This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Why Americans can't speak (or write in) English properly.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Nitewalkr
I was going to say "because they speak American" but carry on.
Interesting discussion. =)
Post by
toastmaster7727
America is too diverse of a country to represent a single form of communication. Language is part of culture, and culture develops and evolves based on its surroundings.
You have a single form of currency.
You have a single form of national government, with an associated single form of national laws.
You have a single official language.
To say that it's too diverse is a cop-out. I'm happy to go to a culturally diverse law firm, but I expect there to be a single standard of excellence in their work.
Hahahahaha. You are pointing out our political aspects. Language however, does not work like politics. In fact, it is the complete opposite.
One of my favorite writers is Zora Neal Hurston simply because she
owns
the language. She uses false grammar on purpose to represent forms of humanity and culture. That is why English is so amazing: the syntax and structure can change to match the speakers thoughts, just like an art form! That is why we make so many clerical errors with it. That is why English is so hard to learn compared to other languages.
Post by
Squishalot
That is why English is so amazing: the syntax and structure can change to match the speakers thoughts, just like an art form!
Sometimes, you want to paint a picturesque scene. Sometimes you just want a sign put up. One is art using painting, the other is a means of communication using painting. You shouldn't mistake the two of them.
Literature is an art form. Speech is a utility. You can do whatever you like and call it 'art'. You can't (read: shouldn't) butcher the language and call it 'speech'.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Fussy, picking over words. Deal with the context rather than strawmanning individual sentances.
I find it ironic that you would find this a problem is a thread about the English language. If you don't want me fussing over your word choices, then choose better ones.
My point about 'old' is that you would define 'old' in the context of a tree differently to what I would define 'old' as. If trees in America live only to (say) 300 years old, then you might classify 'old' as above the median age (similar to your 'good shooter'), which would then be 150 years (based on your understanding of what the universal is).
But the universal that trees only live to 300 years old is one that is derived from your perspective only - in Australia, we've got trees that are over 500 years old. So a 200 year old tree should be considered 'young' (being below what I understand the median is).
Yet, the point I made above still holds. Age is something accidental to the tree. The universal is not concerned with accidents. That's like making a player's hair color an issue when talking about basketball. Whether a person is black haired or brown does not affect the game, therefore it is accidental. Whether a tree is 2 or 2000 years old doesn't affect its treeness, therefore it is accidental.
Either way, we can't be sure that we know the universal absolutely, because we can only derive what we think it is from the particulars we observe. The same, I believe (and you seem to disagree with), applies to basketball.
We can know universals though. Otherwise any conversation between people is impossible.
Context fail. I was only referring to shooting at that point in time. The reason I only refer to shooting is because it's the only non-relative act in basketball. Every other measure of basketball skill relies on having an opposition, and I've already pointed out that you can't identify an absolute median without being able to identify all possible opponents.
And I already pointed out that you
can
identify all
possible
opponents.
Because I never said he was good at basketball. I said he was good at basketball.
^ If you don't understand what I just did there, then you don't understand the semantics issue.
Aside from the fact that it's a poor argument, you're just shooting down your previous argument that pine trees =/= trees generally.
As I said, you don't understand the issue.
What is pine tree equal to in the basketball example? NBA. Have I made any statement about any other basketball other than NBA? No. You're the one trying to bring in other forms of basketball.
Post by
Squishalot
Whether a tree is 2 or 2000 years old doesn't affect its treeness, therefore it is accidental.
But I'm not talking about treeness anymore. I'm talking about age. Your basketball skill doesn't affect your human-ness. But it's a nice characteristic to measure.
We can know universals though. Otherwise any conversation between people is impossible.
No, we can have mutually understood universals. That doesn't mean that what we 'know' of the universal is correct. You would probably disagree that I know the concept of arrogance absolutely.
And I already pointed out that you can identify all
possible
opponents.
