Random Thread - Anything Goes
-
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
The point is unregulated languages are vastly worse than regulated ones. English is an example of it when it comes to both grammar and spelling, where you can even have idiotic teachers spit out grammar books in the 50s claiming "no split infinitives" and some people say "of course, that's totally true!"
But English DOES have an academy, and it caused many of those problems because it was the source of many.
No it does not. What is it?
Webster's Dictionary is the product of it. It's the official list of American English. It doesn't cover all language aspects, but many.
-
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
The point is unregulated languages are vastly worse than regulated ones. English is an example of it when it comes to both grammar and spelling, where you can even have idiotic teachers spit out grammar books in the 50s claiming "no split infinitives" and some people say "of course, that's totally true!"
But English DOES have an academy, and it caused many of those problems because it was the source of many.
No it does not.
It does, the US founded one in the 1700s.
Are you talking about American Academy of Language and Belles Lettres? That hasn't been operational since the late 1700s.
No, Merriam Webster, as an example, produces current works from it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
The point is unregulated languages are vastly worse than regulated ones. English is an example of it when it comes to both grammar and spelling, where you can even have idiotic teachers spit out grammar books in the 50s claiming "no split infinitives" and some people say "of course, that's totally true!"
But English DOES have an academy, and it caused many of those problems because it was the source of many.
No it does not.
It does, the US founded one in the 1700s.
Are you talking about American Academy of Language and Belles Lettres? That hasn't been operational since the late 1700s.
No, Merriam Webster, as an example, produces current works from it.
That's a private company though.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
The point is unregulated languages are vastly worse than regulated ones. English is an example of it when it comes to both grammar and spelling, where you can even have idiotic teachers spit out grammar books in the 50s claiming "no split infinitives" and some people say "of course, that's totally true!"
But English DOES have an academy, and it caused many of those problems because it was the source of many.
No it does not. What is it?
Webster's Dictionary is the product of it. It's the official list of American English. It doesn't cover all language aspects, but many.
Actually Noah Webster tried to do a pretty OK job, it was better than Samuel Johnson who tried to make it more complex by introducing false etymologies like turning iland into island.
-
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
The point is unregulated languages are vastly worse than regulated ones. English is an example of it when it comes to both grammar and spelling, where you can even have idiotic teachers spit out grammar books in the 50s claiming "no split infinitives" and some people say "of course, that's totally true!"
But English DOES have an academy, and it caused many of those problems because it was the source of many.
No it does not.
It does, the US founded one in the 1700s.
Are you talking about American Academy of Language and Belles Lettres? That hasn't been operational since the late 1700s.
No, Merriam Webster, as an example, produces current works from it.
That's a private company though.
It is now, but it's touted as being the authority on what is and isn't an actual word of the English language.
Eventually twerking may become a proper word in the English language if it makes it into that book.
-
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
The point is unregulated languages are vastly worse than regulated ones. English is an example of it when it comes to both grammar and spelling, where you can even have idiotic teachers spit out grammar books in the 50s claiming "no split infinitives" and some people say "of course, that's totally true!"
But English DOES have an academy, and it caused many of those problems because it was the source of many.
No it does not.
It does, the US founded one in the 1700s.
Are you talking about American Academy of Language and Belles Lettres? That hasn't been operational since the late 1700s.
No, Merriam Webster, as an example, produces current works from it.
That's a private company though.
That's how the US works
Everything from the government is presented as private companies.
-
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
The point is unregulated languages are vastly worse than regulated ones. English is an example of it when it comes to both grammar and spelling, where you can even have idiotic teachers spit out grammar books in the 50s claiming "no split infinitives" and some people say "of course, that's totally true!"
But English DOES have an academy, and it caused many of those problems because it was the source of many.
No it does not. What is it?
Webster's Dictionary is the product of it. It's the official list of American English. It doesn't cover all language aspects, but many.
Actually Noah Webster tried to do a pretty OK job, it was better than Samuel Johnson who tried to make it more complex by introducing false etymologies like turning iland into island.
Not really, he intentionally skewed the language to create a new standard that was different from the known language at the time. The result is the whole world thinks that Americans can't spell or speak properly.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
And, like Spanish, the academy has no authority. Conceptually language academies doesn't really make sense, because they have no authority. So they state what they want a language to be, but have no control over what it is.
They standardise things, in the same way all of the conflicting dictionaries and house styles do in English, that's the point. I mean sure you can write a book in pre-20th century reforms of German and they won't stop you but there's no point to do it. The French Academy has been trying to fix issues in its spelling for quite some time and introduced some other changes recently
-
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
And, like Spanish, the academy has no authority. Conceptually language academies doesn't really make sense, because they have no authority. So they state what they want a language to be, but have no control over what it is.
