Depends on the audience. If they know I mean ‘pelican’ then we’re cool. If you ever get a chance check out “How to Speak Hip”. You’ll find an amusing and classic take on what happens when a strict pedant type attempts to break down and understand the language of our favorite beatnik: Geets Romo. Cecil himself has sung the praises of Del Close (a true comic master) in his column about jokes in the Bible. Language is more than just rules and definitions. It is a means to an end - and it is that end which is important. The means can be improvised.
Pure gold. Language doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s not just the words - it’s the way we use them. We reveal our culture, background, and history with small verbal clues that, at times, include grammtically incorrect language. When one takes the rules too seriously they risk stomping out some of the things that allow verbal communication to be such a wonderful and versatile tool. However, when one dismisses the rules too much they begin to sound non-sensical to larger and larger groups of people. You’ve got to find the middle road; I’m not advocating an overthrow or anything here. But grammar rules can be broken without damage to the content. When done creatively enough, with intent, doing so can even enrich the content (like in songs or poetry).
There’s a difference between language change as spoken, which you’re talking about, dalovindj, which I fully agree with, and language change as written. The only spelling change I can think of offhand is the common acceptance of ‘tho’ and ‘thru’ for ‘though’ and ‘through’ in informal writing. Spelling is far more frozen than speech, and people are accustomed to seeing something written a specific way.
I think in most American dialects, ‘than’ and ‘then’ sound very similar in speech. The meaning, therefore, is derived purely from context. In writing, however, there is a difference; which vowel is used. In writing, I’d venture that while context is still a heavy factor, the actual spelling of the word is also a factor where it wouldn’t be in speech. It’s both of these factors that make spelling errors so damn irritating, I’d say. You’re reading a sentence, going along fine, and you know a comparative particle is coming up…but you see an ‘e’ where you expect an ‘a’. That trips readers up and annoys them. Most of the time it’s something you can just let pass by–after all, you did get the meaning (usually)–but too many trip-ups can build up and people start getting peevish, and then threads like this get started.
There is also and offense which gives me and aching head along with and irrisistable urge to rant, which is the use of “and” where “an” belongs. I hardly ever saw it until about 4 years ago but now it’s widespread.
Aren’t those sentences nearly impossible to read & comprehend without backtracking and starting over?
In this case, the wrong word can change the meaning of a sentence, as in this example:
“All right, you’re the last contestant, but there’s still one more challenge for you to complete before you can win the prize. You must either eat a worm or drink cow urine! It’s up to you to decide which of these challenges you’d like to do. Here, you can write down your preference on this 3x5 index card during our commercial break and then I’ll announce it to the audience.”
…
“Welcome back to the show! Let’s see what you’ve written. Hmmm… it says here, ‘I’d rather eat a worm then drink cow urine.’ Okay, that’s a rather unusual choice, but I’ll allow it. First you can eat the worm, and after that you can drink the cow urine.”
Er, sorry. That’s supposed to be the only spelling change in recent times that I can think of. There’s other stuff like l33t, but that’s a subculture and nowhere near mainstream acceptance yet, so it’s hardly considered a spelling change.
Actually, dalovindj,
(1) we do have rules which govern why we don’t say “the red big car.” The order is determined by “The Royal Order of Adjectives.”
(2) The example is incorrect. We might say “the red big car” to distinguish it from the blue big car.
To assert that we do these “just because” is often wrong. People often don’t know the rules of language, but they often do make sense and they do exist more often than people think.
There’s a difference between people posting in the heat of the moment and messing up a word when they know better, and people who either don’t know better, or are chronically bad typers. It’s one thing to make a mistake once or twice, quite another to consistently misspell stuff. Unless specifically targeted at the first group, it’s probably safe to assume these rants are targeted at the second group.
That would never have occurred to me. If I’m typing in a hurry I might make a plain old tpyo leve out a letteror space, or I might confirm a word which another word just because my typing fingers know the “shape” of it and it starts the same. But I’m no more likely to type a homonym than a completely unrelated word. Do you “think words in sounds” when writing or reading? I would never ever end up with “they’re” if “there” goes there but I might end up with “these” or “three”.
I definitely think the words to myself as I type. I also occasionally make the errors you describe, but more often the error I describe. Perhaps I’m weird? Or you?
I dunno. Different people process words differently in their heads. I remember a Stephen King novelette, “The Langoliers”. There was a scene early in where a pilot is trying to remember the name of his wife’s perfume and he’s thinking, “What was it? ‘Lawn Boy’, no that’s not it. ‘Long Joy’? Something like that…oh yeah, ‘L’Envoi’!”
And I was thinking, “Stevie, m’boy, you’ve really lost it. That’s not how people remember (or don’t remember) words! That’s stupid! ‘Lawn Boy’ would never come into your mind! You’d be thinking, 'Uh…Enjoli? No, more like ‘L’Amour’ or ‘Je t’adore’…oh yeah, ‘L’Envoi’!”
Or if you can’t remember that the name of your sister’s employer is Perekov you might think ‘Molotov’ or ‘Korsakov’ or even ‘Sonovsky’, but you wouldn’t mis-rememer it as Petty Cough, right?
Except that I expressed this to someone who looked back at me and said that’s exactly how he processes words in his mind. Sounds, not spelling-structures.
-“That” and “which” are not synonyms.
-Dangling modifiers and non-parallel structure are not just picky points of style. They make it difficult or impossible to discern the meaning of the sentence.
I’d never heard of the Royal Order before. Pretty neat. For those who aren’t aware, the order is: Determiner, Observation, Size, Shape, Age, Colour, Origin, Material, Qualifier. Here is a nifty little chart that illustrates the order nicely.
But that would violate the Royal Order, which states that colors (red, blue) should come after descriptions (big). However, I would understand what you meant when you compared the two big cars despite the lack of conformity to the aforementioned order. Once again, it is the communication that is important, not the rules. The rules quite often help to facilitate the communication, but they are not necessarily deal breakers. It cracks me up that you point out the Royal Order in #1 to illustrate that there are rules to be followed, but you then illustrate an example where those same rules break down in #2.
The rules do exist, yes. They have been written down. The point I’m making is that they were written to describe language, not the other way around. Typically, languages have not been created by writing down a bunch of rules and then convincing everyone to follow them. Rather, those rules are written down to describe a language that already exists. If the rules begin to be poor reflections of the language as it is spoken, then the rules should be changed (or ignored - as in the case of the big car comparison).
I’m all for clarity & well-constructed sentences. I have a great passion for the written word and can empathize with how frustrating it can be to read a poorly constructed paragraph. But I also realize that written words are meant to represent a fluid & ever-changing spoken language. Good grammar and good writing skills are admirable qualities, but I cannot bring myself to make conclusions about a person’s character (i.e. ‘lazy’, ‘stupid’, ‘moronic’ etc.) if they lack said qualities. I guess I’ve known too many wonderful & thoughtful people who have poor grammar and/or are terrible typists. I tend to forgive these transgressions if the speaker/writer is able to get the point across; even if they use all lowercase, mess up when it comes to grammar, and type with an accent.
