I probably get it right 95% of the time, but I live in fear of getting busted by someone I’ve targeted with holier than thou grammar policing.
It’s = it is (or it has).
It’s is never a possessive. Unless you encounter something really strange like “I loved Cousin It’s appearances on The Addams Family.”
Likewise, her’s and our’s and your’s are also wrong. I haven’t seen anyone use hi’s yet but I suppose I will someday.
Spoken conversation is full of pauses, changes of tone and volume and many other variations. That is what gives it “personality”. Punctuation in written English does the same sort of job (albeit imperfectly). Your written English does not gain “personality” by being unpunctuated, or inadequately punctuated, it just gets turned into a dull mush.
None of this, however, has anything to do with grammar, or with teh language changing over time. There is nothing new about people who can’t, or can’t be bothered to, punctuate properly. Bad (i.e., dull and unexpressive) writing has always been with us.
I disagree with that generalization. Cormac McCarthy uses spare capitalization and punctuation and his writing is neither dull nor unexpressive.
Not everyone thinks that. I read two of his books, No Country for Old Men and The Road, both after watching the movies they were based on. The movies were great; the books were damn hard to get through because of his obnoxious writing style. Not for me.
McCarthy is a trained professional. People shouldn’t try this at home.
I looked at OP’s previous posts and saw nothing wrong except lack of capitalization. That lack makes it somewhat annoying and slightly difficult for me to read, but a young person, trained on twitters and tweets, might not feel that way. I think following capitalization rules is much more polite, respectable, and easier to read. But take what I say “with a grain of salt”: I’m one of the anal-retentive purists who detests C code not written in The True Style™.
And I’m damned sure many Dopers find my writings much much more objectionable than yours, even though mine aren’t too bad on grammar and punctuation. :rolleyes:
My mother liked
“Time flies … you can’t … they fly too quickly.”
I also find such misspellings annoying, but you know what? I’ve been doing it myself a lot lately. :smack:
And it’s not ignorance about simple spelling. I do more unusual substitutions, e.g. “value” where “vowel” was intended. Two completely different words, but similar enough in spelling that they may share some brain synapses. I now have to Preview and proofread when posting here, or many of my messages would be bizarre.
I blame it partly on old age (though I consider the early 60’s as still middle-aged 
), but have noticed younger Dopers occasionally making similar errors. I might guess that it happens with typing but not handwriting … but I do far too little handwriting these days to test that hypothesis.
Fascinating thread!
My partner originates from Port Antonio, Jamaica and regularly corresponds via Facebook with her friends and relatives there. They use a sort of adaptation of English, which is usally understandable, but which corresponds largely with the way the words sound if said in a broad Jamaican twang (or accent).
I love listening to Jamaicans talk in this sort of patois, burt wince when I see it spelt out… is that degradation or reasonable adaptation?
Heh, that took me a sec, but I love it.
It’s doing both. And evolving.
As a whole, it’s simply changing. Certain details may be decreasing, and others may be increasing; other aspects are simply changing. For example - punctuation usage might decrease, while at the same time new words are coming into play.
“Degrading” really is the wrong word to use, as it’s a word which implies a lesser state; “changing” is a much better word.
I have limited experience too; but the point I’ve seen made is that dialects or variants of language (like Ebonics, Southern U.S. speech, Cockney, etc.) do have rules of their own. What may well look, to an outsider, like “degraded” language—sloppiness, disregard for the rules of proper speech—is actually a matter of following different rules and conventions. So the existence of dialects/variants should not be taken as an excuse to say that rules don’t matter and anything goes, but they do mean that the rules of the “standard” dialect (or of one’s own dialect) shouldn’t be assumed to be The One True Speech.
I think—and this has been brought up before in other threads—that some people are more auditory in their approach to language, while others are more visual. (Though I don’t mean to imply that everyone is purely one or the other.)
For example, to an auditory language person, a word is essentially a set of sounds with a particular meaning, and the spelling of that word is just a way of transliterating that sound. So they have trouble distinguishing between, for example, “there” and “their” and “they’re,” because from an auditory standpoint they’re the same. To a visual language person, a word is essentially an arrangement of letters, and its pronunciation is just a way of speaking those letters. So “there” and “their” and “they’re” are obviously three different words (with “there” apparently related to “here,” and “they’re” obviously a contraction).
