Evolving the "English" language?

JAYJO

Heartfeltdawn said:

Phil_aka_Pip said:

@Heartfeltdawn ;   Forsooth, I but drew attention to the new word without casting judgement, only to suggest that we use not the word "bigly" because of our Lord Trump's first use of it.

We don't needeth no education 

 We don't needeth no bethought control 

 No dark gird in the classroom 

 Teachers leaveth those folk kids alone 

 ho! Teachers! leaveth those folk kids alone 

 All in all it's just another brick in the mure 

 All in all thou art just another brick in the mure 

 

ow els wud you rite the wurds if ye ad no educasion tho?

fields5069

I'm not sure I like this language evolution business. Or rather, yes language must evolve, but it's being used as an excuse not to learn the language, grammar and spelling that we already have, by lazy people.

Phil_aka_Pip

not like that. the verb forms are all wrong. -eth is the ending for 3rd person singular so is wrong for "we" (1st person plural) and for "teachers" (imperative? but certainly not 2nd person plural)

BRISTOL86

It’ll be forgotten about interfrastically, no need for this pericombobulation. 

p90fool

digitalscream said:

Phil_aka_Pip said:

Apparently, "embiggen" is now a proper word (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-43298229)

I'm sure that if someone other than Donald Trump had come out with "bigly", we'd all be using the word by now.

The real evolution of the English language is text-speak. The problem is that most folk who actually took the time to learn the English language refuse to use it.

It's mainly 30-somethings who use text speak, autocorrect means all the messages I get from under 30s are written reasonably well. 

It amuses me no end that a 35 year old singer I work with has to fight her new phone tooth and and nail in order to tell me "C U l8er".

57Deluxe

never heard it - sounds like the process to get a stiffy...

tony99

It's lingua franca exactly because of its evolutionary nature. And to an extent because of colonialism.

Phil_aka_Pip

tony99 said:

It's lingua franca exactly because of its evolutionary nature. And to an extent because of colonialism.

French??

tony99

Phil_aka_Pip said:

tony99 said:

It's lingua franca exactly because of its evolutionary nature. And to an extent because of colonialism.

French??

not quite boss, it's a term given to a common communication language used by two or more speakers of other languages, can't remember what the "franca" means exactly, but it's not French, think it's a Latin or Greek word or something

Phil_aka_Pip

@tony99 OK I get it https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lingua_franca but my etymology wasn't too far out

Rocker

Instead of evolving the English language, would it be better if people learned and used it as it is?

tony99

Rocker said:

Instead of evolving the English language, would it be better if people learned and used it as it is?

It's always evolving though. There isn't really an "as it is".

English from the middle ages would be incomprehensible to most of us nowadays purely because of its evolution.

mbe

Size doesn't matter, so long as you've got embiggen.  

Phil_aka_Pip

@tony99 I think there is an "as is", although I agree with you that it's a moving target. Dictionaries and BBC recommended pronunciation tend to give a frozen snapshot at reasonably regular intervals, and the changes per interval are usually not so large as to render last year's received wisdom unintelligible to this year's audience.

I think English from the middle ages would be incomprehensible if spoken, and is incomprehensible when written because of the writing in those days. If such language were written in text that we find readable, I wonder if any of us would be able to make it out? Maybe some of us could. I'd like to try.

HAL9000

People who claim 'would of' is evolution (rather than just admitting they're wrong) should be first up against the wall.

tony99

Phil_aka_Pip said:

@tony99 I think there is an "as is", although I agree with you that it's a moving target. Dictionaries and BBC recommended pronunciation tend to give a frozen snapshot at reasonably regular intervals, and the changes per interval are usually not so large as to render last year's received wisdom unintelligible to this year's audience.

I think English from the middle ages would be incomprehensible if spoken, and is incomprehensible when written because of the writing in those days. If such language were written in text that we find readable, I wonder if any of us would be able to make it out? Maybe some of us could. I'd like to try.

What would the "as is" be though? English or American English? or one of the myriad other forms that have evolved over the last 50 or so years? Such as Indian English, chinese english, korean, jamaican?

If it's English (english) which is the correct form, then who are the correct native speakers, those in the south or those in the north? Both use different pronunciations due to completely different influences of other foreign languages over time.

There can be no overarching correct form of English without saying all the other types are effectively wrong, and due to their effectiveness of communication, I don't believe they are.

Phil_aka_Pip

Well, it wouldn't be American would it? Or any other non-English adaptation of English. IMO (and it is only my opinion) the Geordie speakers (for example) are every bit as "correct" as the BBC "Queen's English" speakers. I can't agree though that just because a form is "effective" that makes it "correct". Telling you to F.O. if I disagree with you may be effective but it isn't polite, neither is it the right way to disagree.

tony99

Phil_aka_Pip said:

Well, it wouldn't be American would it? Or any other non-English adaptation of English. IMO (and it is only my opinion) the Geordie speakers (for example) are every bit as "correct" as the BBC "Queen's English" speakers. I can't agree though that just because a form is "effective" that makes it "correct". Telling you to F.O. if I disagree with you may be effective but it isn't polite, neither is it the right way to disagree.

Why would it not be american though? What's wrong with it? Is it because of the orthographic and lexical differences to what we may find in the oxford dictionary? To me that just tells me that there is more than one form of "correct" english. Likewise for the geordie speakers, or my own liverpool accent contrasted with the received pronunciation of BBC newsreaders, they're all correct right?

Which leads me to surmise that if there is more than one correct form of english, many forms in fact, then there can be no absolute catch all "as is".

If so, what is it?

Balrog68

You should all speak proper like what I do!

p90fool

Phil_aka_Pip said:

Well, it wouldn't be American would it? 

Why not? We spread the use of English through our empire, but the reason most of the world now regards it as essential if you want to get on has more to do with Hollywood than Queen Victoria.