I've been spelling hierarchy wrong for years.

[Llamas]

It's informal, just like saying "me no understandy" is an informal phrase - we're all agreed the syntax doesn't look too good, I think. But using such bad grammar in a job interview would be akin to showing up in your pyjamas.

Ah, but not necessarily. In areas where double negatives are considered normal and part of the dialect, it's completely acceptable to use them in something like a job interview.

And on a more personal basis, I feel convinced we can use ANY style, provided we understand what we're saying (as Rick mentions) and we master the language. Some people would let the language master them, and that's not good, to me. Cause they simply don't know any better, which is sad. There are times when you have to show you've got some education. Language isn't only a communication tool. Its purposes include discrimination. Talk like a scholar, and you'll pass off for one. Talk like a gangsta rappa, and you'll pass off for one. Both "groups" might like - for any reason - to discriminate. So talk wisely...

Just wanted to point out that your English communication skills have vastly increased in the time I've been at this bbs. You have stopped typing here like you would type a formal paper, and you use words that part of your everyday vocabulary, rather than trying to use extremely complex sentences with as many non-common words as possible. I just wanted to give you props for your progress. It's so much less irritating to communicate with you now.

[Free?]

Andrei, what do you mean "your teachers left holes in you"? Did they use gimlets or sth? Central Europe is so barbaric. Well, I wouldn't know, in France we use two genres, feminine and masculine, we don't have neutral, so we have to learn it, but it's not too difficult, is it? You just learn "his/her/its" and Bob's your uncle.

Bah, even Englishmen confuse their "it's", so no bother...

I like to use phrases that could have different meanings, I like it even more when someone can "use" them .

And actually "Bob's your uncle" would be a wrong example of what I was trying to say; it was meant to be like "Bob's socks", the possession, not contraction of "Bob is".
...or it's me who didn't get the inside joke of you this time ?

[_Lost_]

That kind of person

o i c. i lrn2type real gud n stuff.

[Vera]

See, actually, we'd probably all still be speaking some sort of proto-indo European language. English evolved from German which evolved from some extinct proto-indo European language... and most evolution in language is due to simplifying things. Even double negatives such as "I didn't get no sleep" are now considered grammatically correct. It's fine to be annoyed by these things, but to argue against these changes is pretty archaic. Most linguists and grammarians have learned to accept these things, and so should you.

Once heard an argument against this, asking why would these complex forms develop in the first place if they would be eliminated by language "evolution"? It might be the case for English but if all languages are constantly becoming more simple, how come Finnish and other languages still have 15-20 grammatic cases?

[Llamas]

Once heard an argument against this, asking why would these complex forms develop in the first place if they would be eliminated by language "evolution"? It might be the case for English but if all languages are constantly becoming more simple, how come Finnish and other languages still have 15-20 grammatic cases?

lol yeah, Finnish is pretty fucked up.

A lot of complex forms developed due to a couple things. First of all, when language is at its very youngest, it's the most complex due to the fact that, when people start creating/speaking a language, they don't have the knowledge that there are easier ways to do it. There's no groundwork, there's nothing to compare it to... there's a Demetri Martin joke that sort of fits with this, about how, when they were naming fruits and vegetables, they must have named the orange before they named the carrot :P Just the idea that language was sort of made up as it went along, and as it was necessary to come up with new words, tenses, etc. I'm no Finnish expert, but part of the reason it has not evolved toward simplicity as well as a language like English is just due to the sheer numbers of people who speak it. The more people there are that speak a language, the more it's going to evolve. Finnland, as far as I know, is the only place in the world where people speak Finnish (obviously besides people who moved to new places and whatever). Only the people IN Finnland need to be able to understand each other... there is less influence from other dialects across the world, or even within the country... it's just less people. So the language does not evolve so well.

Another thing about Finnish is that it doesn't have a history of being used as much in the nation's history, especially with the status of the written language. It really truly just has not had much of a chance to evolve the way the Germanic languages, for instance, have.

[bighead384]

I don't understand the desire to learn another language unless somehow you're going to make a shitload of money off of it. Some people really like to learn I guess.

[Llamas]

I don't understand the desire to learn another language unless somehow you're going to make a shitload of money off of it. Some people really like to learn I guess.

There are a lot of reasons people choose to learn a foreign language. It's fun, it can come in useful at various points in your life, you may learn something about a new culture or country that you didn't know, etc etc etc. Plus, learning a language helps your brain with acquiring other things, too. It's a different kind of learning from a lot of things, so it works out different parts of your brain.

Not everyone focuses what they study or do in life around money... I study German and teaching English as a second language because I truly enjoy these subjects and they're just what I want to do in life. Make sense? :P

[Vera]

Bit of a too evolutionist model for me to fully accept - also stinks of ethnocentrism (European languages are simple, therefore all other languages must be evolving to become more simple). Most languages are spoken by small groups of people, but there's constant interaction from language to language in even the most secluded, complex languages. And it's not like English has been the connecting language of the world for a long while; the change in the language of science towards English dominating it has been quite recent, in fact.

[Llamas]

Bit of a too evolutionist model for me to fully accept - also stinks of ethnocentrism (European languages are simple, therefore all other languages must be evolving to become more simple). Most languages are spoken by small groups of people, but there's constant interaction from language to language in even the most secluded, complex languages. And it's not like English has been the connecting language of the world for a long while; the change in the language of science towards English dominating it has been quite recent, in fact.

But English has been around and actively used for a much longer time than a lot of other languages, especially because English is closer to the very first German than even modern German is.

Again, I'm not an expert on other languages like Finnish and such (I keep trying to make this clear :P), I'm just going off of what I've learned from linguists. It's theory, of course. The bigger and more common/powerful a language is, the more it tends to evolve, though. I'm not even really sure what we're debating here, lol... damn it.

[Vera]

But English has been around and actively used for a much longer time than a lot of other languages, especially because English is closer to the very first German than even modern German is.

Again, I'm not an expert on other languages like Finnish and such (I keep trying to make this clear :P), I'm just going off of what I've learned from linguists. It's theory, of course. The bigger and more common/powerful a language is, the more it tends to evolve, though. I'm not even really sure what we're debating here, lol... damn it.

I guess I'm sort of getting these vibes off the whole language evolution thing that because English is simple (and not in all ways it really isn't, but you probably know that), it's more evolved than the complex languages and therefore "better". Which is really just all sorts of questionable on so many levels (not to mention offensive). Like I said, why would any language have complex forms just for them to be stripped off by the process of evolution? A language is as it needs to be - while I'm kind of falling into a functionalist fallacy here headfirst, I do rather believe in this - and it evolves as it does as the world of the people using it re-shapes itself.

So basically, I'd say, to say "English evolved like this" is fine but to apply that to all languages everywhere? Hold your horses. A lot of data is missing to track down some languages that haven't really had a written language for over a thousand years or so (Finnish was written for the first time in 1450) so who's to say how it's evolved before that? I suppose a lot of very good work is done by linguists but it's got to be hugely hypothetical. Has Finnish become more simple, I honestly don't know. It's changed, for sure, to fit the needs of modern Finns but evolved into something more simple, wouldn't be too sure.