@@OldschoolWavesExpert Booker T. Washington was a rather controversial African American activist born in the mid-1800's. He helped found and then ran the Tuskegee Institute until his death in 1915. He was controversial because he publicly stated that while people of colour were offered economic opportunities and education they should 'tolerate' segregation. Due to his campaigning for people of colour, the whites hated him, but many people of colour considered him a traitor because he didn't campaign for full equality. However, Booker did fund many efforts opposing segregation laws in secret.
'That is precisely the type of pedantic nonsense up with which I shall not put.' -Winston Churchill after being corrected by an aid for ending a sentence with a preposition.
@@SuscriptorJusticiero When would someone describe something as flammable and mean prone to combustion without ignition? Seems more likely they're using it correctly anyway as most of the time it requires ignition to burn.
You know I remember the exact moment I fell in love with language. I always loved to read but before this instance I had no opinion on language itself. I was complaining to my grandma that I was bored. So in an exasperated tone that can only come from being done with a kid's crap she said "Go read the dictionary!" Not having any better ideas I complied and you know what? It was surprisingly fun. Even just flipping through the book to a random page I could find a word that just looked funny and had to try saying it. I remember thinking "This word is so funny! Why don't people use it anymore?" many times over the time I spent flipping through Websters. It really showed me how fun and silly language can be if nor no other reason than simply for existing. I think that is magical.
As a writer, I absolutely love this! I've always had a passion for words, but not necessarily the technicalities that come with them. 🤗 Just remember, there is only one way to truly express yourself: by expressing, YOURSELF, exactly how you feel to do so!
Ive always taken the grammar cop types to be caring far more about HOW something is communicated rather than WHAT is being communicated. Which is sad....because I know for a fact they are missing out on so many interesting thoughts and ideas simply because they dont like the way they are presented, instead of putting some effort into parsing and enjoying the many ways thoughts ideas and emotions could be presented. Almost like one of those 'finishing school' head mistresses. So concerned with posture and being prim proper and neat, has no idea how to change a flat tire or why biscuits and gravy is delicious in America and a horrifying thought in the UK.....So tied up in rules, completely misses out on life.
This is just too good this man is completely awesome! I have seen too many times on public forums were someone tries to correct another person's grammar and this causes problems such as, detracting from what someone originally said as well as trying to discredit them.
I wish I could speak as wonderfully as this man does. His vocabulary is enormous! Sadly my generation's language is dampened by the unflattering and down right ghastly use of words. Taking the intelligence and joy out of talking and words. Mr. Fry I simply adore you. You are my idol and I'm determined to meet you one day and thank you for showing me the joy of words.
I am one of those with a somewhat dismal vocabulary since a head injury. I have always enjoyed language and words and it was once my greatest subject. Hearing the lyrical fashion in which Stephen Fry speaks, or listening to Shakespeare's brilliance delivered in true iambic pentameter is music to my soul.
This man speaks to my very core. No one actually speaks like Shakespeare and Whitman and Wilde and Thoreau anymore. And it makes me a bit sad, honestly... I was never very good at grammar in school, not knowing when to use who vs whom, or good vs well, and so on. But even if not dictionary perfect, words can hold power. And words can be fun! I don't learn long, out of use terms because I want to sound like some pretentious hipster. I use them because I like the way they sound. I like the way my vocal cords act in tandem with my tongue, teeth, and lips to say those words. I like being able to say thump, and crash, and rattle, and all matter of onomatopoeia, and to make up my own when others won't do. The pen is mightier than the sword, but the mind that commands the hand to write and the mouth to speak is stronger still.
Well, now you actually can! Not all of the recent TH-cam changes were bad. Also, you missed a dot at the end of your sentence, don't bother linking me to this video, i'm already here.
Just as long as what you have to say is worth the time to read it, and that a lack of grammatical concern isn't hypocritical. Otherwise you're just revelling in ignorance.
yeah brotha' this vid be slammin! *Cough* Pardon me, I meant to describe this video as being copiously artistic and thought-provoking. I found Mr. Fry's views to be most eloquent.
This is a truly enjoyable video, thank you for making it! I loved not only the choice in audio, but the minimalist aesthetic and concept behind the animation, not to mention the use of technology applied... really well done.
True in most cases, but sometimes it is important to use the correct wording, punctuation, etc. (i.e., their/they're/there, your/you're), or else someone will have to take a little extra time to try to process what is meant. A comma can make all the difference: "Let's eat, Grandma" vs. "Let's eat Grandma"
Loved it! And, while we're on this subject of ever-developing meanings and uses of words, I'd like to mention "virtually" and "literally". Many people have taken to expand the use of "literally" to appropriate "virtually" and many others berate them for it. For example, "That was literally the worst performance of ;Aida" I have ever seen!" So what? Language develops! However, "Take a listen" -- and the ONLY people you EVER hear saying this are broadcast journalists -- will never cease rankling me.
I think the main issue people have with literally is that they're using it to convey a meaning that is the exact opposite of what it means. And most people expect that you're using it to mean 'virtually'. There's literally no way to express when you're being actually literal anymore. That's the real issue.
TheSpiderfly Using words to convey the opposite meaning is something which happens all the time in language evolution. Sarcasm, for instance, is a particular hotbed of linguistic activity that can do this.
TheSpiderfly There are other such contranyms. Literally, sadly, gets all of the anger directed at it, while the other contranyms remain semantically free. Poor literally. I think it's a brilliant little contranym.
TheSpiderfly It's an occasion where it really is an issue of clarity. It reminds of George Orwell's 'Newspeak' and changing language so that certain ideas or thoughts are no longer possible to articulate.
Luke Peloquin Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Most contranyms are quite obviously in their meaning from context. Both uses of literally occur in the same context, so if someone uses it, you really need to clarify which version they meant.
I think it means lot that you spoke this, instead of writing it and posting it on a blog. There is power in that but this, this video encompasses all of how I've ever looked at or approached words.
bkbj8282 This wasn't exactly the best example of kinetic typography. The better version are the ones that use the words to send a message. If let's say I am making a joke about a sandwich entering a bar I would do something like 'And the sandwich entered the bar and asked for cheese' where 'entered the bar' would be on the same line and it would open (like a barn door). Just putting words like this does seem kind of half assed and it doesn't even look that great :)
bkbj8282 "Researchers at the Human Computer Interaction Institute and School of Design at Carnegie Mellon University have traced the first use of kinetic typography to the 1959 Alfred Hitchcock’s 1959 film “North by Northwest.” - Extract from an article on kinetic typography. So yes, it has been around for quite a while.
I've heard Stephen Fry correcting people's grammar plenty of times, but only to a reasonable degree. The difference between "less" and "fewer" is exactly the same as between "much" and "many", and although it's important not to be pedantic, I wouldn't like to flash forward 50 years and see that everyone is saying "many water" and "many fun" while the word "much" has become archaic.
+Thom Harrison Why? many of the "correct"words we use today are "mistakes" of the past. How back to you go until you are certain "this is the proper language?". The first word you used was "I've". I am sure it was a bafffling mistake when it first started being used, don't you agree? (or "do you not agree" if you prefer.
