Thread: Bustin' caps in the asses of Newbs, Newbies and other un-Australianisms

Originally Posted by silentC

Is there anyone here who fits that description? I don't think anyone would suggest that the language should stay transfixed.

There are a number of issues here. We have a language which has evolved continuously over the centuries and will continue to do so. We also have a basic set of grammatical rules and word spellings that we are taught (or should be). These allow us to understand and to be understood across the English speaking world without requiring our teenage niece to translate for us.

I don't believe that a lot of what passes for new language use does much if anything to advance understanding or to make it easier to communicate. Most of it is just fashion,which will come and go. Put it in the dictionary by all means to preserve if for posterity.

Adopting sayings such as "do the math" is again just fashion.

At the end of the day, the actual 'rules' for language use haven't changed that much over the last couple of hundred years. I can read a novel written by a Scotsman in 1814 without any difficulty (except for the Latin bits, which were popular at the time). When I was a kid, it was fashionable to say things like "far out" and "cowabunga". Fortunately these have passed into history and I expect so will all the similar nonsense that goes on today, but we still say "that is amazing" or "here we go".

For me, the most important thing is that we hold onto an agreed set of language rules - updated as needs be - which are passed on to the next generation. It needs to be consistent and stable so that it is as simple as possible to teach and to remember. I think kids should be taught that it's "should have" not "should of" so that in 100 years, people aren't scratching their heads over why the word "of" has this other odd meaning.

Well said.

Originally Posted by silentC

Is there anyone here who fits that description? I don't think anyone would suggest that the language should stay transfixed.

There are a number of issues here. We have a language which has evolved continuously over the centuries and will continue to do so. We also have a basic set of grammatical rules and word spellings that we are taught (or should be). These allow us to understand and to be understood across the English speaking world without requiring our teenage niece to translate for us.

I don't believe that a lot of what passes for new language use does much if anything to advance understanding or to make it easier to communicate. Most of it is just fashion,which will come and go. Put it in the dictionary by all means to preserve if for posterity.

Adopting sayings such as "do the math" is again just fashion.

At the end of the day, the actual 'rules' for language use haven't changed that much over the last couple of hundred years. I can read a novel written by a Scotsman in 1814 without any difficulty (except for the Latin bits, which were popular at the time). When I was a kid, it was fashionable to say things like "far out" and "cowabunga". Fortunately these have passed into history and I expect so will all the similar nonsense that goes on today, but we still say "that is amazing" or "here we go".

For me, the most important thing is that we hold onto an agreed set of language rules - updated as needs be - which are passed on to the next generation. It needs to be consistent and stable so that it is as simple as possible to teach and to remember. I think kids should be taught that it's "should have" not "should of" so that in 100 years, people aren't scratching their heads over why the word "of" has this other odd meaning.

Originally Posted by Honorary Bloke

Morning gents! I may get this in before Watson turns the key.

I believe it was Noam Chomsky who said that "everyone speaks their own language perfectly." By that he meant, of course, that the speaker knows exactly what he meant to convey. But will the hearer understand it in the same way? That is the reason for grammatical rules, to enhance understanding.

Logically, therefore, anything which inhibits clear communications should be resisted, but that which enhances it should be encouraged. The rest of the arguments are just language arrogance, one of the more common, garden-variety human traits.

I think these 2 quotes sum it all up.