Now get the mobile browser that’s got your back

[Mellotron]

I'm not arguing with you there though. "Me and Dave are just popping to the shops" is also lazy, shit and is chav-speak. In no way am I allowing one and not the other. I find it odd that you hold the opinion that society at large is accepting of this nonsensical grammar but not the American use of "get".

To be honest, I'm personally torn regarding what I think about the evolution of language (are we all going to be talking in textspeak in 100 years?) but Stephen Fry makes some very good points.

We only dislike certain things because they are NEW, and so seem wrong. No other reason. Elements of the language WE speak right now would've been seen as lazy, incorrect and shit previously, so why shouldn't we go back to talking as we did 500 years ago, say? When it was more "correct".

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Most definitely. One always remembers the good 'uns.

Funny really but the way I was taught is that "can", is a demand whereas "may" is a request, and as such more polite.

 

[Herne Hill Seagull]

I have this disagreement with the current Mrs HH all the time, and she's a former English teacher who happens to agree with Mr Fry. In my opinion, evolution is the slow process of the best elements of an organism being retained, altering over time to the benefit of said organism, with weaker/useless elements dying out in order to strengthen that organism in future.

Language may always have evolved, but mass-media ubiquity, the current societal trend toward immediacy and American cultural dominance has meant that it's changing, in the young, beyond all recognition within a generation or two. I have to disagree with the estimable Fry on this one – were I an employer, I'd be appalled if somebody brought street argot into a professional environment, for example. Can I get some coffee, innit? is gibberish, however clear the meaning may be, and I wouldn't want clients hearing somebody speak like that. This stuff does still matter, to me at least.

And Fry's own pal, Emma Thompson, disagrees with him, speaking passionately on the subject back in late 2010.

Just an opinion, innit?

 

[Mellotron]

"Some of whom", surely? Set an example!

Exactly. Start down the pedant's path and it will never end.

 

[Mellotron]

I have this disagreement with the current Mrs HH all the time, and she's a former English teacher who happens to agree with Mr Fry. In my opinion, evolution is the slow process of the best elements of an organism being retained, altering over time to the benefit of said organism, with weaker/useless elements dying out in order to strengthen that organism in future.

In regards language, I completely disagree. It is 100% survival of the most popular form. Simple as that. Language isn't an organism. It'll evolve as to what everyone finds easiest, while also being influenced by the culture of the time.

 

[brakespear]

Not pedantry at all, knowing what somebody wants is fine but I believe it's nice to hear people talk properly, especially children. I expect my children, some of which are now adults, to ask in the proper manner, to me that's "may I have". Can are what baked beans come in.

Is it really 'some of which' and not 'some of whom'? Quite prepared to be wrong but doesn't sound right to me. Srsly.

 

[Herne Hill Seagull]

Exactly. Start down the pedant's path and it will never end.

Pedants' path, surely? Nobody would build a path just for one pedant...

 

[Mellotron]

I have to disagree with the estimable Fry on this one – were I an employer, I'd be appalled if somebody brought street argot into a professional environment, for example. Can I get some coffee, innit? is gibberish, however clear the meaning may be, and I wouldn't want clients hearing somebody speak like that. This stuff does still matter, to me at least.

Re-read Fry's article, he says that it wouldn't be appropriate to go into an interview as use incorrect nomenclature.

He talks about it being suitable for the situation, i.e. being in a Starbucks and saying "can I grab a mocha to go?" would be 100% suitable, regardless of how ugly you may find that sentence.

 

[Mellotron]

Pedants' path, surely? Nobody would build a path just for one pedant...

No, for he is ONE man! His name is Gareth Keenan.

 

[Herne Hill Seagull]

In regards language, I completely disagree. It is 100% survival of the most popular form. Simple as that. Language isn't an organism. It'll evolve as to what everyone finds easiest, while also being influenced by the culture of the time.

Yes, it is. OED definition, along with the plant/animal stuff: 'A system or organization consisting of interdependent parts, compared to a living being.'

But read it as 'paradigm', rather than 'organism', if you prefer. I stand by my opinon.

(Outstanding signature, by the way. One of Mr Baker's very best.)

 

[Worthingite]

This thread has to be pedantry on a whole new level surely?!?!

 

[Herne Hill Seagull]

I have read it, and that's fine if the people using these language forms are capable of a) recognising the difference and knowing when more formal English is appropriate and b) being able to use it when necessary. Increasingly, particularly in school-leavers, people are capable of neither.

 

[Mellotron]

Yes, it is. OED definition, along with the plant/animal stuff: 'A system or organization consisting of interdependent parts, compared to a living being.'

But read it as 'paradigm', rather than 'organism', if you prefer. I stand by my opinon.

(Outstanding signature, by the way. One of Mr Baker's very best.)

Fair play. And while I understand Fry's stance, I'm terrified by the idea that txtspeak could become the norm in the future. Horrific.

Yup, not generally a huge fan of his but I just thought he summed it up perfectly, it was just after Man City winning the title in injury time.

 

[Mellotron]

I have read it, and that's fine if the people using these langauge forms are capable of a) recognising the difference and knowing when more formal English is appropriate and b) being able to use it when necessary. Increasingly, particularly in school-leavers, people are capable of neither.

Fair point. Do you not think though, over many decades, that what is acceptable in a job interview will change? Those guys will be the ones giving the interviews in a few years, innit?

 

[Herne Hill Seagull]

Aaargh! You're right!

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

I have read it, and that's fine if the people using these language forms are capable of a) recognising the difference and knowing when more formal English is appropriate and b) being able to use it when necessary. Increasingly, particularly in school-leavers, people are capable of neither.

I agree with you. I made a mistake in an earlier post, and I agree I was indeed incorrect. However I fully appreciate my mistake and am able to hold my hand up and apologise profusely for such a great error. Many current school-leavers would not be able to.

I used to compile technical procedures for British Airways. It was necessary for these to be written in a certain way. If I was writing a note to my wife, it would be somewhat more relaxed. Going on from this I address people within a professional environment differently to others in a relaxed situation, as I would imagine many others do.

 

[Mellotron]

I used to compile technical procedures for British Airways. It was necessary for these to be written in a certain way. If I was writing a note to my wife, it would be somewhat more relaxed. Going on from this I address people within a professional environment differently to others in a relaxed situation, as I would imagine many others do.

Would you consider a busy coffee shop as closer to being a "professional environment" or a "relaxed situation"? Not trying to stir (no pun int.), genuinely curious.

 

[super-seagulls]

One americanism I found astounding was after asking for a coffee, I was asked 'do you want that to walk?' I wish I was witty enough to come up with a funnier answer than 'No I want it to drink' but I couldn't!

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Would you consider a busy coffee shop as closer to being a "professional environment" or a "relaxed situation"? Not trying to stir (no pun int.), genuinely curious.

One should be able to access the situation and use the vocabulary most suitable. Speaking eloquently and courteously should be uppermost in your mind. You should be able to consciously decide the appropriate way to speak in any given situation.

 

[Mellotron]

One should be able to access the situation and use the vocabulary most suitable. Speaking eloquently and courteously should be uppermost in your mind. You should be able to consciously decide the appropriate way to speak in any given situation.

I would argue that in modern life, "can i GRAB a mocha to go" is completely suitable for a coffee shop, as horrible and mangled as it may seem.

Also, you meant "assess".