+Clever Brunozoid Of course. Language mutates like genes. Nevertheless, if you take your argument to its conclusion, language would be on a direct path (or downward spiral) towards utter simplification, losing all of its grammatical nuance and interesting vocabulary in the process. There is a reason why a difference between "much" and "many" (or "I am" and "You are" rather than "You am") came into existence, and while we might be able to convey the same basic understanding, who are you to argue that the simplification is the superior option? It's a little like only caring about all the animals that are edible. More importantly, who are you to take a position of false enlightenment to defend cultural apathy towards the use language (if not sheer educational failure)? It seems like an example of the same vapid cultural relativism that a lot of people spout like its "wisdom" these days, but which actually shoots everyone in the collective foot. (For example: "Don't have any opinion on music; there's no such thing as good or bad music man, it's all good." says the girl who knows/listens to nothing but manufactured corporate pop.)
That's a very good point. In the end it's just something we use to decorate our existance. It is entertainment for lonely people. Just like trying to figure out what is good or bad music.
I'd like to offer a small counter point to stuff like "I am" versus "You are". I've been studying Japanese for the past 3 or 4 months now, and it stood out to me that many of those types of conjugations don't exist in Japanese. I am, ore iru. You are, kimi iru. There are almost no irregular verbs like "I eat" and "I ate" either, the rules for such conjugations are set in stone for all but two or three verbs, and there is in general no distinction made between singular and plural either. I don't miss those distinctions at all, I think the language works brilliantly even without the existence of those grammars. On the same note, here's a pet peeve of mine about the English language. I can't stand the distinction made between "it's" and "its". Not only would you never confuse the meanings of those two words, "its" just plain doesn't make sense to me. The grammar pattern where you append 's to a word to indicate possession is clear-cut and should work on "it" all the same, so I think it makes perfect sense to say "This is it's point" to mean "This is the point of it", but that's wrong. You have to use "its" there, but does the existence of "its" add anything? I don't think so. Basically, I think cutting out redundant language can be great, but there should be some thought behind it.
You happen to be speaking to someone who has been living in Japan for 3 years and working in language textbook design. Japanese does seem very streamlined and simplified... to the point where understanding is often context-specific to a limiting and impractical degree. There tends to be one word in Japanese when there are a dozen common synonyms in English, for example. This, plus the limited phonetics, means you often can't lunge into sentence or play around with language in quite the same way as you can in English (plus, culturally, that sort of thing might not be encouraged, anyway.) You might be able to find Japanese words for things which cannot be expressed in English -- as anomalies -- but in general English is so much richer in vocabulary, tenses, and therefore nuance. I really don't envy monolingual Japanese, in that regard (as much as there is so much else about Japan that is enviable).
Your use of language is the auditory equivalent of warm gooey caramel, the feel of a warm blanket, the taste of my morning coffee, the sight of my greatest joys. A wanky description, yes. But hopefully one befitting your mastery of language just a tad. Ya a bloody ledge, as we'd put it here in Stralia, and I continue to be in awe. Love *you're work..
"Typos are fine, everyone makes them" In old English what you would have said there is "gedwola beon god, ealle don hie" Or in Latin "denique sunt errores, omnibus illis facit" But somehow your current version is now the ultimate destination, with the continuing evolution & experimentation of written expression somehow a "downfall of language"? And it makes you "sad" does it? Man, you need to get out more :D
So few that misuse language are doing so to be creative and poetic. It is done from ignorance of language and should therefore be corrected. If there's no firm base then the true poets and creative types will never have a jumping-off point.
his "entire point" went so far over your head it might as well be an alien starship. His entire point is "it does not matter" if you can understand what they are saying and complaining about it is just "silly" you clearly did not or chose not to understand his rather frequent use of the word pedant. I would advise you to go look that word up.
Nerys I feel like I do understand his point, but I fear what merely being understood will lead to if nobody values learning or caring about the deeper rules of language. My favorite poets are academics who understand the intricacies of language and make me push my own understanding of it. Don't assume I'm a pedant that goes around correcting signs and cringing at spelling mistakes because that isn't me. I'm just somebody who enjoys learning and would hate to see how messy an unartistic the english language would be if people, en masse, merely desired to be understood.
Zachary Munro Thanks for taking the time to understand my point. I do agree that the evolution of language marches on and the push is from Joe Average and all of his friends.
THANK YOU! I fucking cannnot stand when pedants do not take into account the fact that there are more varieties of English than the standard written forms of British and American.
I always enjoy Fry. The "purely functional" perspective IS annoying, though, at least when it is used to defend sloppiness. There's a difference between being willfully ignorant or lazy and consciously taking creative license. Knowing the liberties you are taking and the "language evolution" you are embracing. You should at least know a few of the rules you are ripping to shreds. Breaking the conventional rules of grammar has undeniably led to some of the finest prose ever written in our language, but the idea is to know the rules before you break them. I highly sympathize with Fry's frustration that most of us have no interest in truly taking command of our own language. Even more so because I am so frequently awed and even intimidated by the beautifully creative use of language exhibited by such writers as Nabakov and Joseph Conrad for whom English is a second language! "I no u r" does not make for a captivating or meaningful prose style. Perhaps it communicates (even then, I would argue that the mind-numblingly "practical" approach represented by this example leads to vagueness, and that those who invest more effort in their communication naturally communicate much more effectively), but it is so damn dreadful and devoid of life. Not conducive toward anything. I don't understand how an intelligent conversation can be had in this manner. I'm not saying we all have to write like gifted novelists, but why do we take such a cold approach to our own tongue? The goal is to communicate, yes? True writers spend their entire lives improving their communication skills via their writing and through experimentation. When the masses are being willfully obtuse and indifferent about their use of language, improving communication is the exact opposite of what they are doing. This can have an unexpected impact, as well. I highly recommend the essay Politics and the English Language by George Orwell, which contains the following assertion: "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought." Decadence in language can lead to decadence in thought. I happen to agree.
oneeyednarn "misused" -> "used" fixed that for you! the only one who can decide if it's correctly used is the author, because they are the ones who constructed the message they wanted to give you. if you are too dug into a hole where language and grammar are static and eternal and can never be questioned or evolved, then quite frankly, YOU are the one with issues with communication.
eNSWE "fixed that for you! the only one who can decide if it's correctly used is the author, because they are the ones who constructed the message they wanted to give you." That's obviously false. There are lots of people who want to convey a specific message but lack the skills to do so, and a lot of times this is obvious to the receiver of the message too. An obvious example would be kids, lacking vocabullary and using strange metaphors to describe something.
Fry -another of those treasures England is finally sharing with the rest of us. Loved him in 'The Hobbit' and glad to see more of his stuff. Brilliant man.
