"The natural evolution of language" is utter crap

[Citizen Bleys]

I've heard it argued one time too many that the perversions of the Queen's English perpetrated by the great unwashed masses are "the natural evolution of language."

No, shortening "you" to "u" and replacing letters with numbers is not evolution. Evolution implies improvement. When an organism is being hunted nigh onto extinction and develops a defense mechanism that allows its offspring to survive, that is evolution. A mutation that causes bees to nest in one's crotch, conversely, is an undesirable mutation. That is the opposite of evolution. It takes something that once worked perfectly fine, and ruins it. The rules that define the English language were put in place for a reason, they ensure clarity, and above all else, they are correct by definition.

Perversion of the English language is "the natural evolution of language" is the same way that obesity is the natural evolution of fitness. Yes, it's becoming more common. We no longer have to spend 18 hours a day harvesting crops without the aid of mechanization while intermittently battling back commanche raids, so fitness is no longer quite so necessary for survival. However, just because the increasing trend in obesity is due to environmental factors and happened more recently than the days in which the majority of people could carry out tasks unaided which we today would relegate to machines, does not make it evolution, and neither is bad English "superior" just because a lot of people do it.

Come on, I've heard of appeal to authority--a tactic which appears in every list of logical fallacies ever published--but appeal to the masses? To call that malarkey would be a dire insult to purveyors of malarkey all the world over. After all, if there's one thing that people in large groups are good at other than burning things for no apparent reason, it's being wrong. There was a time in which the majority of people believed that the sun revolved around the Earth and savagely murdered anyone who dared question their "doctrine," but it's been conclusively proven that said majority was flat out, unquestionably, 100% wrong. Even today, there is a large majority who believes that there is an old man living in the sky watching everything you do, the dirty pervert. Furthermore, this old man can do anything by willing it and is never wrong. Well, if you ask me, watching twelve-year-olds masturbate is not only wrong, but a federal offense, and rightfully so.

A fine example of this diseased mentality is the non-word "irregardless." It is an inherent double negative, which is automatically grammatically incorrect, and there are people who insist on using it because it's now in the OED. Congratulations, large numbers of people whose sole qualification is failing to die for 18-21 years (depending on local voting age) were able to pressure Oxford into intentionally inserting an error into their most famous publication just because a lot of people are using it, never mind the fact that the large number of people using it are so remarkably intelligent that they knowingly abstain from the use of prophylactics when they know very well that they haven't got enough room in their trailer for another squalling brat.

I can understand grammatical and spelling errors in someone for whom English is not their native tongue--but wait, what's this? Most people who learn English as a second, third, or thirty-ninth language don't make as many errors as native speakers, or even as many errors as those for whom English is their sole language. Why is that? Well, I have a theory:

Imagine a magical genie who, instead of granting wishes to one person, went about offering to magically imbue people with the ability to speak another language with no need for studying, intelligence, or any effort whatsoever. Do you know anybody who would decline? Even the red-necked racists who spout drivel like "If English is good enough for me, it's good enough for everybody" would accept if for no other reason than so that they'd know when the (insert race KKK Karl is prejudiced against here) is slagging them off in their native tongue. So what separates those of us who are unilingual (and thank-you for autocorrecting "unilingual" to "cunnilingus," Firefox) from those who speak multiple language? Easy: They're smarter. Everyone wants to speak another language, but only some people are smart enough to actually do it. And they all speak English better than the cunnilingus people. Yes, I know I just used a sentence fragment. On purpose. To show that far from making me look more educated and urbane, it in fact makes me look like a giant twat.

So, in conclusion, anyone who says "irregardless" is a horse-fellating mental midget, the original British English is the only true English, and appealing to the masses as an authority to justify breaking the rules is every bit as valid as using a T-62 tank to achieve a competitive edge in a sporting event. Thank-you for your time.

[rubah]

Which the original British English? That of the Saxons, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Johnson, Shaw, or Allen (http://twitter.com/Lilyroseallen)?

There's so much to choose from! And those are just figures from the isles themselves. If we're going to take a look elsewhere in the Commonwealth, we could always ask Mr. Murdoch's impression~

[Citizen Bleys]

Which the original British English? That of the Saxons, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Johnson, Shaw, or Allen (http://twitter.com/Lilyroseallen)?

Try Queen Victoria.

[Crop]

I think people cry about English far too much. I couldn't give two :bou::bou::bou::bou:s if someone used 'u' instead of 'you'. I understand what they mean and they understand me when I say 'you' so why would I care?

[G13]

In before in b4 umad.i'msofunny

This reminds me of the movie Idiocracy.

