40% of Americans too stupid to learn the English language.

[quote name='camoor']Man, I agree with every paragraph but the last.

You set up a beautiful arguement for reform, and then dash it all for the cheap thrill you get out of feeling superior for mastering an arbitrary set of rules.

Unncessarily complex grammar is a waste of time. I say if you're part of the small subset of the population that gets their rocks off by studying antiquated grammar then take up Latin.[/QUOTE]

Grammar =/= orthography. I said nothing about reforming grammar. That's even more of a lost cause I think. That said, English grammar is not especially complex, especially compared to languages like Icelandic, Russian and Latin (if strong case systems and high levels of inflection are the standard for complexity here). It's the mostly nonsensical spelling that's the devil here.

So since all languages are arbitrary sets of sounds and rules, I suppose no one should take pride in mastering any language at all? It's natural to be proud of mastering something difficult, no matter what it is. You can call it a cheap thrill, but I expect you'll accordingly begin referring to anyone that excels at anything and likes it a cheap thrill seeker.

Also, Latin grammar isn't particularly antiquated, just different. Russian and Icelandic retain very similar systems. They're different languages but no less "linguistically efficient" if there can be such a thing. If anything, their case systems and person-inflected verbal systems allow them to express more information using fewer words.

I can see how reform can be justified but I simply don't think everything has to be efficient to the max, and I'm attached to the current shape of our language. Even if it doesn't make sense phonetically all the time, I appreciate the history reflected in our current spelling system. I also think that spelling nazism is unfair, short-sighted and unnecessary as I outlined above.
 
Grammar nazis suck in general, but the misuse of some words that mean totally different things(than and then, their and there, etc)makes me want to become one.
 
Esperanto anyone?

English does have some befuddling moments, but sometimes stupid people are going to be stupid no matter how easy you try to make it for them.
 
so, lets take english and make it "easier" for those not wanting to pay attention in school. How about we stop sugar coating it and call it like it is: America is lazy. to lazy to learn how to spell. this could be a whole rant for me leading into other lazy habbits america has now-but i'll shut my trap and keep it to myself.
 
^I don't know if this is totally directed at English like it is above but... It's one thing to be lazy and quite another to create a shit load of extra work just for the hell of it or hell, even it's just to LOOk smarter than one really is. Sorry, I'm not following that logic.
 
[quote name='Shadows916']so, lets take english and make it "easier" for those not wanting to pay attention in school. How about we stop sugar coating it and call it like it is: America is lazy. to lazy to learn how to spell. this could be a whole rant for me leading into other lazy habbits america has now-but i'll shut my trap and keep it to myself.[/QUOTE]

Haha..."habbits."

It's not that English spelling is too "difficult." It's that it's retarded, and mind-bogglingly inconsistent.
 
[quote name='looploop']Grammar =/= orthography. I said nothing about reforming grammar. That's even more of a lost cause I think. That said, English grammar is not especially complex, especially compared to languages like Icelandic, Russian and Latin (if strong case systems and high levels of inflection are the standard for complexity here). It's the mostly nonsensical spelling that's the devil here.

So since all languages are arbitrary sets of sounds and rules, I suppose no one should take pride in mastering any language at all? It's natural to be proud of mastering something difficult, no matter what it is. You can call it a cheap thrill, but I expect you'll accordingly begin referring to anyone that excels at anything and likes it a cheap thrill seeker.

Also, Latin grammar isn't particularly antiquated, just different. Russian and Icelandic retain very similar systems. They're different languages but no less "linguistically efficient" if there can be such a thing. If anything, their case systems and person-inflected verbal systems allow them to express more information using fewer words.

I can see how reform can be justified but I simply don't think everything has to be efficient to the max, and I'm attached to the current shape of our language. Even if it doesn't make sense phonetically all the time, I appreciate the history reflected in our current spelling system. I also think that spelling nazism is unfair, short-sighted and unnecessary as I outlined above.[/QUOTE]


Winning the spelling bee is kind of like being proud of your high score in Peggle (translation: nobody really gives a shit)

Personally I'd rather attack grammar first - IMO dopey inconsistent grammar systems are a waste of neurons.