Yes. But this sort of thing has changed, repeatedly. I'd rather not lose the separate meanings here, but sometimes, it happens. I think we need to choose the battle. For instance, I keep seeing people using the word "taunt" to describe an athletic belly -- and it's simply that they saw someone else's typo, or someone else whose spell-checker was ignorant, or some such nonsense, and it was the first time they saw it so they connect the word up WRONG. Taut and tight come from the same roots. Taunt means to mock. So a "taunt eight-pack abdomen" would mean that the overtly muscled belly is mocking the viewer, shaming them for being lesser somehow. While a taut abdomen merely means it's got no extra fat and it's not droopy and saggy. Meanwhile, the much less clear insure vs ensure. They originally had a much different meaning, unless they were just different spellings derived from the same root. Butterfly (the insect with the broad, colorful, fine-scaled wings that comes from caterpillars) used to be called "flitter-bee" but because children move parts of words around it just turned into butterfly over the course of about a century. What I think Fry's saying is that if we can understand what someone's saying, then (unless it's intended for formal situations) just let it go, there's no reason to be insulting to the speaker. You can always ASK them, if you want to know if they knew there's a difference. But "six items or less" takes less room on a sign and is easier to fit than "six items or fewer".
He's more about telling people to stop being prescriptionists, because besides being a waste of time, it can ruin the development of language. Here's an example: there is a group of noisy, vocal people who are declaring that the use of gendered nouns and verbs is an imposition of sexist, patriarchal controls on people who should be free of such horrible things. Especially in the names of groups because somehow it's not inclusive enough. Yeah I think that's kind of silly too. But I have friends who use "latinx" instead of latino or latina, and not even bothering with the perfectly viable 'latin' which is shorthand for Latin American. Because they might hurt someone's very precious feels by using grammatically correct words, not thinking that perhaps they're making it WORSE.
While attempting to sway the opinions and actions of other people is one of the primary uses of language, I agree that using it in a way that deceives and coerces is a foul thing. But it's also one of the first things that people in power try to do -- in Spain, the use of the Catalonian language (a rather large minority) was prohibited for public records and most legal uses, until recently. France has a legally constituted "academy" which decides what is "allowed" in French, and Spain has something similar. I don't know about Italy, but I suspect it's a common thing in most of Europe. Forcing the language for political reasons has been going on for a very very long time.
Infer means you reach a conclusion logically; deduce, really. Eg: poo smells and I just shat myself, thus it must smell. Imply means you suggest something might be true. Eg: This is a poor neighborhood, so it's likely full of immigrants and black people. In technical terms, inferring means using deductive reasoning and implying means using inductive reasoning. The conclusion of the first is certain, while the conclusion of the second is not.
Daniel Potter If they are saying that in spoken speech, it is almost impossible to discern it from the contraction "would've" unless they were speaking incredibly slow. That is, of course, unless you didn't mean "saying" but actually "typing" or "writing" ;)
What he mean is, he doesn't like people correcting him, it smashes his illusion of being an unassailable polymath. He has of course corrected his guests grammar on QI more than once, on one occasion getting a large round of applause for correcting Alan Davies. Hypocrite.
Oh my WORD! YES! YES! I bubble and slobber and cream with joy at WORDS! Thank you Stephen. In a world of people who's sphincter are far too clenched, to hear someone who loves words for the simple fact that they allow one soul to touch another, is nothing less than pure delight!
I really like Stephen Fry, and he makes some very good points here, but 1) he is, in a way, attacking a straw man. I am guilty of pedantry, but that doesn't mean I have no appreciation for innovative or creative use of language. The whole reason why I love PG Wodehouse is because of his unorthodox use of common words to express even the simplest things in a hilariously fresh, descriptive way. This tirade of Fry's groups every pedant into extremes with no allowance for degree. I cringe at "five items or less" but love verbing nouns. And 2) with regard to Stravinsky and Picasso and just about every other avant-garde artist who came on the scene, they fully understood the traditional "rules" before they broke them. Their genius was in how they were able to take traditional notions and turn them on their heads. This leads to 3) clarity IS ultimately an issue. I tutor college students who know so little about language, they are completely unable to make their thoughts comprehensible to their audience. When they write, they randomly slop words on the paper with no more consideration than an elephant slinging paint onto a canvas. They have no idea of the fine shades of meaning between words, nor do they have any concept of simple grammatical rules that ensure that someone who is outside their heads will understand what they have written.
We all need to be forgiving of each others' honest mistakes. But not knowing how to use grammatical rules in order to precisely convey your point is not the same as creativity. And it's only a new concept that grammar corrections are about lording your superior knowledge over somebody. Maybe it's just a correction with no further implications beyond that... unless the person doing the correcting does something beyond the correcting to act superior. Yes, that would be annoying. When somebody adds in a greengrocer's apostrophe to something I'm reading I first read it as a contraction or possessive and then have to realize they put an apostrophe in for nothing and that it's really not supposed to be there at all. No, I am not superior to somebody who does that and I'm all for the creative use of language... but adding in an apostrophe for no reason, and in a way that changes the meaning of what you are trying to say to something you're not trying to say, does *not* mean you're creative. Away with grammar nazis but also away with people who write poorly and then try to excuse it. Why don't we all just write well, continuing to use the basic rules we learned in grammar school, and not acting superior to anyone else, realizing that we all make mistakes from time to time but respecting our readers enough to make an effort to accurately convey our thoughts to them so that they don't have to try to guess what we are getting at. And when someone writes kreativelee we'll *know* they're being creative, not just forgetting rules and then saying, "Oh, I was, uh, using language creatively. Yeah, that's what it was."
+Art Mankind German has genders, but you can figure them out through careful thought. For example, "Wurst", which means Sausage in German, is female. This makes total sense if you are eating sausages with your male buddies. Would you really want your friends to see you nibble on a male sausage? At least if it were a female sausage that would make the experience slightly less awkward.
in Bangla we have different pronouns that change based on your relationship with the person and their age. For example, someone you don't know but is older than you is "apni", if they're the same age or older but close to you, then "tumi", if a close friend, or someone you're arguing with and disrespecting, "tui"
Not only do they have no masculine nor feminine in their language, they are also working hard on making masculine and feminine redundant altogether in their truest sense of the word!
The male form is rare and the female is used instead at least in US English and I think I have never seen it despite my love of mystery (mostly British) and SF from the first half of the 20th century when it was presumably more common. But I have seen brunet vs brunette once or twice in literature of that vintage.But one the numerous nouns that have simple rules for making M/F forms, many of which are less common or disappearing now in reference to people. Usually it's a feminine suffix that's added, Ess and ette being very common, both from French (Normon conquest ?) Actor/Actress, Poet/Poetess Lion/Lioness. Sometimes there is no male form e.g. Sufragette Some were irregular like Singer/Songstress. Comedian/Comediene is another pattern. Language is fun
Stephen Fry is an amazing talent and a person who has the courage to take an active stand for what he believes to be worth fighting for in this life !! Legend!!
Yes, i can say exactly the same thing. It was Fry on a talk-show saying most of these very same things that did it for me. I do love the animation of this! It suits it rather well - tasting visually the exquisite nature of language, especially language of such precision - and such paradigm-shifting importance!
I'm deeply saddened by this video. There is a difference in using language creatively and being a moron. It's hard for me to believe that this actually represents a well considered opinion of Stephen Fry, whom, I have to admit, I do admire even after seeing this video. By the way... Picasso may be highly acclaimed, but his paintings are still crap. Let the hate comments flood in. ;)
Two months after this comment was posted there still has been no influx of hatred. In fact, as of this being posted, there simply is one snide reply. Well, it is impossible for one to accurately predict the future with no reliance upon random chance, yes?
