# Should the integrity of the English language be protected against bastardisation? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 14, 2016, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-integrity-of-the-english-language-be-protected-against-bastardisation/765906 "2016-09-14T02:51:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-integrity-of-the-english-language-be-protected-against-bastardisation/765906/121 "2016-09-15T16:33:12Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I hope you’re trying be ironic, because you are a terrible writer. I’m not saying this to be mean. I just think there’s a chance you actually tried hard and ended up with this shit. Maybe his purpose is too intensive. ---
**Author:** ![Azeotrope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/0ea827/32.png) [@Azeotrope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Azeotrope)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-integrity-of-the-english-language-be-protected-against-bastardisation/765906/122 "2016-09-15T16:34:53Z")
It’s like watching a random text generator have a stroke. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Corner\_Case](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/corner_case/32/234_2.png) [@Corner\_Case](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corner_Case)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-integrity-of-the-english-language-be-protected-against-bastardisation/765906/123 "2016-09-15T17:41:01Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > OP needs to invest in some Sanity. \_Oh, you can’t-a fool me! There ain’t no Sanity Clause!_\ ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-integrity-of-the-english-language-be-protected-against-bastardisation/765906/124 "2016-09-15T17:46:16Z")
> [@fachverwirrt](#): > > That’s all very nice for “all intents and purposes”, but there are plenty of idioms whose meaning has no relation to their words (that’s kind of what "idiom"means). The reasonably intelligent ESL student won’t be able to tease out the meaning of “piece of cake” or “Bob’s your uncle” (to get British for a second) without help from a native speaker. If writers can’t presume their audience has a grasp of idiom, they can’t use idiom, which is a ludicrously restrictive standard. But as **Nava** already said, in most cases one can infer the meaning of an idiom from the context and the meaning of the constituent words – idioms like “barking up the wrong tree”, “let sleeping dogs lie”, “add insult to injury”, or “taste of your own medicine”, are practically self-evident. > [@fachverwirrt](#): > > Then there shouldn’t be any problem teasing out “for all intensive purposes” if the context is clear, should there? Yes, there should, because it bears not the remotest resemblance to the intended meaning; the best that can be hoped for is that an English speaker familiar with the actual expression will recognize the _ **phonetic** _ similarity and think, “the moron probably means ‘for all intents and purposes’”. This is not a question of linguistics, or semantics, or idiomatic imagery. It’s more a question of the reader being able to decode cryptography. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Seriously? Allow me to save the puppy for you: odds are **overwhelming** that the writer means the same thing as the idiom “for all intents and purposes,” which in turn means “essentially, let’s not nitpick things, you know what I’m talking about.” First of all “for all intents and purposes” isn’t an idiom, it’s a straightforward common expression. And “for all intensive purposes” isn’t an idiom, either, in any language that I speak. I think it’s worth noting that when someone like Steven Pinker analyzes non-standard usage and, as he often does, defends it against the mavens of language and the Keepers of the Faith, he does so for what he, at least, regards as good and valid linguistic reason. In particular, he believes there is more power and ultimately more validity in our unconscious sense of language than in some of the more pedantic prescriptions for usage. But note how this works. In the much discussed “Jane and me went to the store” example, or “you and I” used in the objective case, there are a handful of linguists who argue that both can be considered correct for about as many different reasons, although a common theme is that there’s no real reason that the case of the pronouns within a conjunction should necessarily have to agree with the case of the conjunction itself. Likewise one might argue that “I don’t have no money” isn’t necessarily ungrammatical, at least in certain informal registers, and that it reflects our instinct for interpreting double negatives as reinforcing rather than neutralizing the negation, as is the case in many languages. And so on and so forth. You see where this is going. “For all intensive purposes” doesn’t come from that sense of language or creativity that one might argue should be given primacy over the prescriptively-bound establishment. It’s certainly in a different class than those other examples; at the very least, it’s a malapropism, a mistake arising from ignorance. It’s not even an [eggcorn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn). There’s no other way to look at it, and the sheer irrationality of it obfuscates the language. That makes it qualitatively undesirable. Some things, like most malapropisms, are just stupid and should be stamped out with hammers. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-integrity-of-the-english-language-be-protected-against-bastardisation/765906/125 "2016-09-15T17:53:48Z")
