English, innit?

[prettyxcool]

I agree there should be standards, otherwise our beautiful language is lost for ever.... I love to hear English spoken properly and it is sad if English is not written properly either.

[valda]

As an oldie, I feel that spelling and grammar are not taught in school the way we were taught. Friends of mine, who are English born, are not dislexic, or have learning difficulties, make the same old errors in spelling. I'm not blaming them, just the state of the education system today. In America, they make a huge thing of Spelling Bees etc. Over here, you are not corrected in case you hurt the childs feelings or some such thing.
I make spelling mistakes and grammar mistakes but I know when to say know or no etc.

[Preston1990]

People should think before they speak, considering the words that come out of their mouths and whether or not they make sense. I don't think that is asking a lot and I for one will not feel bad for criticising it.

I don't mean for this to sound defensive or anything, I just feel strongly about people being able to speak properly. It's appalling hearing people use the word "like" six times in a sentence or "innit" in just about any context. People should have pride in being able to communicate properly and it is an important aspect in a functioning society.

I agree with your premise that being able to communicate "effectively" (though i'd question your use of the word "properly" in this context) is an important aspect in a functioning society.

However, English like any other languge is not "forever set in stone", and governed by a set of inflexible rules. Language evolves.

To quote James Munson:

"In the early years of this century there was some discussion about setting up an 'English Institute'. This was to be modelled on France's Institute Francaise and was to be given the power to pronounce on the use of English by English-speakers, at least in the United Kingdom and the Empire. In typical Anglo-Saxon fashion the proposal came to nothing and we have soldiered on in our own haphazard way. Even if the proposed Institute had been created with the powers to decree correct usage, it would have disappointed those who hoped that any body could control the development of what was already a world language. Even the Institute Francaise cannot stop the erosion of French by Franglais.

For centuries English has been enriched by borrowings from other languages and itself may be called a French superstructure erected on a Germanic base. English, like any other language, is a living phenomenon and changes from hour to hour. Much of this is transient slang and, like a summer weed, dies as quickly as it springs up. For a few years there was a fashion for `at this moment in time' for `now' and for 'at what moment in time' for `when'. Just now we hear that 'resistance is building' = `resistance is growing.' Some of the changes stay and enhance the language: a century ago Englishmen would have thought you mad had you said that you were going to `fly' to New York or that you were going to 'cash a cheque' when in the `supermarket's check-out queue'.

The English language adapts as it carries on. Not to adapt is to die."

[soonforgotten]

People should think before they speak, considering the words that come out of their mouths and whether or not they make sense. I don't think that is asking a lot and I for one will not feel bad for criticising it.

I don't mean for this to sound defensive or anything, I just feel strongly about people being able to speak properly. It's appalling hearing people use the word "like" six times in a sentence or "innit" in just about any context. People should have pride in being able to communicate properly and it is an important aspect in a functioning society.

I agree with your premise that being able to communicate "effectively" (though i'd question your use of the word "properly" in this context) is an important aspect in a functioning society.

However, English like any other languge is not "forever set in stone", and governed by a set of inflexible rules. Language evolves.

To quote James Munson:

"In the early years of this century there was some discussion about setting up an 'English Institute'. This was to be modelled on France's Institute Francaise and was to be given the power to pronounce on the use of English by English-speakers, at least in the United Kingdom and the Empire. In typical Anglo-Saxon fashion the proposal came to nothing and we have soldiered on in our own haphazard way. Even if the proposed Institute had been created with the powers to decree correct usage, it would have disappointed those who hoped that any body could control the development of what was already a world language. Even the Institute Francaise cannot stop the erosion of French by Franglais.

For centuries English has been enriched by borrowings from other languages and itself may be called a French superstructure erected on a Germanic base. English, like any other language, is a living phenomenon and changes from hour to hour. Much of this is transient slang and, like a summer weed, dies as quickly as it springs up. For a few years there was a fashion for `at this moment in time' for `now' and for 'at what moment in time' for `when'. Just now we hear that 'resistance is building' = `resistance is growing.' Some of the changes stay and enhance the language: a century ago Englishmen would have thought you mad had you said that you were going to `fly' to New York or that you were going to 'cash a cheque' when in the `supermarket's check-out queue'.