Ean521 It would appear that there are fewer zealots out there than I feared. Maybe it's time for me to regain a bit of hope for humanity, but I think I'll hold out for more evidence. ;)
On what basis does he claim to know whether others *enjoy* language? Or that *anyone* who uses language with "originality, delight and verbal freshness is more likely to be mocked, distrusted, or disliked than welcomed"? He throws out these words with bravado, but it seems like cheap applause lines. People agree, but is it true? And those statements are a far cry from fretting over commas. He cites Wilde and Shakepeare? Fine. How about tons of pop music today or lines from movies or slogans from adverts or millions of tweets that are playing with language every day? While I'm sure there's some of that mockery or distrust that he claims, how much impact is it really having? Maybe not that much. While I agree with some of his points, he sounds every bit the self-satisfied scold he sees in others. And now I reckon this has all become preciously circular as I'm probably scolding him for scolding others for scolding others. :-)
it's awful how misinterpreted this video seems to be, based on the comments (though youtube comments are usually among the trash heap of the internet). read some oscar wilde, or some ee cummings, and stop treating language like a science when it's an art.
ok Stephen, I get it. You're right, in fact. However, it took me a long time to get over and to accept "hopefully". I have learned to split an infinitive. I do agree that sometimes, a lovely adverb belongs quite nicely between "to" and "go", for example. But it is terribly difficult to accept that a thing can have hope. It's just not ummmm, "correct". Ok, ok, I'll keep trying, I promise.
Ironic you call me retarded, when you couldn't understand it was obviously a joke. TH-cam is the lowest common denominator, it's completely full of imbeciles.
buntcubbles What's there to have a sense of humor about? Spelling words incorrectly on purpose is rarely - if ever - funny; it just makes you look like an idiot. Puns derived from erroneous spelling are funny. Idiotic ramblings are not.
Great video Matt. The motion made it hard for me to keep up with what he was talking about, but it was entertaining. I agree that language is a great to express yourself. While I'm a grammar nazi myself, I get that correcting language doesn't necessarily make you a guardian, and that language becomes recreational.
That organization is the key to keeping track of scientific phenomena and the correlations/relationships in between. We make such great progress with science and technology not only because of the great intelligence, but because it is categorized and communicated in a way which remains as consistent as practically possible through time.
Hadn't seen this one before but must say it is true craftmanship with words, a masterpiece using words expressing meaning and understanding. It is easy to see that written language without visual aids have a much bigger impact on our brains compared to say a movie where the definitions of the words are locked into a particular meaning losing the linguistic plasticity that pure words enable... Or described in a shorter term: fascinating mombojumbo!
The words just fly in. They don't do anything else, clip through eachother, and the animations lagged here and there. But I don't care, it was neat, straightforward, had an awesome ending, and most importantly, goddamn Stephen Fry.
It's like going from tonal harmonic music theory to 20th century theory and beyond: you learn the rules first, them learn to break them. Then you learn to mix, match, and really play with it--make art out of it.
"If I be talkin' and you be understandin', then we be communicatin'." -Booker T. Washington.
Brilliant.
Could you tell please, where is this quote from?
@@OldschoolWavesExpert Booker T. Washington was a rather controversial African American activist born in the mid-1800's. He helped found and then ran the Tuskegee Institute until his death in 1915.
He was controversial because he publicly stated that while people of colour were offered economic opportunities and education they should 'tolerate' segregation. Due to his campaigning for people of colour, the whites hated him, but many people of colour considered him a traitor because he didn't campaign for full equality.
However, Booker did fund many efforts opposing segregation laws in secret.
"Do they ever yoke impossible words together for the sound-sex of it?"
This. Just... wow. I love Stephen Fry
The fact that “This.” can now be considered a complete sentence shows exactly the point he’s making. 😂
'That is precisely the type of pedantic nonsense up with which I shall not put.'
-Winston Churchill after being corrected by an aid for ending a sentence with a preposition.
I'll take the bait... it's "aide"
Stupid rule was made up by clerics that thought English was trash and it should be more like Latin. There is no valid reason for it.
He did that on purpose didn't he?
That line just reminds me of that one Scary Movie where Brenda says something like that
"About what are you talking, Willis?"
Incredible English. I am awe-struck by his verbiage and diction.
The pedantic part. of me completely disagrees; he is very credible.
"It's only ugly because it's new." - Stephen Frye
Brilliant!
*Fry
@@straxan Ocay Yakov
This is "literally" the greatest video ever created.
i find this to be wonderful
Stephen Fry is quite wonderful.
I can't help getting irked when people call inflammable things "flammable".
@@SuscriptorJusticiero When would someone describe something as flammable and mean prone to combustion without ignition? Seems more likely they're using it correctly anyway as most of the time it requires ignition to burn.
@@AlchemistOfNirnroot The word you seem to be looking for is "inflammable". Something which can be *_inflamed_* is inflammable.
You know I remember the exact moment I fell in love with language. I always loved to read but before this instance I had no opinion on language itself. I was complaining to my grandma that I was bored. So in an exasperated tone that can only come from being done with a kid's crap she said "Go read the dictionary!" Not having any better ideas I complied and you know what? It was surprisingly fun. Even just flipping through the book to a random page I could find a word that just looked funny and had to try saying it. I remember thinking "This word is so funny! Why don't people use it anymore?" many times over the time I spent flipping through Websters. It really showed me how fun and silly language can be if nor no other reason than simply for existing. I think that is magical.
Precise moment 👌
It's an essay...here! Search this:
Don’t Mind Your Language…
By Stephen Fry
November 4th, 2008
I am now quite sure that Stephen Fry is probably one of the coolest people ever.
He is.
Well, yeah!
Watch his hour-long interview on Craig Ferguson's The Late Show - when there was no audience, and it was just Craig and Stephen.
As a writer, I absolutely love this! I've always had a passion for words, but not necessarily the technicalities that come with them. 🤗 Just remember, there is only one way to truly express yourself: by expressing, YOURSELF, exactly how you feel to do so!
Ive always taken the grammar cop types to be caring far more about HOW something is communicated rather than WHAT is being communicated. Which is sad....because I know for a fact they are missing out on so many interesting thoughts and ideas simply because they dont like the way they are presented, instead of putting some effort into parsing and enjoying the many ways thoughts ideas and emotions could be presented.
Almost like one of those 'finishing school' head mistresses. So concerned with posture and being prim proper and neat, has no idea how to change a flat tire or why biscuits and gravy is delicious in America and a horrifying thought in the UK.....So tied up in rules, completely misses out on life.
I could make love to this mans voice....
This is just too good this man is completely awesome! I have seen too many times on public forums were someone tries to correct another person's grammar and this causes problems such as, detracting from what someone originally said as well as trying to discredit them.
I creamed with joy
With joy, I crame
+fizzyfoster A cremation cacophony.
A cantankerous amount of cum
Stop it you two
"There is no right language or wrong language anymore than there right or wrong clothes.