If it makes you feel any better, the romantic in me does not appreciate contemplating the complete McDonaldization of the English language. However I believe through the homogenizing effect of technology and our innate desire for simplicity it's going to happen regardless.

Simplifying English, making it our own, is such a quintessentially American ideal I am surprised that it meets such resistance among the general populace. I get tired of getting stuck in semantic sandtraps, wouldn't it be nice if we could all keep on the same page in a debate?

There are certainly dangers however. Politicians love to hide behind vagaries, if these vagaries are stripped from the language there is a very real danger of political rhetoric degrading to the level of doublespeak.
 
[quote name='Shadows916']so, lets take english and make it "easier" for those not wanting to pay attention in school. How about we stop sugar coating it and call it like it is: America is lazy. to lazy to learn how to spell. this could be a whole rant for me leading into other lazy habbits america has now-but i'll shut my trap and keep it to myself.[/QUOTE]

Oh the irony of complaining about people not paying attention and being too lazy to learn how to spell.:lol::applause:
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Esperanto anyone?

English does have some befuddling moments, but sometimes stupid people are going to be stupid no matter how easy you try to make it for them.[/QUOTE]

I don't give a fuck about stupid people, but don't you ever get tired of really getting into a debate only to get interrupted by the resident grammar nazi?
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Oh the irony of complaining about people not paying attention and being too lazy to learn how to spell.:lol::applause:[/QUOTE]

let's see you type while wearing weight lifting gloves and in between sets and see your spelling/grammer prowes.
 
[quote name='camoor']Winning the spelling bee is kind of like being proud of your high score in Peggle (translation: nobody really gives a shit)

Personally I'd rather attack grammar first - IMO dopey inconsistent grammar systems are a waste of neurons.

If it makes you feel any better, the romantic in me does not appreciate contemplating the complete McDonaldization of the English language. However I believe through the homogenizing effect of technology and our innate desire for simplicity it's going to happen regardless.

Simplifying English, making it our own, is such a quintessentially American ideal I am surprised that it meets such resistance among the general populace. I get tired of getting stuck in semantic sandtraps, wouldn't it be nice if we could all keep on the same page in a debate?

There are certainly dangers however. Politicians love to hide behind vagaries, if these vagaries are stripped from the language there is a very real danger of political rhetoric degrading to the level of doublespeak.
[/QUOTE]

Eh, everyone has something they don't give a shit about. Many don't give a shit about the NFL but we don't go around badmouthing Superbowl champions. :lol: And you sidestepped my point anyway, it wasn't about only spelling, but the arbitrariness of all language rules, and thus the merit of praise for any language learning.

English already is our own and is being made our own everyday. Just because you have to write using standard English in official forums hasn't stopped anyone from spelling things however the hell they want when they're not on official time, as text/internet/email messaging and any book written in a dialect shows you. The standard and the vernacular always coexist.

Actually, one of the good points about the current system is that it can accommodate multiple dialects and pronunciations without excluding any. At this point, the original spelling/pronunciation is often so different from current pronunciations that pretty much all dialects have it "wrong", but can share and understand the written meaning across the entire English-speaking world... kind of like Chinese.:lol:
I see this in the news a lot actually, the subtitling of people speaking non-American/British English dialects. It makes me chuckle, but I suppose it's necessary at this point.

Any reform, in contrast, would naturally be exclusive to a select group of people. Let's reform based on the New England accent mixed with wherever Sarah Palin is from. A blessed union of real and unreal American it would be.;)

You are right about an innate drive towards simplicity. It's one of the most powerful forces in language development. The inconsistent parts of grammar are often some of the oldest and most used pieces of language and evade that drive.
For example the plural of "Man", "Men", doesn't take a simple "s" because it's so old and in such constant use, that when the simplifying plural S gained ground over irregular plurals, people still thought "Mans" sounded too weird. The infamous irregular past tenses were protected by the same forces.
So I take it that you are for corrections like plural "mans", or phrases like "He bringed it"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why isn't Esperanto taught in all schools world wide. I think it makes sense to have a international language which everyone is comfortable with. Esperanto seems like a language which most in the world could learn easily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top