But what about “For all ingrates and porpoises”? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-integrity-of-the-english-language-be-protected-against-bastardisation/765906/126 "2016-09-15T17:56:40Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Guma, þu springan se greet fisc! (rough translation for you who are using a bastardized version of English…Man, you jumped the shark! Sorry, there is apparently no old English word for ‘shark’ in the translation software I used, so I went with large fish instead. :p) When in doubt about something, I always look it up in Wikipedia. And, indeed, [þā Engliscan Wikipǣdie](https://ang.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C4%93afodtramet) has the answer: the Old English for “shark” is “[sǣhund](https://ang.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C7%A3hund)”. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-integrity-of-the-english-language-be-protected-against-bastardisation/765906/127 "2016-09-15T18:04:48Z")
Or “sea dog”. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-integrity-of-the-english-language-be-protected-against-bastardisation/765906/128 "2016-09-15T18:15:47Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > When in doubt about something, I always look it up in Wikipedia. And, indeed, [þā Engliscan Wikipǣdie](https://ang.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C4%93afodtramet) has the answer: the Old English for “shark” is “[sǣhund](https://ang.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C7%A3hund)”. > [@Chimera](#): > > Or “sea dog”. 😛 Hmm, isn’t that what seals are called in some other Germanic languages? ---
**Author:** ![Norse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a9adbd/32.png) [@Norse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Norse)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-integrity-of-the-english-language-be-protected-against-bastardisation/765906/129 "2016-09-15T18:48:39Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > Hmm, isn’t that what seals are called in some other Germanic languages? Close, but not quite. The [harbor seal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbor_seal) (_Phoca vitulina_) is known as “[Seehund](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seehund)” in German. The second most common seal in German waters, the [grey seal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_seal) (_Halichoerus grypus_) is called [Kegelrobbe](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kegelrobbe). ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-integrity-of-the-english-language-be-protected-against-bastardisation/765906/130 "2016-09-15T19:30:15Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > First of all “for all intents and purposes” isn’t an idiom, it’s a straightforward common expression. And “for all intensive purposes” isn’t an idiom, either, in any language that I speak. You often wonder why, when we agree on so much, I get so irritated with you. [This is an example why](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/for--all--intents--and--purposes): you correct people incorrectly. > [@Random House Dictionary](#): > > Idioms > 5. > to /for all intents and purposes, for all practical purposes; practically speaking; virtually “For all intensive purposes” is of course idiomatic; to suggest otherwise is to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what an idiom is. > [@](#): > > I think it’s worth noting that when someone like Steven Pinker analyzes non-standard usage and, as he often does, defends it against the mavens of language and the Keepers of the Faith, he does so for what he, at least, regards as good and valid linguistic reason. In particular, he believes there is more power and ultimately more validity in our unconscious sense of language than in some of the more pedantic prescriptions for usage. But note how this works. > > … > You see where this is going. “For all intensive purposes” doesn’t come from that sense of language or creativity that one might argue should be given primacy over the prescriptively-bound establishment. It’s certainly in a different class than those other examples; at the very least, it’s a malapropism, a mistake arising from ignorance. It’s not even an [eggcorn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn). There’s no other way to look at it, and the sheer irrationality of it obfuscates the language. That makes it qualitatively undesirable. Some things, like most malapropisms, are just stupid and should be stamped out with hammers. Of course it’s an eggcorn, in addition to being an idiom. Just to be sure, I Googled the phrase–virtually every discussion of “for all intensive purposes” mentions its eggcornosity. Again, you don’t know what you’re talking about, and you should be aware of the irony of your using such ignorant arguments to call other folks stupid. If someone asked me to edit their grant application, and they used “for all intensive purposes,” I’d tell them to change it. Hell, if a third grader used the phrase in his writing I get him to change it. In neither case would I be telling them to change it because it’s “meaningless gibberish,” because it’s clearly not. I’d be telling them to change it because you, or someone like you, might be among their readers. In exactly this same way, and for exactly this same reason, I might suggest someone replace “niggardly” with a different word in their writing: not because there’s anything wrong with the word, but because some ignorant readers would take unnecessary offense at it, and it’s not worth the headache. ---
**Author:** ![gnoitall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gnoitall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnoitall)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-integrity-of-the-english-language-be-protected-against-bastardisation/765906/131 "2016-09-15T19:44:05Z")
> [@iLemming](#): > > Herein lurks my underlying, albeit florally vested, point: > The need for people to use their brains, in order to communicate, is becoming of lesser and lesser importance. Be it the shorthand acronyms and initialisms brought about through necessity as an offshoot of the limited-character “texting” (:rolleyes:) Age, or thus ‘miss-sounded-out’ expression in question – the resultant dumbing down of the language is undeniable. > > C’mon – sweep the caltrops of ‘offence’ aside for once and let us call a ‘dig stick’ a spade, Homer J.'s: **only those that do not read or endeavour to learn to spell (…you know, proper-like), would misinterpret such expressions and phrases in the manner they all too often demonstrate.