Context, convention and circumstance are all."
I thought the visuals were sloppy and random until the big reveal at 5:40. Brilliant.
I love this. I love his point and listening to him speak is just so soothing - don't you think? :)
Thanks for making this delightful typographic video, and thanks for pointing me to Stephen Fry's Podgrams!
with my day filled with the academic language, free time with literature and mind with dyslexia.
This was poem for my ears
Holy crap! This is awesome!
I mean...ahem...this video was quite delightful.
I'm trying to speak more better...DAMN IT!
+Meeny McSweeny how about, 'this video is marvellous'?
Lol
Indeed.
Dear God, what an open-minded chap I say!
Toppest of Notches! Hear, Hear!
I think you meant to say
"And this video was quite delightful."
This man's voice and choice of words is the definition of what silk sounds like.
Having spent the past 30-some years as a typesetter, for me THIS is fantastic!
I wish I could speak as wonderfully as this man does. His vocabulary is enormous! Sadly my generation's language is dampened by the unflattering and down right ghastly use of words. Taking the intelligence and joy out of talking and words. Mr. Fry I simply adore you. You are my idol and I'm determined to meet you one day and thank you for showing me the joy of words.
I am one of those with a somewhat dismal vocabulary since a head injury. I have always enjoyed language and words and it was once my greatest subject. Hearing the lyrical fashion in which Stephen Fry speaks, or listening to Shakespeare's brilliance delivered in true iambic pentameter is music to my soul.
"Write drunk, edit sober." -Ernest Hemingway
TIL Hemingway never edited his works...... (cheeky grin 🤭 )
I'm going to show this to my English students. Simply marvellous monologue by Stephen Fry.
That was amazing. I could listen to Stephen Fry talk for hours. Words can have such power when they are chosen well.
"Oh" do I wish Stephen Fry would narrate my life a walk to the store would become an adventure in itself.
I feel like I could have a conversation with him for hours.
This man speaks to my very core. No one actually speaks like Shakespeare and Whitman and Wilde and Thoreau anymore. And it makes me a bit sad, honestly...
I was never very good at grammar in school, not knowing when to use who vs whom, or good vs well, and so on. But even if not dictionary perfect, words can hold power. And words can be fun! I don't learn long, out of use terms because I want to sound like some pretentious hipster. I use them because I like the way they sound. I like the way my vocal cords act in tandem with my tongue, teeth, and lips to say those words. I like being able to say thump, and crash, and rattle, and all matter of onomatopoeia, and to make up my own when others won't do.
The pen is mightier than the sword, but the mind that commands the hand to write and the mouth to speak is stronger still.
i ve seen this a bunch of times and love stephen fry. Still see it once in a while. thanks for this.
Never found a more interesting man that I agreed with but that I would never be able to have a satisfactory conversation with.
What? About 6000 text layers in AE?!? :-)
Anytime someone corrects my grammar in the comments on youtube I'm linking them to this video
Well, now you actually can! Not all of the recent TH-cam changes were bad.
Also, you missed a dot at the end of your sentence, don't bother linking me to this video, i'm already here.
Just as long as what you have to say is worth the time to read it, and that a lack of grammatical concern isn't hypocritical. Otherwise you're just revelling in ignorance.
You forgot to add a period at the end of your sentence.
*yOu ForGoT To adD aN aPoStRoPhE!*
I just responded to someone correcting their word which was here to hear and he linked me this video
Nearly 12 years on, 40k likes and close to 3 m views, @Matthew.Rogers did a good thing.
I always take pleasure from Steven Fry's language, no matter what he's saying.
Mr. Fry, as I watched this, it was very "warming" and "colding". I suppose I can sum it up as "indifferencing". ;-)
the brilliant diction paired with the fluid animations is just *chef's kiss*
yeah brotha' this vid be slammin! *Cough* Pardon me, I meant to describe this video as being copiously artistic and thought-provoking. I found Mr. Fry's views to be most eloquent.
Love this, love this, love this! Wonderful speech by Fry and a fitting visual accompaniment. Kudos!
This is a truly enjoyable video, thank you for making it! I loved not only the choice in audio, but the minimalist aesthetic and concept behind the animation, not to mention the use of technology applied... really well done.
"CREAM WITH JOY" 2:34
Let that tongue work settle on your ears for a moment.
True in most cases, but sometimes it is important to use the correct wording, punctuation, etc. (i.e., their/they're/there, your/you're), or else someone will have to take a little extra time to try to process what is meant.
A comma can make all the difference: "Let's eat, Grandma" vs. "Let's eat Grandma"
Context, as fry implied, is everything.
The reason that doesn't work isn't because it's "wrong", but because it fails the primary goal of language: clear communication of an idea.
Loved it! And, while we're on this subject of ever-developing meanings and uses of words, I'd like to mention "virtually" and "literally". Many people have taken to expand the use of "literally" to appropriate "virtually" and many others berate them for it. For example, "That was literally the worst performance of ;Aida" I have ever seen!" So what? Language develops!
However, "Take a listen" -- and the ONLY people you EVER hear saying this are broadcast journalists -- will never cease rankling me.
I think the main issue people have with literally is that they're using it to convey a meaning that is the exact opposite of what it means. And most people expect that you're using it to mean 'virtually'. There's literally no way to express when you're being actually literal anymore. That's the real issue.
TheSpiderfly Using words to convey the opposite meaning is something which happens all the time in language evolution. Sarcasm, for instance, is a particular hotbed of linguistic activity that can do this.
TheSpiderfly There are other such contranyms. Literally, sadly, gets all of the anger directed at it, while the other contranyms remain semantically free. Poor literally. I think it's a brilliant little contranym.
TheSpiderfly It's an occasion where it really is an issue of clarity. It reminds of George Orwell's 'Newspeak' and changing language so that certain ideas or thoughts are no longer possible to articulate.
Luke Peloquin Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Most contranyms are quite obviously in their meaning from context. Both uses of literally occur in the same context, so if someone uses it, you really need to clarify which version they meant.
I think it means lot that you spoke this, instead of writing it and posting it on a blog. There is power in that but this, this video encompasses all of how I've ever looked at or approached words.
I thoroughly LOVED this video, audio and animation!!! kudos to both of you, Stephen and Matthew!!
Pedants might have a difficult time reading anything by Cormac McCarthy.
True story.
This after effects "words in audio are words in video" is a trend that's showing its age.
bkbj8282 This wasn't exactly the best example of kinetic typography. The better version are the ones that use the words to send a message. If let's say I am making a joke about a sandwich entering a bar I would do something like 'And the sandwich entered the bar and asked for cheese' where 'entered the bar' would be on the same line and it would open (like a barn door). Just putting words like this does seem kind of half assed and it doesn't even look that great :)
FlyingPotatoes
It's what lazy people started doing after the Ford F-150 commercials voiced by Denis Leary.
bkbj8282 No it's not. Kinetic Typography has been around since the 1960...
