Yeah really, educated classes especially those who are in power try to master the art of rhetoric and lying. I think when it comes to economy I only trust my instincts. And that is how I knew the house credit collapse was coming up 6 years ago.

Guys I think your over reacting a bit. The point of language is just communication. We can all see different dialects around us and so of course some consistency and rules have to be established to create a common base that all can understand and read and information can flow freely.

good point Eóin

I've just read the whole thread quickly so a couple of thoughts inspired by same

unfortunately,
the origin of actually creating a standard English (in England) involved class, elitism, and keeping the little man down. Ironically, you get snobbery on both "sides" these days - if you speak proper (:p) you may just as well get looked down on as if you don't. So everyone has to look after themselves, which is only natural after all (innit!? - I find myself alternating between compulsive urges to speak not "proper", and worrying that I'll make some stupid grammar mistake - that says a lot in itself I guess ... )

I'm living in Germany - when I moved here I went to the local Volkshochschule and did four months or so of full time courses learning German. But when I get served in the shops or meet people through the Sport club, or wherever, they speak a different language - in lots of ways it's almost the same, but it's so different that I really feel like I'm learning two languages. Then I heard people speaking Dutch and I realise that's also a closely related language. English too for that matter as you move further north. Gradually I got a sense of an area with related languages with one merging into the next. So, while it is artificial that someone at some stage decided that the dialect from around Hamburg should be the "High" German language, it is also very helpful* as Eóin says above 

* [edit] especially when you have over 100 million native speakers of many different dialects. I know North America doesnt have much in the line of different dialects as such, but worldwide, English is spoken very differently (natively) in many different countries. And judging from some English people I've heard, they still have some pretty strong dialects within the country over there - never mind some of the Scottish accents [/edit]

Might as well take a shower with a raincoat on

The Mac that is PC?

If I'm understanding Kartal correctly, I also have to disagree.

If words are the boards, nails, pipes and wires of language, grammar is the plan for how to build a house rather than just have a pile of stuff. When you build a house, there are rules you follow. Some of these are even dictated by laws. Is this elitist? Is it oppressive to insist there's a "right" way to support a roof or install a circuit breaker box? I don't think it is, because the rules are based on experience of what worked and what didn't, and how the final product can be made better: be built faster, not leak, not collapse after 20 years, etc.

It's not a perfect analog, but grammar rules are much the same. I've found reading prose from the early eighteenth century or earlier can often be difficult, not jut because of vocabulary or spelling changes, but because some of the rules of grammar were not yet firmly established. Not observing grammatical rules doesn't necessarily eliminate clarity, but it can impede it.

Saying that proper grammar is the language of the upper classes and therefore of liars really has no bearing on anything. Lies can be told in any language and in any dialect. They're probably as old as language itself, and nobody has an exclusive on them. Would oppression be any less objectionable if it were conveyed in "street talk"?

Before they gut YouTube of all the good stuff, take some time to look up and listen to the words of Martin Luther King Jr., James Baldwin and Malcolm X. One could hardly argue that their message against oppression was weaker or in any way compromised because they used clear, grammatically-correct language. In fact, I think the opposite becomes obvious.

Quote from: MilesAhead on April 20, 2009, 01:19 AM

Might as well take a shower with a raincoat on

The Mac that is PC?

You mean "Mac" like "don't Mac on my sister" or ???

Guys I never said I was against science, education,analysis, linguistic sciences etc. I just said that so much worshipping on grammar is a scientific dogma.

Here we have a good example, Jimdoria is claiming that couple hundred years ago grammar was not established properly that is why he is having hard time understanding literature from that time. Well guess what, actually the language you talk today is probably more like a radiation infected amorph language compared to the past. I think you guys think that mankind keeps moving forward thus language and grammar move forward as well. That is a false feeling in my book.

There is no right or wrong way of talking a language, there are only vague patterns that are accepted by all levels of the society. During the human history,  the languages of certain classes and groups were imposed on others.  At some point people were divided in to those who can speak latin or greek and those who could not. And those who could not were always subject to enslavement, and called barbarians by those who always saw themselves right and just.  Later in history many colonies were built upon some of these ideals. You can actually probably see these same politics around  London or New York in year 2009. So saying that language politics is only a matter of conspiracy is either denial or light hearted approach. My point is that grammar should be kept as a science and should be never applied as hard facts and laws on people. I am sure none of you could pass your english class if you fail in grammar even if you write an amazing poem or story with the grammar of 500 years ago.

I have never denied findings of grammar as a science but I just think that applied grammar in societies and education systems  is a form of fascism.

Actually grammar is a relative construct by human beings, it is unnatural. I would  say that do not rely on grammar much. Grammar kills the language and puts it in a box. Grammar is elitist and creates class division.  Let languages flourish as they want to be. I hope it makes sense. I am an anti-grammar guy, really

Eye r liek 2tally in aggrement!

Without grammar it would be a lot harder for cranioscopical (or anyone else for that matter) to make word based jokes.

