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
pelf
Yeah, I'm such a huge fan of the "incumbent upon" phrase.
Hmm ... do you think that's in the same Venn circle as other things that have come with modernity? For example, DNA manipulation; evolution and natural selection (absent the disagreement that they exist; let's assume, for my point) have driven the changes in genomes in the past. Now, we have the ability to manipulate our own DNA and the DNA of the things we share the planet with. As that carries with it added responsibility and less nonchalance at a process that goes on without our input, does too our ability to control language and proliferate the results quickly and broadly carry with it added responsibility?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I don't think there's any "responsibility"
per se
. That implies some sort of morality attached to language, which I don't believe exists. But I do believe an artificial approach to language evolution has a much higher chance of causing us to lose clarity and meaning.
Post by
pelf
And, do you think that the loss of clarity and meaning is a bad enough fate to justify pursuing some kind of standard of communication?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You can't solve the problem of artificial meddling by artificially meddling; so no, I don't see that fixing anything.
Post by
pelf
I guess I meant personally, not like the Ministry of Standards in Communication.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
With offices right next to the Ministry of Silly Walks?
When it comes down to it, I think there are only a couple valid reasons for changing something in a language. The foremost is adding a new word to fit something new, e.g.
xerox
. Another valid thing we can do is change the meaning of a word if the socio-historical context that word depends on changes, and an example of that might be
liberal
. Finally, another language might bring in new terminology, e.g.
gringo
. There are other words that, although they don't fit into any of those 3 categories, have been added -- validly in my opinion -- because of the spread of the work in which they are found, e.g.
lilliputian
.
Then there are words which I think have no place in our dictionaries, such as
grrrl
.
Shudder.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
On a side note, this is one of the reasons that I think English is in fact the best language in the world. We have close to a quarter of a million non-technical, non-archaic words in use, whereas languages like French only have 100,000. (German is probably the closest with a bit over 175,000.) We have half a dozen words for everything from street (road, avenue, lane, parkway, etc.) to run (dash, sprint, rush, dart, etc.). But what's so great is the fact that each one of those words means something slightly different. The man dashing across the finish line is different from the man rushing down the hallway, and although the two words are often interchangeable, we can see and understand their nuanced differences without even stopping to define them.
Post by
Squishalot
But what's so great is the fact that each one of those words means something slightly different.
The problem arises when people misunderstand the nuances of such words, and this lack of clarity is what pelf is aiming at, I believe.
What do you perceive the difference between a street and a road is? Or a street and a crescent? If a lane and a laneway are two separate but similar things, why is a park and a parkway significantly different from each other? For people who aren't familiar with the nuances and/or the use of them, it causes confusion and inhibits understanding.
Edit: Don't get me wrong - I love the fact that we've got so many different words to explain similar things. Like I said before, I come from a culture that will switch languages just to get the nuance right. I'm just curious as to how you conclude that the numerous nuances is a positive measure of a language.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm just curious as to how you conclude that the numerous nuances is a positive measure of a language.
Because the purpose of language is to convey meaning, and the more nuanced your method of conveyance is, the more accurate the conveyed meaning becomes.
Now, something
can
be nuanced to a fault. There's more at play than just mere nuanced meaning. But English isn't anywhere near that point.
Post by
Squishalot
Because the purpose of language is to convey meaning, and the more nuanced your method of conveyance is, the more accurate the conveyed meaning becomes.
Accuracy is one characteristic of a conveyed meaning. You don't consider speed to be another?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Because the purpose of language is to convey meaning, and the more nuanced your method of conveyance is, the more accurate the conveyed meaning becomes.
Accuracy is one characteristic of a conveyed meaning. You don't consider speed to be another?
It's a consideration, for sure, but speed is irrelevant to the actual meaning.
Post by
MyTie
Wall o text.
America is one of the most literate countries in the world. Sure, our education system is flawed, but anyone with some desire to learn can learn.
Two thoughts come to mind with the OP:
1) More America bashing.
2) Bigger fish to worry about than spelling errors. Perhaps America should attempt to balance a checkbook. Just a thought.
Post by
Squishalot
Sure. What I understand pelf's query to be (fundamentally) is whether the trade-off for increased accuracy is worth the cost to clarity (i.e. speed).
At it's heart, I suppose the alternative extreme (to being nuanced to a fault) is the principle behind Newspeak (taking the political ideology out of it) from Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I don't think clarity rests on speed. Your listener's attention span and your available time are what determine your speed. You should always have clarity, whether you take 10 seconds or 30 minutes to describe something.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
America is one of the most literate countries in the world.
We're not even in the top 10% of literate countries by percentage. I find it sad that most of the former Soviet republics have higher literacy rates than us.
Post by
MyTie
America is one of the most literate countries in the world.
We're not even in the top 10% of literate countries by percentage.
Source?
I looked it up on Wiki and apparantly Georgia has 100% literacy rate... not one person can't read. I don't know if I buy that. And Khazakstan is listed as number 5? Really?
Anyway, even according to that list we are 21st out of 180.
Again, I'm not saying we don't have problems, or that I wish every person could be literate, but the tendancy to jump up and down on the USA is getting annoying. Why does it always have to be AMERICA HAS A PROBLEM WITH X? Why do we NEED to bash America?
Post by
Squishalot
Anyway, even according to that list we are 21st out of 180.
That would be outside the top 10%.
Why does it always have to be AMERICA HAS A PROBLEM WITH X? Why do we NEED to bash America?
A simple test would be to go onto a site such as FML and take a sample of Australian, English and American (USA) posts, and compare the number of spelling errors, grammatical accuracy and use of internet-age acronyms. My gut feel would be that the US ones would be the highest, followed by the Australian ones, followed by the English ones.
I don't think clarity rests on speed. Your listener's attention span and your available time are what determine your speed. You should always have clarity, whether you take 10 seconds or 30 minutes to describe something.
I misphrased my statement, but I disagree somewhat - clarity is your ability to convey your meaning. I used 'clarity' to refer to the ability to convey a meaning within a particular window of time. Nuances, I believe, increase the period of time required to be able to convey a clear message.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I looked it up on Wiki and apparantly Georgia has 100% literacy rate... not one person can't read. I don't know if I buy that. No, that means that no more than 2318 Georgian citizens can't read.
And Khazakstan is listed as number 5?
I think you need to do more Social Science. The former Soviet republics have been doing so much these last decades to improve their countries, and education is just one aspect.
Anyway, even according to that list we are 21st out of 180.
Which places us lower than 10%, just like I said.
Post by
MyTie
Anyway, even according to that list we are 21st out of 180.
That would be outside the top 10%.
21/180? 11.66% What does this have to do with my point? My question is why is the USA singled out? Why is the USA ALWAYS singled out? How did that become popular?
Post by
MyTie
Which places us lower than 10%, just like I said.
I never said we didn't have a problem. I agree that any illiteracy is a problem. My question is why is the USA the culprit whenever anyone has a problem?
I'm sick of it being trendy to demonize my country.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.