English Language

[strange_wings]

Originally Posted by ut0pia

My dad was the same way, his parents never read to him but he read a lot as soon as knew how. I was the opposite I didn't like to read as a kid but my mom always read to me (I did like to listen to people read to me) and was pushing me to read when I got older, she would make me read for 2 hours every day during summer vacations...Eventually I started to enjoy reading on my own but i'd probably be one of those people who never read a book in their lives if it wasn't for my parents reading to me and pushing me to read classics as a kid...
i guess it depends on the kid's disposition..some kids probably need that push by parents.

You seem more like an extrovert, or at least a person who likes to be out and doing things. I'm obviously not.

It was the opposite for me with my mother... she had to take my books away and hide the flashlights because I'd stay up till three am reading. As my health started to decline as a kid I spent more time reading, a safer pain free hobby.
My mother always did support me buying books as a kid, too. Often because she'd read them after I did.

We've went a little O/T but it does all tie back together. Reading is very important and anymore kids, teens, and young adults do not spend as much time reading as they should. Just like math should be pushed more at younger ages for both boys and girls instead of dumbing it down (it only hurts a lot of us later on).
There was actually a story on my local news a little while back; a mother was concerned that her son, and other students, were being required to read too much. She even made a site for it .

Her argument is that extracurricular activities and family time is much more important. I suppose she may feel differently later if her son's SAT scores are low and he's not good enough to get in on a scholarship. The number of books for points isn't really that much, either. Unless a person is a very slow reader it should be easy enough to keep up.

 

[grogs]

Originally Posted by lil maggie

Yes, I get annnoyed seeing people misspell words like to/too, their/there/they're. What also bothers me is the exchange of E's for 3's. I notice it even with tv shows like NUMB3RS. I get it that it's because it's a play on the word for the show but I see kids using it all the time.

That's 'leet speak', 'd00d speak', 'haxor speak' or whatever they call it now. Back when I used to play online games it was rampant, mostly among the younger gamers. Most people over the age of ~16 would automatically exclude anyone using it from joining their group.

 

[lil maggie]

Thanks for explaining!

I don't play multiplayer games, who knew?

 

[sharky]

I worry when I can find a spelling or grammar issue, as I have difficulty in that area . Spell and grammar check programs are great when used properly .

 

[rockcat]

It bothers me when people don't spell and use grammar at least reasonably well. We all make errors and I don't mind that though.

What I have a hard time with is trying to read a post that is not split into paragraphs. I usually end up skipping it because it's hard for me to read (now that I'm a little older).

 

[fwan]

I honestly believe its the parents education whether the child will learn to spell correctly or not. And read for that matter.
I started school in Great Britain as my parents are deaf they can't speak properly and I would learn the words wrong, I had this one teacher that was very downgrading and I started hating reading lessons as she always told me I was wrong and eventually was behind the class, not because I was slow, but it was because I had the wrong help from home too.
Then there was Italy and my fathers Italian is much better than English I got to learn that quickly.
Came to Australia and I had excellent teachers, they met my needs and worked harder on me and I got to spell and read properly.

While I was an English teacher in Germany, going through all of the grammar books and having all different English teachers around me, made me realize that not every English teacher will be the same partially due to accents and spellings of words from their own countries.

anyway the real word that annoys me is color, it's colour!

p.s another quirk about my self is that I don't use the apostrophes and when ever I go back to re-read my post it annoys me for not remembering them!

 

[cat.ling]

Originally Posted by sarahp

I really don't think spelling or grammar has changed much - more people just get lazy and spell things wrong.

I was speaking more of over longer periods of time, as in if we were to compare grammar and spellings from 1600's English (which would be British-English) with contemporary English. It's not just spellings which have changed over so much time (use of "ye" or "olde" or "kynde" vs "you," "old," or "kind"), but also verb conjugations, grammar rules, and syntax.

But I guess that's not quite on-topic here.

Aside from having different variations in spelling for certain words in different countries, there are also some grammar rules that differ. I had been taught different ways to use commas ("one, two and three" or "one, two, and three"), and depending on the viewpoint of the instructor, I'd have to write accordingly.

And personally, I like to follow the "one, two, and three" rule.

As for the instruction of English language in schools here in the U.S., I think it's less of a budget problem (although there is certainly that!) and more of a problem with what is generally expected of students. I think public school systems here could stand to raise their expectations of students' achievement, not just in English but other subjects as well.

