The origin of "Pom" is not confirmed. OED favours a contraction of pomegranate as rhyming slang for immigrant.
The origin of "Pom" is not confirmed. OED favours a contraction of pomegranate as rhyming slang for immigrant.
:whs:Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodwould
To add my 2$. Commercial media, who have much to blame for, have forgotten the correct usage of 'is' and 'are'. 'Is' is singular, while 'are' is plural. It's no wonder kids of today can't use correct grammar, let alone spell :(( . Watch any commercial news channel and you'll see what I mean, at least Aunty and SBS uphold correct grammar.
And to which Howdya referred, you mob outta move over to Drivel on Fridays. Some of you used to contribute in there.
Language is a perennial problem as is pronunciation.
These days pronunciation is suffering badly. English has several instances where words arepronounced in a different way to the written text. i.e London. This does not stop people getting things wrong. I have noticed several cases recently of the misuse of U and O.Take conjurer. It shoud be prom\nounced with a U as cunjerer. And as for the TwOts who pronounce it TwAt it sums them up perfectly.
Problem of leverage instead of leeverage. Would the same person use a leever or a lever. Could go on but most of you have many such examples.
But mangled English will always be with us. I keep meaning to compile a list when I can find time.
Pet hate at present is Outage. Whenever power FAILS we have an outage. Why?
Head a beauty a few days ago that can only come from the Seppos. Try this one Exoticiize. Fair took my breath away.
Not much we can do however. The French fight to save their language with a monumental pride, but therein the middle of a sentance will be "le football."
jerry
Pronunciation has always been regional, even in Australia in some cases. My Dad still says sand castle with a as in cat, whereas I have learnt (learned?) to pronounce it with a as in car.
Do you take vit-amins or vite-amins? Do you eat yo-ghurt or yoh-ghurt? Most British people I know say vit and yog. I say vite and yoh. So am I wrong? Brits hoover their carpets. Hoover is an American company, so what happened there?
I can live with these things. What I hate is "would of ..." instead of "would've ..." or "would have ..."
Siolent,
Having been born and raised in England, I am of course aware of regional accents. South Bus north Boos. My real point was that what can be regarded as fundamental pronunciation ( i used London) as example are being lost that far worse is the odd acceptance of American pronunciation in certain localised uses of a word, hence my illustration of leever and lever. We seldom mispronounce these two but leverage falls into a different category. Anther pet hate in this field is staytus and status.
However pronunciation in my argument was almost a side issue, my real thrust was towards "mangalization"
Jerry
Well, I blame it on TV of course. I grew up with the BBC courtesy of the ABC. There were occasional injections of American pronunciation into my world through TV programmes like Sesame Street and the movies, but mostly my childhood was to a British soundtrack. Contrast that with kids growing up through the late 70's to now. Schools also seem to have removed the focus on spelling, grammar and pronunciation and pay more attention to conveying meaning. Maybe I am of the last generation that will care about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
SilentC, your credibility has just gone down..Watching the Simpsons.:no:
Cheers Fred
Why? Is there something else on the damn thing these days? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by fenderbelly
I've said it before in this forum. Language is a dynamic process out of the control of the individual. When people are pedantic about language they are indicating a recognition of the widening of the generation gap.
The poor ol' yanks cop it every time. The only crime they've committed is to develop a culture interesting enough that the rest of the world likes to play around with it.
Anyway, Carl and I are gonna smack the SOBs in the mouth ....
