Author |
Topic: English Language Question (Read 1344 times) |
|
Barukh
Uberpuzzler
Gender: 
Posts: 2276
|
 |
English Language Question
« on: Jul 23rd, 2004, 11:32pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Is the following phrase a correct English construct? If yes, what's its meaning?
"I didn't find nothing".
I googled this phrase and was surprised.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: English Language Question
« Reply #1 on: Jul 24th, 2004, 4:30am » |
Quote Modify
|
I often hear statements like this from the students I teach. I believe it is a grammatically correct construct, it is just that they are not saying what they mean. I guess that they are confusing the word "nothing" with "anything". That is, they could say, "I didn't find anything," or, "I found nothing."
A similar statement is, "I didn't do nothing!"
To which I would usually reply something to the effect, "Well if you claim that nothing is what you did not do, then you must have done something; but that is obvious, for to do nothing is impossible. Like a candle in a dark room, your very existence exinguishes the very threat of nothingness."
You can imagine the response I get from that! 
|
|
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
Barukh
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2276
|
|
Re: English Language Question
« Reply #2 on: Jul 24th, 2004, 4:39am » |
Quote Modify
|
Do you want to say that "Didn't find nothing" is another way of saying "Did find something", which in a sense shows that in English (at least sometimes) double negation is a positive statement?
Compare it with languages where a phrase like this only strengthens the negataion (e.g. Russian).
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: English Language Question
« Reply #3 on: Jul 24th, 2004, 8:08am » |
Quote Modify
|
I would say that it is more like a negative inverts a statement, as this can be applied as often. For example:
"It is sunny."
"It is not sunny."
"It isn't not sunny."
"That isn't true, it isn't not sunny."
The first two statements are clear, but the third and fourth require caution. If it isn't not sunny, then it is not (not sunny), so it must be sunny. The fourth statement declares that "it isn't not sunny", which means, "it is sunny", is not true. So it isn't sunny.
However, English becomes complicated when a negative is used in a question. Unfortunately many educated people do this without realising what they are saying. Consider the two questions:
"Is it sunny?"
"Isn't is sunny?"
Answering, "Yes," or, "No," to the first question is absolutely clear in meaning. But answering in the affirmative or the negative to the second question is far from clear. There is no capacity in English to cope with this form of ellipsis (abbreviated meaning). The question actually asks, "Is it not sunny?" So does, "Yes," mean: (i) "Yes, it is sunny," in which case the 'Yes' is used to cancel the negative, and this is how most people would answer that question; (ii) "Yes, I agree, it is not sunny," in which case the 'Yes' is used to affirm the question. The second response is the grammatically correct interpretation, but very few people would intend that by their response. Formal English grammar generally encourages the avoidance or negative questions, and to always answer in fully qualified statements.
|
|
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
Grimbal
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 7527
|
|
Re: English Language Question
« Reply #4 on: Jul 24th, 2004, 11:40am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 23rd, 2004, 11:32pm, Barukh wrote:| I googled this phrase and was surprised. |
|
You expected to get nothing and you didn't find nothing?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Barukh
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2276
|
|
Re: English Language Question
« Reply #5 on: Jul 24th, 2004, 10:50pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 24th, 2004, 11:40am, Grimbal wrote:| You expected to get nothing and you didn't find nothing? |
|
Not exactly... I had a discussion with my colleagues about the correctness of this phrase, so I was prepared to "not find nothing". However, what I've seen surprised me, because "nothing" was used instead of "anything" (as Sir Col pointed out).
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: English Language Question
« Reply #6 on: Jul 25th, 2004, 7:57am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 24th, 2004, 4:30am, Sir Col wrote:| it is just that they are not saying what they mean. |
|
If you want to know whether they said what they meant, ask what the person they were talking to what (s)he heard. That's the only true measure imo.