 

[emrldsky]

I didn't become a stickler for grammar or spelling until I was in fourth grade, when my teacher corrected me on the use of the phrase, "I seen." Now I cringe when my own parents say, "What type of wa[r]sher did you get?"

But, if people really think that the English language is so hard, I say we do away with ANYTHING that's too difficult...like Math!

2 + 2 = 5! So easy!

 

[strange_wings]

Originally Posted by Cat.Ling

Aside from having different variations in spelling for certain words in different countries, there are also some grammar rules that differ. I had been taught different ways to use commas ("one, two and three" or "one, two, and three"), and depending on the viewpoint of the instructor, I'd have to write accordingly.

And personally, I like to follow the "one, two, and three" rule.

I was always taught that "one, two and three" would be grouping two and three together, not listing them like that latter. Both are corrected, provided that they're being used appropriately - it's not so much a difference in regional use of grammar.

 

[ut0pia]

I thought in Britain it's a rule to always write a comma before the word "and" no matter what and in the US you don't when you're listing ....
I could be so wrong though! In other languages though you always write a comma before the word 'and' even....
I really don't see any reason why different languages need to have different rules for punctuation..It should be universal...
But i guess it's one of those things that actually reflects people's intonation- and it's clear different languages use different tones and enunciation when saying the same thing...

 

[zorana_dragonky]

Originally Posted by emrldsky

I didn't become a stickler for grammar or spelling until I was in fourth grade, when my teacher corrected me on the use of the phrase, "I seen." Now I cringe when my own parents say, "What type of wa[r]sher did you get?"

But, if people really think that the English language is so hard, I say we do away with ANYTHING that's too difficult...like Math!

2 + 2 = 5! So easy!

Or "Help me poosh this, wouldja?" I hate "poosh" and "warsh" instead of "push" and "wash." I know that it is just accent, but it sounds so silly!

I agree with most of you. I do think it is sad that so many children have horrible grammar. I understand using acronyms in forums and instant messages or text messages, but even in a blog post they will abbreviate the vast majority of words. I'm proud of my little sister. She just turned 14 a few weeks ago and she refuses to talk to other people her age that will not use capital letters and punctuation, or spell out most of their words.

I think that many people are stuck in a cycle, and it is a combination of lack of funding for schools and no one expecting much out of the children and the parents at home making little to no effort (or not being able to help, such as the deaf parents in one member's case). I feel like children should be able to read and do basic mathematics before even entering school, but very often the instructors are required to teach kindergarten students how to read and do basic math because they haven't had any real exposure to it. These children have parents who also were not properly educated, or who don't think of the education as very important, and so they don't get the help or encouragement from home that they need to succeed.

My mom spent a lot of her time with us when my brother and I were very small (my sister is a whole generation behind us, and my mom was working then), so we could read, write, and do arithmetic before we got into school. I hope to be able to do that for my own children as well. My mom even read to me when I was still in the womb.

I don't know what made the difference, but I love books.

I doubt we can do anything to change all those children's ability to read and write correctly, but it is definitely sad. It will interfere with their ability to get good jobs, I think.

 

[lyrajean]

Pardon the rant. but when I hear people talking about languages dying or some sort of standard for usage it makes me laugh...

Languages evolve, period. Try reading Chaucer or Shakespeare and see how long it takes to wade through what we would consider archaic language (and no, movies don't count, they alter the language or edit the text to make it understandible to a modern audience).

This is not an excuse for sloppy writing, but as far as text language and abreviations, some of these will stick in the greater language as a whole and become more common, -get used to it.

Even errors if they become too pervasive, will become part of the language. Try asking an English speaker the difference between "which" and "that". Even spelling is not consistent over hundreds of years. If you look at a text from the 1600s the spelling does not agree with modern times

I teach ESL and as far as spelling goes English is a difficult language to learn, mostly because it is one of the worst languages for following its own rules. In Japanese there is almost never any question how to spell something. Everythign is spelled phonetically in their own alphabets (hiragana and katakana).

Mostof this results from the fact that English is a mongrel toungue. It started out as German, then the Normans dumped a whole lot of frank-ified latin on it. So basically its a Germanic toungue evolving into a Romance language. But some things remain like all our irregular verb forms (there are a couple hundred in common use, Japanese has less than half a dozen) because the old Germanic forms are too short and sweet and easy to use, if you know the language well.