** I’d wager a refulgent, pristine, fresh from the Palestinian nickle mine, _Bank of Yaweh’s Chosen Ones_ shekel, that 99% of those not ‘academically endowed’ who ‘unironically’ write / type / eruct the word “wont”, are not availing its definition of **custom / habit / consuetude** ; rather, the dingleberries actually intend to mean **WON’T** … but are [both] too lazy to scribe / hen-peck an opportune apostrophe, much less pick up a dictionary (post dropping out for _Ghetto Creed Community College_) to “check” their bastardisation privilege. Surely, such slovenly traits are not to be encouraged, much less lauded… surely?! :dubious: > > If neuroscience teaches us that something as rudimentary as taking a different rat race route to our work-a-day iCubicals, can help to stave of degenerative brain disease, what net, long term effect does, for yawl intestine proposals, _dumbing down_ our most fundamental mode of interacting with society? It must, therefore. follow that if the “affirmative action” of lowering the threshold for required neural pathway construction is instituted, thereby reducing the quantum of neural pathways that are created, ergo the extant neural pathways diminished, and resultant brain activity constricted; vis-à-vis, we arive at … M.A.G.A.!! > > I am not even remotely postulating that new words should not be recognised in the gamut of English vocabulary. Neologisms have built the English language – 'twas always thus and always thus shall be. My assertion is that the systematic simplification of speaking and communicating - for a language that is not even approaching Klingon level in its complexity - has inimical side-effects that pollute farther out into our spæcial (bring it, n00bs! 🆒) seas than merely how titillated teenagers “sext” their “dick / tit pic”-accompanying pillow talk to one another. > > Make no mistake, my watery-eared readers – this rabbit hole descends deep and will become as dark and as swarthy[¹] as night. I am anything but niggardly[²]. Thus I am here offering my humble Mad Hatter services, at your oblige–as a guide, to your eyes-wide-shut selves’–torchbearer of enlightenment and elucidation–so we, together, brothers in arms, can delve into the miasma of obfuscation and Machiavellian mystery, weaved by the Bohemian Grooves and Bilderburger reptilians, on the chemtrail laced, gold-bullion-backed trek towards… the truth! > [1] That’s not what it reads / ‘sounds out’ like… > [2] No offen[SIZE=“5”]ce intended to any cherry-picking[³] BLM readers[/SIZE] > [3] To reiterate: that’s cherry-picking – [SIZE=“5”] **CHERRY** [/SIZE] …uh oh :eek: The English language just stopped by to drop off a message. “Please stop defending me. You’re totes making it worse. Kthxbuhbye.” ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-integrity-of-the-english-language-be-protected-against-bastardisation/765906/132 "2016-09-15T20:15:36Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > You often wonder why, when we agree on so much, I get so irritated with you. [This is an example why](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/for--all--intents--and--purposes): you correct people incorrectly. The irritation goes both ways. A more precise definition of an idiom is a phrase that is [categorized as formulaic language, an idiom’s figurative meaning is different from the literal meaning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom). You can truly be said to be barking up the wrong tree here, but there is nevertheless no tree, and no dog, anywhere in sight. If you’re getting a taste of your own medicine, there are no pharmaceuticals being dispensed. If, however, you are wrong for (or to) all intents and purposes, then you are indeed wrong for any intent or purpose to which this argument may be directed. If you want to pick dictionaries that endorse a broad meaning of “idiom” as any common expression, then one has to define a class of idiom explicitly meaning “figurative expression”, which constrains one to figurative expressions whose imagery actually fucking means something sensible, and not merely an excuse for an ignorant malapropism. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > “For all intensive purposes” is of course idiomatic; to suggest otherwise is to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what an idiom is. Which you’ve already betrayed, along with a fundamental misunderstanding of the basis on which linguists like Pinker explain non-standard usage. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Of course it’s an eggcorn, in addition to being an idiom. Maybe – it’s hard to say, eggcorn being a recent neologism. You’d have to ask Geoff Pullum. I have the impression that the bolded part at the end is relevant: [[an eggcorn] introduces a meaning that is different from the original **but plausible in the same context** ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn). ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-integrity-of-the-english-language-be-protected-against-bastardisation/765906/133 "2016-09-15T20:31:04Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The irritation goes both ways. A more precise definition of an idiom is a phrase that is [categorized as formulaic language, an idiom’s figurative meaning is different from the literal meaning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom). You can truly be said to be barking up the wrong tree here, but there is nevertheless no tree, and no dog, anywhere in sight. If you’re getting a taste of your own medicine, there are no pharmaceuticals being dispensed. If, however, you are wrong for (or to) all intents and purposes, then you are indeed wrong for any intent or purpose to which this argument may be directed. If you want to pick dictionaries that endorse a broad meaning of “idiom” as any common expression, then one has to define a class of idiom explicitly meaning “figurative expression”, which constrains one to figurative expressions whose imagery actually fucking means something sensible, and not merely an excuse for an ignorant malapropism. > Which you’ve already betrayed, along with a fundamental misunderstanding of the basis on which linguists like Pinker explain non-standard usage. > Maybe – it’s hard to say, eggcorn being a recent neologism. You’d have to ask Geoff Pullum. I have the impression that the bolded part at the end is relevant: [[an eggcorn] introduces a meaning that is different from the original **but plausible in the same context** ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn). Oh for fuck’s sake. You never back down, do you, no matter how often you’re shown to be wrong? This is why I think you’re a tool. Incidentally, your halfwitted attempts at namedropping Stephen Pinker, as if misconstruing his ideas is going to lend an aura of legitimacy to your stupid points, is, and I use this word advisedly, pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-integrity-of-the-english-language-be-protected-against-bastardisation/765906/134 "2016-09-15T20:55:45Z")
> [@Norse](#): > > Close, but not quite. > > The [harbor seal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbor_seal) (_Phoca vitulina_) is known as “[Seehund](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seehund)” in German. Is German not a Germanic language? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-integrity-of-the-english-language-be-protected-against-bastardisation/765906/135 "2016-09-15T21:01:24Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The irritation goes both ways. A more precise definition of an idiom is a phrase that is [categorized as formulaic language, an idiom’s figurative meaning is different from the literal meaning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom). Did you keep reading that Wikipedia entry? It specifically allows for non-figurative language as idiom. ---
**Author:** ![Punoqllads](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d2c977/32.png) [@Punoqllads](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punoqllads)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-integrity-of-the-english-language-be-protected-against-bastardisation/765906/136 "2016-09-15T21:24:42Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > Hmm, isn’t that what seals are called in some other Germanic languages? That’s true for Dutch, according to The Google. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-integrity-of-the-english-language-be-protected-against-bastardisation/765906/137 "2016-09-15T21:40:34Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Oh for fuck’s sake. You never back down, do you, no matter how often you’re shown to be wrong? This is why I think you’re a tool. > > Incidentally, your halfwitted attempts at namedropping Stephen Pinker, as if misconstruing his ideas is going to lend an aura of legitimacy to your stupid points, is, and I use this word advisedly, pathetic. Well, you mama is a stupid halfwitted … wait! Let me try to elevate the terms of discourse, even here in the pit. 😃 “Wrong” is always a term subject to question when applied to language, though I’ve used it myself. My references to Pinker stem from both the fact that I personally know a number of renowned practitioners in the field of cognitive science who have worked with both Chomsky and Pinker and greatly admire Pinker’s exceptional abilities to express himself (though they don’t always agree with his analysis of the nature of the language itself or necessarily his other views on cognition) and from reading some of his many writings on the subject. But many of his observations, I think, are worth noting and understanding in their full context. I myself only cling to the belief that language ultimately has to make sense, in whatever regional or temporal terms we define that. I’ve laid out the reasons for that belief. Pinker’s writings seem to support it. You’ve responded with poor excuses and weak attempts to justify obfuscatory language. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-integrity-of-the-english-language-be-protected-against-bastardisation/765906/138 "2016-09-15T22:31:12Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > My references to Pinker References that are mostly name-dropping, and thus do nothing to support an argument, with one actual (uncited) quote that says nothing about some language being wrong, just sometimes ill-advised. You might benefit from reading the rest of his essay. ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-integrity-of-the-english-language-be-protected-against-bastardisation/765906/139 "2016-09-15T22:37:46Z")
As someone who inwardly cringes when I pass a florist advertising a “bokay”, I sympathize. However, since so many people seem to live in their own private realities, harping on spelling seems a waste of effort. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-integrity-of-the-english-language-be-protected-against-bastardisation/765906/140 "2016-09-15T22:48:04Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Well, you mama is a stupid halfwitted … wait! Let me try to elevate the terms of discourse, even here in the pit. 😃 You can elevate it by not spouting ignorant nonsense, or by admitting when you’re wrong. I don’t give a shit about insults if you’ll start posting more intelligently. Earlier I mentioned how irritating I often find you, and you said it’s mutual. I believe we’re both irritated for the same reason: you’re ignorant. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-integrity-of-the-english-language-be-protected-against-bastardisation/765906.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-integrity-of-the-english-language-be-protected-against-bastardisation/765906.md?page=8)