And I already asked you to demonstrate it. And you did not; you instead questioned the idea of identifying opponents as to drag the debate back away from absoluteness.
I challenged your ability to be able to identify all possible opponents who might not exist yet, whose particulars you have never observed. You replied by stating that you don't need to know future people, all you need to know is basketball. But again, that's biased, because your understanding of basketball is based on current player potential/possibilities. What if, in future, people were able to make full court shots with the accuracy that current players make free-throw shots? Knowing this, certainly, result in a different assessment of a 'good' shooter, no?
What is pine tree equal to in the basketball example? NBA. Have I made any statement about any other basketball other than NBA? No. You're the one trying to bring in other forms of basketball.
You've been talking about NBA rules, and I've been happy to discuss it in that context. I've been assuming that when you talk about your brother being a good basketballer, you're referring to basketball as a universal, not as a specific subset. Otherwise, you should be revising your statement to "My brother is good at NBA", rather than "My brother is good at basktball", if your statement truly is only about NBA basketball. ("That's an old pine tree", as opposed to "That's an old tree.")
So your statement is either misleading, or biased.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You've been talking about NBA rules, and I've been happy to discuss it in that context. I've been assuming that when you talk about your brother being a good basketballer, you're referring to basketball as a universal, not as a specific subset. Otherwise, you should be revising your statement to "My brother is good at NBA", rather than "My brother is good at basktball", if your statement truly is only about NBA basketball. ("That's an old pine tree", as opposed to "That's an old tree.")
So your statement is either misleading, or biased.
Except I
clearly
stated what was meant. If you choose to ignore that, that's your problem not mine.
But I'm not talking about treeness anymore. I'm talking about age. Your basketball skill doesn't affect your human-ness. But it's a nice characteristic to measure.If you're not talking about trees any more then, I'm not sure what the context is anymore. This is where you brought in the age of a tree (
first paragraph
).
No, we can have mutually understood universals. That doesn't mean that what we 'know' of the universal is correct. You would probably disagree that I know the concept of arrogance absolutely.
There is no such thing as a 'false' or 'incorrect' universal. It might be labeled incorrectly given a certain context, but that doesn't make the universal incorrect. And why would I disagree that you know arrogance? I do, I can only assume you do to.
And I already asked you to demonstrate it. And you did not; you instead questioned the idea of identifying opponents as to drag the debate back away from absoluteness.
I challenged your ability to be able to identify all possible opponents who might not exist yet, whose particulars you have never observed. You replied by stating that you don't need to know future people, all you need to know is basketball. But again, that's biased, because your understanding of basketball is based on current player potential/possibilities. What if, in future, people were able to make full court shots with the accuracy that current players make free-throw shots? Knowing this, certainly, result in a different assessment of a 'good' shooter, no?
I know the size of a basketball court.
I know what a shot is.
Therefore I know every possible shot.
What's so hard to understand about that? Whether people can or can't make full court shots at the moment or in the future is arbitrary.
Qua
basketball are the possible? Yes.
You are again trying to compare people. It doesn't work that way. You compare the person with the standard.
Post by
Squishalot
I know the size of a basketball court.
I know what a shot is.
Therefore I know every possible shot.
You're talking about defended shots.
You don't know every possible defence.
Therefore, you cannot know every possible defended shot.
There is no such thing as a 'false' or 'incorrect' universal. It might be labeled incorrectly given a certain context, but that doesn't make the universal incorrect. And why would I disagree that you know arrogance? I do, I can only assume you do to.
So, do I know everything about the universe, since I observe it each day? I mean, that's the next logical step from your reasoning. I think that it's a poor assumption that you're making, to assume that I know something simply because I've stated that I do.
If you're not talking about trees any more then, I'm not sure what the context is anymore. This is where you brought in the age of a tree (first paragraph).