I'm flattered you thought I ever had any :DQuote:
Originally Posted by fenderbelly
Pedantic is such a pejorative term. You might seem to be pedantic about language if you insist that a sentence shouldn't start with a conjunction, or that you should avoid split infinitives. However, if you take my pet hate, "would of" does not actually make any sense as a phrase, does it? Do you say "I of been to the shops"? So I can see the sense in persisting with that, although it appears to be a waste of time if this forum is any indication of the broader community. :)Quote:
When people are pedantic about language ...
its been a while since I've had a rant so here goes :
Get over yourselves!!!Holy crap!!! (that's aussie innit?) the purpose of language is to communicate an idea or concept in the most expedient manner possible, preferably with as few syllables as necessary to allow troglodytes to understand the concept being communicated.
with the advent of computer technology and well before that with the advent of mass market and universal comminuiication devices such as TV and the phone the partitioninig of the english language has all but collapsed. we all now speak and understand each other in similar manners. only the local dialects and vernacular's remain the same or still digress due to the imbred-edness of the individual gruntee. the further from a cinema or broadband connection you get the more prevalent this becomes - dont beleive me ? go visit the local pub in some squallid outback village after 20;00 hrs local time...:D
next you 'll be whinging about spelling mistakes! :U
So tell me, Zeddy, how slang and jargon helps in this pursuit?Quote:
to allow troglodytes to understand the concept being communicated.
The way I see it, most of the gibberish that kids go on with today is created to exclude the uninitiated (as it was when I was a kid), not to improve communication. The possible exception is work environments in which acronyms and abbreviations that are well understood in that environment can shorten communications - but these are not expected to be understood by the general population.
Most of this rubbish starts out life as gang-speak where a small group invents a silly new word or adulteration of an existing one, and it spreads from there like a virus.
If you think this is a good thing, you ought to read Ben Elton's latest book :)
Preservation of a language is vital to the culture of a people. There would probably be more than a few here who speak more than one language. They manage to do this without confusing the use of words from one spoken language with those of the other spoken language. Why is it then that the rest of us cannot seem to differentiate the American language as being just another language with different words to our Queens English, and not mix the two up?
This week I saw an ad in the paper for a commercial property by real estate firm CBRE who pride themselves on thinking that they are the top rung on the real estate ladder. There it was leaping off the page in large bold print "Do the MATH". They won't win any advertising awards with that slogan.
Just to keep things equal, why is it that many English when talking of stress say "pressurised"? Isn't this something you do to a vessel or container, perhaps an aeroplane? Surely it is "pressured".
Yes isn't it ironic that the yanks can't do the mathematics right on the plurality of that word.Quote:
There it was leaping off the page in large bold print "Do the MATH".
This is a large Australian commercial real estate company!Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
But underlying this pedantic scrutiny of language and purist insistence on maintaining "proper" Oxford English is a desire for power. Those with the best educations, and those associated with the highly educated can bathe in the glory of their superiority over the masses. By way of resistance, the younger generations develop new words and phrases. These in turn are subsumed (i.e., used by pollies to grab the young vote and accepted into dictionaries and so on), and then the rebels seek new words and so on. It's a dynamic process.
There's a language expert on ABC Radio every week named Roly Sussex. Lovely fellow. Probably knows more about language than anyone in Australia. He speaks a range of languages including Latin, and hasn't got a snobby, pedantic bone in his body. He recognises the dynamic process and insists that he's just an observer.
http://www.arts.uq.edu.au/slccs/inde...age=18094&pid=
I really don't think that is what drives 99% of the people who complain about misuse of language. It's certainly not so in my case, can't think of what power I could possibly hope to aspire to, especially in this town where if you talk like a snob you are not going to fit in with most circles.Quote:
underlying this pedantic scrutiny of language and purist insistence on maintaining "proper" Oxford English is a desire for power
The flip side of your argument is that we should just let people speak and spell however they want and not correct them, so where does that take us? The dictionary makers would give up within 6 months of trying to document the language, so how are you going to create a curriculum to educate people across the country in a common language that they'll all be able to understand? Sounds like a return to the dark ages of regional dialects where one tribe can barely understand the next to me. Isn't that how a lot of wars start?
How will new English speakers ever hope to learn to communicate in a language that has no rules and that changes at the whim of teenagers?
Let people? They want? Not correct them?Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Look at your use of language and tell me you're not unconsiously weilding the power of your intellect. It brings us to here and now, and it will take us to there and then. It's a process.