I suppose you may argue that if that's the case they weren't speaking (proper) english, but if they were speaking (proper) pig-latin instead I doubt you'd argue they weren't saying what they meant, so why should that be a problem, let them speak 'their english' (amongst themselves).
It's quite easy to say what you mean without being understood by everyone. Now whether you can say what you mean without being understood by anyone, well, I dunno, one could argue you're not actually saying anything in that case..
on Jul 24th, 2004, 8:08am, Sir Col wrote:| The second response is the grammatically correct interpretation |
|
That's like saying the only 'grammatically' correct interpretation of 'the cat is out of the bag' involves a cat and a bag, rather the divulged secrets.
Besides I don't think grammar says anything about the correct interpretation of a sentence, that's what semantics is for. Grammar deals with the structure of words and sentences, not their meaning. So maybe you weren't saying what you meant 
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: English Language Question
« Reply #7 on: Jul 25th, 2004, 8:30am » |
Quote Modify
|
As I've indicated in other threads before, albeit a long time ago now, I have a fascination with etymology (word origins). Sadly, for my audiences at least, grammar and semantics has an equal appeal. Almost to the point of being boring I can be a stickler with logic in sentence constructs and part of the banter in my classroom is the differences between saying what you mean, and meaning what you say.
I have especially found myself in awkward debates over the issues surrounding grammar with English language teachers. It seems that there are two schools of thought with regards to grammar: prescriptive and descriptive. The first type is the traditional form, in which rules exist that determine correct use of language; language still remains evolutionary, but changes in usage require a broad appreciation of why the rule exists in the first place, and a good case to argue for it to be modified. However, descriptive grammar is much more in vogue today and argues that, quite literally, majority rules. In other words, usage is determined by democracy and if enough people start using it in a particular way then that is the correct way. Post modernism meets linguistics!
That is why I suggested the second response was "grammatically correct". On my fence of indecision I do find myself being more sympatheic towards the prescriptive mode of thought. I believe that logical interpretation can be determined from a cohesive sentence, in terms of formal grammar. One of the "symptoms" of descriptive grammar is the need for greater attention to semantics. You need to ask, who are my audience and how will my they receive this statement? Whereas prescriptive grammar, in theory at least, is far less forgiving and makes no compromise for uneducated audiences. Basically, if someone misunderstand a "grammatically correct" sentence, then it is because the listener lacks the linguistic skills and nothing to do with meaning.
I am not sure how I feel about this.
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 25th, 2004, 8:34am by Sir Col » |
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: English Language Question
« Reply #8 on: Jul 25th, 2004, 9:13am » |
Quote Modify
|
My experience with normative (prescriptive) grammar, is that in practice it is absolutely useless. You can't use it for speech recognition, you can't use it for natural language interfaces, you can't use it for anything else than telling people they're not using it..
Descriptive grammar at least allows you to make systems people can use some of the time, rather than practically never 
Which doesn't mean I don't think there aren't/shouldn't be any rules. It's quite usefull to have common ground to speak with people not inside your circle. But aside from cross-group communicating each group simply does have it's own 'sublanguage', it's own terms, comparisons, injokes etc. It's just silly to disregard reality because a normative view of language is more appealing.
You don't see physicists prescribing what the rules of nature should be, so why should linguists do that to the natural laws of language?
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
bagoftricks
Newbie
Gender:
Posts: 8
|
|
Re: English Language Question
« Reply #9 on: Nov 24th, 2004, 12:20am » |
Quote Modify
|
i think that this is just a coloquial usage in the continental america and originated there. it has spread because of the media.
in the classic english literature, i think there are no instances of such usage.
since, english has become a global language( with many hindi words finding place in the dicionary ), i dont think there is anything wrong with the usage per se.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
    
Gender:
Posts: 2874
|
|
Re: English Language Question
« Reply #10 on: Nov 24th, 2004, 6:07am » |
Quote Modify
|
In my experience, mathematicians (and computer programmers) are used to using language in a very precise way, and saying exactly what they mean, so expect grammatical rules to be as rigidly applicable as, say, arithmetic ones.
