Re: yeah, baby.redneonredSeptember 16 2004, 13:07:34 UTC
starting cat fights on the l dot j are we?
slang and the vernacular of language is fine. slang and everyday usage of words make up their own language in a way. but there is a place for each. i believe grammar is the topic i brought up mr. anonymous, not words themselves, their spelling, and how they are connected. slang is often a richer and more real form of what is thought of as proper english, but writing essays about dante's inferno and using the apples and pears between levels of hell (horrible comparison, but perhaps the point is somewhat understood) is 'on.'
and there are central groups that decide these things. the mla handbook and other books like it set out the standards we all seem to adhere to. grammar and structure have been around since language began, its only now that we seem to be paying attention to it, perhaps due to the fact that scholarly well grammared groups and societies (?) can now make money by publishing their rules on grammar. bastards. the different ways to write footnotes.....i was told in high school to follow the internal documentation system but when in college footnotes were all that was accepted. somebody decided this shit, and this shit does need to be decided on by someone, or we'd all have our own keys and methods of documentation and nobody would really be able to understand each other. its almost as if i could say 2+2=0. you would respond in the negative(obviously, mr. anonymous, you realise 2+2 actually equals 4, being well above average in all matters involving intelligence). but if there are no set rules, hell, mr. anonymous, in my mathmatics, the '+' actually means minus. nanenanepoopoo. sorry. my bad and all that rot. you're right. i don't know where that came from.
form and contentredneonredSeptember 16 2004, 13:52:11 UTC
no catfight was intended. i much prefer to go toe to toe. simply an opportunity to fly the tattered and maligned leith flag. nevermind. without rules, chaos, well, probably you are right enough. i think the notion of grammar committees making new rules that serve only profit is the right way of reading your example: my attempt to conflate that scenario with a little [ignorant] speech about vernacular language was intended to highlight a point that you have made- that language structures predate dictionaries and committees. the idea that certain kinds of language is appropriate for certain topics and not others is interesting: is it, for example, that RPSE is in fact the best way to discuss Dante, or is that discussions of Dante have been confined to those amongst whom the RPSE [west midlands] dialect is spoken [the monied, the powerful, the privileged]? but hey, i'm just a stroppy socialist with no sense of humour, so i would not pay too much attention to these vague wonderings.
Re: form and contentredneonredSeptember 16 2004, 14:26:12 UTC
you're right. that was a silly thing to say caught in the heat of the moment without really thinking properly about everything said, as always. i don't, of course, mean that everyone should know lots of big words to be able to communicate properly. i do think there has to be some standard. whatever accent one has or regional dialect one was brought up with, one is able to understand a fundamental set of rules and a basic vocabulary, rules and words which shouldn't belong to the upper classes. yes, it has been something the upper classes used to keep power over less privileged classes but it does not belong to them, only something they've put a flag in, like india. please excuse that last sentance if you've not seen eddie izzard. english is a language spoken all over the world, its a way of communicating, obviously, again, dumb american comment. people in other countries to not learn cockney slang. they learn basic english. basic english can of course be added to with wonderful words like nowt, owt, butchers and balti, but the basics are just as important as the cooler extra things. but i might have just contradicted myself, which wouldn't be at all surprising. slang can be what some people's entire knowledge of language is based upon. this might sound like a ridiculous comment, but for them to get anywhere they must be able to communicate properly with other people. due to the fucked up education systems in every country but iceland, this statement does seem kind of snobbish, but its not what i mean. the english language is given a superior status only because so many people do not use it or know it. this should not be the case. the fundamentals of the english language shouldn't be unreachable, they should be accessible by all. i think my grammar through this entire post has sucked probably worse than a broken hoover. alright. giving up now.
was it just about english? are there basics? whose basics are they? i remember basic french at school teaching me how how to be a good tourist/world citizen [buy stuff]. the various western european pidgins that are spoken i guess are examples of how language can be appropriated and made useful. i wasn't implying that what you had said was foolish regarding the dante/apples and pears thing[these are none-adversarial posts], it was an appropriate analogy to exemplify the very real existence of "registers". i was just taking the point a little further along by wondering who decides what register is appropriate-another kind of "committee", but perhaps the kind that does not recognise itself as such, being comprised not only of people, but customs, prejudice and history. argh, now i am talking, as one might say in the north, bollocks. so i will stop. good night.
slang and the vernacular of language is fine. slang and everyday usage of words make up their own language in a way. but there is a place for each. i believe grammar is the topic i brought up mr. anonymous, not words themselves, their spelling, and how they are connected. slang is often a richer and more real form of what is thought of as proper english, but writing essays about dante's inferno and using the apples and pears between levels of hell (horrible comparison, but perhaps the point is somewhat understood) is 'on.'
and there are central groups that decide these things. the mla handbook and other books like it set out the standards we all seem to adhere to. grammar and structure have been around since language began, its only now that we seem to be paying attention to it, perhaps due to the fact that scholarly well grammared groups and societies (?) can now make money by publishing their rules on grammar. bastards. the different ways to write footnotes.....i was told in high school to follow the internal documentation system but when in college footnotes were all that was accepted. somebody decided this shit, and this shit does need to be decided on by someone, or we'd all have our own keys and methods of documentation and nobody would really be able to understand each other. its almost as if i could say 2+2=0. you would respond in the negative(obviously, mr. anonymous, you realise 2+2 actually equals 4, being well above average in all matters involving intelligence). but if there are no set rules, hell, mr. anonymous, in my mathmatics, the '+' actually means minus. nanenanepoopoo. sorry. my bad and all that rot. you're right. i don't know where that came from.
Reply
without rules, chaos, well, probably you are right enough. i think the notion of grammar committees making new rules that serve only profit is the right way of reading your example: my attempt to conflate that scenario with a little [ignorant] speech about vernacular language was intended to highlight a point that you have made- that language structures predate dictionaries and committees. the idea that certain kinds of language is appropriate for certain topics and not others is interesting: is it, for example, that RPSE is in fact the best way to discuss Dante, or is that discussions of Dante have been confined to those amongst whom the RPSE [west midlands] dialect is spoken [the monied, the powerful, the privileged]? but hey, i'm just a stroppy socialist with no sense of humour, so i would not pay too much attention to these vague wonderings.
Reply
Reply
i wasn't implying that what you had said was foolish regarding the dante/apples and pears thing[these are none-adversarial posts], it was an appropriate analogy to exemplify the very real existence of "registers". i was just taking the point a little further along by wondering who decides what register is appropriate-another kind of "committee", but perhaps the kind that does not recognise itself as such, being comprised not only of people, but customs, prejudice and history. argh, now i am talking, as one might say in the north, bollocks. so i will stop. good night.
Reply
Leave a comment