Slashdot Mirror
Why There Is No Such Thing as 'Proper English'
Pikoro writes: A recent article in the Wall Street Journal explains why the concept of a "proper" English isn't realistic. Quoting: "It's a perpetual lament: The purity of the English language is under assault. These days we are told that our ever-texting teenagers can't express themselves in grammatical sentences. The media delight in publicizing ostensibly incorrect usage. ... As children, we all have the instinct to acquire a set of rules and to apply them. ... We know that a certain practice is a rule of grammar because it’s how we see and hear people use the language. ... That’s how scholarly linguists work. Instead of having some rule book of what is “correct” usage, they examine the evidence of how native and fluent nonnative speakers do in fact use the language. Whatever is in general use in a language (not any use, but general use) is for that reason grammatically correct. The grammatical rules invoked by pedants aren’t real rules of grammar at all. They are, at best, just stylistic conventions.
There are more people studying English in China than the entire population of England. The English language does NOT belong to the native speakers - it belongs to the world. It is the "lingua franca" of our age (and doesn't that phrase piss off the French!).
Difference is the American English is taking over the British English. American culture is invading everywhere through movies and dramas, news etc... Why not just accept once and for all that English is, from now on, American English?
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
No thangs up in dis biatch found fo' A recent article up in tha Wall Street Journal explains why tha concept of a "proper" Gangsta aint realistic. Quoting: "It aint nuthin but a perpetual lament: Da puritizzle of tha Gangsta language is under assault. These minutes we is holla'd at dat our ever-textin teenagers can't express theyselves up in grammatical sentences. Da media delight up in publicizin ostensibly incorrect usage. .. fo' realz. As children, we all have tha instinct ta acquire a set of rulez n' ta apply em. ... We know dat a cold-ass lil certain practice be a rule of grammar cuz its how tha fuck we peep n' hear playas use tha language. ... That's how tha fuck scholarly linguists work. Instead of havin some rule book of what tha fuck is "correct" usage, they examine tha evidence of how tha fuck natizzle n' fluent nonnatizzle speakers do up in fact use tha language. Whatever is up in general use up in a language (not any use yo, but general use) is fo' dat reason grammatically erect. Da grammatical rulez invoked by pedants arent real rulez of grammar at all. They are, at best, just stylistic conventions..
Let's make like a bird... and get the flock outta here.
Here is all of slashdot translated into "unproper english". Makes me laugh. LOL!
http://www.gizoogle.net/tranzizzle.php?search=http%3A%2F%2Fslashdot.org%2F&se=Go+Git+Dis+Shiznit
Let's make like a bird... and get the flock outta here.
I could care less.
For understandability amongst illiterate Marxists, also known as Slashdotters, shouldn't that be "loser than"?
"Loser then", if I'm not mistaken.
Not sure it's confined entirely to us 'illiterate Marxist Slashdotters' though. =)
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
From the z in apologize I'd think we're dealing with an American troll.
Your's,
The Grammar Nasi