In real life, of course, the meaning of a given utterance is largely determined by consensus among those present, with dictionary makers and grammaticians playing catch-up.
Of course, there are uses of language for which precision is highly desirable, so ou get specialist dialects, or jargons - such as that used my mathematicians who say exactly what they mean, or that used by lawyers who mean exactly what they say...
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: English Language Question
« Reply #11 on: Nov 24th, 2004, 11:55am » |
Quote Modify
|
I think you're right about programmers and mathematicians being a little less tolerant about correct usage.
I find myself becoming less amused and more frustrated not by the general incompetence of speakers, but by their indifference to their ignorance. As just one example...
When going through homework, a student asks, "Can I do question 4?"
To which I respond, "I have no idea yet. Tell us what you did and we will be the judge of that." The predictable response being, "Huh?"
After explaining that the auxillary verb can is used in English with reference to the ability to undertake, whereas may is used when a request to undertake is being made, the usual response is, "You know what I meant!"
I then usually resist telling them that in this context they managed to confuse the tenses of two verbs; either "I knew what you meant," or, "I know what you mean." To "know what you "meant", although grammatically correct, suggests that I have now become aware of the meaning of their statement; in fact, due to their ineptitude, I am still none the wiser.
Similarly a request, "Can I go to the toilet?" is often met with the reply, "As neither a medical expert in such matter nor having any interest in your ability to perform such things, I would have no idea."
It seems, however, that we are fighting a losing battle. The following is an extact from a dictionary regarding usage on this verb:
Quote:| Usage Note: Generations of grammarians and teachers have insisted that can should be used only to express the capacity to do something, and that may must be used to express permission. But children do not use can to ask permission out of a desire to be stubbornly perverse. They have learned it as an idiomatic expression from adults: After you clean your room, you can go outside and play. As part of the spoken language, this use of can is perfectly acceptable. This is especially true for negative questions, such as Can't I have the car tonight? probably because using mayn't instead of can't sounds unnatural. Nevertheless, in more formal usage the distinction between can and may still has many adherents. Only 21 percent of the Usage Panel accepts can instead of may in the sentence Can I take another week to submit the application? The heightened formality of may sometimes highlights the speaker's role in giving permission. You may leave the room when you are finished implies that permission is given by the speaker. You can leave the room when you are finished implies that permission is part of a rule or policy rather than a decision on the speaker's part. For this reason, may sees considerable use in official announcements: Students may pick up the application forms tomorrow. |
|
I still stubbonly hold to the importance of being understood, and believe that grammar is more than just syntax and punctuation. I appreciate that idioms and metaphors require semantics, but, to use a mathematical analogy, if I said, "2+3=6", which part is wrong? Is it the symbol or the value on the right hand side of the equality? I appreciate that we all make errors, but ironically, after explaining my true meaning, I could utter the grammatically correct statement, "You know what I meant!" For now you would do know what I meant. Making a mistake like this once or twice is okay, but if I persisted in showing little regard for expressing my ideas clearly, I suspect that the most patient of us would eventually become frustrated.
|
|
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: English Language Question
« Reply #12 on: Nov 24th, 2004, 1:28pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Quote:When going through homework, a student asks, "Can I do question 4?"
To which I respond, "I have no idea yet. Tell us what you did and we will be the judge of that." The predictable response being, "Huh?" |
|
'Can' implies 'may'; if they may not do it then they can't do it, because something (a rule or somewhat) is stopping them.
Admittedly they might be asking a lot of your judgement (more than whether they may do it). But you could just look at the top of the list of things that might prevent them from doing it and answer those problems, usually that is sufficient.
