Student: "Yeah, right!"
Statistics: Posted by Zim — Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:45 pm
]]>
A good example is: U
As opposed to the correct: You
Damn i hate those. U, Y, h8...and so on. Please...As opposed to the correct: You
Statistics: Posted by bungytheworm — Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:07 pm
]]>
??? is a bear bottle? A bottle with a bear on it? Or in it, maybe? Do you need a blender to get the bear into the bottle?And Nek, don't tell me you've never heard of a bear bottle.
Statistics: Posted by RyanKelly — Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:01 am
]]>
And Nek, don't tell me you've never heard of a bear bottle.
??? is a bear bottle? A bottle with a bear on it? Or in it, maybe? Do you need a blender to get the bear into the bottle?Statistics: Posted by Nodtveidt — Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:47 pm
]]>
don't tell me you've never heard of a bear bottle.
You said other things too, I might reply to that later, but I pretty much said what I wanted to in my last post..However, it's beer bottle
A bear bottle would look interessting though.. I want pictures =)Statistics: Posted by Z!re — Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:55 am
]]>
Shoes talked back then? Damn, I missed out on all the fun......a language never spoken by a single sole...
They speak the way most of us do most of the time, which is not strictly the use of a language. The substance of most conversations is more akin to the cries or giggles of an infant that have been culturally informed by language. It can't be said to be incorrect, because there is no standard with which to classify it. It may be comprehensible or not, but that is besides the point. The use of a language can only deviate from the rules of that language when the intention to adhere to the structure of the language is present, and in such a case all errors are merely in execution. You can only use a language to the extent that you know it. Most of us have mastered only a subset of our native language, and when faced with an idea which this subset is inadequate to express, we abandon language and resort to an idiomatic repertoire of phrases and tropes. Even in this case however, the intention is to stimulate a linguistic concept in the mind of another analogous to the concept in our mind which inspired the communication in the first place. Beyond this is the nature of the mind and the desire of an individual to elicit a tangible behavior in another for the purpose of gratifying some urge, and I don't claim to understand anything concerning this region of nature.Go talk to any native english kid in the age 8-20, how do they speak?
That would depend upon whether or not I am addressing a homophobe.Gay means happy.
So, saying: You're so gay!
To someone wouldnt be insulting? Check the dictionaries.
The definition of the word "gay" is less significant than its function.
In the sentence "You're so gay!", which is a typographical transformation of "You are so gay!", the word "gay" functions as a predicate adjective regardless of whether it could be replaced by the word "happy", the word "_MOUSEX", or the word "pathetic". It stands in a certain set of relationships with the other ideas evoked by the sentence and thereby evokes a set of mental associations not intrinsic to any of the words in themselves.
Should you come across the sentence, "You are so bear bottle!", then unless you've been culturally informed by such an idiom, you would most likely recognize either a mistake in the transmission of the sentence or your own ignorance of the specific meaning of the expression. If indeed this was the expression intended, then all the extrinsic relationships between the parts of the sentence are the same as before. "bear bottle" is still a predicate adjective in this construct, regardless of how meaningless it may be to us when used this way. Furthermore, you don't need to refer to some social authority concerning the grammar of the sentence to notice that something is odd. Present both to an eight year old, and he'll tell you immediately which one seems weird, even if he can't classify the reason. It is the extrinsic relationships between parts of speech together with the grammatical standards of altering and joining words that define a language. This is why mechanical translation is so difficult. The word "que" as used in Spanish can stand in relation to other words in such ways that no single English word can, and it is these in-equivalent sets of relationships in which the distinction between the two languages consists. So, the Swedish may add as many new words to their lexicon as they wish, but they will use them in a manner consistent with the Swedish language, or else employ a new dialect.
So what does constitute a change in language? Consider the word "another". I don't know how it happened, but at some point it became evident to some one that at a cultural level all noun phrases of the type "an other [x]" had a certain cognitive function in common which had become so well spread that these relationships could be abstracted from any particular x and stand alone as a notion in itself which could be employed in different modes. From then on, "an other" could be used as either a noun or an adjective. It was literally a new complex of ideas, and the English language became a superset of what it once was. The language developed as a unit, allowing the lexicon to evolve, winnowing out "an other" in favor or "another". The point is that the idea had to inspire an alteration in the language to set into motion the evolutionary proccess wherein the urge to assimulate the new usage of the initial phrase favored a particular typographical variant. However, we don't see "theother" or "mostother", because the ideas expressed by "the other" and "most other" are specific in nature and lack, at this time, the sort of general abstract significance that "another" possesses.
As a final point, because I think inflation is rendering my two cents worthless to everyone, the following nonsense is certainly more English than Latin or Chinese : He mirks as if a randal had byrwasled his taorn.