They standardise things, in the same way all of the conflicting dictionaries and house styles do in English, that's the point. I mean sure you can write a book in pre-20th century reforms of German and they won't stop you but there's no point to do it. The French Academy has been trying to fix issues in its spelling for quite some time and introduced some other changes recently
Right, except they don't. In the US, the second largest Spanish speaking country, it's not followed, at all. That's like twice the population of Spain!
-
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
The point is unregulated languages are vastly worse than regulated ones. English is an example of it when it comes to both grammar and spelling, where you can even have idiotic teachers spit out grammar books in the 50s claiming "no split infinitives" and some people say "of course, that's totally true!"
But English DOES have an academy, and it caused many of those problems because it was the source of many.
No it does not. What is it?
Webster's Dictionary is the product of it. It's the official list of American English. It doesn't cover all language aspects, but many.
Actually Noah Webster tried to do a pretty OK job, it was better than Samuel Johnson who tried to make it more complex by introducing false etymologies like turning iland into island.
Not really, he intentionally skewed the language to create a new standard that was different from the known language at the time. The result is the whole world thinks that Americans can't spell or speak properly.
By removing pointless silent letters yes he did. Back then the two languages weren't in the same level of contact they are now outside of port cities. Pre-telegraph as well, there was a case to be made for a national regular spelling and grammar. There was nationalistic reasons behind it, not just linguistic ones. Teddy Roosevelt tried to take it further. And not all of Webster's changes were accepted, and basically all of Teddy's were reversed by act of Congress, hilariously.
-
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
The point is unregulated languages are vastly worse than regulated ones. English is an example of it when it comes to both grammar and spelling, where you can even have idiotic teachers spit out grammar books in the 50s claiming "no split infinitives" and some people say "of course, that's totally true!"
But English DOES have an academy, and it caused many of those problems because it was the source of many.
No it does not. What is it?
Webster's Dictionary is the product of it. It's the official list of American English. It doesn't cover all language aspects, but many.
Actually Noah Webster tried to do a pretty OK job, it was better than Samuel Johnson who tried to make it more complex by introducing false etymologies like turning iland into island.
Not really, he intentionally skewed the language to create a new standard that was different from the known language at the time. The result is the whole world thinks that Americans can't spell or speak properly.
By removing pointless silent letters yes he did. Back then the two languages weren't in the same level of contact they are now outside of port cities. Pre-telegraph as well, there was a case to be made for a national regular spelling and grammar. There was nationalistic reasons behind it, not just linguistic ones. Teddy Roosevelt tried to take it further. And not all of Webster's changes were accepted, and basically all of Teddy's were reversed by act of Congress, hilariously.
Which weird since Congress has no say in the language.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
And, like Spanish, the academy has no authority. Conceptually language academies doesn't really make sense, because they have no authority. So they state what they want a language to be, but have no control over what it is.
They standardise things, in the same way all of the conflicting dictionaries and house styles do in English, that's the point. I mean sure you can write a book in pre-20th century reforms of German and they won't stop you but there's no point to do it. The French Academy has been trying to fix issues in its spelling for quite some time and introduced some other changes recently
Right, except they don't. In the US, the second largest Spanish speaking country, it's not followed, at all. That's like twice the population of Spain!
That happens with any language outside the typical realm of national control. If Spanish were an official language of the US that'd be different, they may not follow the Spanish crown but certainly would follow their own or at least hopefully something... then again, it's the US so probably not.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
The point is unregulated languages are vastly worse than regulated ones. English is an example of it when it comes to both grammar and spelling, where you can even have idiotic teachers spit out grammar books in the 50s claiming "no split infinitives" and some people say "of course, that's totally true!"
But English DOES have an academy, and it caused many of those problems because it was the source of many.
No it does not. What is it?
Webster's Dictionary is the product of it. It's the official list of American English. It doesn't cover all language aspects, but many.
Actually Noah Webster tried to do a pretty OK job, it was better than Samuel Johnson who tried to make it more complex by introducing false etymologies like turning iland into island.
Not really, he intentionally skewed the language to create a new standard that was different from the known language at the time. The result is the whole world thinks that Americans can't spell or speak properly.
By removing pointless silent letters yes he did. Back then the two languages weren't in the same level of contact they are now outside of port cities. Pre-telegraph as well, there was a case to be made for a national regular spelling and grammar. There was nationalistic reasons behind it, not just linguistic ones. Teddy Roosevelt tried to take it further. And not all of Webster's changes were accepted, and basically all of Teddy's were reversed by act of Congress, hilariously.