And perhaps these two types have different approaches to things like punctuation. (For example, what’s a comma? Is it a symbol indicating where someone pauses in their speech, or is it a symbol used to clarify how a sentence is constructed (where the separate clauses are, for instance)?)
I suspect that you (punch line loser) are more of an auditory type, which may help explain where you’re coming from on this issue.
A little of both. Some of the change has been good. We’ve loosened up on certain stuffy rules and incorporated and adapted loads of new words and usages. On the other hand, we are also obfuscating the usage of certain words that we have not yet created a replacement for in common usage. Many terms that we consider inflammatory like “racist”, for example, used to have very specific definitions. This was because there exist other terms to describe related conditions such as “discriminatory”, “ethnocentric”, “nationalistic”, etc. Previously, people understood the differences and employed them carefully. We have degraded the language a bit here and thus we have a lot of people who assume that those terms mean whatever they want them to.
That’s why regional dialects are said to be non-standard. Granted, the meaning is understood, but unless it is understood that today we are using non-standard features it IS incorrect. Correctness and standardised usage are two separate issues, although not entirely unrelated.
Yes, it’s snobbery up to a point, but the ability to use the correct variety of English for a given context does say things. The uber-prescriptivists will try to tell you that the correct variety at all times is described in the likes of Elements of Style, but they are spectacularly wrong. Up with them I will not put. There is always a balance to be struck between sticking (roughly) to the standard and innovating or using non-standard features.
A more relaxed standard is perfectly permissible up until the point at which you lose clarity of expression and others stop understanding you. Admittedly, that can happen even when you’re using absolutely correct language according to the local style, but you will at least have been seen to be making an effort. The length of the post is roughly proportional to how strictly most sane people will hold you to the standard. To get advanced points across you may want to ensure as much linguistic common ground as possible. If I were to rewrite this post in my native dialect, with its altered grammar and Old Norse words, few (if any) of you would understand me. Reading dialect is pretty hard for them that don’t speak it (and quite hard for them that do). It’s a bit like how you modify your accent when you’re on the phone. Mine gets markedly softer because I have to repeat things half a dozen times if I don’t.
I say a language can experience degredation, when useful and meaningful words become vague or inexpressive. C. S. lewis wrote about one he knew of, where the word “gentleman,” which had a specific social meaning, got turned into a clone fo the word “polite.” That adaptation ultimately added nothing to the language, but did in fact remove a useful word in British society.
I’d also say you can have a neutral, accent-less language. It’s just unlikely to be the “Queen’s English” or whatever the local equivalent is. It’s likely to be a relatively uninteresting polyglot with very careful speech and no emphasis. In the United States, some midwestern regions come close to this, having some of the most undistinguished speakng anywhere. 
The standards ARE arbitrary, but by adhering to them you make things easier for your reader. Sure, most of the time the reader can puzzle out what you mean from the context, but why should he have to? Reading through prose that doesn’t use standard grammar, capitalization, punctuation, or spelling is like walking through sticky mud – you can still get to your destination, but the trip is more awkward and labored.
Of course, what constitutes standard prose gradually changes over time. A passage that’s easy to read now will be less so in a hundred years. And even less in two hundred years. The evolution of language is natural and unavoidable. But at any given moment there will be a particular way of writing that will allow you to communicate particularly clearly. The long-term pliability of language is no excuse for not communicating effectively RIGHT NOW.
Exactly. The latter is fine, if that’s what you’re going for. But if you want people to understand the implication of the latter, you’ll have to have previously demonstrated to them your mastery of the correct form. After all, when someone who’s never said anything smart says something dumb, you don’t assume that they were being ironic this time.
But during the same period of time we’ve added hundreds wore words. Heck, thousands. Words go in and out of the language to be sure, but the OP refers to the sentiment that the language as a whole is losing some sort of general quality. That’s just not true. Turning the meaning of the word “gentleman” into something else is offset by a zillion other additions (quite often, words stolen from other languages) and clarifications.
It’s all a matter of perspective, but I think most of my English teachers would’ve killed me if I constructed the above fragment… :eek:
So in honor of them, I vote that it’s degrading. Though I really don’t care. 
WTF? English is gr8. No prob, yo!