Ask, Axe?
- Thread starter DJ Harris
- Start date
Wsup mayne
Actually, that's very untrue. Accordin to all linguists, there is NO such thing as bad grammar. Bad grammar is societies standards, that is set static. But like Not Really Ken said, language evolves, therefore it is dynamic - if we were to keep tabs on every change of language, then no one ever has bad grammar or pronunciation. Tha way we speak n write now would've been considered horribleback in tha day. So it's uneducated to wat society says, but to a linguist, as long as u kno wat tha person is talkin bout n it isn't a bunch of verbs strung out into a sentence that makes no sense, then it's still good grammar. So is pronunciation, just like tha tomato n tomatoeeeeee thing.
Peace!
Skillz
Actually, that's very untrue. Accordin to all linguists, there is NO such thing as bad grammar. Bad grammar is societies standards, that is set static. But like Not Really Ken said, language evolves, therefore it is dynamic - if we were to keep tabs on every change of language, then no one ever has bad grammar or pronunciation. Tha way we speak n write now would've been considered horribleback in tha day. So it's uneducated to wat society says, but to a linguist, as long as u kno wat tha person is talkin bout n it isn't a bunch of verbs strung out into a sentence that makes no sense, then it's still good grammar. So is pronunciation, just like tha tomato n tomatoeeeeee thing.
Peace!
Skillz
All true, but when you learn a language you have to learn it to a certain standard. There is still the language's "most correct form", which is, technically, the only "correct" way to make grammatical structures and to spell.
That said, languages do change. But not every new form of "speaking language" get "accepted in the correct form". No matter how you look at it, the sentence:
"Me and my man was going to the theater, then we run into dude i know"
is incorrect. The other person will understand what you said, the communication has worked, there is not a real problem. But it's still wrong in the end. When a language is updated, they don't add every new form or way people might use. That's first off impossible and second it would defeat the purpose of having a set of lingual standards in the first place!
Pronounciation is a different matter. It's more prone to be affected by the speaker's first tongue, dialect etc. Setting a standard for pronounciation will almost always effectively render a foreigners speech incorrect. Setting a standard for spelling and grammar does not.
My point is, languages evolve, i agree with you on that. And there's nothing wrong with that. As long as the point comes across the objective of the language is completed. But there is still the "ideal" of the language. The true, proper way to express yourself in English, Polish or Russian. And if you divert from that, it's still wrong at the end of the day
Duke said:
All true, but when you learn a language you have to learn it to a certain standard. There is still the language's "most correct form", which is, technically, the only "correct" way to make grammatical structures and to spell.
That said, languages do change. But not every new form of "speaking language" get "accepted in the correct form". No matter how you look at it, the sentence:
"Me and my man was going to the theater, then we run into dude i know"
is incorrect. The other person will understand what you said, the communication has worked, there is not a real problem. But it's still wrong in the end. When a language is updated, they don't add every new form or way people might use. That's first off impossible and second it would defeat the purpose of having a set of lingual standards in the first place!
Pronounciation is a different matter. It's more prone to be affected by the speaker's first tongue, dialect etc. Setting a standard for pronounciation will almost always effectively render a foreigners speech incorrect. Setting a standard for spelling and grammar does not.
My point is, languages evolve, i agree with you on that. And there's nothing wrong with that. As long as the point comes across the objective of the language is completed. But there is still the "ideal" of the language. The true, proper way to express yourself in English, Polish or Russian. And if you divert from that, it's still wrong at the end of the day
That said, languages do change. But not every new form of "speaking language" get "accepted in the correct form". No matter how you look at it, the sentence:
"Me and my man was going to the theater, then we run into dude i know"
is incorrect. The other person will understand what you said, the communication has worked, there is not a real problem. But it's still wrong in the end. When a language is updated, they don't add every new form or way people might use. That's first off impossible and second it would defeat the purpose of having a set of lingual standards in the first place!
Pronounciation is a different matter. It's more prone to be affected by the speaker's first tongue, dialect etc. Setting a standard for pronounciation will almost always effectively render a foreigners speech incorrect. Setting a standard for spelling and grammar does not.
My point is, languages evolve, i agree with you on that. And there's nothing wrong with that. As long as the point comes across the objective of the language is completed. But there is still the "ideal" of the language. The true, proper way to express yourself in English, Polish or Russian. And if you divert from that, it's still wrong at the end of the day
U make good points, my main man. But I think u overlooked tha fact that I compared tha use of grammar, language n pronunciation to linguists and society.
But another thing, u say language is correct in it's pure form - but that is just an ideal, not a reality. Language is constantly changin, so there is no pure form. Otherwise, tha pure form of language would hav to b tha very first language.
