*stretch* Personal policy here...

[conuly]

If you want to say that you think I'm wrong, it'd be nice if you could explain why. Let me clarify:

1. I think you're wrong about *issue* because you're an idiot.

This isn't cool. Don't do that, it really makes you look stupid.

2. I think you're wrong about *issue*. *wanders off*

This *may* be not-cool. Don't do this either, because you'll be met with me going WTF? at you.

3. I think you're wrong about *issue* because *completely irrelevant/untrustworthy source disagrees*.

This is just sad. Don't do that either.

4. I think you're wrong about *issue* because I've done research/a relevant source disagrees/I think you misunderstood this relevant source and it really means that/something else that makes sense.

This is good. This is useful. This is *interesting*. Go ahead, do this.

5. I think you're wrong, and I'm going to insult you now.

Don't do that either, 'k? Nobody listens to you when you do that.

So. Look at the list. Make sure you're in group four instead of one of the other groups. We'll all thank you for it.

Comments

further to ratmist's comment

[marrog.livejournal.com]

The preservation of the English Language in its academically acceptable form is as worthy a crusade as preserving dialectic innovation and diversity. Bear in mind that those who want English to be written (and even spoken)"correctly" are not necessarily Grammar Nazis - perhaps they're just passionate about Education, and an equal opportunity in the inately prejudices world of work for all.

You campaign for all dialects to be considered equal, and I'll campaign for those who want to get by in the meantime.

Also, double negative's do make a positive, and if you'd studied the more modern theories of English symtax, you'd know that.

Re: further to ratmist's comment

[marrog.livejournal.com]

GAH!

Please excuse the misplaced apostrophe. What can I say, I'm tired...?

Re: further to ratmist's comment

[conuly]

You also misspelled syntax. /spelling nazi freak

Re: further to ratmist's comment

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Actually, they were both typos. I know how to spell syntax. I fumbled my typing. < /semantics >

Re: further to ratmist's comment

[conuly]

I'm certainly not stopping you... I just think more good is done by fighting prejudice than trying to fit in with it.

Also, double negatives do make a positive, and if you'd studied the more modern theories of English symtax, you'd know that.

Well, that's why I put up the poll. I'd honestly never heard a double negative meant as a positive, so the argument "it can be confusing" made little sense mihi. LJ polls aren't exactly the most scientific thing around, but I'm not trying to do anything official, so it's all good.

Re: further to ratmist's comment

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Well, to be honest, I didn't see you doing much to stop me, but that's not my point. You imply, nay state, that holding the opinion that it is better to speak correct English (for a given value of correct) than some regional/social dialect, is bigoted. I'm trying to point out not that your opinion on the subject is invalid, but that your attitude towards people who think otherwise is a little short-sighted, bearing in mind the contentious nature of your argument.

Also, whether or not dialects of the "working/lower/uneducated" classes are products of their lack of education is I think an arguable point. You say that they aren't. I say there are numerous sources to support both sides. However, let me make one other point:

Those who grow up with boad dialects (I myself spoke much broader Scots than I do now) consciously lose them to become better thought of. This is true.

But speaking for myself, my dialect also changed because I became aware that certain phrasal constructions were plain grammatically wrong. There's a difference between saying "doesnae" for "doesn't" and saying "I seen you" for "I saw you". One of them is lexical, and the other a grammatical inconsistency characteristic to the dialect. For one, I would be considered to have a broad accent. For the other, I would be considered to be lacking in education. And I would be.

My evidence? The speech of my own Grandfather, an eighty-year-old speaker of broad West Coast Scots. He still speaks dialect, despite having been an English teacher, and his accent has the former feature.

He doesnae huv the latter. Because it's wrang.

Re: further to ratmist's comment

[conuly]

But *why* is it wrong? I've never yet seen an argument of that which makes sense. What's the intrinsic difference between "I saw" and "I seen" that makes on right and the other wrong?

Re: further to ratmist's comment

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Time. Time, convention and the people with the book-larnin' making the rules.

You might not think it's fair, and that's your perogaive. But, for now at least, there is a standard grammar of English, and you would do well to at least respect the opinions of those who would encourage others to use it.

I've said it before, and I say it again: You are repeatedly presenting your opinion as fact when it is only that: an opinion.

Your behaviour towards those who bring up completely reasonable points against is reprehensible - you make light of your own mistakes by passing them off as "jokes", and you blind folk with "facts" that they cannot prove to be false because it's not their subject - and you don't cite your sources or evidence, though you expect them to.

Furthermore a lot of the information you impart is bollocks; for example your "short history of English" was almost totally erronious - I don't care if you aren't so hot on it, what's wrong with checking a basic timeline in one of your numerious linguistic texts?