You might see it as wielding power, I just see it as using the language I have learnt to try to get across what I'd like you to understand. We all use language every day. If you want to break it down to that level, how are you going to express anything if language cannot be trusted?
You have to accept that we have a school system whose job it is to not just 'let' people do what they want. It's their job to 'correct them' if they are doing it 'wrong'. They have the right to force you to come to school up to a certain age and to allow you to progress through the system based on your performance. They are the 'we' that I am talking about. Not 'we' as in the intellectual elite (of which I assure you I am not a part).
Sorry about the delay. We've got big storms heading towards us here in Brisbane and I had to check outside.Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
I didn't mean to attack you personally, Silent. I'm a little annoyed at the Yank bashing in this thread which is a bit rude given that we have American guests, but you weren't a part of that (I mean there are 300 million of them, and we are 20 million :rolleyes:)
I like language as much as you do, and I'm very well educated. But I just refuse to worry about how other people use it. Wild Dingo is an example of language out of control, but I absolutely love his writing and I think he's a star. These differences are what makes the world interesting.
You're right. The education system does function as some sort of guidance, but in the end the system is just part of the dynamic process. People will only take from it what they want or need. Anyway, you keep on writing the way you write, because it's stylistically eloquent.:2tsup:
Yes to be honest that's the policy I've adopted because a) it gets you nowhere and b) it makes people dislike you.Quote:
I just refuse to worry about how other people use it.
Argument is my middle name though...
Wild Dingo I would describe as a person who uses a style of language to create a humorous effect. Maybe he talks like that too, I wouldn't know never having met him. Most people don't write the way they talk, I think there is a certain talent required to do that. I know I don't. My spoken style is a lot looser than my written, which probably comes across a bit formal at times.
Regarding the yank bashing, that's a national sport isn't it? It's a victimless crime... Or maybe not: http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...7&postcount=20
<style></style>I presume you're referring to me. I don't believe I was bashing anyone. It's a fact that the Septics outnumber Australians and the British and because of their dominance of the media, it stands to reason that their version of 'English' will affect our lives – like it or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossluck
I think it would be very sad if we all ended up speaking and talking like Septics. That's not bashing; it would be equally disturbing if we all ended up speaking like South Africans or New Zealanders.
Cultural heritage, including the vernacular tongue is being eroded at a hell of a rate. We are losing not only our identities, but also the understanding of our language and the ability to enunciate and spell it properly.
To suggest embracing the Queen's English is elitist is preposterous! Having a desire to preserve and indulge in the Queen's English is a matter of pride to me and has little, if anything, to do with my education.
I regularly have this same argument with my mum, shes been 'correcting' my english all my life & i'm 44yrs old now!
I tell her the same thing i'm going to say here (blow it out your butt mum! - oh wait i only think that. lol)
Language is a living thing, it changes as we as a people change, influenced by other peoples in our lives. Weather those people be from another country, the internet or our closest friends. Just look back into history at how peoples used to talk. Every generation changes a language to suit themselves. Well guess what, we're in the computer age so u can bet words like noob or lol or rofl etc will all make it into our vocabulary - & so it should.
To people who complain about grammar & language in general - this means u mum- i have a simple question for them;
Why arn't you talking in old english then?
Perchance thou thinkith that thou wilt soundeth like a complete bafoon?
Me, i'd rather remain contempory, comfortable & understood. I love language & am always ready to welcome new words or euphenisms tho i have found myself asking my young neice for translations & even corrected her grammer on occasion (OMG have i become my mother?? lol)
You think our language has changed now just wait & see the changes that texting is going to bring!
Mmmmmm. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodwould
Those of you that think that the English language is set in stone and shouldn't be added to or tinkered with should perhaps compare a 20 year old copy of the Oxford Dictionary or the Macquary Dictionary with a current edition.