I mean, if they ask 'may I go to the toilet?' do you say, 'well it's ok by me, but I'll have to look in the lawbook to see if it's actually legal' (assuming you've never checked)? Whether something is allowed in the greater scheme of things is hard, if not impossible, to answer; 'May I go to the toilet?' 'Let me ask God'
You sound like the type that when asked 'Can you get me <something>" stands idly by and simply answers 'yes', or 'no'
And then when they ask 'Will you please get me <something>?' again stands idly by and answer just 'yes' or 'no'.
Grice and (the later) Wittgenstein have some things to say on the matter, and are generally considered to have some authority on the matter, despite that no one actually seems to listen to them..
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: English Language Question
« Reply #13 on: Nov 24th, 2004, 2:16pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Sorry, but perhaps I didn't make it clear, and maybe homework is handled differently in the Netherlands. In England, apart from completing homework and handing it in to be marked, it is quite common to go through the homework in class. Students volunteer, or are "volunteered", to answer questions. Hence my response to their question, "Can I do question 4?" Until they tell me what they did, I cannot know if they are able to "do it". Of course, the question they should ask is, "May I explain what I did for question 4?"
I'm afraid that I am one of those people you describe in your penultimate paragraph. When students are waiting outside the staffroom for teachers, and I am asked, "Can you see if Mr/Mrs _____ is in the staffroom?" My usual response is, "Not from here, no!" However, if they are aware of my sad sense of humour they may ask, "Will you see if Mr/Mrs _____ is in the staffroom?" To which I reply, "Certainly...," before going into the staffroom. A moment later I reappear and say, "Yes, they are." Then after an appropriately timed pause I shrug my shoulders and ask, "Was there something else you wanted to know?"
I'm interested to know what Grice and Witthenstein had to say on these matters. Do you have some references?
|
|
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: English Language Question
« Reply #14 on: Nov 25th, 2004, 12:55am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Nov 24th, 2004, 2:16pm, Sir Col wrote:| I'm interested to know what Grice and Witthenstein had to say on these matters. Do you have some references? |
|
They've said quite a lot (espescially Wittgenstein), and I've really only met them on an introductory level so far. Of course you could try their books
Here's something on Wittgenstein from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations
The important element I take from it is 'meaning = use' (there is a lot more to it, of course)
Grice is best known for his cooperative principle
http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfbxb/class/1900/prag/grice.htm
Now, I think it is important to note that those maxims are not only to be upheld by the speaker, but also assumed by the listener to be upheld by the speaker. For example, if at all possible, assume the speaker is asking something relevant/appropriate (something which may be expected in the context).
And be honest, in the above context you clearly do know what those students mean. You're not being very cooperative in the conversation.
|
| « Last Edit: Nov 25th, 2004, 12:57am by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: English Language Question
« Reply #15 on: Nov 25th, 2004, 2:01am » |
Quote Modify
|
Thanks for the links, towr. And you're right about me knowing: I can be such a pedant sometimes. However, you'll be pleased to know that there is divine justice. One of my younger classes (11-12 year olds) corrected me today on a grammatical point that I had previously had fun with them about! 
|
|
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
mattian
Senior Riddler
Gender:
Posts: 404
|
|
Re: English Language Question
« Reply #16 on: Nov 30th, 2004, 11:01am » |
Quote Modify
|
I'm sure you meant:
"...on a grammatical point about which I had previously had fun with them."
Although I think this sentence was doomed from the outset.
Sir Col - in case you feel lonely in the world of purist English - I share your despair. And I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that far more disturbing than the blatant misuse of language today, is the blatant indifference which accompanies it. It represents the potential - and it will be realised - for the language to deteriorate further.
The key to analysing the evolution of language - as if analysing it might protect it from its inevitable demise - is to understand the difference between constructive evolution and destructive degradation. There are a bunch of absurdly liberal groups out there who claim that to deny society the freedom to evolve its language is to ignore a precedent of language evolution in our history; and they would be correct but for a small factor that is overlooked.