My opinion? Some dialects of English murder the language, and I will fight tooth and nail to prevent alternative grammar systems from ever being accepted by education etablishments, in the press or in educated society at large. I do not ask you to agree with this. Merely accept it as an alternative viewpoint, rather than dismissing it out of hand as the mad ramblings of a stuffy old grammar-nazi bigot, and I'll be satisfied.

Re: further to ratmist's comment

[conuly]

The jokes? Let's see. We've got one statement of mine that has been a joke from the beginning. I pointed out this single statement. I never said that anything else was a joke. And we've got one link that I'm not serious about, and never pretended to be serious about - especially as, when I posted it, I made no pretensions to actually know anything about that subject (anglo-saxon).

And for the history of the English language, as I posted that I said it's not my subject at all, that I really don't consider it "my thing". You're very much underestimating my inherant laziness if you think that I'd say that and then proceed to do research right then and there, or even get up to clean my room to find a book. If I wanted to do that, I'd just post a link to somebody else's timeline. If you can read that disclaimer (this subject isn't my thing) and then proceed to think that I am talking about something I understand greatly, that is not my problem. That's really the exact same disclaimer I'd put up if I were talking about quantum physics or Christian theology. I certainly doubt anybody actually believes I know much about the Bible, and I talk about it often.

Re: further to ratmist's comment

[marrog.livejournal.com]

You're not addressing my main point here:

Why do you simply disregard others' views rather than respecting them as every bit as valid as your own?

Re: further to ratmist's comment

[conuly]

Well, I've tried every other philosophy under the sun, I thought I'd try being closed-minded. It works for so many people!

Re: further to ratmist's comment

[marrog.livejournal.com]

I'd honestly never heard a double negative meant as a positive.

I forgot to address this, though I have only one thing to say: You're either lying, or your research has been yet more limited than I thought.

Re: further to ratmist's comment

[conuly]

How am I lying when I say "this is what my experience has been"? If you will not even believe the words I say, please don't even bother replying. That is pointless. I made the poll *specifically* so I could know what other people's realities were. Why would I do that if I heard, in my daily life, double negatives used to make a positive? What purpose would that serve?

Re: further to ratmist's comment

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Double negatives are not used to make a positve - at least, not in the sense where they're commonly misused to make a negative ("I didn't do nothing", etc). Nevertheless, syntactically and grammatically speaking, they do make a positive - it is obvious in the structure.

I didn't[neg] do nothing[neg]

=

I did[pos] do something[pos]

It's there in the structure - I don't know how to make this any clearer for you.

Re: further to ratmist's comment

[conuly]

Yes, I *know* the mathematical reasoning. However, I do not believe that normal people actually use that reasoning when speaking or listening. If people use two negatives to make a negative, it doesn't make sense to say that two negatives make a positive, because that's not going to help you understand what anybody is saying.

Re: further to ratmist's comment

[conuly]

I mean, of course, I did not believe that. Stupid emotions ruining comments! Clearly my poll showed otherwise, and thus, a new thing is learned! Or something.

Re: further to ratmist's comment

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Me talk like this you understand what me mean this not make me speak english good.

Re: further to ratmist's comment

[conuly]

And your point is...?

You have said you don't want language to change. I'm all for it. We're not going to agree, and, really, it's a bit boring. You came too late to get me involved in an interesting conversation with you, and you're not-very-subtly attacking me. I'm movin' on, I'll be sure to contact you next time I hit a linguistic-ranting swing. Then you can be here at the start, instead of the end.

Re: further to ratmist's comment

[marrog.livejournal.com]

We're not going to agree, and, really, it's a bit boring.

You're not wrong.

ou're not-very-subtly attacking me.

I wasn't trying to be subtle - although believe me, I've been a lot less polite in the past, this is my tactful hat. But of course I was attacking you; people like you are dangerous. You use ignorance coupled with a college freshman's shallow education like a blunt-edged weapon against your opressors - no prisoners, no challenge, and no respect or heed for others opinions.

Make no mistake, I did not come here to attempt to change your opinion - I've met too many people like you before and know how pointless that would be. I was just trying to perhaps give you some guidance on how to deal more responsibly with the people who so want to converse with you. Healthy debate has its rules, as does, dare I say, language.

I'll be sure to contact you next time I hit a linguistic-ranting swing.

Please don't.

Re: further to ratmist's comment

[prezzey.livejournal.com]

syntax != logic

Have you taken a look at the syntax of languages besides English?

Re: further to ratmist's comment

[conuly]

How am I lying when I say "this is what my experience has been"? If you will not even believe the words I say, please don't even bother replying. That is pointless. I made the poll *specifically* so I could know what other people's realities were. Why would I do that if I heard, in my daily life, double negatives used to make a positive? What purpose would that serve?