FlyingPotatoes
No, it hasn't.
bkbj8282 "Researchers at the Human Computer Interaction Institute and School of Design at Carnegie Mellon University have traced the first use of kinetic typography to the 1959 Alfred Hitchcock’s 1959 film “North by Northwest.” - Extract from an article on kinetic typography. So yes, it has been around for quite a while.
I've heard Stephen Fry correcting people's grammar plenty of times, but only to a reasonable degree. The difference between "less" and "fewer" is exactly the same as between "much" and "many", and although it's important not to be pedantic, I wouldn't like to flash forward 50 years and see that everyone is saying "many water" and "many fun" while the word "much" has become archaic.
+Thom Harrison Why? many of the "correct"words we use today are "mistakes" of the past. How back to you go until you are certain "this is the proper language?". The first word you used was "I've". I am sure it was a bafffling mistake when it first started being used, don't you agree? (or "do you not agree" if you prefer.
+Clever Brunozoid Of course. Language mutates like genes. Nevertheless, if you take your argument to its conclusion, language would be on a direct path (or downward spiral) towards utter simplification, losing all of its grammatical nuance and interesting vocabulary in the process. There is a reason why a difference between "much" and "many" (or "I am" and "You are" rather than "You am") came into existence, and while we might be able to convey the same basic understanding, who are you to argue that the simplification is the superior option? It's a little like only caring about all the animals that are edible.
More importantly, who are you to take a position of false enlightenment to defend cultural apathy towards the use language (if not sheer educational failure)? It seems like an example of the same vapid cultural relativism that a lot of people spout like its "wisdom" these days, but which actually shoots everyone in the collective foot. (For example: "Don't have any opinion on music; there's no such thing as good or bad music man, it's all good." says the girl who knows/listens to nothing but manufactured corporate pop.)
That's a very good point. In the end it's just something we use to decorate our existance. It is entertainment for lonely people. Just like trying to figure out what is good or bad music.
I'd like to offer a small counter point to stuff like "I am" versus "You are". I've been studying Japanese for the past 3 or 4 months now, and it stood out to me that many of those types of conjugations don't exist in Japanese. I am, ore iru. You are, kimi iru. There are almost no irregular verbs like "I eat" and "I ate" either, the rules for such conjugations are set in stone for all but two or three verbs, and there is in general no distinction made between singular and plural either. I don't miss those distinctions at all, I think the language works brilliantly even without the existence of those grammars.
On the same note, here's a pet peeve of mine about the English language. I can't stand the distinction made between "it's" and "its". Not only would you never confuse the meanings of those two words, "its" just plain doesn't make sense to me. The grammar pattern where you append 's to a word to indicate possession is clear-cut and should work on "it" all the same, so I think it makes perfect sense to say "This is it's point" to mean "This is the point of it", but that's wrong. You have to use "its" there, but does the existence of "its" add anything? I don't think so.
Basically, I think cutting out redundant language can be great, but there should be some thought behind it.
You happen to be speaking to someone who has been living in Japan for 3 years and working in language textbook design.
Japanese does seem very streamlined and simplified... to the point where understanding is often context-specific to a limiting and impractical degree. There tends to be one word in Japanese when there are a dozen common synonyms in English, for example. This, plus the limited phonetics, means you often can't lunge into sentence or play around with language in quite the same way as you can in English (plus, culturally, that sort of thing might not be encouraged, anyway.) You might be able to find Japanese words for things which cannot be expressed in English -- as anomalies -- but in general English is so much richer in vocabulary, tenses, and therefore nuance. I really don't envy monolingual Japanese, in that regard (as much as there is so much else about Japan that is enviable).
10/10 articulation. I wish I can develop this level of speaking skill some day
Your use of language is the auditory equivalent of warm gooey caramel, the feel of a warm blanket, the taste of my morning coffee, the sight of my greatest joys. A wanky description, yes. But hopefully one befitting your mastery of language just a tad. Ya a bloody ledge, as we'd put it here in Stralia, and I continue to be in awe. Love *you're work..
Nice languagemanship
+blazednlovinit what!!
I can get behind that one.
"Typos are fine, everyone makes them"
In old English what you would have said there is "gedwola beon god, ealle don hie"
Or in Latin "denique sunt errores, omnibus illis facit"
But somehow your current version is now the ultimate destination, with the continuing evolution & experimentation of written expression somehow a "downfall of language"?
And it makes you "sad" does it? Man, you need to get out more :D
I'll bet that Fry prefers that the language of his very generous employment contracts is clear, unambiguous, and error free.
This video was delight-inspiring! Not only visuals fascinatingly fluid, but also the words themselves were wonderful
Thank you for taking the time to make this video. You made my day (and I dare say that of many other authors!).
Actually it's "ur'e"
If you like sound sex of it, youtube the video of V for vendetta, "V introduces himself"
So few that misuse language are doing so to be creative and poetic. It is done from ignorance of language and should therefore be corrected. If there's no firm base then the true poets and creative types will never have a jumping-off point.
his "entire point" went so far over your head it might as well be an alien starship.
His entire point is "it does not matter" if you can understand what they are saying and complaining about it is just "silly"
you clearly did not or chose not to understand his rather frequent use of the word pedant. I would advise you to go look that word up.
Nerys I feel like I do understand his point, but I fear what merely being understood will lead to if nobody values learning or caring about the deeper rules of language. My favorite poets are academics who understand the intricacies of language and make me push my own understanding of it.
Don't assume I'm a pedant that goes around correcting signs and cringing at spelling mistakes because that isn't me. I'm just somebody who enjoys learning and would hate to see how messy an unartistic the english language would be if people, en masse, merely desired to be understood.
olimario W0W thatz pretty CooL to bad no one really cares
did you watch the video?
Zachary Munro Thanks for taking the time to understand my point. I do agree that the evolution of language marches on and the push is from Joe Average and all of his friends.
Wow great job on this, Matthew and to Mr. Fry as well this was a pleasure to watch!
THANK YOU! I fucking cannnot stand when pedants do not take into account the fact that there are more varieties of English than the standard written forms of British and American.
Not in recent comments, so I have to say this.... LittleBigPlanet!!!
Is this from some interview he gave or book he wrote?
There's a difference between being a 'grammar nazi' and desiring clear & consistent communication outside of creative writing.
No, there isnt.
@@davesmith3289
Yes, there is!
Monty Python anyone?
Some are merely Grammar White Nationalists, I presume
@@davesmith3289 Yes, there is, and if you don't know that, I guess we know why you're bothered by both.
Simultaneously brilliant and annoying all together and at the same time too. Excellent work Mr. Fry.
I love listening to Stephen fry, it's like he's constantly speaking in prose poetry. He's very easy to listen to.