Which weird since Congress has no say in the language.
Roosevelt had introduced 300 words to simplify, they're decent changes though there's still a lack of overall consistency to the language, there's never been a proper framework established. Nevertheless, Congress voted 142 to 25 (or there abouts) to officially not follow those changes. Some snuck through in non-official usages, one is "thru" like "drive thru"
-
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
And, like Spanish, the academy has no authority. Conceptually language academies doesn't really make sense, because they have no authority. So they state what they want a language to be, but have no control over what it is.
They standardise things, in the same way all of the conflicting dictionaries and house styles do in English, that's the point. I mean sure you can write a book in pre-20th century reforms of German and they won't stop you but there's no point to do it. The French Academy has been trying to fix issues in its spelling for quite some time and introduced some other changes recently
I think the idea that the academies are official is overstated. The US has one, for example, but the language taught in the US is way off from even Mexico, which we are supposed to mimic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Academy_of_the_Spanish_Language
It isn't official and has no say. Anybody can start a language academy. I could start my own French academy right now. It would mean as much as this.
-
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
The point is unregulated languages are vastly worse than regulated ones. English is an example of it when it comes to both grammar and spelling, where you can even have idiotic teachers spit out grammar books in the 50s claiming "no split infinitives" and some people say "of course, that's totally true!"
But English DOES have an academy, and it caused many of those problems because it was the source of many.
No it does not. What is it?
Webster's Dictionary is the product of it. It's the official list of American English. It doesn't cover all language aspects, but many.
Actually Noah Webster tried to do a pretty OK job, it was better than Samuel Johnson who tried to make it more complex by introducing false etymologies like turning iland into island.
Not really, he intentionally skewed the language to create a new standard that was different from the known language at the time. The result is the whole world thinks that Americans can't spell or speak properly.
By removing pointless silent letters yes he did. Back then the two languages weren't in the same level of contact they are now outside of port cities. Pre-telegraph as well, there was a case to be made for a national regular spelling and grammar. There was nationalistic reasons behind it, not just linguistic ones. Teddy Roosevelt tried to take it further. And not all of Webster's changes were accepted, and basically all of Teddy's were reversed by act of Congress, hilariously.
Which weird since Congress has no say in the language.
Roosevelt had introduced 300 words to simplify, they're decent changes though there's still a lack of overall consistency to the language, there's never been a proper framework established. Nevertheless, Congress voted 142 to 25 (or there abouts) to officially not follow those changes. Some snuck through in non-official usages, one is "thru" like "drive thru"
Thru is used as a joke, though, through and through.
-
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
And, like Spanish, the academy has no authority. Conceptually language academies doesn't really make sense, because they have no authority. So they state what they want a language to be, but have no control over what it is.
They standardise things, in the same way all of the conflicting dictionaries and house styles do in English, that's the point. I mean sure you can write a book in pre-20th century reforms of German and they won't stop you but there's no point to do it. The French Academy has been trying to fix issues in its spelling for quite some time and introduced some other changes recently
Right, except they don't. In the US, the second largest Spanish speaking country, it's not followed, at all. That's like twice the population of Spain!
That happens with any language outside the typical realm of national control. If Spanish were an official language of the US that'd be different, they may not follow the Spanish crown but certainly would follow their own or at least hopefully something... then again, it's the US so probably not.
Spanish is
It's one of the few official languages within the US. -
What's odd is now working with so many Spanish speakers in different countries, we notice that there are a lot of differences, but consistently that American Spanish is way off. To the point of not always being understood. I've looked into some things to see if they are taught consistently around the, and checked all over the Spanish world and found that things that are somehow completely codified in American Spanish are not even understood in the broader Spanish speaking world.
So there is quite a bit of centralization, but not tied to the broader community.
-
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@Obsolesce said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
Another reason English lacks behind other languages.
I don't think that's a good demonstration of how English "lacks behind" other languages, considering even most other Germanic languages alone the reflexive pronoun(s) tend to be the same word no matter what making certain sentences very ambiguous. I think one of English's neatest things is the possessive pseudo-case of 's, which works a bit easier than genitive case in many languages because you can chain them, but is a hell of a lot more clear than a reverse list of "de", which at least in the case of Indo-European languages is the opposite direction of how speech tends to run.
Plus also the -ing ending is one of the best aspects that almost every other Indo-European language lacks or has to achieve in a complex manner which itself is also potentially vague. One of the problems is that -ing is also the ending for gerunds and some other things.
