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

Bernadette's is a good point. Traditional implies that there's a certain way it's always been done, as opposed to the functional English we use now. Is Shakespeare's English traditional? Or Chaucer's? Or Thomas Hardy's? In a sense they all are, but they are all different.

The language changing is a tradition in itself, and it's a tradition that's been brought about by the desire for functionality -- ie. having a language that does the job needed at the time.

So where does that leave us? Other than confused....

In the context in which the question is asked (a researcher learning English), perhaps the question is about the traditional approach to learning a language (English) by studying the rules of the language vs. the functional approach to learning language, whose adcocates argue that we learn language more naturally and effectively by using it in a natural setting and by learning from use and context.

One student's Master's thesis http://lampe.net/lampe/thesis/thesis_lampe.pdf argues that an online chat room is an ideal forum for functional language learning. On H2G2 we can see civility, rudeness, humor, pique, erudition and confusion....all on the same topic thread.

Here is a link http://www.mla.org/adfl/bulletin/v20n3/203054.htm to a linguists argument that the goal in learning a 2nd language should be ability to use it, rather than ability to test high on knowledge of language rules.

So...Kaiser-Raza...what do you make of all this?

- Phred

There is and there isnt any difference.

English is a very broad thing, and to say whether a peice of text is functional or traditional will always lead to you being wrong - someone can argue its not functional, although in turn in being traditional it has a function by proving traditional can be functional.

Confused?

The main thing to remember is that if any form of english implies the correct information to the person listening/reading to what your saying/writting then its English - no matter what label you give to it.

Dialects of english like pidgin and scouse still have a purpose, whilst standard english isn't traditional because its always evolving meaning no set form and the introduction of countless neologisms (thus making it non-standard).

The whole question is far too broad to make any comparisons or point towards any differences.

Try something more set in stone - like the difference between pidgin and scouse, or even between old english and modern english, or perhaps journaleese and standard english

allllrite our kid!! wots rong with scouse? eh? eh? eh?

"On H2G2 we can see civility, rudeness, humor, pique, erudition and confusion....all on the same topic thread."

I often aspire to get the lot of them into one post!

B

hmmm.. so I noticed!

well...conjuctions are usually considered functional...you technically aren't supposed to use them in formal papers...but this is being phased out...just like the vosotros form in the spanish language...most likely because it's the one that sounds the coolest...I mena...what other reason could POSSIBLY be good enough...I mean...who doesn't like saying Trabajabais...(which is spanish for "You and I used to work")

Perhaps!

But then there is the Scalby English Centre http://www.language-programs.net/uk/profiles/sec/ which specializes in providing rapid functional English advancement, partly though frequent visits to traditional English Pubs. Perhaps traditional English is only written and spoken in pubs?

Please come back and enlighten us Kaiser-Raza .

(Psst... SuperMoo...

"Trabajabáis" means you people (plural) used to work.

And I agree with you that it sounds the best )

("Vosotros" is for when you are talking to a group of two or more people at the same time. For "you and I" you would use nosotros, which means "we".

This is becoming dangerously Spanish-related... A2660087)

yes...yes it is...I can fix it...


SUV's!...oh...wait...I think I made it worse...now it's american......

From the point of view of the thread, I agree wholeheartedly with Post 21. Language cannot be sub-sectioned neatly; it evolves and adapts. We can only hope that txt mssgng is a mutant to be killed off as environmentally inferior.

B

Good link. I was a little afraid to this post plea in Urdu for fear of moderation. Now I see that this is permissible if a translation is also provided:

Kaiser-Raza,

please......khush karna
come........aana
back........madad karna
we..........hum
need........zaroorat
your........aap ka
answer!.....jawaab dena!

oh god... don't even suggest that text messaging words will be added to the english language...
*crouches in corner rocking back and forth and sucking thumb*

They already have, in a sense. Words like 'predictive' take on a whole new meaning these days.

And I'm sure back before the Normans invaded people cried 'Oh bugger not more french (words)' in a suitably old norse/celtic/germanic mish mash that was early english.

If its popular, it will happen, even if people are against it. Look at the smacked out frog (he must be on drugs - he shouts bing and rides around on an invisable motorcycle, you work it out) - thats popular amongst the masses, thus it gets to number one.

Text speak will slowly become more common...

...yes...but we have one major WMD...it's know to students as pure evil(not really...but for the sake of making a valient sounding statement...it is...)...to wierdos like me they are known as Humosapien Teachemus Englishum...and to normal people(what ever that is...) they are know as english techers...with Super MLA Guideline Basecd Grading Action...

But doesn't it bother you intensely when English teachers (who purport to be the force of correct grammar) make grammatical mistakes?

I have a dilemma here. It bothers me when people use incorrect grammar - improper English, I suppose I should say - but then I think why I care. Language does change, and who am I to say which variant is better than another?

But at the same time I think there's a difference between speaking with a different accent or dialect and just plain screwing up your apostrophes.

<<("Vosotros" is for when you are talking to a group of two or more people at the same time. For "you and I" you would use nosotros, which means "we".>>

Except in a good bit of Latin America where ustedes is used for all second person plural, even if it's informal.