In our past, language (and English specifically) evolved at the hands of the educated and was inherently prescriptive - that segment of our society with the education to read and write – and the evolution of a language was a pursuit which was not consequential, but orchestrated. Today there is no such prerequisite to the growth of language and any banana-head with a banana shaped microphone has the means to broadcast his nonsense at the flick of a switch. This “sacred evolution” - inject healthy dose of sarcasm here - of the English language is in fact a very politically motivated and – let’s not forget - politically correct consequence of a much larger beast in our society – the notion that everyone is equal – the convict is entitled to the same privileges – to vote, press charges against police officers for assault – as the next man. By no means do I imply that police officers need not be policed, but that we’re living in the world of the Emperor’s New Clothes and we’re all being dazzled with platitudes from the dim-witted social-studies-degree-holding segment of our society which believes it’s saving the world by allowing the uneducated masses to overrun our civilization like a plague.
“Oh, but it’s not a plague… they’re human beings.”
Do the maths – it’s a plague.
END OF RANT
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: English Language Question
« Reply #17 on: Nov 30th, 2004, 2:02pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Nov 30th, 2004, 11:01am, mattian wrote:| It represents the potential - and it will be realised - for the language to deteriorate further. |
|
How is it deteriorating? It fulfills a function: communication. And it will ever remain to do so, even if its form may change.
Quote:| There are a bunch of absurdly liberal groups out there who claim that to deny society the freedom to evolve its language is to ignore a precedent of language evolution in our history; |
|
The only way to deny society to change its language is to turn into a police state, or maybe kill everyone.
Quote:and they would be correct but for a small factor that is overlooked.
In our past, language (and English specifically) evolved at the hands of the educated and was inherently prescriptive - that segment of our society with the education to read and write – and the evolution of a language was a pursuit which was not consequential, but orchestrated. |
|
I find it hard to believe that that's true. It wasn't untill the renaissance that most educated people in Europe showed much of an interest in their native language (Untill then it all revolved around Latin, as you probably know), so it was 'at the mercy' of the common people. And even in the renaissance most just wrote however they saw fit, as there wasn't a standard to use. And I don't think it was untill the 19th century any great effort to standardize were made (like dictionaries and grammars)
But perhaps it's radically different for English than for all other languages in Europe..
Quote:If you're a purist, perhaps you shouldn't use Dutch words like 'rant'
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
mattian
Senior Riddler
Gender:
Posts: 404
|
|
Re: English Language Question
« Reply #18 on: Nov 30th, 2004, 2:47pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Incorporating words into English whose origins can be found in other languages hardly compromises the effective function that language is there to perform. Nouns, for example have very little impact on the mechanism of language. Similarly, the value of x in the expression x + 1 does not affect the rule that says x + 1 = (x+1).
But, given that my rant was in fact a rant, I did expect some degree of hostility in response to it. It would otherwise not be a rant.
My reference to English purism was facetious – I don’t claim to be a purist – in fact I have almost as much contempt for purists as for liberal extremists in that I am generally turned off by obsession. I concede the irony in this claim given the air of obsession that is evident in my tone when I am on a rant. For this contradiction, I have no excuse – I do obsess, but just for the moment.
The essence of the problem in English to which I am referring is in the logical system that should underlie it. I agree that language did originate and develop among the uneducated - or the uncivilized rather – and was eventually incorporated as a respectable art form among the educated. The renaissance, despite the controversy that surrounds it regarding the church, etc., invoked an interest in language which allowed it to be formalized to some extent – to be more effective. Today, as Sir Col pointed out, the evolution of English is governed by indifference to – or ignorance of – the fundamental purpose of language: to communicate effectively. It is the efficiency of language which will suffer at the hands of the uneducated – and with that we will lose the finer points of language – subtlety, irony, innuendo, etc.
