomes more like the spoken language over time. you say some of the things i, and 'the kids of today' use is laziness. yet you used the example of split infinitives. you still havent answered why they have gone, if its not through what you call laziness and i call ease of communication.

right then petal, as you've accused me of dismissing a view out of hand, I'll spell it out for you as you've offered nothing to suport your own view.

Language has evolved to become more complicated. Man has added words over centuries, it did not start with people communicating in a really complex manner and regressed since then. Or are you suggesting that Neanderthal man, rather than grunt and point, was a fluent speaker and writer in a form of English we would struggle to comprehend due to its syntax? The evolution of man and the evolution of language are inexorably linked.

If you were to suggest that a certain section of society were hell bent on de-evolving and taking language with it, I would struggle to argue having to drive through the like of Keighley all too often. The use of "yeah", "innit" and "aiiiit" have done nothing to make language simpler, just try reasing some of A1's posts, fo'shizzle.

I answered the split infintive question some posts ago, if your laziness doesn't allow you to flick back that is not my problem.

[Prufrock]

We don't speak latin for a start.

Language has become more complicated naturally, though I can see you would prefer we revert to a series of grunts as per our ancestors. If you think language doesn't evolve to something more complex then I suggest you go spend a bit of time with some law students in their lectures or with some phisics students. Or if you really want to see language evolved to something so complex as to be unintelligible get yourself along to see some management consultants.

no true, a differention between nouns and verbs for example will always exsist. we are talking about fine grammar and punctuation. the ancients for example had no punctuation, yet communicated easily enough. my point to those who wish to preserve elements that are not essential to communication is why, and where do you draw the line?

sunshine, you said language doesn't evolve to become more complicated that it always gets simpler. That's just not true, as my pointed remark about grunts demonstrated. Languague, spoken language as you seem fixated on it, has eveolved to be way more complicated than it was. The youth of today, however, do seem intent on bringing it down to grunts.

no no no flower (you called me sunshine)people have evolved, individual languages get more simple in themslelves, as a general rule one particular language simplies and becomes more like the spoken language over time. you say some of the things i, and 'the kids of today' use is laziness. yet you used the example of split infinitives. you still havent answered why they have gone, if its not through what you call laziness and i call ease of communication.

right then petal, as you've accused me of dismissing a view out of hand, I'll spell it out for you as you've offered nothing to suport your own view.

Language has evolved to become more complicated. Man has added words over centuries, it did not start with people communicating in a really complex manner and regressed since then. Or are you suggesting that Neanderthal man, rather than grunt and point, was a fluent speaker and writer in a form of English we would struggle to comprehend due to its syntax? The evolution of man and the evolution of language are inexorably linked.

If you were to suggest that a certain section of society were hell bent on de-evolving and taking language with it, I would struggle to argue having to drive through the like of Keighley all too often. The use of "yeah", "innit" and "aiiiit" have done nothing to make language simpler, just try reasing some of A1's posts, fo'shizzle.

I answered the split infintive question some posts ago, if your laziness doesn't allow you to flick back that is not my problem.

okay sugar-dumpling i would counter this by saying that any particular language, by which i mean grammatical nuances,in general, hasnt become more complicated. i would not refute the fact that human communication has beomce more complex, yet each individual language, takes on, gets rid of, and adds points of grammar of the language it evolves from. as a general rule ( and i admit some of my statements previously such as 'all languages always get simpler' may have been both sweeping and misguided, yet i stand by my view regarding each language in its own right) a language in itself as a rule, over time mirrors more and more the speech, thus becoming, again as a general rule, more simple.

as for split infinitives, you talked about latin, i answered about latin. this point now is regarding english. strictly speaking split infinatives are wrong in english. however, they are commonly accepted nowadays. if not through what you call laziness why?

[communistworkethic]

Split infintives - yes we don't speak latin, and as you spotted, the infinitive in Latin is a single entity - it's tought to split. So Latin's not relevant. And no there are not incorrect in English, it's a misconception and it's an example of language getting more complex. The "ban" on them only becomes part of English in about the 1700s, they existed and were used well before that and have continued to be since.

[Prufrock]

Split infintives - yes we don't speak latin, and as you spotted, the infinitive in Latin is a single entity - it's tought to split. So Latin's not relevant. And no there are not incorrect in English, it's a misconception and it's an example of language getting more complex. The "ban" on them only becomes part of English in about the 1700s, they existed and were used well before that and have continued to be since.

something i can admit, if true, i did not know. i can accept that.

however you still have not answered my main question. where do we draw this line? when i wish to define modern english, when is middle english, when is modern? whithin modern english where does what we write diferentiate from what the victorians write, what date do you draw the line. surely oscar wilde is intelligible to most? yet 'ballad of reading gaol' anyone? thats just a point of vocab not to mention the grammar i have mentioned.

this is the last time i wish to state this, i dont agree that all english should become simplified to the extreme, in parts i have played devil's advocat, yet doing so, in the majority i have stated what i beleive will happen. not necessarily what i want. only what i beleive.