And Nek, don't tell me you've never heard of a bear bottle.
Statistics: Posted by RyanKelly — Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:13 am
]]>
stuff
Go talk to any native english kid in the age 8-20, how do they speak? Proper grammar? How do they type most of the time? Proper grammar?Just because the books about grammar say one thing, does not mean it's the most common, or the "normal"
It's pretty much the same anywhere, for example, just this year sweden had a dozen new words added to it. Pretty much all of them were "swedified" english words, such as: Network, E-Mail etc
A good example is: U
As opposed to the correct: You
Or the everpopular: lol
Which is far from always typed: LOL
Which would be the proper since it's an abbreviation.
Gay means happy.
So, saying: You're so gay!
To someone wouldnt be insulting? Check the dictionaries.
But you're right, those are just words, and thinking words make up a language is INSANE! Right?
It was an early experiment, we had that scraped in favor of humans. More interessting to observe.Shoes talked back then? Damn, I missed out on all the fun...
Statistics: Posted by Z!re — Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:37 am
]]>
...a language never spoken by a single sole...
Shoes talked back then? Damn, I missed out on all the fun...Statistics: Posted by Nodtveidt — Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:05 am
]]>
Languages evolve.
That's a curious expression. To say that a language, that is one particular language, has evolved implies that a language is itself a set of sub members, which might actually be a useful way to look at it. Historically, it is obvious that lexicons and word usage changes almost constantly, which means that saying that this or that particular word is English is a waste of time. Grammars, on the other hand, change very seldomly. Centuries after both Latin and Sanscrit had passed from common usage, a chance observation concerning the similarities in their grammatical constructs lead linguist to develop a theoretical proto indo-european parent language, a language never spoken by a single sole, which highlighted similarities between many disparate modern languages.The vast majority of language usage is grammatically correct. The notion that people disregard grammar is the result of confusing the mere use of words as signs for the use of language. Most communication even in our culture is illiterate. Walk down a groccery store aisle or listen to a radio commercial, and if you pay attention, you'll find yourself assailed by symbols and sign stimulus, but next to none of it is linguistic. Our world is more song and dance than anything else.
Statistics: Posted by RyanKelly — Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:09 am
]]>
And you're right, many english sentences are 5-6 words long, however there's also many that are only 2-3 words long.
And it's not like I have any sort of knowledge about this.. I havent checked really. I just stated what the book said.
But yes, I made a misstake and should have said "proper" instead of proper. Because we have to agree that proper english is the most common modern form. The one which does not follow grammatical rules set long ago.
And english is not alone in that regard, very few languages follow the grammatical rules they have set.
Statistics: Posted by Z!re — Tue Mar 07, 2006 7:13 am
]]>
]]>
]]>
Actually, Z!re, it's more correct to use the , rather than the . because breaking up a passage like that is improper grammar...proper English sentences should never begin with a conjunction when used in this context. The sentence wouldn't be too long, it's not a run-on sentence in any way.
Yes, it's true...not all Americans are English-illiterate.
In the murder sentence case, it also depends on the tone you want to set, yuo could even slap in a ; for a longer pause and break up the sentence even more.Yes, it's true...not all Americans are English-illiterate.
And grammar and "proper" english isnt the same, where "proper" I refer to the most common, and the way you detect if a text is english or not.
Not if a text follow english grammar to the letter. Which none of us do, not even close.
Statistics: Posted by Z!re — Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:46 am
]]>
Yes, it's true...not all Americans are English-illiterate.
Statistics: Posted by Nodtveidt — Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:44 pm
]]>
Was that a joke?Proper english has a sentence limit of 6 words, average word length being 4.x characters..
That and the average wordlenght is how cryptographers determine if a message is actually a real message, or just random crap..
Example 1:
asdf ghj a asdfgh qwerty! Asdf hkj m oiuyt asdf aaa.
Example 2:
asdfghjkl qwertyuiop mnbvxcz asdjfkdjs kajsuieueiie manskdjewerit lsdkfjadfkjkllasdf lkafdoiuerwerjsdaf kljasdfladfiuer! kajshfdksdjfh ewrwiuyriuwe oidsufaosidfuaoisdf wetlkjerlkjtwlekrtj bfnsdfmgnsbfg.
Which one looks more like two "proper" english sentences? Here's a hint.. it's example 1
Ofcourse there are encryptions which scramble that, so you cant determine what language it's from..
Every modern language has a unique average wordlen and sentencelen
Also repetition of characters, in english it's E (The most common)
Etc, yadda yadda.. Get the book Crypthography for Dummies (ya, it's good) or Applied Cryptography Through the Ages
Statistics: Posted by Z!re — Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:20 am
]]>