I always enjoy Fry. The "purely functional" perspective IS annoying, though, at least when it is used to defend sloppiness. There's a difference between being willfully ignorant or lazy and consciously taking creative license. Knowing the liberties you are taking and the "language evolution" you are embracing. You should at least know a few of the rules you are ripping to shreds. Breaking the conventional rules of grammar has undeniably led to some of the finest prose ever written in our language, but the idea is to know the rules before you break them. I highly sympathize with Fry's frustration that most of us have no interest in truly taking command of our own language. Even more so because I am so frequently awed and even intimidated by the beautifully creative use of language exhibited by such writers as Nabakov and Joseph Conrad for whom English is a second language! "I no u r" does not make for a captivating or meaningful prose style. Perhaps it communicates (even then, I would argue that the mind-numblingly "practical" approach represented by this example leads to vagueness, and that those who invest more effort in their communication naturally communicate much more effectively), but it is so damn dreadful and devoid of life. Not conducive toward anything. I don't understand how an intelligent conversation can be had in this manner. I'm not saying we all have to write like gifted novelists, but why do we take such a cold approach to our own tongue? The goal is to communicate, yes? True writers spend their entire lives improving their communication skills via their writing and through experimentation. When the masses are being willfully obtuse and indifferent about their use of language, improving communication is the exact opposite of what they are doing. This can have an unexpected impact, as well. I highly recommend the essay Politics and the English Language by George Orwell, which contains the following assertion: "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought." Decadence in language can lead to decadence in thought. I happen to agree.
Yea man I agree w u
"Link to the entire audio file can be found in the author comment section"
WHERE!?
Is it bad that I winced every time you misused a comma in this? :D
oneeyednarn Yes.
oneeyednarn "misused" -> "used"
fixed that for you! the only one who can decide if it's correctly used is the author, because they are the ones who constructed the message they wanted to give you. if you are too dug into a hole where language and grammar are static and eternal and can never be questioned or evolved, then quite frankly, YOU are the one with issues with communication.
eNSWE "fixed that for you! the only one who can decide if it's correctly used is the author, because they are the ones who constructed the message they wanted to give you."
That's obviously false. There are lots of people who want to convey a specific message but lack the skills to do so, and a lot of times this is obvious to the receiver of the message too. An obvious example would be kids, lacking vocabullary and using strange metaphors to describe something.
+oneeyednarn Yes, it's bad. If you're so uptight that a simple punctuation mark makes you wince, you have serious problems.
Fry -another of those treasures England is finally sharing with the rest of us. Loved him in 'The Hobbit' and glad to see more of his stuff. Brilliant man.
*"Well sod them to Hades"* is my new catchphrase
but there's a big difference between "infer" and "imply"
Yes. But this sort of thing has changed, repeatedly. I'd rather not lose the separate meanings here, but sometimes, it happens. I think we need to choose the battle. For instance, I keep seeing people using the word "taunt" to describe an athletic belly -- and it's simply that they saw someone else's typo, or someone else whose spell-checker was ignorant, or some such nonsense, and it was the first time they saw it so they connect the word up WRONG.
Taut and tight come from the same roots. Taunt means to mock. So a "taunt eight-pack abdomen" would mean that the overtly muscled belly is mocking the viewer, shaming them for being lesser somehow.
While a taut abdomen merely means it's got no extra fat and it's not droopy and saggy.
Meanwhile, the much less clear insure vs ensure. They originally had a much different meaning, unless they were just different spellings derived from the same root. Butterfly (the insect with the broad, colorful, fine-scaled wings that comes from caterpillars) used to be called "flitter-bee" but because children move parts of words around it just turned into butterfly over the course of about a century.
What I think Fry's saying is that if we can understand what someone's saying, then (unless it's intended for formal situations) just let it go, there's no reason to be insulting to the speaker. You can always ASK them, if you want to know if they knew there's a difference. But "six items or less" takes less room on a sign and is easier to fit than "six items or fewer".
He's more about telling people to stop being prescriptionists, because besides being a waste of time, it can ruin the development of language.
Here's an example: there is a group of noisy, vocal people who are declaring that the use of gendered nouns and verbs is an imposition of sexist, patriarchal controls on people who should be free of such horrible things. Especially in the names of groups because somehow it's not inclusive enough.
Yeah I think that's kind of silly too. But I have friends who use "latinx" instead of latino or latina, and not even bothering with the perfectly viable 'latin' which is shorthand for Latin American. Because they might hurt someone's very precious feels by using grammatically correct words, not thinking that perhaps they're making it WORSE.
While attempting to sway the opinions and actions of other people is one of the primary uses of language, I agree that using it in a way that deceives and coerces is a foul thing. But it's also one of the first things that people in power try to do -- in Spain, the use of the Catalonian language (a rather large minority) was prohibited for public records and most legal uses, until recently. France has a legally constituted "academy" which decides what is "allowed" in French, and Spain has something similar. I don't know about Italy, but I suspect it's a common thing in most of Europe. Forcing the language for political reasons has been going on for a very very long time.
But there is* a big difference...
Infer means you reach a conclusion logically; deduce, really. Eg: poo smells and I just shat myself, thus it must smell. Imply means you suggest something might be true. Eg: This is a poor neighborhood, so it's likely full of immigrants and black people. In technical terms, inferring means using deductive reasoning and implying means using inductive reasoning. The conclusion of the first is certain, while the conclusion of the second is not.
All well and good but, I will never be happy with someone saying 'would of' when they mean 'would have'.
Daniel Potter If they are saying that in spoken speech, it is almost impossible to discern it from the contraction "would've" unless they were speaking incredibly slow. That is, of course, unless you didn't mean "saying" but actually "typing" or "writing" ;)
A Kase uv Funetik speling
What he mean is, he doesn't like people correcting him, it smashes his illusion of being an unassailable polymath. He has of course corrected his guests grammar on QI more than once, on one occasion getting a large round of applause for correcting Alan Davies. Hypocrite.
Oh my WORD! YES! YES! I bubble and slobber and cream with joy at WORDS! Thank you Stephen. In a world of people who's sphincter are far too clenched, to hear someone who loves words for the simple fact that they allow one soul to touch another, is nothing less than pure delight!
This was AMAZINGLY BRILLIANT!! I was enchanted, enthralled, delighted, and amused. Thank you~!!
I really like Stephen Fry, and he makes some very good points here, but 1) he is, in a way, attacking a straw man. I am guilty of pedantry, but that doesn't mean I have no appreciation for innovative or creative use of language. The whole reason why I love PG Wodehouse is because of his unorthodox use of common words to express even the simplest things in a hilariously fresh, descriptive way. This tirade of Fry's groups every pedant into extremes with no allowance for degree. I cringe at "five items or less" but love verbing nouns. And 2) with regard to Stravinsky and Picasso and just about every other avant-garde artist who came on the scene, they fully understood the traditional "rules" before they broke them. Their genius was in how they were able to take traditional notions and turn them on their heads. This leads to 3) clarity IS ultimately an issue. I tutor college students who know so little about language, they are completely unable to make their thoughts comprehensible to their audience. When they write, they randomly slop words on the paper with no more consideration than an elephant slinging paint onto a canvas. They have no idea of the fine shades of meaning between words, nor do they have any concept of simple grammatical rules that ensure that someone who is outside their heads will understand what they have written.
We all need to be forgiving of each others' honest mistakes. But not knowing how to use grammatical rules in order to precisely convey your point is not the same as creativity. And it's only a new concept that grammar corrections are about lording your superior knowledge over somebody. Maybe it's just a correction with no further implications beyond that... unless the person doing the correcting does something beyond the correcting to act superior. Yes, that would be annoying.
