Time to pause and reflect....
Time to pause and reflect....
(OP)
I suggested, in another thread, that there was nothing wrong iwth my spelling except that i was ahead of my time.
In time all bad spelling becomes an accepted variant as they create new dictionaries.
Think about it, if the language were rigorously defended at some benchmark date then all deviant spellings and new words would, by definition, be bad english.
However, like most every othe consumer product, change is desirable and hence, under the guise of "reflecting" the changes in language rather than "guarding" it, publishers can sell more dictionaries.
What is and is not good english now depends on the "latest" edition of a dictionary. There appears to me to be a degree of self-interest here that is not necessarily to the benefit of the world wide users of english.
Take this forum for example. Here we reflect on bad grammar and poor spelling and each of us is learning and improving.
This excercise is made redundant by the activoities of the lexicographers and publishers for whom change is beneficial.
In this forum we seek to us one or other standard dictionary as our reference but this is ubject to continuous change. What is worng today may well be right tommorrow.
Now i suggest we pause and take stock because four hundred of the worlds leading linguists will attned a four day conference arranged by the Universities of Newcastle, Durham, Northumnbria,and Sunderland.
This telling quote from Dr. Karen Corrigan:
I wonder who sets the terms of refernce for these conferences and determines the criteria by which new words like "chuddies" "irie" "gora" and the like enter the language and which are rejected as having a negative effect.
Negative effect? yes. Too much change and too little control will not see an agreed common language develop but one which is forever beyond the aspirations of the millions for whom it is a challenge already but an essential tool for their working lives.
So, should we look for tighter controls? Should we not expect that a dictionary should represent as much of a standard for the english language (and they should all converge as we seek to harmonise International English)as any engineering standard and once defined should it not be guarded against change with equal ferocity?
Where would we all be if our engineering standards were to change in such an arbitrary manner as dictionaries?
Change, yes, but too much change is as dangerous as too little.
In time all bad spelling becomes an accepted variant as they create new dictionaries.
Think about it, if the language were rigorously defended at some benchmark date then all deviant spellings and new words would, by definition, be bad english.
However, like most every othe consumer product, change is desirable and hence, under the guise of "reflecting" the changes in language rather than "guarding" it, publishers can sell more dictionaries.
What is and is not good english now depends on the "latest" edition of a dictionary. There appears to me to be a degree of self-interest here that is not necessarily to the benefit of the world wide users of english.
Take this forum for example. Here we reflect on bad grammar and poor spelling and each of us is learning and improving.
This excercise is made redundant by the activoities of the lexicographers and publishers for whom change is beneficial.
In this forum we seek to us one or other standard dictionary as our reference but this is ubject to continuous change. What is worng today may well be right tommorrow.
Now i suggest we pause and take stock because four hundred of the worlds leading linguists will attned a four day conference arranged by the Universities of Newcastle, Durham, Northumnbria,and Sunderland.
This telling quote from Dr. Karen Corrigan:
Quote:
Language has always developed over time, but at the moment it is changing much faster than it has ever done as a result of increased opportunities for social and geographical mobility."
I wonder who sets the terms of refernce for these conferences and determines the criteria by which new words like "chuddies" "irie" "gora" and the like enter the language and which are rejected as having a negative effect.
Negative effect? yes. Too much change and too little control will not see an agreed common language develop but one which is forever beyond the aspirations of the millions for whom it is a challenge already but an essential tool for their working lives.
So, should we look for tighter controls? Should we not expect that a dictionary should represent as much of a standard for the english language (and they should all converge as we seek to harmonise International English)as any engineering standard and once defined should it not be guarded against change with equal ferocity?
Where would we all be if our engineering standards were to change in such an arbitrary manner as dictionaries?
Change, yes, but too much change is as dangerous as too little.





RE: Time to pause and reflect....
One of the things that came up was "whole language" programs. One part of this program is that spelling is not taught or corrected. The end result of this program is sixth graders who can't read at a second grade level.
The most interesting point of this conversation was that, in my friend's field, they even have a term for such children: "whole language disasters". She went on to say how phonics and spelling are vital components in a child's literacy development.
Spelling is getting short shrift in American reading education, and children are losing out.
http://www.EsoxRepublic.com
RE: Time to pause and reflect....
