Should the integrity of the English language be protected against bastardisation?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@kaylasdad99

Dude, if you think somehow you’re championing prescriptivism, let me tell you; you’re being horribly ineffective at it.

Indeed. An near-incoherent argument for prescriptivism is decidedly ironical.

[Stanislaus]

I missed this first time I around - I suspect my brain refused to lay down even a short-term memory of it. Thanks, brain. However, the crusade against dumbing down of the language by people who do not read or endeavour to learn to spell must continue.

NB I’ve taken the liberty of removing size tags. Partly because they’re visually obnoxious, but mainly to illustrate that exuberant typography is no substitute for clear and emphatic language.

@iLemming

Herein lurks my underlying, albeit florally vested, point:

If your point is “herein”, it cannot also be “underlying”. In the next breath you see fit to clothe your point, a confusion which, at best, suggests a corpse sealed in an underground chamber. Others may feel your point is best left undisturbed, but you needn’t be too eager to encourage this perception.

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.

Neither of the commas in the first sentence is necessary. By making “in order to communicate” a subordinate clause, you suggest it could be removed from the sentence without affecting its meaning. This is odd, given that communication is your topic. If you are going to disparage the use of text-era shorthand, don’t use an emoticon immediately afterwards. “Miss-sounded-out”, presumably, is an acquaintance of yours. Perhaps you meant to say “mis-sounded-out” but did not sufficiently endeavour to learn to spell. In any case the construction is clumsy: “malapropism”, or the modern “eggcorn” would be considerably more elegant.

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.

Does Homer J. own a spade? Or did you mean to address more than one Homer J.? If the latter, your apostrophe is inopportune. The comma after the parenthetical phrase is unnecessary - that is why we have parentheses.

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.

The metal is nickel, not nickle - an easy mistake to make but one that leaves you open to the suggestion that you do not read or endeavour to learn to spell, apparently. There is no conceivable explanation for the quotes around “unironically” - you surely can’t mean to suggest that the use you deplore is anything *other *than unironic. If you mean by “eruct” that people use “wont” rather “won’t” in speech, this is incoherent - apostrophes are not a feature of spoken language. Your inability to grasp the meaning of “availing” has already been mentioned, so I won’t dwell on it here. You make a major rhetorical error by suggesting that the definition of words is a matter of “custom/habit/consuetude” - in an argument about prescriptivism this amounts to selling the pass. People drop out *of *colleges, not *for *them. Again, the scare-quotes around “check” make no sense. Rhetorically, I cannot stress too much the risk you take in using loaded words like “Ghetto” in a discussion about intelligence - coupled with the many, many unfortunate errors in your attempt to take others to task over their mistaken use of language, readers may form the false impression that you’re an insecure racist with a bad case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome. This may detract from their willingness to take your thesis seriously.

Surely, such slovenly traits are not to be encouraged, much less lauded… surely?! :dubious:

Indeed. With thought however, you may find a means to express your ideas with words rather than pictographs.

There is more, but as this exercise is genuinely painful, and doubtless futile, I am going to stop here.

[VinylTurnip]

Yes, it’s time for some mercy. I’m actually beginning to pity the dolt.

[Srsly_Dad]

@Azeotrope

It’s like watching a random text generator have a stroke. :eek:

This one wins. I spit diet pepsi all over my keyboard when I read it.