There is no right or wrong way of talking a language, there are only vague patterns that are accepted by all levels of the society.

Hmmmmmmm I've heard Japanese is a lot less rigid than English.  It would be interesting if someone fluent in the language could comment. 

I remember seeing one of those nature shows where they supposedly had this super intelligent simian who could "talk" by using a computer.  Well, I watched the thing and now and then he seemed to "say" something sensible while other times it was just gibberish.  Turns out what the scam was is they set up the buttons on the computer so that the subjects, his name, the handlers and scientist's names, were all on the left, the verbs(what the ape wanted or how he felt, as in loves his handler etc.) were all in the middle, and the objects, were all on the right hand side.  So our hero quickly learned that if he hit a button on the left, a button in the middle, and a button on the right, he'd get a reward.

I do have to admit his grammar was perfect!!!

Nah, I think you guys who are disagreeing with kartal are missing his point but at the same time, that's IMO the flaw with all these things: we're casual people trying to assume the mantle of experts or linguists...or for the linguists, you're experts trying to fit your square mindset into the round holes of casuals.

To play word games a bit, it's not diction or grammar or lack of standards. In the big picture, kartal is talking about culture and you guys who are disagreeing with kartal, if I interpret your posts correctly, are talking about standards and hence your disagreement stems from almost the false impression that kartal is meaning to push the necessity for a lack of standards when kartal is really all about pointing that the standards themselves are flawed and haven't really been respected by cultures for a long time.

It's like the case with the history of raison d'etat:

Before Machiavelli, writers on political philosophy had been generally agreed on the virtues and methods appropriate to nations and those who would make them great. Although the ideas were more rooted in classical Greek philosophy, they were identified mostly with Cicero, who had Romanized them and made them widely available in his handbook for rulers, On Moral Obligations. This was one of the first books to be printed in Christendom, and Erasmus had a pocket-sized edition created so the would-be virtuoso would never be caught short.

Then in 1519, Niccolo Machiavelli landed a cannonball in European political thought, one which no subsequent writer could ignore. His crime was to tell things how they were by pointing out the hypocrisy of rulers who purported to rule in the name of virtue and religion, but in fact abided by neither.

Really both sides are correct. It's true that grammar has often been manipulated by the elites to put down others. Heck, it's why we even have the negative fallacies of political correctness and single issue voters in the first place. Really the standards are there but they're there to be broken and have been broken because the plate, the foundation of language was never based upon any standards until the majority of people within a culture established it upon themselves.

At the same time, trial and error does yield natural selection so the standards do work but they are not...how should I put it... irrevocable rules. Don't disrespect them but don't be afraid to break them either and don't put them in a pedestal either is my opinion.

Even zridling's example is flawed. It really depends on the medium. We can read John Milton clearly because he abided an effective standard for his medium but this isn't set in stone. For example, while I'm not a grammar nazi, it's still true that the reason why many can't understand me clearly and feel my words are tl;dr is precisely because I follow the standards of grammar when I should be following the standards of the blogging and microblogging crowd and instead shave off grammar in favor of the effective way of using tons of bullets, 140 character words, little paragraphs in my way of communicating in this medium. Yet at the same time, it's still true that some can understand and will want to read my post still despite this, because I do follow certain things under the grammatical standard. And while I'm not a proponent of the Elements of Style, I do feel it is a useful book that have helped many in communicating but yes, if it has brought unintended consequences, it should be criticized too but then, the structure of criticism is to improve things not prove each other wrong hence why we should remind each other here of what it is really that we want to improve and not disagree for the sake of disagreeing; because we are non-experts and hence we are prone to using/mis-using different lexicons to describe things so it is of utmost importance for us to be reminded that it is necessary to "see through the other person's point" first before we jump to conclusions on what we think their opinions entail.

Edit: I'd link to Politics in the English Language by Orwell but we're talking about grammar here.

You are saying that grammar helps to standardize the language, sure and that is precisely what I am against for. I personally do not want standardized languages especially done by some small group of people. Can you tell me who make these standards? I am not looking for a conspiracy, really, but when we say standardizations we mean that some people some institutions some groups come together and at least make some basic desicions. And I find that morally and socially wrong. That is pretty much it.

Well that's pretty clear, and fair enough. I feel entirely the opposite on the subject but I guess that's more a philosophical disagreement.

If found the OP very easy to read. The article uses longer sentences with complex structures, but I had no trouble understanding them. I guess they tried to serve an example of good English

For what I see as good German language, I recommend reading Siegfried Lenz or Günter Grass. So going back to the English language: What's your recommendation of a Good English Book? Should I try the classic Shakespeare, or Hemingway, or Poe? So far I have been reading mostly technical books in English ("Programming Microsoft ASP.NET 2.0 Core Reference", "Pro Drupal Development") and several dozen crime novels from my mother's bookshelf. I am looking for something you say is a good example of English language, your personal choice.