The English language adapts as it carries on. Not to adapt is to die."

I think there's a distinction between the type of evolution cited above and the examples people here may take issue with. For example "could care less" is simply incorrect. It's not evolution. It's people not thinking about the words they are using. I does not make sense. "Aks" instead of ask is a matter of poor pronunciation. Using "like" every five seconds is not evolution of language, it's a placeholder for people who need to speak quickly and do not fully thinking through what they are trying to convey.

Similarly "basically" is overused in unnecessary ways. It doesn't add anything to a sentence. It's needless filler. When I first came to the UK, the phrase everyone seemed to be spouting was "At the end of the day" which fits in more when the examples of evolution of the language. It was overused and a fad, but it at least made sense, even if it was silly. Thankfully, that has died down considerably.

[weliveandbreathewords]

the phrase everyone seemed to be spouting was "At the end of the day

My bf still frequently uses this, but with his own twists.

"well at the end of the day...it's night."

[Beate]

Only today I read in some paper how disadvantaged a lot of today's pupils are as they don't learn proper English any more and that will not be good for their careers.
I have no issue with language evolving and new words being added or whatever, but good grammar and spelling is vital in a business environment and if we want young people to succeed they must be made aware how important it is to write well.

[prettyxcool]

Language does evolve and it often enhances as it does so, but it is when language is wrongly or badly used through incorrect grammar or spelling that is not good. If it is not corrected, in case it is offensive, than one would not know it is wrong, and that would be a very sorry state. I am happy for people to correct me if my grammar is bad or my spelling or pronunciation was wrong, and wish they would.

[Preston1990]

Language does change, for better or worse depending on one's point of view or obsessions.

Some of these changes arise out of ignorance or lack of education. Some come to us from America. Some from the influence of popular music genres, street culture, peer pressure or fashion. Some simply arrive from no one knows where. The changes for good or bad ultimately cannot be restrained.

What has been considered `Correct Usage' has always varied.

For example, nineteenth century writers who had a good command of English and who were well grounded in the Classics, men like Anthony Trollope once again, happily referred to the 'oldest' of two sons (correct usage is the older). Trollope also included dialogue from his characters where they used the second person singular verb for the third person: `John don't (correct usage is doesn't) want to go to town.' (source Dr James Munson)

These learned authors did this because it was accepted as the common speech that was in vogue at the time.

The main reason for a communication is to convey to others views, ideas or feelings. If a communication results in understanding then it has been effective, even if it was not, strictly speaking, done within the rules of accepted correct usage.

People in real life don't use "BBC English" or "Queen's English", neither do they consult their editions of "Fowler's English Usage" before they communicate. I, for one, would not want them to do so. I also value parochialisms, dialects, street slang, regional accents and phrases. For me this adds to the rich tapestry of our language, and in no way detracts from it.

For those unconcerned in the “correct use” of language, and I believe that is (despite what I am picking up here) most people whatever their native tongue, all this will seem triflingly unimportant.

My only real concern about all this, is that which I posted earlier and which I 'll restate here for clarity.

In my view many pedantic people see non-observance of the so-called correct use of language as ammunition in their armoury for poking fun at, patronising and excluding the less well educated, and that in my book is shameful.

[prettyxcool]

In my view many pedantic people see the so-called correct use of language as ammunition in their armoury for poking fun at, patronising and excluding the less well educated, and that in my book is shameful.

I agree wholeheartedly here!

[Razam]

I don't think many of us would disagree that language does change over time, and that new words and phrases get adopted by the 'native' language.

The problem is that the evolution is ongoing, meaning that it is occurring now - and some people don't seem to want it to.

The other issue is the difference between formal English & casual English - I think most of us agree that the standard for formal English is 'Queen’s English' (although I personally think that is too formal for most occasions), but it's the casual English that introduces new words & phrases into the language. Casual English varies greatly between regions - even between the indigenous population. Add to that, influx of migrants and foreign media, and there is no way that we can agree upon something as a norm what we call the English Language.

Obviously this can be further expanded when we talk about written English lol