Page 3 of 8

Re: Syfy? Really?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 1:35 am
by mountainmage
And words and characters aren't part of our language? They are symbols that represent it, after all.

Re: Syfy? Really?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 1:39 am
by Rainbow
mountainmage wrote:And words and characters aren't part of our language? They are symbols that represent it, after all.
I didn't say that. You want Ahmet. You should totally go beat him up and have sex with littleninja in front of him while he cries.

Re: Syfy? Really?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 1:40 am
by LordRetard
Actually, my textbook downplays the importance of written language quite a bit. I'm willing to grant all sorts of things like "yeah, spoken language was around longer," "yeah, spoken language requires more research," "yeah, spoken and written language are not always connected," but the way that a lot of linguists talk about it it's as if written language is entirely separated. Written language came from an attempt to represent spoken language, but it's up and become something that's almost like a second language, particularly if we're talking about a language with a non-phonemic alphabet (such as English or Russian). I'm very interested in the study of orthography so this means something to me.

Re: Syfy? Really?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 1:43 am
by mountainmage
Rainbow wrote:Words, characters, or otherwise unclassified drawings.
Then why did you say this in response to "What do we write?"

Re: Syfy? Really?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 1:44 am
by Rainbow
mountainmage wrote:
Rainbow wrote:Words, characters, or otherwise unclassified drawings.
Then why did you say this in response to "What do we write?"
That is what we write! Durr.

Re: Syfy? Really?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 1:46 am
by mountainmage
Ahmet said language is spoken, so I asked "what do we write?" The correct answer was "also language".

Re: Syfy? Really?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 1:49 am
by Rainbow
mountainmage wrote:Ahmet said language is spoken, so I asked "what do we write?" The correct answer was "also language".
Or words, characters, and otherwise otherwise unclassified drawings.

Re: Syfy? Really?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 1:51 am
by mountainmage
Still sounds like you're agreeing with Ahmet.

Re: Syfy? Really?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 2:09 am
by AHMETxRock
Aw... I missed this? It was interesting. LR's whole anti-grammar nazi arguement falls apart because everything is relative. Of course I'm opposed to an elitist sense of grammar that believes no progression can occur. I've had some discussions with people about this.
I think I kinda side with LR, but I decided to try and bust his chops anyways. Didn't work. Was far too illogical, as much of what I say apparently seems to be to you all.

Re: Syfy? Really?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 2:14 am
by LordRetard
AHMETxRock wrote:Aw... I missed this? It was interesting. LR's whole anti-grammar nazi arguement falls apart because everything is relative. Of course I'm opposed to an elitist sense of grammar that believes no progression can occur. I've had some discussions with people about this.
I think I kinda side with LR, but I decided to try and bust his chops anyways. Didn't work. Was far too illogical, as much of what I say apparently seems to be to you all.
Prescriptive grammar doesn't bother me too much, and I've been known to enforce it when I hear something particularly unusual. It's a form of cultural assimilation that's necessary, to some degree. I just like to joke about it because AS A LINGUIST I'm supposed to avoid making prescriptive statements, even though within my own culture and mindset I'm aware of when someone does something that is "wrong", and reflexively become annoyed at this failure to follow very simple grammar rules.

Anyway, grammars change pretty easily, actually, and it hasn't been shown that any attempts to regulate and prevent language change are effective whatsoever. So I don't care if you're an elitist but do understand that grammar is bound to change.

Re: Syfy? Really?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 2:19 am
by Rainbow
Personally, I'm just quite opinionated about grammar and have a very marginalized sense of what I think is right. For example, I think ain't and y'all ought to be considered legitimate because they are completely legitimate. I don't object to changes in grammar and progress in language, but I, as a hobby, have very defined ideas about the subject. I don't stick my nose up at anyone about it, I just like to argue it.

Re: Syfy? Really?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 2:24 am
by LordRetard
Well, that's exactly the problem that occurs (one of them). People disagree on what is "standard". Why is "y'all" legitimate? Because you use it. Anything that you don't use is wrong. There are many groups that hold this belief. Things work much better when speakers of a non-standard dialect admit that they are "wrong", and speak it anyway.

Re: Syfy? Really?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 2:28 am
by AHMETxRock
I believe that there should be some point where you aren't legitamate.
For example...

People think this is sound grammar usage. It is pathetic. I know I spell things incorrectly, but I would never babble as incoherently as this mofo.

Re: Syfy? Really?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 2:34 am
by LordRetard
This is exactly how it's supposed to work. Grammar is prescribed to marginalise people who use it differently, which, of course, are the people with less overall power to have their dialect standardised; that means that a more powerful group can identify people by their dialect, and hold them down for their dialect. It's actually a very clever and very effective system. The only problem is that some people think it's racist (well, I guess it is, but that's only a problem if you're bothered by such things).

I don't know, it's one thing to talk about whether a person's grammar is good or not but honestly there are many other cues to pick up upon that might indicate that someone is dumb.

Re: Syfy? Really?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 2:37 am
by smiley_cow
LR what's your opinion of l'Académie francaise? I'm just curious.