[Humour] The continued drop in English language standards.

[Bakero]

I was taught that disinterested meant impartial

It does but it has also been used to mean uninterested for hundreds of years.

 

[Canfan]

Using the word fun as an adjective instead of a noun annoys me.
"It was so fun" instead of "It was so much fun", seems wrong but now seems to be commonplace.

 

[Me and my Monkey]

“Our language (I mean English) is degenerating very fast.” James Beattie (no, not that one) 1785

That was 70-odd years after Jonathan Swift had alerted us to the issue, telling his friend “From the Civil War to this present Time, I am apt to doubt whether the Corruptions in our Language have not at least equalled the Refinements of it … most of the Books we see now a-days, are full of those Manglings and Abbreviations. Instances of this Abuse are innumerable: What does Your Lordship think of the Words, Drudg’d, Disturb’d, Rebuk’t, Fledg’d, and a thousand others, every where to be met in Prose as well as Verse?”

Swift harked back to a golden age (1500s) when our fair tongue peaked in his eyes. Yet during that period a fellow called George Puttenham fretted over “strange terms of other languages and many dark words and not usual nor well sounding, though they be daily spoken in Court.”

Going back even further (1300s) a wise man once said “By commyxstion and mellyng furst wiþ danes and afterward wiþ Normans in menye þe contray longage ys apeyred, and som vseþ strange wlaffyng, chyteryng, harrying and garryng, grisbittyng.”

Marvellous stuff. And I rest my case, yeronner.

 

[schmunk]

Whereas always is pretty definitive, it can't be 'a bit always'.

Same as never, it can't be 'a bit never'.

This is a logic failure on your part - it's not what "almost always" means.

 

[Bry Nylon]

Going back even further (1300s) a wise man once said “By commyxstion and mellyng furst wiþ danes and afterward wiþ Normans in menye þe contray longage ys apeyred, and som vseþ strange wlaffyng, chyteryng, harrying and garryng, grisbittyng.”

That reads like a post from the Fridat night drinking thread.

 

[GT49er]

View attachment 120242

Yep, Colin Browning definitely the (rather illiterate) idiot.

 

[GT49er]

Whereas always is pretty definitive, it can't be 'a bit always'.

Same as never, it can't be 'a bit never'.

Nobody except a thick idiot would ever say 'a bit always', or 'a bit never'. Almost always or almost never are perfectly satisfactory though.

 

[portlock seagull]

I was taught that disinterested meant impartial

Most words have multiple meanings, but then most have a primary one too that effectively negates the others. Impartial would mean without bias, taking sides, having an vested interest (ie disinterested!) etc. In contrast, most people’s definition of disinterested would rarely get to meaning impartial, they’d just assume you ain’t boverred! Like.

 

[SuperFurrySeagull]

Language changes over time. It’s ridiculous to get hung up about it.

But when words such as 'there', 'they're' & 'their', or 'were' & 'we're', or 'your' & 'you're' become interchangeable, then they stop being useful, no longer fit for purpose. Thing is, you see it happening now EVERYWHERE, so the battle's probably long lost & you're probably right not to get too hung up about it..

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

You may be interested in this:

View attachment 120253

See post #59

 

[portlock seagull]

But when words such as 'there', 'they're' & 'their', or 'were' & 'we're', or 'your' & 'you're' become interchangeable, then they stop being useful, no longer fit for purpose. Thing is, you see it happening now EVERYWHERE, so the battle's probably long lost & you're probably right not to get too hung up about it..

Completely disagree. One of the reasons for the Great Education Bill in the 19th century was to standardise English. Spelling, grammar and so forth. Huge problems existed before then, amongst the literate not just the illiterate. ‘Talking the same language’ is worth it’s weight in gold. And you need standards for that. Imagine following signs to the ‘Sick Bay’, only to find it was ‘well wicked’ rather than a place to receive immediate medical attention! It’s important for society to function properly that standards exist. And language is enormously important in that respect. We simply can’t communicate effectively or efficiently without. It’s something to uphold not denigrate or even underestimate. Unless someone’s too lazy to learn, or believes it should be changed according to their own narcissistic reasoning - but that doesn’t mean everyone should lower themselves to, well, a lower standard. IMO obviously.

