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

[CoastalMaineiac]

Þú eart wǣr. Englisc ne sceal wrǣsnan.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@swampspruce

I’ve hidden a brace of ravenous miniature weasels in a random pair of your undergarments for using that word…

As much as the pretension in the OP makes me want to drive a croquet mallet sideways up a random personal orifice of their choice, things like this irk me, but at least I can get a laugh out of some of them.

There isn’t really a problem with that sign. I gather we should expect it to say “SORRY WE’RE CLOSED” (and we can forgive the missing comma after “sorry”, given the medium), but “SORRY WE CLOSED” should also be acceptable, as a shortened version of: “We are sorry that we closed the restaurant”. This works a little better if the place was shut down permanently (or at least for an extended period), I admit, and the picture somewhat implies the site is being heavily renovated, possibly demolished.

[XT]

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

No. Was there anything else?

[Telemark]

@swampspruce

I’ve hidden a brace of ravenous miniature weasels in a random pair of your undergarments for using that word…

Why? It’s a perfectly cromulent word.

[Miller]

@wolfpup

Thus, you may now feel free to write a letter like the following:

Dear Sir:

I note with interest that you are seeking a Director of Marketing for your North American operations. I just about squeed when I read the description of this scrumdiddlyumptious job, and I says to myself, you know, you should apply for this, because, like, YOLO, you know? It’s, like, for all intensive purposes the best job ever. My resume is attached.

Love,
(your name here)

Yes, or you could write your resume in the manner of the OP, and end up equally unemployed. Because the question isn’t about “wrong,” it’s about “appropriate to the circumstances.”

@wolfpup

Perhaps, but it seems like a reasonable way to describe something that needs to be corrected. You may prefer a different descriptor, and that’s fine. The real point, however you prefer to describe it, is that some usages are worth trying to change, rather than just accepting them because the usage itself is deemed to be its own justification.

No, that’s not the point that he was making. His post had nothing to do with “usages that are worth trying to change,” which I suspect LHoD understands is both impossible and pointless. His point was about proper context, not “proper” speech.

And, anyway, the OP’s complaint is almost entirely about Americanized spellings of English words, not poor grammar. So not only is he wrong in his quixotic “We must protect the language,” nonsense, the way he’s going about it demonstrates a hilarious level of provincialism.

[Jonathan_Chance]

You know, I thought this could become a debate. But it’s not.

Hmm. To the Pit and begone. Rant away.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Miller]
And, anyway, the OP’s complaint is almost entirely about Americanized spellings of English words, not poor grammar. So not only is he wrong in his quixotic “We must protect the language,” nonsense, the way he’s going about it demonstrates a hilarious level of provincialism.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly. What is it about some Europeans who want to set their language in concrete and freeze it in place…and then get all butt hurt when that doesn’t happen? The French used to (still do afaik) spend a boat load of money each year on trying to weed out any foreign language influence creeping into their standard language (as well as trying to promote French as an international language).

English is and has always been a living language and it continues to grow and be influenced by other languages and cultures as well as by the myriad countries and peoples who use it. I think that’s a good thing. It’s also highly ironic that the OP would get all hurt that we are getting away from the oddities and weirdness of how the Brits have decided to spell things, considering how they were about spelling and uniform rules for grammar through history.

[silenus]

Oh, goody! Now the thread is in the Pit where we can address the OP in the manner he deserves:

Are you a fucking moron or what?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Miller

No, that’s not the point that he was making. His post had nothing to do with “usages that are worth trying to change,” which I suspect LHoD understands is both impossible and pointless. His point was about proper context, not “proper” speech.

Exactly. There are certainly usages that drive me crazy (my own overreliance on adverbs is one of them). But that doesn’t make them categorically wrong. In different contexts, you can accomplish your linguistic aims through using different words, different grammatical structures, different rhetorical devices. It’s primarily about context.

[El_Kabong]

If someone could write another 2500-word essay, in a strange mix of font sizes and X-outs, explaining just what the hell the OP is going on about, I’d really appreciate it. TIA.

[PrimalEnvy]

Being bilingual, I find the number of words taken from French in the OP to be especially hilarious.

[Ludovic]

@El_Kabong

If someone could write another 2500-word essay, in a strange mix of font sizes and X-outs, explaining just what the hell the OP is going on about, I’d really appreciate it. TIA.

Why are you yelling at your aunt?

[madsircool]

@wolfpup

Good one! Because here’s the point. Sure, the OP is satire, even if it wasn’t intended to be. Yes, every reply here critical of the OP is indisputably correct. No one has written more eloquently in defense of descriptivism than Steven Pinker, yet even Pinker acknowledges that some things deserve correction, because in any given time and place, there really is such a thing as “wrong”.

I hasten to add that the good folks at the Oxford English Dictionary recently informed us that “scrumdiddlyumptious” is now officially an English word. So are “YOLO” and “squee”.

Thus, you may now feel free to write a letter like the following:

Dear Sir:

I note with interest that you are seeking a Director of Marketing for your North American operations. I just about squeed when I read the description of this scrumdiddlyumptious job, and I says to myself, you know, you should apply for this, because, like, YOLO, you know? It’s, like, for all intensive purposes the best job ever. My resume is attached.

Love,
(your name here)

The OPs Siamese twin.

[John_Mace]

@iLemming

̶F̶a̶n̶t̶a̶s̶i̶z̶e̶ ------------ FANTASISE (…not the volume of a super-sized, high fructose soda)

You put the wrong “S” in bold letters, you maroon.

[madsircool]

I love his bolded curvzz.

[TheStake]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

“Wrong” is, ironically, the wrong word to use here. Rather, I should say it is an imprecise and misleading word to use.

Certainly “scrumdiddlyumptious” is a poor word choice for most cover letters. But if you’re applying as director of marketing for the Scholastic Book Fair, an adroit use of the word might be exactly the right thing to do.

Similarly, the word “delectable” is by any measure a correct description of a food you enjoy. If Dr. Seuss used the word in the last line of “Green Eggs and Ham,” it would have been a poor word choice.

There are absolutely circumstances under which adopting a certain register is wise or unwise. I would never use the word “YOLO” in a grant proposal. Okay, I would never use that word anyway, because I’m an old fart. It would be such an unwise choice that characterizing it as “wrong” would be, while technically inaccurate, a reasonable approximation of its unwisitudinosity. On the other hand, were I explaining how government works to a classroom of kids who don’t know what state they live in, if I start off by using words like “statute” and “zoning ordinance” and “prohibit” and “jurisdiction,” my word choice is every bit as unwise.

This word bothered me, because I had no idea what it meant. Fighting my own ignorance I googled it. Google knew naught, nor did Bing.

Will someone please educate me on what unwisitudinosity means? It’s bothering me.

[Bryan_Ekers]

My favourite example of another language being bastardized by English: cédérom

[Balance]

@Ravenman

First we ban purple prose.

Aw, but that will interfere with a lot of things I want to post, too. Like: “English has all the integrity of a meth-addled small-town oligarch.”

[Chimera]

To answer the OP: Not as long as you wish English to remain a living language.

[Inner_Stickler]

@TheStake

This word bothered me, because I had no idea what it meant. Fighting my own ignorance I googled it. Google knew naught, nor did Bing.

Will someone please educate me on what unwisitudinosity means? It’s bothering me.

The state or condition of being unwise.