Should of ...

[Unkotare]

Too many people use "language is fluid" or "I only care about the message" as excuses for being lazy.

 

[Esmeralda]

Too many people use "language is fluid" or "I only care about the message" as excuses for being lazy.

Your post is a display of ignorance. I'll dismiss your point about lazy because I never said anything about it and have no intention of bothering with it.

The issue about language is that it is not stagnant. If it were, we'd still be using grunts and squeals to communicate. Language is continuously changing. It moves, it is alive. Dictionaries add new words every year. This is something that everyone knows, every educated person. I have a master's degree in English. This is a concept I learned in undergraduate school. Our language is constantly changing, i.e., it is fluid, not stagnant.

I have letters my father wrote to his mother during WWII. The way he used language in the 1940s is not the same way he used language in the 1990s because the way we speak, the way we write, the way we communicate changes. This has nothing to do with people being lazy; it has to do with people communicating in the accepted way for their time.

I agree that saying I should of rather than I should have is a basic mistake. People make these mistakes all the time. They use verbs incorrectly, they use vocabulary incorrectly, they do not punctuate their sentences correctly, and so on. If something is done often enough and is accepted as general use, it is incorporated into our language. For example, few people know when and how to use either who or whom. No one seems to care and no one on this board ever corrects those who use the incorrect pronoun. So, it has gone out of general use to differentiate. Even English teachers often don't know. Is this a big deal? Do you know, without looking it up, when to use who and when to use whom? In fact, the word whom is rarely used anymore; it has become nearly archaic. Another thing is the dangling preposition. People use them all the time. It is commonplace. No one corrects them, or rarely, and an awful lot of people don't know what it is. It is another thing that is falling by the wayside. Is this terrible or is it just the evolution of our language?

Every culture, uses its language in the way that suits the life of the people. Language reflects the people who use it. Our English is not the same as the English in the UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, or Australia.

Language is a living thing.

 

[editec]

English is a living language.

English speakers decide what's right.

 

[Unkotare]

The issue about language is that it is not stagnant.

You quoted my words, but you don't seem to have read them. Why is that? Why are you trying to argue a point not in contention? Is it because you have nothing else to say?

 

[Unkotare]

English is a living language.

English speakers decide what's right.

Too categorical. This is just where the lazy and uneducated seek shelter from accuracy.

 

[Esmeralda]

The issue about language is that it is not stagnant.

You quoted my words, but you don't seem to have read them. Why is that? Why are you trying to argue a point not in contention? Is it because you have nothing else to say?

I directly addressed your point. Do you have mental issues or something? You said saying language is fluid is not an acceptable excuse for not using language 'correctly.' My post directly addresses the idea of fluidity in language. People who say language is fluid are right.

 

[Esmeralda]

English is a living language.

English speakers decide what's right.

Too categorical. This is just where the lazy and uneducated seek shelter from accuracy.

There is contention. You are contending that the idea of language being fluid is not a reason for using it in a way you don't think is correct. It is a valid reason to explain changes in usage whether they are considered correct or not.

 

[Unkotare]

Do you know, without looking it up, when to use who and when to use whom?

Yes, and it is hardly "archaic." The word "archaic" doesn't mean "words Esmeralda is not comfortable using correctly."

 

[Esmeralda]

Do you know, without looking it up, when to use who and when to use whom?

Yes, and it is hardly "archaic." The word "archaic" doesn't mean "words Esmeralda is not comfortable using correctly."

LOL Sorry buddy. I am completely comfortable with who and whom and know exactly when to use either pronoun. In my experience, I am one of the few English speakers on the planet who does. While in graduate school, I was a graduate teaching fellow, teaching writing and rhetoric. How about you? Ever taught college level writing?

How about you explaining when and how to use either who or whom? Without looking it up first.

 

[Unkotare]

You are contending that the idea of language being fluid is not a reason for using it in a way you don't think is correct. It is a valid reason to explain changes in usage whether they are considered correct or not.

You are confusing prescriptive and descriptive grammar. Language does indeed change over time, but over longer periods of time than some dope on the internet making excuses for not knowing how to use the English language properly according to current accepted standards of accuracy.

 

[Pennywise]

Do you know, without looking it up, when to use who and when to use whom?

Yes, and it is hardly "archaic." The word "archaic" doesn't mean "words Esmeralda is not comfortable using correctly."

LOL Sorry buddy. I am completely comfortable with who and whom and know exactly when to use either pronoun. In my experience, I am one of the few English speakers on the planet who does.

How about you explaining when and how to use either who or whom? Without looking it up first.

When is it appropriate to use "should of"?

Please explain.

 

[Unkotare]

I am completely comfortable with who and whom and know exactly when to use either pronoun. In my experience, I am one of the few English speakers on the planet who does.

I am unconvinced by your absurdly mistaken attempts at pretense.

 

[Esmeralda]

Yes, and it is hardly "archaic." The word "archaic" doesn't mean "words Esmeralda is not comfortable using correctly."