JMW
www.viscoanalyser.com
RE: Time to pause and reflect....
Good point! Here in Australia, I believe we used the "whole language" system for quite a few years. My own children are now just entering primary school, and "whole language" seems to be a thing of the past - thankfully. Spelling is now firmly back on the agenda.
The modern system of teaching spelling seems to be very different from my own early school days, which consisted pretty much of rote learning, together with a "catalogue" of exceptions to the rules. We were not taught any logic to the numerous exceptions (as far as I can recall) - these were just words that we had to learn and accept that "that is just how it is". Today, my 7 year old daughter is learning spelling at school, with an emphasis on both "the rules" and also "the exceptions", but with some sort of underlying logic as to how to recognise and understand the exceptions.
I can testify that in Australia we have a whole generation of children who, by and large, just can't spell. These people are coming through the university system now, and I cringe every time I have to read one of their reports. Certainly, their familiarity with spell checkers catches a lot of their errors, but the ones that sneak through (many of which have been the fodder for this forum - use of apostrophes, their vs they're, etc) make it clear that they have simply never been taught the rules of written English.
I guess every generation has to have something to criticise the next, and certainly, my parents never did understand how The Sex Pistols captured the mood of my generation, but surely poor spelling and grammar can't be excused as youthful rebellion?
Will the new (old) methods work any better? I guess only time will tell. But one thing is certain - my daughter in Grade 2 has a far better grasp of spelling than did my younger brother at the same age a generation ago. Here's hoping!
RE: Time to pause and reflect....
One of the wonderful things about this forum is that we have the opportunity to learn the current correct way, and for that I am quite grateful. Perhaps being presumputious, but I think that quite a few others feel the same as well.
But you also see in this same forum people who have no desire to be correct, think the rules are silly, or care nothing about adherance to a broader rulebase outside of their own environment.
How does one reconcile the two? How does one allow language evolution to continue, but not lead to language anarchy?
RE: Time to pause and reflect....
Take this sentence from an english-as-a-second-language speaker:
"Don't get your chuddies in a twist!"
Should the majority of english speakers now add this new minority word "chuddies" and learn it or should the speaker learn the more commonly recognised word: "under-pants" or any of the original accepted variants e.g. "knickers".
Does a word like "chuddies" more properly belong only in a dictionary of slang? Would we seriously propose that because words are in "Slang" dictionaries that they represent how the language should be spoken or are they merely an observation of how some people speak without endorsing that version?
Should we have a moritorium on adding new words to the standards?
Now have a look at another term and see that this is a widespread problem crossing many language boundaries. It concerns what some Americans now call ""Freedom" fries".
In the UK they are "chips" or "potato chips" unless bought from Mickey D's or Burger King when they are French fries.
In France they are usually Pomme Frites and even in Germany they are now Pomme Frites.
But in Russia, (though i can't say how widely used) they appear as the German "Kartoflen Fries" (but in Russian script as one big word).
I was momentarily confused by a road sign in Moscow that said: CTOπ until I sounded it out and realised it was actually English (Stop).
Now i can handle Russian if they adopt English words and merely spell them out in Cyrilic but I am going home if they insist on transliterating bl**dy great big German "Portmanteau" words.
Another intriguing word from the Russian is BOXAL (B sounds like V) for a Railway station. This is the english word, not for station but for a specific station i.e. Vauxhall which is the name of the railway station the Russia delegation were visiting when they were examining this great new thing, the Railway and asked "What do you call this?"
The net result is that i have great deal of sympathy for the French in trying to police their language, at least in government documents. Left to the great public whose educational standards are slipping every year, we will soon find that we have reduced our great languages to meaningless giberish understood by only few.
JMW
www.viscoanalyser.com
RE: Time to pause and reflect....
RE: Time to pause and reflect....
It's the PEOPLE who do the communicating that adopt new modes of communication. Case in point are the people roaming around with cell phone earpieces permanently attached to their heads. One wonders how they possibly could have gotten alone prior to this, but it'll only fade if they could somehow embed the comm link directly into their cochleas.
