Any other linguistic pedants around here?

You're not the only one, but that's because I'm jealous of native English speakers. To see people butchering the language I've been trying to improve on for so many years pisses me off beyond belief.

 

I don't think it's butchering at all, it's evolution of dialects.

 

It can get annoying, but, prescriptive vs descriptive grammar. We're not in a classroom setting; if we can speak without confusion or difficulty, there shouldn't be a problem.

I'm actually majoring in Linguistics, and one of the first lessons you'll learn in any intro course is that there isn't any one 'right' way to communicate.

 

Language is the tool people use for communication, which is an art form. Looking at bad speech is like looking at bad art-- the creator's drawing may look like a house, but it only conveys only a tiny percentage of the details a real house has, and is ugly as sin*.

So practice your language skills, kids, because passing ideas around is more central to life than drawing, and nobody wants to deal with your godawful verbal scribbles.

*Gravechild, you're absolutely right. Grammar rules are there for standardization so we know what we're talking about, but one must know the rules so they can be properly broken hehe.

 

I'm not really that bothered, as long as I can understand it. I never really seem to have any difficulty understanding what someone is trying to write or say, regardless of how 'correct' it is, so I don't see any reason to get annoyed by it. Pretentiousness regarding this is worse.

Mispronunciation of words does grate on me sometimes though - my biggest pet peeve at the moment is people pronouncing 'again' as a-gearn, rather than the much nicer sounding uh-gain. But that's a completely unreasonable annoyance on my part and I know it.

 

That's silly, because "again" rhymes with "ten".

 

I hate it when it is pronounced like that! It should be spelt and said like this: agayne - Wiktionary (for more reasons than one).

 

Long a's are so obnoxiously grating to the ear, though.

 

Yeah, French is my native language. Used to learn Spanish in high school, but I lost all notions of it. I couldn't find any way to use Spanish in my daily life or internet browsing, and unlike riding a bicycle, languages tend to get lost and forgotten fairly easily if not practice often enough. Ironically, I'm beginning to lose my French, because I don't use it as much as English. "What was that word again in French? I know it in English, but I can't remember it in French!" is something I've been saying more often than I'd like to admit when I'm speaking in French.

I'd like to learn German, sounds like an interesting language and there's a few places I could put it to good use.

 

I love when people talk English like shit! It's endearing.
I'm actually more annoyed by people who try to speak like they're English scholars. It's so fucking grating.
The only thing that gets me in writing is syntax. Some folks can't put sentences together to save their lives. But overall I'm very forgiving, because I know in other languages I'm barely literate.

 

There is no right or wrong way to use a language. Language is many things, from an art to simply a tool for communication, and it is constantly evolving. I remember having some teachers back in high school that seemed to think language was some static thing asserting that some words like "ain't" weren't "real" words. Maybe they weren't exactly in wide use, and maybe they were new, but that doesn't make them any less "real." Certainly it was primarily younger individuals using the words, but that is how language has always evolved. There is no mythical "pure" language that the youth of today are ruining, and this should be blatantly obvious to anyone who has heard the "same" language used several hundred years in the past. (The further you go back, the less you understand until you get to a point where you don't understand any of it.) If the purpose is communication, then so long as the target audience understands the meaning clearly there should be no issue. Not to mention that differing dialects don't have to detract from learning more about the language and grammar and of course language as an art form.

 

Is English, in its many forms, being butchered for attention and drama? No. It is being applied in a manner that differs from that which we have come to see as correct, and while we may spit out our dummies and thrash about due to people abusing English it is a language made to be abused. Everyone picks on the dialect of the area I live in, saying they abuse the English language horrifically, and yet it is recognised as being more akin to old English. Without change, our language would stagnate. Easier for those who are learning it, but terribly boring.

I care very little for how one words things, and I care very little if words change in meaning. That is natural, many words have changed in their meanings over time as people have applied them in a manner that differs from the accepted norm. Then we see how language has changed over time, how words and the manner in which they are pieced together have changed, and it's absolutely fascinating.

 

I definitely agree with the sentiments that language is an evolving thing. And generally, people using a word slightly incorrectly or the like doesn't bother me. What bothers me most is idiots who can't spell, can't figure out the difference between their/they're/there or you're/your, and who have never heard of the mystical word "grammar" before. It's so annoying!

I actually think it's neat how languages pick up on dialects and different regional word choices. For example, I live near Pittsburgh, where people actually call what we speak "Pittsburghese". We have strange phrases, like jag off, and have the most annoying Eastern accent ever. Crick instead of creek, Stillers instead of Steelers, Gint-Igle for Giant Eagle. It's actually fairly annoying, especially when I say "wire" and find it sounding more like "weer" and less like "wigher". That sort of stuff.

On a geeky side note, I think it's interesting how many languages differentiate between you plural and you single, while English does nothing of the sort. Even if I'm only talking to one person, I still have to say "you are -", using are instead of is, or some other singular verb.

 

As a counter-argument to the general consensus, it's easy to say "language is a living, evolving entity" to justify anything from grammatical drift to claiming "You a stupid hoe" is acceptable. It should be used with caution.

I'm delving into straw man territory here, but arguing against the example, it lacks a verb, an implied "are". This is pretty common in urban dialect. I wouldn't be okay with letting that verb drift away into assumed existence; it would possibly weaken the clarity of the sentence or one similar to it if the subject is less than perfectly defined. Just because people are lazy and/or ignorant doesn't mean they are the harbingers of a new modern diction.

 

Winston Churchill once complained about some rules of grammar, such as never ending a sentence with a preposition, to wit:

"That is pedantry up with which I shall not put!"

But Churchill knew the English language down to his bones...and bad grammar is not something up with which he would have put...

 

It is all rather fascinating isn't it?

When I came down from the north I was constantly having to correct myself as people had no clue what I meant by bairden, scran, pagga and gadgie. The way in which people piece together words, and have done for decades, also differs from the accepted standard. It sounds lazy, but it really isn't; it's how people talk up here, and indeed how they write given that people make the logical conclusion that how one writes should reflect how they speak.

To steal from locals who contributed to a great example of how lazy we all are: Yon jewkle’s eyes are jye. Jewkle being, for the uninitiated, a dog.

As a note I do not think changes indicate that they are bringing about anything other than their own particular way of speaking. I just think it's a bit silly to get a bit fussy about something which has always "suffered" from individuals deviating from an accepted norm. An accepted norm which has not always been the norm for the people others are complaining about. There is a standard it is best to adhere to should people wish to be understand by the large majority, then there are the deviations which (in my opinion) show the diversity of the English language outside of what is viewed as correct.