I'm not talking about 'treeness', just as you're not talking about 'basketball-ness'. You're talking about the basketball skill characteristic of a person. I'm talking about the age characteristic of a tree. It's a similar concept - we're both measuring an attribute of an object. That's why the analogy isn't to recognise a tree as a 'tree' object (i.e. whether I play 'basketball'), but to identify whether it's 'old' (i.e. whether I'm good at basketball).
Except I clearly stated what was meant. If you choose to ignore that, that's your problem not mine.
I think you missed my point. When I refer to pine trees as separate from other trees, in the analogy, that's referring to the playing style that you'd witness in the NBA, relative to the Australian or Japanese leagues, for example. Not the rules. What you understand is possible or impossible in basketball (using NBA rules) is from what you witness in NBA games. Someone who witnesses the game (using NBA rules) in Australia may come to a different conclusion about what is possible or impossible, because the playstyle is different (i.e. tree style is different). So the idea that looking only at pine trees doesn't give you enough context about what a tree is, it's replicated in looking only at what NBA players do with NBA rules, and not seeing what other players do with the same rules and same game.
Edit: Anyway, it's Saturday over here, so I'm not really going to be around for the next 24 hours or so. Have fun raiding or whatever you get up to on Friday nights.
Post by
296147
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Nitewalkr
I know the size of a basketball court.
I know what a shot is.
Therefore I know every possible shot.
You're talking about defended shots.
You don't know every possible defence.
Therefore, you cannot know every possible defended shot.
There is no such thing as a 'false' or 'incorrect' universal. It might be labeled incorrectly given a certain context, but that doesn't make the universal incorrect. And why would I disagree that you know arrogance? I do, I can only assume you do to.
So, do I know everything about the universe, since I observe it each day? I mean, that's the next logical step from your reasoning. I think that it's a poor assumption that you're making, to assume that I know something simply because I've stated that I do.
If you're not talking about trees any more then, I'm not sure what the context is anymore. This is where you brought in the age of a tree (first paragraph).
I'm not talking about 'treeness', just as you're not talking about 'basketball-ness'. You're talking about the basketball skill characteristic of a person. I'm talking about the age characteristic of a tree. It's a similar concept - we're both measuring an attribute of an object. That's why the analogy isn't to recognise a tree as a 'tree' object (i.e. whether I play 'basketball'), but to identify whether it's 'old' (i.e. whether I'm good at basketball).
Except I clearly stated what was meant. If you choose to ignore that, that's your problem not mine.
I think you missed my point. When I refer to pine trees as separate from other trees, in the analogy, that's referring to the playing style that you'd witness in the NBA, relative to the Australian or Japanese leagues, for example. Not the rules. What you understand is possible or impossible in basketball (using NBA rules) is from what you witness in NBA games. Someone who witnesses the game (using NBA rules) in Australia may come to a different conclusion about what is possible or impossible, because the playstyle is different (i.e. tree style is different). So the idea that looking only at pine trees doesn't give you enough context about what a tree is, it's replicated in looking only at what NBA players do with NBA rules, and not seeing what other players do with the same rules and same game.
Edit: Anyway, it's Saturday over here, so I'm not really going to be around for the next 24 hours or so. Have fun raiding or whatever you get up to on Friday nights.
Well...Interesting debate, now lets come back to the topic shall we? :D Or change the thread topic.
Post by
Nitewalkr
I think it's evolution. My background is in IT, and faster is better. Efficiency is important when doing a job. Should I hold to grammar standards? No. While working abbreviating my communications and sentences keeps it short. I see it as a result of big business. Not in the "corporations are gonna git ya!" context, but more in the mindset of efficiency.
Why type "you" when "u" does the exact same thing? I don't see it as the destruction of the language, I see it as the evolution of communication. Simplifying the language is a good thing. If it continues then then one day the language will be easy to write and speak for all people.