Sorry for the rant, but as an English teacher I had to throw my 2 cents in.

 

[strange_wings]

^That's why I think Japanese is actually fairly easy if one sticks to it.

What's your opinion on the following, though?

Originally Posted by ut0pia

I thought in Britain it's a rule to always write a comma before the word "and" no matter what and in the US you don't when you're listing ....
I could be so wrong though! In other languages though you always write a comma before the word 'and' even....
I really don't see any reason why different languages need to have different rules for punctuation..It should be universal...
But i guess it's one of those things that actually reflects people's intonation- and it's clear different languages use different tones and enunciation when saying the same thing...

I looked it up using commas in a series. Both are correct. But it seems that using commas after everything listed is the older rule. Omitting it before the and is the newer rule being taught currently.

I had older English teachers and have been out of school for several years, so that may be why I mostly know the older rule. Though I swore we were taught that you could only omit the comma before the and when the items where related/grouped.

ETA: I was taught primarily MLA style. So this is explains why I use that serial comma rule. I figured it was something like this.

 

[ut0pia]

Originally Posted by Lyrajean

Pardon the rant. but when I hear people talking about languages dying or some sort of standard for usage it makes me laugh...

Languages evolve, period. Try reading Chaucer or Shakespeare and see how long it takes to wade through what we would consider archaic language (and no, movies don't count, they alter the language or edit the text to make it understandible to a modern audience).

That's so true..
I had to read Thomas Hobbes for one of my classes earlier and I was like what's this new word "warre", well apparently that's how they spelled war back then...And that's one example, it was all full of words that i had to pronounce in my head to know what they mean..I'm sure some people back then would say, those people are too lazy to write out warre because it has too many letters in it and OMG what is happening to our language.

 

[cat.ling]

Originally Posted by Lyrajean

Languages evolve, period. Try reading Chaucer or Shakespeare and see how long it takes to wade through what we would consider archaic language (and no, movies don't count, they alter the language or edit the text to make it understandible to a modern audience).

Yes, this was what I was trying to say in my first post.

Mostof this results from the fact that English is a mongrel toungue. It started out as German, then the Normans dumped a whole lot of frank-ified latin on it. So basically its a Germanic toungue evolving into a Romance language. But some things remain like all our irregular verb forms (there are a couple hundred in common use, Japanese has less than half a dozen) because the old Germanic forms are too short and sweet and easy to use, if you know the language well.

Sorry for the rant, but as an English teacher I had to throw my 2 cents in.

Very true. I have to admit when I was first asked by my Spanish teacher in high school whether English was Romance or Germanic, I honestly thought Romance since it was so similar to French and Spanish.

I definitely like your 2 cents.

 

[tara g]

I'm definitely a member of the spelling police force. One of the car forums I was a member on, I made a username called Sheriff Spelling and went around correcting spelling, and a friend made Deputy Grammar. It was pretty funny, really.

It drives me crazy when my BIL says "We was doing this" instead of "we were".

 

[mrblanche]

Originally Posted by Lyrajean

Languages evolve, period. Try reading Chaucer or Shakespeare and see how long it takes to wade through what we would consider archaic language (and no, movies don't count, they alter the language or edit the text to make it understandible to a modern audience).

Well, yes and no.

Let's ask ourselves why spelling and grammar rules were invented. The answer, of course, was to encourage a group of people to be able to speak and read comprehensibly. If you read what even such educated men as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson wrote, in their original forms, you would be astonished at the differences.

On the other hand, you wouldn't have any difficulty reading something from the 1400's written in French. Why? Because they have a group called the French Academy that regulates what is correct usage. The prohibit the use of Anglicisms and other "

izations" of language in books, newspapers, signs, etc. The result may be good, but it does stifle creativity. English has almost 4 times as many words as French.

Most of the problem with English spelling is that we didn't get it from just one source. We have all kinds of influences, from Anglo-Saxon on down to French, German, Spanish, even a couple of Finnish words.

What most people don't understand is that the Angl-Saxon/Norman period contributed to some real dichotomies in English. For example, a bovine animal in the field is a cow, but on the table, it's beef. The woolly animal in the field is a lamb or sheep, but on the table it's mutton. The oinker is a pig when it's alive, but pork when it's eaten. The reason is that the first word was used by the Anglo-Saxon serfs, and the second word was used by the Norman master.

