*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

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!