So, it does not make sense to hav a "correct" language, kno wat I mean? Cuz this proper English now isn't correct in accordance to a 100 years ago, or even in other English speakin countries.
So like I said, in tha linguistic sense, it is NEVER wrong. That is tha basis of linguistics, tha rule is grammar is never wrong if it is coherent. Where as it might b in SOCIETY's ideals.
So like u said, it's an ideal. But ideals r static, where as language is dynamic, so for tha language to fit tha ideal, one would hav to compromise for tha other.
Hope that helps.
Skillz
Skills you are correct, i do understand that language evolves.
like curd from crud, fleming from felming are all results of metatheses. Infact Ask itself was a result of metathesis. Ask comes from the old english word of acsian (sp?) and later as a result of methathesis ask became the standard word. But metathesis as i have said before is a result of uneduacted english. Yes it's true that you are getting the message across, and yes it is true that language evolves, but RIGHT now the correct english and 'pronounciation' is ask.
other words that are influenced by metathesis right now are
* asterix for asterisk
* comfterble for comfortable
* foilage for foliage
* intregal for integral
* julary for jewelry
* nucular for nuclear
* realator for realtor
* revelant for relevant
Like another thing that has become accepted in english language (since i saw it in the papers and i was about to shoot somebody) was Should of (eg. You should of done that), it's not should of, it's should have (or should've)
like curd from crud, fleming from felming are all results of metatheses. Infact Ask itself was a result of metathesis. Ask comes from the old english word of acsian (sp?) and later as a result of methathesis ask became the standard word. But metathesis as i have said before is a result of uneduacted english. Yes it's true that you are getting the message across, and yes it is true that language evolves, but RIGHT now the correct english and 'pronounciation' is ask.
other words that are influenced by metathesis right now are
* asterix for asterisk
* comfterble for comfortable
* foilage for foliage
* intregal for integral
* julary for jewelry
* nucular for nuclear
* realator for realtor
* revelant for relevant
Like another thing that has become accepted in english language (since i saw it in the papers and i was about to shoot somebody) was Should of (eg. You should of done that), it's not should of, it's should have (or should've)
and our survey says er-ergh!
Altho this is an interestin topic, doubt its a major reason.
think sum1's already mentioned this but it seems to be a black or at least environmental thing. ask is a "backwards" word. say it...the "asss" bit goes "forward" through ur mouth into the tounge & teeth to make the "ssss", but then ur mouth has to go back on itself to make the "k" sound with the back of the tounge. axe or aks comes out better. Some people jus cant say it. it's like sayin "lickle" instead of "little". some poeple struggle to say it the right way
Altho this is an interestin topic, doubt its a major reason.
think sum1's already mentioned this but it seems to be a black or at least environmental thing. ask is a "backwards" word. say it...the "asss" bit goes "forward" through ur mouth into the tounge & teeth to make the "ssss", but then ur mouth has to go back on itself to make the "k" sound with the back of the tounge. axe or aks comes out better. Some people jus cant say it. it's like sayin "lickle" instead of "little". some poeple struggle to say it the right way
I don't know, man. I feel what you're saying and i largely agree, but I'm willing to discuss the society/linguist thing. Is it really society's standard? I'd say society's standard isn't necessarily the correct one, but the communicative one. As long as you get your point across, society should be pleased. Although there is indeed pressure from some parts of "society" for correct spelling, the other half of society doesn't care and says "aks" for "ask", the exact people that "change" the language.
How about learning a language in schools? You have to learn it from a set of rules. I think that's partially why there are "ideal" lingual forms. Most languages have written rules and forms. Partially to keep up with changes, partially to lay down a "foundation" for it.
Not to say that using a word differently or using grammar differently is wrong, because when you say that the current English language is evolving every day, you're right. But using it differently does mean it's incorrect if you set it next to the ideal standard. (Although i'm splitting hairs now
)
And that's where my doubt lies. I wouldn't know how to define language. Whether it's everything people use to communicate or the "ideal" set of lingual rules. Most linguists can't define language either.
"What is language?" A simple question, but hard to answer.
Well said, agreed
How about learning a language in schools? You have to learn it from a set of rules. I think that's partially why there are "ideal" lingual forms. Most languages have written rules and forms. Partially to keep up with changes, partially to lay down a "foundation" for it.
Not to say that using a word differently or using grammar differently is wrong, because when you say that the current English language is evolving every day, you're right. But using it differently does mean it's incorrect if you set it next to the ideal standard. (Although i'm splitting hairs now
)And that's where my doubt lies. I wouldn't know how to define language. Whether it's everything people use to communicate or the "ideal" set of lingual rules. Most linguists can't define language either.
"What is language?" A simple question, but hard to answer.
Well said, agreed