I am a huge advocate of knowledge and the internet. Today countless numbers of people use the internet to communicate thoughts, ideas, knowledge and what not. Simplifying the language is making this process easier. I'm a firm believer in letting the old be old and embracing the new. That is what technology is all about. Efficiency isn't a bad thing. Some say "It's lazy!" I would argue it saves time. English is fine where it is... in books and in classrooms. But in the real world, getting things done matters.
I'm not an efficiency nut, but seriously... language is a tool. A set of rules for us to communicate. Many tools that we use get "overhauled" to make things more efficient.. I don't see why language should be exempt from this.
Actually I think this is how an IT professional would think. I do not disagree with you on this but english is essential to the North American businesses, and it is the very thing they see in you when they interview you to get hired. Internet is also an instance to learn, through out the articles, tutorials, insprations. Same as books, which is why we all were forced to read novels in high schools and understand whatever we need to in order to be fluent in English.
However; using bigger words in an interview does not work most of the time, I know this because few employees of HR in different companies have asked me the meaning of few words that I wrote on my CV. Simple English and easy to understand will convay your message to the others. But what if you are a game developer. That would require more knowledge of English right?
Or what if you are sales person, or business person, you would require a high level of English to show your professional attitude.
*Edit: I see my grammar starts sucking up when I start reading programming books because they use only the words and phrases to get their point accross. Where as, when I start reading novels I see a change in my fluency in English speaking and writing. Maybe its something you have to keep on doing....like visual arts, or maths*
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You don't know every possible defence.
Yes I do. It's just as simple as shooting.
I know what it is to exist in space.
I know how to determine the path of a projectile.
Therefore I know what it is for something to exist in the path of a projectile.
So, do I know everything about the universe, since I observe it each day? I mean, that's the next logical step from your reasoning. I think that it's a poor assumption that you're making, to assume that I know something simply because I've stated that I do.
How is that the 'next' logical step? First of all, knowing particulars doesn't automatically make you know every particular. The universe is one big ball of particulars. Universals only exist in the mind.
I'm not talking about 'treeness', just as you're not talking about 'basketball-ness'. You're talking about the basketball skill characteristic of a person. I'm talking about the age characteristic of a tree. It's a similar concept - we're both measuring an attribute of an object. That's why the analogy isn't to recognise a tree as a 'tree' object (i.e. whether I play 'basketball'), but to identify whether it's 'old' (i.e. whether I'm good at basketball).
As I said, skill is something intrinsic to basketball. Age is not something intrinsic to treeness; so your analogy doesn't quite work.
But you want to talk about age? Define it then. Obviously people are going to use age differently, because they mean different things by it. Remember, words don't have universals, only concepts. You need to tell me which concept you are signifying by 'old' (like I did by defining good as >50% of all possible situations).
So the idea that looking only at pine trees doesn't give you enough context about what a tree is, it's replicated in looking only at what NBA players do with NBA rules, and not seeing what other players do with the same rules and same game.
I've seen college basketball, I've seen high school basketball, I've see of non-league basketball. I have seen enough to know the universal.
Post by
Squishalot
Therefore I know what it is for something to exist in the path of a projectile.
You don't know, however, all of the different possibilities that could result in something existing in the path of said projectile. You might imagine that a ranged 'lobbed' (don't know the basketball term) shot would be unblockable, as it comes from too high a trajectory for a typical basketball player to block. But it's possible, in the future, that basketball players become taller than they already are, and are subsequently capable of blocking shots made from very high trajectories?
And I keep going back to the following points that you've made:
First of all, knowing particulars doesn't automatically make you know every particular. The universe is one big ball of particulars. Universals only exist in the mind.
I have seen enough to know the universal.
Your latter statement must still be biased, based on your view of what you need to see to know the universal. You haven't seen 3m tall players in basketball, yet they must still be part of the universal, as they represent part of what is possible. I would dare say that you don't envisage them as part of your view of the universal, derived from the games that you've seen.