[DMKA]

tl;dr

[Citizen Bleys]

You should care because it leads to sloppy writing, and sloppy writing leads to sloppy thinking. There's nothing wrong with an error or two--we all make mistakes--but when you start doing it on purpose just to be lazy you're forming a habit of laziness with other intellectual pursuits. This is the kind of thinking that leads people to believe that they can persuade the laws of physics or argue their way around reality, as illustrated in the scenario below:

Me: The internet is down throughout your entire city because the substation the power company uses to supply electricity to the switching station was bombed by Nazis, and electronic communications equipment requires electricity to operate.
My customer: But you don't understand! I have a university project due tomorrow! I need to finish it or I'll fail, I won't get my degree, so I'll lose my job and be relegated to a life of prostitution!
Me (in the customer's mind): Oh, well in that case I'll just hop into my handy-dandy time machine and head on back to yesterday and prevent the bombing at great hazard to my own personal health and well-being so that you don't have to suffer the consequences for your lack of foresight in leaving a critical project undone until the last minute!

See? Shoddy thinking.

[Peegee]

(7:08:31 PM) PGies: spell colour
(7:09:10 PM) Captain America: color
(7:09:13 PM) PGies: wrong
(7:09:18 PM) Captain America: nop
(7:09:25 PM) PGies: I have now explained bleyblade's argument
(7:09:25 PM) Captain America: say lieutenant
(7:09:33 PM) PGies: lieu
(7:09:34 PM) PGies: ten
(7:09:35 PM) PGies: nant
(7:09:44 PM) PGies: as in in lieu of
(7:10:04 PM) Captain America: I still don't see what he is arguing
(7:10:06 PM) Captain America: he's just whining
(7:10:24 PM) PGies: what is the negation of shall ?
(7:10:50 PM) Captain America: I still don't see what he is arguing
(7:10:52 PM) Captain America: he's just whining

edit

(7:19:39 PM) PGies: now spell aluminium
(7:20:01 PM) PGies: I wish I could find reasons to say english words in america
(7:20:05 PM) PGies: just to see what would happen
(7:20:13 PM) PGies: oh
(7:20:16 PM) PGies: and pronounce 'z'
(7:20:40 PM) PGies: and harrassment
(7:20:43 PM) PGies: and leisure
(7:20:49 PM) PGies: and um...schedule
(7:20:52 PM) PGies: oh man this is fun
(7:20:53 PM) PGies: copy paste time

[Citizen Bleys]

That has nothing to do with my argument, only the jocular bit of banter at the end. For Americans, spelling colour wrong is, in fact, correct. Likewise, it would be incondign for a Yank to pronounce lieutenant correctly.

[Peegee]

That has nothing to do with my argument, only the jocular bit of banter at the end. For Americans, spelling colour wrong is, in fact, correct. Likewise, it would be incondign for a Yank to pronounce lieutenant correctly.

How are the two different? You have a specific ruleset - you is spelled 'y-o-u' and 'colour' is spelled 'c-o-l-o-u-r'

then a bunch of well meaning but undeserving loonies usurp the language and define their own rules, then when you baulk they go 'oh you don't like go back to Canada'

[Jentleness]

It is good to know that you are not including American English in your rant about the perversion of the "Queen's English". Of course, America was well established before Queen Victoria's reign so I suppose you cannot blame us for not learning her style. However, I do agree with your assessment that today's youth has become lazy when it comes to using proper English. I suppose this stems from texting shorthand, which most likely arose from having to use phone key pads to spell words.

[Citizen Bleys]

That would make sense if I, personally and arbitrarily, defined the rules of English instead of honouring the time-honoured, established, and functional conventions without which intelligible conversation would be impossible.

Also, why is it that when I post a lucid, erudite comedic rant, I'm a pathetic whiner, but when I pist a banal tweet about arse hair, I'm brilliant? I despair for humanity.

EDIT: @Jentleness: I'm posting my replies, albeit not the original post, from my mobile phone. Furthermore, I am doing so in proper English. I assure you, it does not hurt.

[Jentleness]

That would make sense if I, personally and arbitrarily, defined the rules of English instead of honouring the time-honoured, established, and functional conventions without which intelligible conversation would be impossible.

Also, why is it that when I post a lucid, erudite comedic rant, I'm a pathetic whiner, but when I pist a banal tweet about arse hair, I'm brilliant? I despair for humanity.

EDIT: @Jentleness: I'm posting my replies, albeit not the original post, from my mobile phone. Furthermore, I am doing so in proper English. I assure you, it does not hurt.

I hope your complaint is not aimed at me as I did not think you were being a pathetic whiner in the least. Also, I was only trying to give a plausible explanation as to why the English language is abused, not stating what I personally do. I have never once used shorthand in texting because I don't believe there is any real need to do so, except maybe laziness, which is not a good excuse.

