h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

My pet peeve is hearing something like "There's a million of them" but I'm sure I've used "like" in a criminal way.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/02/16/New-English/

How about you? Not even a little?

I say 'no problem' a lot, and I've, like, been using 'like' for years off and on.

However, I wrote a _letter_ to Asda complaining about their slogan 'Together we can use less bags'.

And I can't actually use 'innit' properly. I will insist on doing it for 'isn't it', which and that's the wrong way to use it, innit.

People have been complaining about no one being able to speak properly any more for thousands of years. Languages change.

I´m not sure if that man is being ironic or just bored and didn´t know what to write about.It´s also possible that I´ve misunderstood the article.

he says:

<<If a dialect's speakers wield political and economic power, they establish the de facto standard for the whole language<<<

He is giving the word dialect to grammatical mistakes and to the use of expressions like no problem instead of you´re welcome.

I wouldn´t call that a dialect.
and still less I would attribute that way of using English to a group of political and economic power.

I think he means that that form of speech is becoming a dialect for the economically disadvantaged. Consider as well that he is not talking about _your_ neighbours and culture but _mine_.

Posted too soon. The economic disadvantaged youth that tend to use this language are mirrored by wealthy trend makers in the pop culture. As Gnomon refers to it, it has no more significance than "Cool, you're far out man"

I was more interested in who it bothers today.

Um, I try to speak and write as clearly as possible, so people will understand what I'm saying/writing and not have to ask me to repeat. This does not work with my parents, though, as they have ahard time hearing.

I can distinguish between "fewer" and "less." I leave "like" amd other slangy words for the short stories I write. There is a certain effect that I want to achieve when I do this. It doesn't mean that I don't know proper English.

For what it's worth, I like the sound of a lot of slang expressions. There's music in expressions that seem to flow naturally from people's mouths in any given era.

As far as I've been taught, anything after about 1500 is New or Modern English.


And, number 6 is simply wrong. "Alright" has been being complained about by Mrs. Grundy since long before the Kids were Alright.


This is just a grumpy old old pedant repeating the complaint of every generation of grumpy old pedants.

When I was younger I complained about the newfangled use of "myself" and "yourself" as non-reflexives.

Then I read Milton again.


So, yes, I'm a little proud of using New English.

In my entire life I've never come across someone who uses fulsome, correctly or incorrectly. I'm noted as a stickler for language so I guess I use Old English.

I agree with anhaga on no. 6 though - how would you tell which version a person was using when speaking?

"I guess I use Old English"




No. *Ic* neot eald englisc!

"I'm like" has always been part of my language since we were kids, but we don't mean it to use 'I said' because often it's followed by pulling face, such as . So I guess we used it to me 'like this, let me demonstrate'.

I also use No Problem a lot, which is the first one on the list, but it's used to mean 'yes I can do what you want' not 'you're welcome'. I was thinking of using it for my business tagline I say (or rather, text) it so much.

The thing is everybody has their own little hates about the way others use language and everybody has their own deviations from the standard.

But the problem with saying that adhering to a standard shouldn't matter is that in some situations it does. It's easy for us to say pshaw, but we can do the standard, or near enough, well enough for it not to impact on our career choices/ upward mobility/ whatever. And I don't think think the standard changes as quickly in these days of assumed mass literacy and the tyranny of the printed matter as it did when it was so localised. In fact, I rather think that what might happen is there's a bigger and widening gap between what most people say and write and what is perceived as acceptable minimum standards for, for example, your average degree course.

Having said that, maybe not. I wonder if the fact that it's easy to get a blog, to self publish, and the rise of really mass access textual communication methods like Facebook and such means that the standard might now be changing quicker than when printed publication was controlled mainly by people with copy editors and style books, or well trained secretaries.

'less bags' is still an abomination though.

I also know the difference between 'less' and 'fewer'. But does it really matter when one uses the one for the other? Maybe someone could devise a contrived sentence where this could lead to confusion, but otherwise...

Maybe that's just the other side of the coin for English being spoken worldwide. You can't have the whole world speaking a language and keep all the fine nuances and distinctions.



Mathematicians use "associate to" a lot; for example, "To each triangle T we associate a number N(T) such that, bla bla". As far as I'm aware, this is incorrect, and should be "associate with". Is this right?

Re less and fewer: Oh no difference, aside from the grammatical. It's just fingernails down the chalkboard of *my* soul. But I would argue that everybody has something like that, one phrase that their inner pedant baulks at. I, for example, couldn't give a rats bottom if people put prepositions at the ends of sentances, or use 'alright' and objecting to 'no problem' is just being anal, etc etc etc. I also support the rise of txtspk in the right context and my only objection to 'innit', if it wasn't clear, is that I can't do it.

That said, is there a difference between word choice/ fashion (like 'you're welcome/ no problem' and 'all right' and 'alright') and mucking about with fundamental grammatical concepts? ('less/fewer' and the 'Dave and I/ Dave and me' thing)?

That's a question, btw, not a statement.

Eeyare mate, not a clue what this article's witterin' on about. S'nowt wrong with droppin' a bit of dialect into yer speech so youse don't sound like a bunch of tarts all the time.

Just, y'know, don't use it with the Five-oh, or you'll be banged up for being a smartarse. Innit.

In a more serious note, I did cover the "degredation" of spoken English on my blog: http://www.unmemorabletitle.co.uk/theres-a-mouse-on-me-tv-what-am-i-gonna-do/

For anyone going to the meet, that fifth paragraph is an approximation of how I talk, &#660; is a glottal stop, and the picture of Salford explains why the meet's three miles down the road in Manchester.

Welllll...as you could've predicted I'd say, none of these don't matter. If someone get's annoyed at the way someone else speaks, the problem is their intolerance, not the speaker's speech. It is seldom the case that they're annoyed because they're not able to understand what is being said.

Despite what some would have us believe, English never has and never will degrade into a babble of incomprehensibility. It it hadn't evolved we'd still be talking like anhaga.

I've been hearing a lot of wonderful, creative English lately because I've embarked upon a box set of 'The Wire'. Now, admittedly I can't understand a motherfunking word that anyone is saying. But I'm sure my life will be enriched once I pick up on it. Believe!

(There are running jokes such the difficulty the police have understanding what's being said on the wiretap. When they translate it...the viewer can't understand the translation. Right. Off to re-up my . Holla ya!)

Mr 603:

>>Just, y'know, don't use it with the Five-oh

Yo! Blood! You be watchin' 'The Wire' too, aii?'

I like it when people make grammatical mistakes. It gives me a little free thrill of pleasure, because I'm smarter than them and without even realising it they've just proved it. Or proven it, possibly. Dunno.

Since I don't have much to do with people much younger or less educated than myself socially I don't encounter much irritating language usage, really.

The only thing that really gets and has always got my goat is people self-consciously using words, constructions or even accents that are very, very clearly not their own in an attempt to sound either younger, cooler, or (sometimes) blacker than they actually are. If you went to a public school and Oxbridge and have a trust fund income, don't try to talk like you're from a council estate. And if you're as white as the ace of Tippex, don't use Jamaican slang. You just sound like a tw*t.

Simulpost and, I believe, QED.