I think you will find a lot of words in the current edition that weren't in the 20 year old one.
Periodically the ditors of these august puclications get together and decide which new words have come in to common usage and should be added to their dictionary.
It is this very phenomenon that worries the French so much that they actualy have laws that state that French websites have to be in French above all else. They are finding that their language is changing so rapidly by the inclusion of English (and I use this term in its' widest connotation:wink:) words that they have had to resort to such extreme measures.
And texting isn't "going" to change our language, it IS changing our language, particularly when people send emails (now there is a word that wasn't in the Macquary Dictionary 20 years or so ago!)
Exactly. The OED is not an authority on the use of english language. All it does is record words in common use, a history of usage and a list of common meanings. A number of the entries in the OED came from a committed madman and supposed murderer. No slight on his ability - to the contrary, it shows the egalitarianism of english that we accept this. If so, why not other words?Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Shed
So as Chaucer (1343-1400) has been considered the father of English literature, I presume all the language luddites (for want of a better term) will now be expecting us to write along these lines:
I wolde have toold yow fully the manere
How wonnen was the regne of femenye
By theseus and by his chivalrye;
And of the grete bataille for the nones
Or will we just be sticking to the variety of English the overly pedantic learned in school? (Actually, Chaucer used 'woot' in his writing, so I score one there!!)
I suggest that all those people turning our language septic should be gaoled
It's not Yank bashing and not elitist. Their wrong! .:roll: .......:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Rossluck
Is there anyone here who fits that description? I don't think anyone would suggest that the language should stay transfixed.Quote:
Those of you that think that the English language is set in stone and shouldn't be added to or tinkered with
There are a number of issues here. We have a language which has evolved continuously over the centuries and will continue to do so. We also have a basic set of grammatical rules and word spellings that we are taught (or should be). These allow us to understand and to be understood across the English speaking world without requiring our teenage niece to translate for us.
I don't believe that a lot of what passes for new language use does much if anything to advance understanding or to make it easier to communicate. Most of it is just fashion,which will come and go. Put it in the dictionary by all means to preserve if for posterity.
Adopting sayings such as "do the math" is again just fashion.
At the end of the day, the actual 'rules' for language use haven't changed that much over the last couple of hundred years. I can read a novel written by a Scotsman in 1814 without any difficulty (except for the Latin bits, which were popular at the time). When I was a kid, it was fashionable to say things like "far out" and "cowabunga". Fortunately these have passed into history and I expect so will all the similar nonsense that goes on today, but we still say "that is amazing" or "here we go".
For me, the most important thing is that we hold onto an agreed set of language rules - updated as needs be - which are passed on to the next generation. It needs to be consistent and stable so that it is as simple as possible to teach and to remember. I think kids should be taught that it's "should have" not "should of" so that in 100 years, people aren't scratching their heads over why the word "of" has this other odd meaning.
I wonder if 50,000 years ago there were complaints between tribes about how one tribe was using different grunts to the others. They probably sat around the campfire dissin' each other about it. Some things don't change. :D
Language....schmanglidge.
it changes..... get over it
sadly......:(
"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
...................William Shakespeare
.
.
"Hit me, Baby, one more time"
..................Brittney Spears
Underfoot, you're from the wrong side of the Curl Curl bridge to get involved. Know your place.:;Quote:
Originally Posted by underfoot
This thread is prolly coming to an end eh but? :D
Struth!
Morning gents! I may get this in before Watson turns the key. :D
I believe it was Noam Chomsky who said that "everyone speaks their own language perfectly." By that he meant, of course, that the speaker knows exactly what he meant to convey. But will the hearer understand it in the same way? That is the reason for grammatical rules, to enhance understanding.
Logically, therefore, anything which inhibits clear communications should be resisted, but that which enhances it should be encouraged. The rest of the arguments are just language arrogance, one of the more common, garden-variety human traits. :)
Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
I think these 2 quotes sum it all up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honorary Bloke