[Citizen Bleys]

Nope, when I started posting, PeeGee was the last commentor, which is why I responded to you in an edit

[Old Manus]

PG does make a good point (God forbid)

[Jentleness]

That has nothing to do with my argument, only the jocular bit of banter at the end. For Americans, spelling colour wrong is, in fact, correct. Likewise, it would be incondign for a Yank to pronounce lieutenant correctly.

How are the two different? You have a specific ruleset - you is spelled 'y-o-u' and 'colour' is spelled 'c-o-l-o-u-r'

then a bunch of well meaning but undeserving loonies usurp the language and define their own rules, then when you baulk they go 'oh you don't like go back to Canada'

There is a big difference between a slight veriation in dialect and spelling (colour/color) and shortening a word down to the one letter it sounds like just because you can't be bothered to spell it completely out. I, for one, agree with what Bleys is saying. I cringe whenever I see a text that is made up of abbreviated words, symbols, and numbers. To me it looks as if the sender is uneducated.

[Citizen Bleys]

PG does make a good point (God forbid)

Where? The part where he sums up my entire argument into one joke that has naught to do with the subject of the rant?

[Rantz]

I hear you, Citizen something something. The populace has no respect for The Quina's English.

[Unbreakable Will]

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h299/DJ_09_2006/Quina_Quen_art.jpg :D

[kotora]

evolution doesn't not imply improvement. It just implies adaptability. Doesn't mean I disagree with your point of course. It's unacceptable how retarded people let themselves become even though we live in this age of digital magic where even the phones are smart.

[Vyk]

That shorthand started long before 6 year olds had cell phones. Not sure when it began, but it took hold of the internet netizens around the turn of the century/millennium. With the advent of l33t-speak, and people too lazy to type out full words with an actual keyboard. It transferred seamlessly into textual communication, with good reason, due to text limits between carriers (and probably originally limits in general). That's not a good excuse much anymore though. Cell phones and lazy teenagers have spread the usage like a virus, but it started out with just plain laziness on the internet. And even back then I read reports of kids handing in term papers in internet short-hand. Which is ludicrous

[Peegee]

PG does make a good point (God forbid)

Where? The part where he sums up my entire argument into one joke that has naught to do with the subject of the rant?

"you mad" I took a topic you admit to mentioning in OP and started a segued conversation?

Fine I'll make mention of your actual topic:

you are right
we agree
qed

[Psychotic]

You know what, man? You just convinced me. From this day forth, I'm going to use correct and proper English, irregardless of what my peers do!

[blackmage_nuke]

You know what, man? You just convinced me. From this day forth, I'm going to use correct and proper English, irregardless of what my peers do!

I hope by setting an example we can make alot of difference in the world

[Jentleness]

You know what, man? You just convinced me. From this day forth, I'm going to use correct and proper English, irregardless of what my peers do!

I hope by setting an example we can make alot of difference in the world

Amen!

[Jiro]

To save myself time and effort, I'll just say that I agree with OP's sentiment.

[I Took the Red Pill]

yea but y u mad tho br0? http://www.afterlifegaming.net/main/style_emoticons/default/trollface.gif

[Nait]

Bleys, stop being an idiot.

Also, side-note.

Spelling is not language.

It's a kind of add-on.

[Citizen Bleys]

You know what, man? You just convinced me. From this day forth, I'm going to use correct and proper English, irregardless of what my peers do!

Yes, I see what you did there, and your scorpions are in the mail.

[theundeadhero]

Is that all it takes?

<i>You know what, man? You just convinced me. From this day forth, I'm going to use correct and proper English, irregardless of what my peers do!</i>

[Shoeberto]

:bou::bou::bou::bou: man i want some scorpions in the mail to

[Vyk]

GET OVER HERE!

[Jessweeee♪]

If "I" is okay then I don't see why "U" shouldn't be.

[Vyk]

I and A are actually considered words though o.o

[NorthernChaosGod]

How do you pronounce lieutenant? :confused:

[Citizen Bleys]

If "I" is okay then I don't see why "U" shouldn't be.

Goddammit, why couldn't you say that when my Bond Villain Death Machine was still working?

[Raistlin]

How do you pronounce lieutenant? :confused:

Leftenant. Yes, it is crazy, but that's Brits and Canadians for you.

[NorthernChaosGod]

How do you pronounce lieutenant? :confused:

Leftenant. Yes, it is crazy, but that's Brits and Canadians for you.

That... that makes no Goddamned sense.

[Citizen Bleys]

YOU make no goddamned sense

[nik0tine]

English is the ugliest language and the English are the ugliest people. Go figure.