Thanks to the absolute root of language, there are many inconsistencies, and as towr pointed out, some of these were ironed out as a streamlining process during the renaissance and at other times. Why do we not continue to improve on the language rather than to butcher it? For example, the correct preposition to use with the word different is “from”. This makes sense because things that diverge tend to do so away from one another while things that converge do so toward each other. Hence thinngs gs are different FROM some thiwhile similar TO other things. Once the philistines got hold of the word “different” they decided to use a different preposition; the word “to”. As Sir Col explained, the masses caught on and so now the preposition “to” is accepted in most dictionaries as a reasonable alternative to "from" for use with the word different; and everyone is happy – and the English language is now more inconsistent.
In society we draw a line in the sand to separate what is right from what is wrong. If you’re on that side of the line, you’re wrong; if you’re on this side you’re right. So what do we do when all our sheep start wandering aimlessly over the line? We don’t go over there and bring them back as one might expect; instead, we redraw the line, and the sheep become “right” again by classification.
|
| « Last Edit: Nov 30th, 2004, 5:52pm by mattian » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: English Language Question
« Reply #19 on: Dec 1st, 2004, 8:13am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Nov 30th, 2004, 2:47pm, mattian wrote:| Incorporating words into English whose origins can be found in other languages hardly compromises the effective function that language is there to perform. |
|
I'm not suggesting it does, but it's not English, now is it.
Quote:| The essence of the problem in English to which I am referring is in the logical system that should underlie it. |
|
Why should a logical system underlie it? It never did before after all. Well, unless you want to call the cosmos logical, it's our reality, and specifically our behaviour in it, that underlies our language. (Even if we try to look beyond 'reality' our language is still in terms of it, with frequent use of analogies)
It may be interesting to note that Wittgenstein at first tried to devellop an underlying logical system for language (in "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus") But eventually he found increasingly more problems with it, and found the approach fundamentally flawed.
Quote:| Today, as Sir Col pointed out, the evolution of English is governed by indifference to – or ignorance of – the fundamental purpose of language: to communicate effectively. |
|
In a sense I agree, but in another I must disagree. There is more to communication than just relaying a message. Language is behaviour, and how you speak, how you relay a message, says something about you, which group you're part of etc. L33t-speak is a good example, you might say it needlessly complicates reading/writing messages, but that's rather the point. It distinguishes them as a group, it forms (part of) their identity (and we have so little of that in this post-modern world).
Quote:| It is the efficiency of language which will suffer at the hands of the uneducated – and with that we will lose the finer points of language – subtlety, irony, innuendo, etc. |
|
I can't really disagree with the notion that the efficiency of language will suffer, but it isn't that efficient to start with either. However I don't think that implies much for the 'finer points of language', on the contrary, if language were brutally efficient we probably wouldn't have those. f.i. Subtlety may not get the point across, so what's the point of it? Hardly efficient to say something and not be understood, better to be blunt.
Subtlety is behaviour more than language. It doesn't relate so much to the message as the messenger and (personal) relations.
Quote:| Why do we not continue to improve on the language rather than to butcher it? |
|
Because there is no objective measure of what is an improvement and what's not.
Otherwise, wouldn't there be an objective best language? And shouldn't we go about eliminating all other langauge? Just from a cultural standpoint that's not desirable, diversity of language must count for something. (And I'm not just saying that because I'm a native speaker of a minority language)
Quote:| For example, the correct preposition to use with the word different is “from”. This makes sense because things that diverge tend to do so away from one another while things that converge do so toward each other. Hence thinngs gs are different FROM some thiwhile similar TO other things. Once the philistines got hold of the word “different” they decided to use a different preposition; the word “to”. As Sir Col explained, the masses caught on and so now the preposition “to” is accepted in most dictionaries as a reasonable alternative to "from" for use with the word different; and everyone is happy – and the English language is now more inconsistent. |
|
The 'philistines' didn't 'decide' to use 'to' rather than 'from', they just did. But we've touched the subject 'indifference' allready.