In some cases, idioms are simply faddish and fade away, even though they were immensely popular in their time, e.g., "you bet your sweet bippy." Likewise, "at the end of the day," may also fade away, but that would only be if there were an equally inane, yet popular phrase that takes over. Whatever is too drastic or irrelevant will fail the test of time.
The very fact that we, separated by an known distance and culture, are able to communicate effectively demonstrates that the language will not change any faster than it takes for people to adopt the new "thing."
To some degree, much of this discussion smells of what your parents must have been thinking when rock&roll came to be. And yet, rock is now pumped in as elevator music
So, there you are, at the end of the day, you ARE your parents.
TTFN
RE: Time to pause and reflect....
Two places where spelling counts:
1.) Internet search engines
2.) Programming
RE: Time to pause and reflect....
RE: Time to pause and reflect....
1. TOO MANY lexicographers.
2. Not enough spelling classes.
Buy a dictionary, keep it nearby and USE it. Webster's New World Dictionary of American English is recommended, and Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.
RE: Time to pause and reflect....
Settle for a pay rise?
Oh, sorry, I can't give you that either.
JMW
www.viscoanalyser.com
RE: Time to pause and reflect....
Jesus is THE life,
Leonard
RE: Time to pause and reflect....
RE: Time to pause and reflect....
You probably should not take baths in that glass house of yours either.
Hey Metman; what's with the sudden fascination with the Belgians anyway. I can not remember great contributions to the English language comming from Belgium. It is not even their mother tongue so I don't see how they can criticize Americans for the way they speak. Maybe I need some enlightenment.
RE: Time to pause and reflect....
rmw
RE: Time to pause and reflect....
How long do you think the term "freedom fries" will last? Is it still common in the USA, or is it already fading away? Do Americans use it in a humorous, ironic way, or is there a sense of real bitterness to the French when ordering their "freedom fries"?
Only relatively rarely do artificial words or phrases enter the common language in a permanent sense. I would hate to think that a term which was created out of deliberate political spite would become a permanent part of our language.
While I think we can assume that we are unanimous that it is good fun to hate the French (that's a joke, by the way! Apologies in advance to anyone I may have offended.), I would like to think that within a year or two, they will once again be known by their more traditional names in the not-too-distant future.
That is, French fries, chips, pomme frites, fritters, etc, but not freedom fries.
RE: Time to pause and reflect....
(and don't let's turn this into a French spelling class).
Julian, there is a word that entered the language and stayed, even though it was never heard or used before and had no history at all.
It was the invention of one man. He achieved this by simply scrawling it everywhere until everyone was saying "what does it mean?"
The word he coined was "quiz". Can't think who he was though i am sure the more erudite among us will let us know shortly.
JMW
www.viscoanalyser.com
RE: Time to pause and reflect....
I don't think "freedom fries" will last. It isn't that popular now, and it is used by most people only in a humorous way.
Regards,
Cory
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: Time to pause and reflect....
RE: Time to pause and reflect....
http://www.EsoxRepublic.com
RE: Time to pause and reflect....
RE: Time to pause and reflect....
RE: Time to pause and reflect....
quiz
\Quiz\, n. [It is said that Daly, the manager of a Dublin playhouse, laid a wager that a new word of no meaning should be the common talk and puzzle of the city in twenty-fours. In consequence of this the letters q u i z were chalked by him on all the walls of Dublin, with an effect that won the wager. Perhaps, however, originally a variant of whiz, and formerly the name of a popular game.] 1. A riddle or obscure question; an enigma; a ridiculous hoax.
RE: Time to pause and reflect....
http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutwordorigins/quiz?view=uk
RE: Time to pause and reflect....
As usual, we can at last satisfy ourselves 100% that no one can be sure of anything.
JMW
www.viscoanalyser.com
RE: Time to pause and reflect....
The Irish probably did not invent them, but are probably one of the worlds biggest proliferators of tall tales.
RE: Time to pause and reflect....
I'm most familiar with this word from when I was in school. A short daily set of questions would be called a quiz; in some classes expected every Friday. They were also often called "tests"; but that was also used for the bigger ones (end of unit) while the really big ones (end of term and mid-term) were exams. Yes, "questions and answers", but "entertainment"?
Of course, that being a number of years ago, it might have mutated since then.
jlg