 

[Sirnormangall]

There’s’ nothink better than a thread like this

 

[Klaas]

“Our language (I mean English) is degenerating very fast.” James Beattie (no, not that one) 1785

That was 70-odd years after Jonathan Swift had alerted us to the issue, telling his friend “From the Civil War to this present Time, I am apt to doubt whether the Corruptions in our Language have not at least equalled the Refinements of it … most of the Books we see now a-days, are full of those Manglings and Abbreviations. Instances of this Abuse are innumerable: What does Your Lordship think of the Words, Drudg’d, Disturb’d, Rebuk’t, Fledg’d, and a thousand others, every where to be met in Prose as well as Verse?”

Swift harked back to a golden age (1500s) when our fair tongue peaked in his eyes. Yet during that period a fellow called George Puttenham fretted over “strange terms of other languages and many dark words and not usual nor well sounding, though they be daily spoken in Court.”

Going back even further (1300s) a wise man once said “By commyxstion and mellyng furst wiþ danes and afterward wiþ Normans in menye þe contray longage ys apeyred, and som vseþ strange wlaffyng, chyteryng, harrying and garryng, grisbittyng.”

Quite.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

A friend of the lady recently moved to Totnes, which I found out is in the West Country. She joined a Facebook group for people who live in the area and now spends her days deciphering their posts due to their appalling grasp of English. Without fail each and every post is littered with misspellings, grammatical errors and incorrect punctuation. The irony is not lost that a lot of these linguist retards are, well, let’s say a bit patriotic.

 

[Jaxie]

I keep seeing this the other way around.

"His really good in goal'

Or even more infuriating, both used incorrectly in the same sentence.

“His got into He’s car.”

 

[Bakero]

See post #59

As it says in my post, the earliest recorded use of disinterested is the "incorrect" one. ie. the meaning that people now like to dispute.

Here's more on the subject from Merriam Webster:

. Disinterested and uninterested have a tangled history. Uninterested originally meant impartial, but this sense fell into disuse during the 18th century. About the same time the original sense of disinterested also disappeared, with uninterested developing a new sense—the present meaning—to take its place. The original sense of uninterested is still out of use, but the original sense of disinterested revived in the early 20th century. The revival has since been under frequent attack as an illiteracy and a blurring or loss of a useful distinction. Actual usage shows otherwise. The "free from selfish interest" sense of disinterested is still its most frequent sense, especially in edited prose; it shows no sign of vanishing. Further, disinterested has developed an additional sense—"no longer interested"—perhaps influenced by the "deprive of" sense of the prefix dis-, that contrasts with uninterested. when I grow tired or disinterested in anything, I experience a disgust — Jack London, letter, 1914. Still, use of the "not interested" and "no longer interested" senses of disinterested will incur the disapproval of some who may not fully appreciate the history of this word or the subtleties of its present use.

 

[Is it PotG?]

This is a logic failure on your part - it's not what "almost always" means.

OK

 

[Is it PotG?]

Nobody except a thick idiot would ever say 'a bit always', or 'a bit never'. Almost always or almost never are perfectly satisfactory though.

OK

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

As it says in my post, the earliest recorded use of disinterested is the "incorrect" one. ie. the meaning that people now like to dispute.

Here's more on the subject from Merriam Webster:

. Disinterested and uninterested have a tangled history. Uninterested originally meant impartial, but this sense fell into disuse during the 18th century. About the same time the original sense of disinterested also disappeared, with uninterested developing a new sense—the present meaning—to take its place. The original sense of uninterested is still out of use, but the original sense of disinterested revived in the early 20th century. The revival has since been under frequent attack as an illiteracy and a blurring or loss of a useful distinction. Actual usage shows otherwise. The "free from selfish interest" sense of disinterested is still its most frequent sense, especially in edited prose; it shows no sign of vanishing. Further, disinterested has developed an additional sense—"no longer interested"—perhaps influenced by the "deprive of" sense of the prefix dis-, that contrasts with uninterested. when I grow tired or disinterested in anything, I experience a disgust — Jack London, letter, 1914. Still, use of the "not interested" and "no longer interested" senses of disinterested will incur the disapproval of some who may not fully appreciate the history of this word or the subtleties of its present use.

Interesting. No, really.

I suppose the point I was making is that because usage determines meaning, whether we like it or not, we risk being misunderstood if we stand by our opinion of what a word ought to mean. It’s sad that useful distinctions are lost, but it has always happened and new ones may emerge.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Not only do people like to say Tescos, I have even heard people say they are going to ASDAS. I mean, wtf is that all about?

May I refer you to the thread on jogger bottoms for an early burst of apoplexy and a reference to ASDAS