 

[ut0pia]

Originally Posted by mrblanche

On the other hand, you wouldn't have any difficulty reading something from the 1400's written in French. Why? Because they have a group called the French Academy that regulates what is correct usage. The prohibit the use of Anglicisms and other "izations" of language in books, newspapers, signs, etc. The result may be good, but it does stifle creativity. English has almost 4 times as many words as French.

To me having a billion different words that mean the same thing doesn't accommodate for creativity IMO- in a language creativity is about how much you can change the grammar structure to suit the tone you're using, etc that's why Russian is considered so much richer than a lot of the romance languages. Well, it depends on the person's preference really and some words don't mean exactly the same thing even though they may be close in meaning and those small nuances make a difference. I don't know though, so many of the words in the English language are not really usable in today's times so even the most scholarly writing will not contain them. So if no one will use these words, even if they are there they aren't making the language better suited for creative writing. I've always felt like
having so many words in English is a disadvantage because it stops us from communicating effectively. I think if put in a time machine and sent back to 1300s in England we should be able to communicate with the people! I'm not sure that's the case though. I think it'd be like having to speak another language..I'm sure some people will disagree though.

 

[denice]

I am 53 so I went to school a very long time ago. There is a huge difference in the emphasis when I went to school and now. I remember having to diagram sentences when I was in school and I hated it. They haven't done that in a very long time. I've asked people in their early thirties if they had to do that and I get a blank stare. We had to write a weekly theme which was graded on grammer and spelling and we had weekly spelling tests. None of those things require a lot of money. That was a long time ago and I haven't needed it in a very long time so a lot of it is gone now. I do think everyone needs to learn how to write and speak in a coherant fashion that is acceptable in any environment. In time though, if you don't use it, it starts slipping away.

 

[yosemite]

Originally Posted by Lyrajean

Pardon the rant. but when I hear people talking about languages dying or some sort of standard for usage it makes me laugh...

Languages evolve, period. Try reading Chaucer or Shakespeare and see how long it takes to wade through what we would consider archaic language (and no, movies don't count, they alter the language or edit the text to make it understandible to a modern audience).

This is not an excuse for sloppy writing, but as far as text language and abreviations, some of these will stick in the greater language as a whole and become more common, -get used to it.

Even errors if they become too pervasive, will become part of the language. Try asking an English speaker the difference between "which" and "that". Even spelling is not consistent over hundreds of years. If you look at a text from the 1600s the spelling does not agree with modern times

I teach ESL and as far as spelling goes English is a difficult language to learn, mostly because it is one of the worst languages for following its own rules. In Japanese there is almost never any question how to spell something. Everythign is spelled phonetically in their own alphabets (hiragana and katakana).

Mostof this results from the fact that English is a mongrel toungue. It started out as German, then the Normans dumped a whole lot of frank-ified latin on it. So basically its a Germanic toungue evolving into a Romance language. But some things remain like all our irregular verb forms (there are a couple hundred in common use, Japanese has less than half a dozen) because the old Germanic forms are too short and sweet and easy to use, if you know the language well.

Sorry for the rant, but as an English teacher I had to throw my 2 cents in.

I find it interesting that you are an English teacher but have spelled "tongue" incorrectly. That just reinforces my belief that our language is in jeopardy when even the English teachers have difficulty with it. I'm assuming "everythign" is simply a typo.

When our daughter was in grade 2 we had a meeting with the Principal, Teacher and Special Eds teacher as they had some concerns with her behaviour (she didn't bow down and show fear of them as they expected which I deduced when the Principal said she was unusual in that she actually came right out and asked him if he had a nice Christmas holiday. He felt that she had no right to initiate a conversation with him, a Principal

).

They assured me that spelling and reading were important to them and that her reading had improved from September but her spelling was not so good. I told them her reading had probably improved because I had been teaching her to read at home every night. I also said that it was unlikely her spelling would get any better since her teacher did not know how to spell. They said that was a very serious allegation. I then pulled out a handwritten sheet that her teacher had sent home regarding the Christmas pagaent. On it, there were 3 misspellings - halo was spelled "hallo", shepherd was spelled "shepard", and veil was spelled "vale". Now those are not difficult words to spell, in fact two of them are simple 4-letter words. When they saw my proof, the Principal sputtered and said, "well now, how important is spelling these days anyway" to which I replied it had seemed important to him moments before I showed him the page with the teacher's misspelled words.