LOL Sorry buddy. I am completely comfortable with who and whom and know exactly when to use either pronoun. In my experience, I am one of the few English speakers on the planet who does.

How about you explaining when and how to use either who or whom? Without looking it up first.

When is it appropriate to use "should of"?

Please explain.

It isn't correct. But, then again, it is not acceptable to denigrate people who use language incorrectly when you yourself don't know how to use it correctly. It is also not okay to lack an understanding of how language changes and evolves over time. For example, language Nazi is a term you find on the internet a lot. The word Nazi has evolved far beyond its original meaning. And the concept of a language Nazi is something new too: they are people who are rigid about language use in the way Nazis were rigid in who they felt should live or die, how people should live, what was right and what was wrong, etc.

Don't be a language fascist.

 

[Unkotare]

It is also not okay to lack an understanding of how language changes and evolves over time.

There you go again. No one is contending the point that languages change over time. You seem to be desperate for someone to deny it because you believe you have latched onto some great insight. Sorry, no special "well done!" sticker for you today.

 

[Esmeralda]

It is also not okay to lack an understanding of how language changes and evolves over time.

There you go again. No one is contending the point that languages change over time. You seem to be desperate for someone to deny it because you believe you have latched onto some great insight. Sorry, no special "well done!" sticker for you today.

You really do have issues. I stated specifically that ALL educated people know language is fluid. I don't think I have any special insight. However, you keep saying people use that idea as an excuse to use languge incorrectly. That is you being contentious. It is wrong to criticize people for using that idea to explain what they may be doing with language. Language does change, and it is changing a lot because of the internet and computers. Stop being a language fascist and get with the program.

And with that, I will no longer respond to you. Back on ignore for you: you're nothing more than a troll (another word whose meaning has changed due to the internet).

 

[Pogo]

I could care less...

​

That one has enraged me since childhood. Amazingly it was going around even then (early 13th century) and people STILL don't get it.

 

[Esmeralda]

I could care less...

That one has enraged me since childhood. Amazingly it was going around even then (early 13th century) and people STILL don't get it.

I can't see it.

 

[Pogo]

I think it's a combination of schools focusing on other topics, and the technology that leads to some laziness. People used to do long math in their heads, and then we had the calculator. I really overlook the majority of it, but there is one that usually catches my eye...when someone uses "that" instead of "who", such as: I was talking to the guy that bagged my groceries." Anyway, as a former first grade teacher, I encouraged my students not to get hung up on spelling and grammar in the first stages of the writing process, because I didn't want them to be inhibited. We'd then work on the "sloppy copies" and use it to learn about the editing process. Some of the best writers probably have editors who are amazed at simple mistakes that need to be corrected. Even though we're all adults here, I've only picked on one person here for her writing style...and TM deserved it!! Oh, and that fucking idiot who used to post in multiple colors...refused to read that bullshit.

That sounds like a sound approach to young minds.

We do all have our idiosyncratic pet causes. Mine has become "less" versus "fewer", which I blame on Lite beer commercials. And in a related story (because also related to sports), the evolving mispronunciaton of the word route. And the other sore spot, the relentless addition of apostrophes to form plurals. What exactly is going on in the mind that inserts a diacritical that has no function at all?

Talking of pronunciation -- has anyone but me noticed that in the first Iraq war we pronounced it correctly (ih-ROCK) but when the second came we all switched to "ih-RACK"? I hear the same thing today with GAH-zuh (long back A) transposted to GAA-zuh (frontal A). Wtf?

 

[Unkotare]

The issue about language is that it is not stagnant.

You quoted my words, but you don't seem to have read them. Why is that? Why are you trying to argue a point not in contention? Is it because you have nothing else to say?

I directly addressed your point. Do you have mental issues or something? You said saying language is fluid is not an acceptable excuse for not using language 'correctly.' My post directly addresses the idea of fluidity in language. People who say language is fluid are right.

Why do you have such a hostile aversion to logic? You claim to have addressed my point, but you then ignore it and come back to a claim that no one has disputed. Are you still hoping someone will argue with your assertion because it's the only one you are prepared to discuss? Strange.

 

[Pogo]

It is also not okay to lack an understanding of how language changes and evolves over time.

There you go again. No one is contending the point that languages change over time. You seem to be desperate for someone to deny it because you believe you have latched onto some great insight. Sorry, no special "well done!" sticker for you today.

You really do have issues. I stated specifically that ALL educated people know language is fluid. I don't think I have any special insight. However, you keep saying people use that idea as an excuse to use languge incorrectly. That is you being contentious. It is wrong to criticize people for using that idea to explain what they may be doing with language. Language does change, and it is changing a lot because of the internet and computers. Stop being a language fascist and get with the program.

And with that, I will no longer respond to you. Back on ignore for you: you're nothing more than a troll (another word whose meaning has changed due to the internet).

I wooden get in the mud with that loser expeshully in a thread like this -- 'language Nazi' is entirely appropriate terminilogy; he regularly edits other people's posts. Best we all have it on ignore.

Back to the show.