But logically, 'different' already holds enough meaning, 'from' is inconsequential, and it's much more consistent to just use 'to' everywhere, or omit even that (if it doesn't contribute at all).
Using 'from' rather than 'to' isn't so much logical, it just feels better, and finds an analog in reality, as you describe. I'm sure there must be examples of phrases where the same reasoning would demand 'correct language' to be changed to somethign else, because that makes more sense according to some analog (but naturally one won't spring to mind now).
Quote:| In society we draw a line in the sand to separate what is right from what is wrong. If you’re on that side of the line, you’re wrong; if you’re on this side you’re right. So what do we do when all our sheep start wandering aimlessly over the line? We don’t go over there and bring them back as one might expect; instead, we redraw the line, and the sheep become “right” again by classification. |
|
It beats shooting them just for stepping over the line though, now doesn't it.
Reality isn't black and white, I don't think 'right' 'wrong' much apply here. But if you have a preference, consider that you're part of the evolution of language as well, you don't have to sit idly by.
Also consider that people don't really respond well to being beaten over the head and being told how they should behave. They have to want to change their ways. You could try to lead by example, if you're a superstar people will naturally start to gravitate toward you speech pattern. The only reason the educated upper class ever had any effect on the speech of the common man, was because the common man wanted to be upper class, and emulated them.
And of course there's plenty of psychological tricks to get people to modify their (verbal) behaviour. You could reward good behaviour, use cognitive dissonance to your behaviour, or bribe the most popular student (if you happen to be a teacher )
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2874
|
|
Re: English Language Question
« Reply #20 on: Dec 1st, 2004, 9:46am » |
Quote Modify
|
As a long-time folk dancer, I have long since despaired of geting people to stop using "rant" to mean anything other than a particular syncopated 4-beat step used in various traditional dances, particularly those originating from the North of England.
The fact that this obscure piece of jargon doesn't even make it into the online dictionary is completely irrelevant.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
mattian
Senior Riddler
Gender:
Posts: 404
|
|
Re: English Language Question
« Reply #21 on: Dec 1st, 2004, 10:20am » |
Quote Modify
|
I think we are secretly agreeing.
“…but [rant] is not English, now is it?”
It is now – and I’m content with the growth and development of language; as long as that growth improves – and I acknowledge that “improves” in this context is entirely subjective – on the performance of the language. There is an underlying logic to language, although, as you point out, it’s less than perfect – far from it in fact. But it has improved.
I don’t think language – which is essentially a tool – should be corrupted by the need for cultural diversity in our society. Would it be acceptable as a cultural statement to use addition symbols instead of multiplication symbols when multiplying two numbers and argue that the context of the problem should be sufficient to determine that multiplication is intended where addition is observed?
“But logically, 'different' already holds enough meaning, 'from' is inconsequential”
This is true in the case of the word “different” but there are other words whose meaning changes depending on the preposition used. Example: “When a cat is compared WITH a dog, many similarities can be observed, but when a cat is compared TO a dog, the differences become clear.” The use of the preposition here tells us what type of comparison is being made. No one obeys (or even knows) this rule anymore, but it demonstrates the point. There are many others – and they’re probably better, but …
You’re right that “correct” English could be argued to be illogical in places – and I’m all for changing it if the change is made consistently. Perhaps should be compared TO dogs and compared FROM dogs.
“It beats shooting them just for stepping over the line though”
I don’t know – I think we should just shoot them.
“Also consider that people don't really respond well to being beaten over the head and being told how they should behave.”
Granted! And I don’t beat them over the head with my preaching – I end up beating myself over the head with frustration – or other educated folk who don’t need the sermon in the first place - like you and the other members of this forum.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
mattian
Senior Riddler
Gender:
Posts: 404
|
|
Re: English Language Question
« Reply #22 on: Dec 1st, 2004, 10:21am » |
Quote Modify
|
rms:
I don't have a problem with slang either.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print