Puzzled

[Zulus Thousand of em]

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.

That's a drink isn't it? One that only comes out from the back of the drinks cabinet on Christmas Day, when Auntie Gertrude arrives. How do you play it then?

[TANGODANCER]

Speaking of written text - casual internet and mobile-phone usage apart- the main forms of world-wide communication are by letter ( formal except in the case of lesser educated people or lazy teenagers), newspaper and TV mediums (wherever wrtitten text is used). None of these do anything but use formal grammar, to the best of my knowlege. The main internet communication channels -Facebook, forums and personal blogs discounted- like wise follow suit. I see no indications anywhere that this will, or should change. Even modern schooling methods where the very young are taught "say and write it as you see it" are wrong in my view. Why practise a method that will need re-vamping totally later in life?

There's a very true maxim of "Never practise a mistake". ( as in your method PF, of adopting two different styles for seperate occasions) To me, anything but following the accepted and proven norm is futile, however people may try to justify it. Our language has evolved and increased within the confines of acceptibility based on improvement: What reason is there to change that?

[Lord Kangana]

Have you ever watched Sky News Tango? WTF is "The top of the hour" etc (and thats just the tip of a very large iceberg). I think our language is being 'dumbed down' on TV (even the likes of the BBC seem no longer infallible).

[TANGODANCER]

Have you ever watched Sky News Tango? WTF is "The top of the hour" etc (and thats just the tip of a very large iceberg). I think our language is being 'dumbed down' on TV (even the likes of the BBC seem no longer infallible).

Ah, well, I'm old-fashiones see, don't have Sky.

[TANGODANCER]

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.

The masculine and feminine are interchangeable; when did that happen?

[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.

The masculine and feminine are interchangeable; when did that happen?

Yes, in conversational Spanish nobody will bother pick you up on using the wrong one.

[a1]

Yes, in conversational Spanish nobody will bother pick you up on using the wrong one.

[joke]not like them french bastards[/joke]

oh and the 'lack of personal pronouns' do you mean "his hers i mine ours we " them kinda words?

isnt the lack of them outweghed by the memory sapping different endings of different verbs "i go(+extraletters)" , "we go(+differentextraletters)" etc .

to me learning , "i me us we they" and one word for each seperate verb , seems easier than learning eight words for each verb ...

you could say that, because the grammar is german and half the words are latin , and doesnt ban loanwords from foriegn languages , that english is miles less of a "xenophobic" language than most . no matter what john bull sez on his holidays.

this english language is pretty good. no matter if numb bastards like me carnt remember it.

[TANGODANCER]

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.

The masculine and feminine are interchangeable; when did that happen?

Yes, in conversational Spanish nobody will bother pick you up on using the wrong one.

That's from respect that you try to speak their language at all, not from not mattering, or the fact that los, las, el and la are interchangeable. They most certainly are not in the correct form of the language.

[Prufrock]

Yes, in conversational Spanish nobody will bother pick you up on using the wrong one.

[joke]not like them french bastards[/joke]

oh and the 'lack of personal pronouns' do you mean "his hers i mine ours we " them kinda words?

isnt the lack of them outweghed by the memory sapping different endings of different verbs "i go(+extraletters)" , "we go(+differentextraletters)" etc .

to me learning , "i me us we they" and one word for each seperate verb , seems easier than learning eight words for each verb ...

you could say that, because the grammar is german and half the words are latin , and doesnt ban loanwords from foriegn languages , that english is miles less of a "xenophobic" language than most . no matter what john bull sez on his holidays.

this english language is pretty good. no matter if numb bastards like me carnt remember it.

the language itself is, but because we have a few words of borrowed spanish doesnt make a spanish fellow understand english. as a nation i feel we are lazy when it comes to trying to speak foreign languages abroad.

[Prufrock]

Speaking of written text - casual internet and mobile-phone usage apart- the main forms of world-wide communication are by letter ( formal except in the case of lesser educated people or lazy teenagers), newspaper and TV mediums (wherever wrtitten text is used). None of these do anything but use formal grammar, to the best of my knowlege. The main internet communication channels -Facebook, forums and personal blogs discounted- like wise follow suit. I see no indications anywhere that this will, or should change. Even modern schooling methods where the very young are taught "say and write it as you see it" are wrong in my view. Why practise a method that will need re-vamping totally later in life?

There's a very true maxim of "Never practise a mistake". ( as in your method PF, of adopting two different styles for seperate occasions) To me, anything but following the accepted and proven norm is futile, however people may try to justify it. Our language has evolved and increased within the confines of acceptibility based on improvement: What reason is there to change that?

for me there is no reason to change language, it just will. if people suggest english will not change in the next hundred years i think they are being naive. what will change i wouldnt want to predict. but what will happen will be if more people drop capitalisation than keep it, it will go, if more keep it, it will stay. which of these will happen nobody can say

[TANGODANCER]

Speaking of written text - casual internet and mobile-phone usage apart- the main forms of world-wide communication are by letter ( formal except in the case of lesser educated people or lazy teenagers), newspaper and TV mediums (wherever wrtitten text is used). None of these do anything but use formal grammar, to the best of my knowlege. The main internet communication channels -Facebook, forums and personal blogs discounted- like wise follow suit. I see no indications anywhere that this will, or should change. Even modern schooling methods where the very young are taught "say and write it as you see it" are wrong in my view. Why practise a method that will need re-vamping totally later in life?