[qwertysaur]

Color and Colour are both correct spellings for the word, in different Dialects of English.

Also if you are calling the original British English the one true English then why are you not using Old English, because that would be the first instance of an English language. You may consider the Victorian to be the starting point, but you are really more than a few centuries late for that mark. :p

[Citizen Bleys]

The only thing Old English has in common with anything spoken today is that it was called English. It would be completely unintelligible to a modern english speaker. The suggestion of going back to Old or even Elizabethan English, is a raving reductio ad absurdum. Let it go. Reductio ad absurdum is not logic, it's the opposite of logic

[qwertysaur]

I never said I wanted to use Old English. :p

Also most people might think Shakespeare would be how Elizabethan English (Early Modern English) was commonly used, but remember that the majority of his work is poetry, not prose. Much Ado About Nothing is an example of a work that consists largely of prose so one should keep that in mind when reading his works. (To tell if the specific passage is poetry or prose look at capitalization. Prose will follow standard conventions, poetry will always have the first letter of the line capitalized in addition to standard conventions.)

It is reductio ad absurdum to go back to how a language was in the past. By that same logic is would be reductio ad absurdum to resist the evolution of a language. Like it or not, you use British English, I use Standard American English.

[Peegee]

The only thing Old English has in common with anything spoken today is that it was called English. It would be completely unintelligible to a modern english speaker. The suggestion of going back to Old or even Elizabethan English, is a raving reductio ad absurdum. Let it go. Reductio ad absurdum is not logic, it's the opposite of logic

to be fair rubahs was correct that USA was around before Queen Victoria.

So they have no need to speak the Queen's english

a better argument is why they don't speak the spoken english of the year 1776

[Citizen Bleys]

By that same logic is would be reductio ad absurdum to resist the evolution of a language. Like it or not, you use British English, I use Standard American English.

The very thesis of the entire rant is that bad grammar is not evolution any more than growing giant poisonous spikes on your junk is evolution.

Also, did anybody read anything but the joke about British English? Any of it at all? Because you all seem to think that's not only the main point of what I'm saying, but all that I'm saying. There's some pretty funny stuff in there. I made fun of trailer trash and everything.

[qwertysaur]

Until now I did skim the thread, because walls of text don't mix with ADD, my apologies. Also interesting that Firefox likes the word monolingual but not unilingual.

Evolution: Gradual change over time. There is never any distinction that the change will always be positive. When it's clearly a change backwards it's usually called devolution, so you can consider the addition of irregardless as such. But it's always much easier to make that call retroactively.

Also you read this article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12689692) as well I take? Or is this just a random coincidence.

[spirit]

This thread is very involved for a GC thread. I thought it might be such a cool, deep subject but I wasn't sure. I just kept avoiding it. Nothing to really add this many pages into it, especially because I haven't read most the thread.

[NorthernChaosGod]

By that same logic is would be reductio ad absurdum to resist the evolution of a language. Like it or not, you use British English, I use Standard American English.

The very thesis of the entire rant is that bad grammar is not evolution any more than growing giant poisonous spikes on your junk is evolution.

Also, did anybody read anything but the joke about British English? Any of it at all? Because you all seem to think that's not only the main point of what I'm saying, but all that I'm saying. There's some pretty funny stuff in there. I made fun of trailer trash and everything.
The thread is more fun this way.

[Citizen Bleys]

Also you read this article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12689692) as well I take? Or is this just a random coincidence.


What? No! Eww.

This was inspired by a couple of David Mitchell rants, which is why I come across sounding like David Mitchell (albeit with a Canadian accent)

[Madonna]

(albeit with a Canadian accent)I must have missed all the eh's and references to Tim Hortons.

[theundeadhero]

I did get a visual of Bleys wearing a nice red coat while riding a horse at the time though.

[NorthernChaosGod]

I did get a visual of Bleys wearing a nice red coat while riding a horse at the time though.

You know, I can see it too.

[Citizen Bleys]

I did get a visual of Bleys wearing a nice red coat while riding a horse at the time though.

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O'erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height. On, on, you noblest English.
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

[Yar]

If English stopped evolving/adapting/growing/whatever, it would be a dead.

Standards are put into place for a reason. Thanks to these standards, languages don't have the ability to "evolve" as much as they had before.

So yeah, all I got out of the original post was a rant against idiots and their poor usage of English. I agree with that stance, but I really don't know what else you are trying to say.

The only thing there is that I have a dispute with is your Yeargdribble-esque title for this thread: "'The natural evolution of language' utter crap". It's not. Languages do grow and evolve. It's just better observed in languages that haven't been as standardized as ours.

[Citizen Bleys]

Yeargdribble-esque

You do realize that I regard that as a compliment, right?