Anyway, I think other people are starting to get annoyed at us :P
Post by
Squishalot
My background is in IT, and faster is better. Efficiency is important when doing a job. Should I hold to grammar standards? No. While working abbreviating my communications and sentences keeps it short. I see it as a result of big business. Not in the "corporations are gonna git ya!" context, but more in the mindset of efficiency.
If your background is in IT, you would know the importance of ensuring that you have proper syntax and spelling while programming, because deviations result in unintended consequences.
Many tools that we use get "overhauled" to make things more efficient.. I don't see why language should be exempt from this.
Language shouldn't be. That's why American English is different from British English. But any 'overhaul' needs to be done in a structured manner, as with programming languages, not at the whim and fancy of the kid down the street.
To fiddle with your statement - programmers are forced into strict writing standards with set grammar and spelling and punctuation. I don't see why language should be any different.
Well...Interesting debate, now lets come back to the topic shall we? :D Or change the thread topic.
I'll keep responding to people who go back to the original topic :) We can't change the topic anyway, since it's pelf's topic, not ours.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You don't know, however, all of the different possibilities that could result in something existing in the path of said projectile. You might imagine that a ranged 'lobbed' (don't know the basketball term) shot would be unblockable, as it comes from too high a trajectory for a typical basketball player to block. But it's possible, in the future, that basketball players become taller than they already are, and are subsequently capable of blocking shots made from very high trajectories?
I don't know what you're hoping to accomplish by coming up with examples like this. How is your example not covered it what I already said.
You haven't seen 3m tall players in basketball, yet they must still be part of the universal, as they represent part of what is possible. I would dare say that you don't envisage them as part of your view of the universal, derived from the games that you've seen.
I've said it once, I'll say it again. I don't need to see them. I 6-foot player, I can extrapolate using knowledge of the game and of physics down to a 3-foot player.
I can know all
possible
particulars without knowing all the particulars that actually exist.
Post by
Squishalot
I don't know what you're hoping to accomplish by coming up with examples like this. How is your example not covered it what I already said. ... I can know all possible particulars without knowing all the particulars that actually exist.
Yes, but are you considering them in your assessment of your brother? This is where I doubt that he can 'block >50%, shoot >50% etc' against a universal sample containing all
possibilities
. I don't doubt that your brother can be considered 'good' relative to the people he's playing against. But I don't think you're giving due credit to the possibilities that you can definitely extrapolate, but perhaps don't consider.
And I didn't mean 3ft, I meant 3m ~ 10ft.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Yes, but are you considering them in your assessment of your brother?
Yes. Along with every other possibility.
Are you taking into account all the bad possibilities? I haven't seen you mention them once.
Post by
Squishalot
I am. But the basketball floor dictates that there are more possiblities upwards from the current norm (i.e. taller defenders decreasing the chance of shooting successfully) than there are possibilities downwards (shorter defenders increasing the chance of shooting successfully).
On a slightly random tangent, my maths teacher in high school tried to convince our class that 73% of quadratic functions had at least one root. Most of the class bought it.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I am. But the basketball floor dictates that there are more possiblities upwards from the current norm (i.e. taller defenders decreasing the chance of shooting successfully) than there are possibilities downwards (shorter defenders increasing the chance of shooting successfully).
On a slightly random tangent, my maths teacher in high school tried to convince our class that 73% of quadratic functions had at least one root. Most of the class bought it.
If a tall guy is on you, you don't shoot, you pass around him. Like I said, basketball isn't about the shooting that you keep bringing in.
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
If a tall guy is on you, you don't shoot, you pass around him. Like I said, basketball isn't about the shooting that you keep bringing in.
I'm only 'bringing it in' because you used it as your first example of what 'good' was. Against a team that is significantly taller than you, you can't block, you can't shoot; if all you can do is move the ball around, is that enough to be classed as 'good'?
After all, what are your weightings for ball passing and tactics? You've indicated that you place an even weighting on shooting/blocking (which I'll go with, for now) - how would you weigh the inability to score against tall opponents with your ability to pass it out?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.