There's a very true maxim of "Never practise a mistake". ( as in your method PF, of adopting two different styles for seperate occasions) To me, anything but following the accepted and proven norm is futile, however people may try to justify it. Our language has evolved and increased within the confines of acceptibility based on improvement: What reason is there to change that?

for me there is no reason to change language, it just will. if people suggest english will not change in the next hundred years i think they are being naive. what will change i wouldnt want to predict. but what will happen will be if more people drop capitalisation than keep it, it will go, if more keep it, it will stay. which of these will happen nobody can say

That's a bit like saying "If more people wash they'll be cleaner, if they don't they'll get dirtier". Why help either on their way
when both are products of evolution? Why go backwards?

[Prufrock]

Speaking of written text - casual internet and mobile-phone usage apart- the main forms of world-wide communication are by letter ( formal except in the case of lesser educated people or lazy teenagers), newspaper and TV mediums (wherever wrtitten text is used). None of these do anything but use formal grammar, to the best of my knowlege. The main internet communication channels -Facebook, forums and personal blogs discounted- like wise follow suit. I see no indications anywhere that this will, or should change. Even modern schooling methods where the very young are taught "say and write it as you see it" are wrong in my view. Why practise a method that will need re-vamping totally later in life?

There's a very true maxim of "Never practise a mistake". ( as in your method PF, of adopting two different styles for seperate occasions) To me, anything but following the accepted and proven norm is futile, however people may try to justify it. Our language has evolved and increased within the confines of acceptibility based on improvement: What reason is there to change that?

for me there is no reason to change language, it just will. if people suggest english will not change in the next hundred years i think they are being naive. what will change i wouldnt want to predict. but what will happen will be if more people drop capitalisation than keep it, it will go, if more keep it, it will stay. which of these will happen nobody can say

That's a bit like saying "If more people wash they'll be cleaner, if they don't they'll get dirtier". Why help either on their way
when both are products of evolution? Why go backwards?

i agree with you tango that its a bad thing, but it doesnt change the fact i believe it will happen. im partly guilty, but then im not that bothered either way. in my view all that REALLY matters is we can all communicate, although personal preference would be preservation of some sembance of grammatical rules

[Dujon]

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

Club shop be blowed, this is a D.I.Y. project. I have tried it (using butchers' paper as a template) but it doesn't fit unless I make the lettering so small you can't read it from more than a few feet away. My second (third to come) attempt was to use NOMAD. As I don't possess a motorbike and a studded leather jacket I felt that this could result in some sort of contretemps down the local chippy, so I've shelved that idea. The third brainwave was GYPSY, but, in all honesty, who wants someone pestering you for pegs when you're in line at the local bank?

I think that I will now leave the shirt unadorned; a blank card on which observers can imagine their own mental image or text. Now, surely, that is as modern and artistic as you can get . . . which leads me to my next post (circa 2050).

[Dujon]

.........

[Gertie]

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.

That's a drink isn't it? One that only comes out from the back of the drinks cabinet on Christmas Day, when Auntie Gertrude arrives. How do you play it then?

Hmmmmm, Zulu.... I have a double vodka thanks

One thing I don't understand (OK of the many things I don't understand...) Oh, please excuse my typing/spelling am doing this one-handed and like prufrock, I am verily tired.

When people use the word "literally"?? What does it mean?? As in.. ' I was "literally" standing there...' So were you standing there or not??? Should it be I was 'standing there'?? My dictionary is in storage and I'm a bit slow.

[TANGODANCER]

One thing I don't understand (OK of the many things I don't understand...) Oh, please excuse my typing/spelling am doing this one-handed and like prufrock, I am verily tired.

When people use the word "literally"?? What does it mean?? As in.. ' I was "literally" standing there...' So were you standing there or not??? Should it be I was 'standing there'?? My dictionary is in storage and I'm a bit slow.

Doing exactly what it says on the tin is a fair example Gerts. Like if it says, "Literally, Dries in one hour", it literally does what it says. In your example, "actually" standing there would be better.

"I was literally "glued to the spot", is wrong, except if you were stood in a puddle of Superglue, then you'd be literally glued to the spot. Hope that helps.

[Lord Kangana]

In which instance you'd use figuratively.

[Bruce Rioja]

I have a book all about the poor use of English entitled 'She Literally Exploded'.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I have a book all about the poor use of English entitled 'She Literally Exploded'.

She should not add nitro to the Martini.

[TANGODANCER]

It literally makes my blood boil.

No, it doesn't.