English's biggest problems are:
- The spelling system is one of the worst in the entire world, certainly worst in the western world, even beyond French. Funnily a lot of people who speak only English will say "but things are spelled the way they sound." No. At least French has a consistent way to "decode" (read) sounds and know what they are even if they can be hard to "encode" (write). /u/ may be written u, ou, et al but it still is essentially always pronounced /u/. English is broken both with encoding and decoding, though it's rough to write out all the reasons why.
- The dropping of singular familiar "thou" leaving only "you" and there's several historical reasons for this, but it's a pain in the ass anyway. Which ironic is that new plurals like "y'all" have been created but they make you sound like a hick or like you're pretending to be endearing and you assume everyone else doesn't see through it. The exception of course is if you speak AAVE (ebonics) and it's apparent, or you speak some version of English from the South East.
Languages don't tend to lack or gain a whole lot of features, they make up with them with syntax, grammatical forms, stress, all sorts of things. Sort of like how people tend to view AAVE as a simplified or dumbed down version of General American where in fact it may not have some of the same grammatical properties GA has but it gains its own which in turn are sometimes ambiguous to whitey.
In Swedish for example, there are specific pronouns for exactly these instances.
For example:
She is drinking her coffee.(her own coffee)
Hon dricker sitt kaffe.(another woman's coffee)
Hon dricker hennes kaffe. -
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
It isn't official and has no say. Anybody can start a language academy. I could start my own French academy right now. It would mean as much as this.
True but the French Academy still has vastly more say then you do or your academy, same goes with the Spanish crown or other ones outside Spain that are associated. The biggest issue is getting people to follow it, there's various ways to do that but it really depends on all sorts of things.
Thru is used as a joke, though, through and through.
Well I meant in the sense that it's still here in some way, it's not a real one in that you wouldn't write it on your school work or business contracts. I guess unless you were talking about drive-thrus.
Spanish is
It's one of the few official languages within the US.it helps to have some sort of ethnic-national attachment to the language and specifically English and Spanish lack this outside of their originating countries. French is a bit different because of the way the French handled colonialism, so French being taught in schools in Lebanon as the every-day language still follow the French Academy, though too you get a lot of things in places were education is a problem since French doesn't lend itself to be used very easily when you're uneducated.
-
@Obsolesce said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@Obsolesce said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
Another reason English lacks behind other languages.
I don't think that's a good demonstration of how English "lacks behind" other languages, considering even most other Germanic languages alone the reflexive pronoun(s) tend to be the same word no matter what making certain sentences very ambiguous. I think one of English's neatest things is the possessive pseudo-case of 's, which works a bit easier than genitive case in many languages because you can chain them, but is a hell of a lot more clear than a reverse list of "de", which at least in the case of Indo-European languages is the opposite direction of how speech tends to run.
Plus also the -ing ending is one of the best aspects that almost every other Indo-European language lacks or has to achieve in a complex manner which itself is also potentially vague. One of the problems is that -ing is also the ending for gerunds and some other things.
English's biggest problems are:
- The spelling system is one of the worst in the entire world, certainly worst in the western world, even beyond French. Funnily a lot of people who speak only English will say "but things are spelled the way they sound." No. At least French has a consistent way to "decode" (read) sounds and know what they are even if they can be hard to "encode" (write). /u/ may be written u, ou, et al but it still is essentially always pronounced /u/. English is broken both with encoding and decoding, though it's rough to write out all the reasons why.
- The dropping of singular familiar "thou" leaving only "you" and there's several historical reasons for this, but it's a pain in the ass anyway. Which ironic is that new plurals like "y'all" have been created but they make you sound like a hick or like you're pretending to be endearing and you assume everyone else doesn't see through it. The exception of course is if you speak AAVE (ebonics) and it's apparent, or you speak some version of English from the South East.
Languages don't tend to lack or gain a whole lot of features, they make up with them with syntax, grammatical forms, stress, all sorts of things. Sort of like how people tend to view AAVE as a simplified or dumbed down version of General American where in fact it may not have some of the same grammatical properties GA has but it gains its own which in turn are sometimes ambiguous to whitey.
In Swedish for example, there are specific pronouns for exactly these instances.
For example:
She is drinking her coffee.(her own coffee)
Hon dricker sitt kaffe.(another woman's coffee)
Hon dricker hennes kaffe.Yes the only reflexive pronoun like this you get in English is -self, herself, himself, myself, etc. Though Swedish with sitt (sina, sin) is interesting because it at least follows gender, where as even in some other Germanic languages like, well, German, they don't at all, but people make up for it by using the definite article of the same grammatical gender. It's a language hack I guess.