When somebody adds in a greengrocer's apostrophe to something I'm reading I first read it as a contraction or possessive and then have to realize they put an apostrophe in for nothing and that it's really not supposed to be there at all. No, I am not superior to somebody who does that and I'm all for the creative use of language... but adding in an apostrophe for no reason, and in a way that changes the meaning of what you are trying to say to something you're not trying to say, does *not* mean you're creative.
Away with grammar nazis but also away with people who write poorly and then try to excuse it. Why don't we all just write well, continuing to use the basic rules we learned in grammar school, and not acting superior to anyone else, realizing that we all make mistakes from time to time but respecting our readers enough to make an effort to accurately convey our thoughts to them so that they don't have to try to guess what we are getting at. And when someone writes kreativelee we'll *know* they're being creative, not just forgetting rules and then saying, "Oh, I was, uh, using language creatively. Yeah, that's what it was."
You English speakers are lucky, There is no masculine nor feminine in your language.
+Art Mankind German has genders, but you can figure them out through careful thought. For example, "Wurst", which means Sausage in German, is female. This makes total sense if you are eating sausages with your male buddies. Would you really want your friends to see you nibble on a male sausage? At least if it were a female sausage that would make the experience slightly less awkward.
in Bangla we have different pronouns that change based on your relationship with the person and their age. For example, someone you don't know but is older than you is "apni", if they're the same age or older but close to you, then "tumi", if a close friend, or someone you're arguing with and disrespecting, "tui"
You are wrong. We have one word with gender conjugation. Blond and Blonde.
Not only do they have no masculine nor feminine in their language, they are also working hard on making masculine and feminine redundant altogether in their truest sense of the word!
The male form is rare and the female is used instead at least in US English and I think I have never seen it despite my love of mystery (mostly British) and SF from the first half of the 20th century when it was presumably more common. But I have seen brunet vs brunette once or twice in literature of that vintage.But one the numerous nouns that have simple rules for making M/F forms, many of which are less common or disappearing now in reference to people. Usually it's a feminine suffix that's added, Ess and ette being very common, both from French (Normon conquest ?) Actor/Actress, Poet/Poetess Lion/Lioness. Sometimes there is no male form e.g. Sufragette Some were irregular like Singer/Songstress. Comedian/Comediene is another pattern. Language is fun
Stephen Fry is an amazing talent and a person who has the courage to take an active stand for what he believes to be worth fighting for in this life !! Legend!!
Yes, i can say exactly the same thing. It was Fry on a talk-show saying most of these very same things that did it for me. I do love the animation of this! It suits it rather well - tasting visually the exquisite nature of language, especially language of such precision - and such paradigm-shifting importance!
I'm deeply saddened by this video. There is a difference in using language creatively and being a moron.
It's hard for me to believe that this actually represents a well considered opinion of Stephen Fry, whom, I have to admit, I do admire even after seeing this video.
By the way... Picasso may be highly acclaimed, but his paintings are still crap.
Let the hate comments flood in. ;)
[chirp chirp chirp]
Two months after this comment was posted there still has been no influx of hatred. In fact, as of this being posted, there simply is one snide reply. Well, it is impossible for one to accurately predict the future with no reliance upon random chance, yes?
Ean521 It would appear that there are fewer zealots out there than I feared. Maybe it's time for me to regain a bit of hope for humanity, but I think I'll hold out for more evidence. ;)
Think About It XD
On what basis does he claim to know whether others *enjoy* language? Or that *anyone* who uses language with "originality, delight and verbal freshness is more likely to be mocked, distrusted, or disliked than welcomed"? He throws out these words with bravado, but it seems like cheap applause lines. People agree, but is it true? And those statements are a far cry from fretting over commas.
He cites Wilde and Shakepeare? Fine. How about tons of pop music today or lines from movies or slogans from adverts or millions of tweets that are playing with language every day? While I'm sure there's some of that mockery or distrust that he claims, how much impact is it really having? Maybe not that much.
While I agree with some of his points, he sounds every bit the self-satisfied scold he sees in others. And now I reckon this has all become preciously circular as I'm probably scolding him for scolding others for scolding others. :-)
it's awful how misinterpreted this video seems to be, based on the comments (though youtube comments are usually among the trash heap of the internet). read some oscar wilde, or some ee cummings, and stop treating language like a science when it's an art.
This opened my eyes and fixed my thinking.
ok Stephen, I get it. You're right, in fact. However, it took me a long time to get over and to accept "hopefully". I have learned to split an infinitive. I do agree that sometimes, a lovely adverb belongs quite nicely between "to" and "go", for example. But it is terribly difficult to accept that a thing can have hope. It's just not ummmm, "correct". Ok, ok, I'll keep trying, I promise.
I honestey think gramar nazis have an inferity complex or need 2 fel superiar 2 every1 esle.
You did that on porpoise didn't you? Or some other sea animal anyway.
no, i no how 2 typ and spel decantly.
Ironic you call me retarded, when you couldn't understand it was obviously a joke. TH-cam is the lowest common denominator, it's completely full of imbeciles.
emjaiz Nice comma splice, bro. Lame joke, too.
buntcubbles What's there to have a sense of humor about? Spelling words incorrectly on purpose is rarely - if ever - funny; it just makes you look like an idiot. Puns derived from erroneous spelling are funny. Idiotic ramblings are not.
I absolutely adore how perfect and artful his language is while saying all of this.
I adore this to the max. It was just deliciously written/narrated.
Great video Matt. The motion made it hard for me to keep up with what he was talking about, but it was entertaining. I agree that language is a great to express yourself. While I'm a grammar nazi myself, I get that correcting language doesn't necessarily make you a guardian, and that language becomes recreational.
Respect to the editor! :D Amazing typography edit
Fantastic. I love Mr Fry. And this animation is fine work, Matthew. Well done.
This is so lovely to watch, listen to and think about. Thank you Stephen Fry for this jewel. Should be seen by every educator.
I sat here completely still and listened to the whole video.
Wow. Great video, and a really good point from Lord Fry. I've been so guilty of this 'til now... *mind blown*
That organization is the key to keeping track of scientific phenomena and the correlations/relationships in between. We make such great progress with science and technology not only because of the great intelligence, but because it is categorized and communicated in a way which remains as consistent as practically possible through time.
Hadn't seen this one before but must say it is true craftmanship with words, a masterpiece using words expressing meaning and understanding. It is easy to see that written language without visual aids have a much bigger impact on our brains compared to say a movie where the definitions of the words are locked into a particular meaning losing the linguistic plasticity that pure words enable...
Or described in a shorter term: fascinating mombojumbo!
The words just fly in. They don't do anything else, clip through eachother, and the animations lagged here and there.
But I don't care, it was neat, straightforward, had an awesome ending, and most importantly, goddamn Stephen Fry.
This video is the single greatest weapon ever created to combat grammar nazis.
It's like going from tonal harmonic music theory to 20th century theory and beyond: you learn the rules first, them learn to break them. Then you learn to mix, match, and really play with it--make art out of it.
To complement something is to complete it or to match it. To compliment something is to give it flattering words.
fantastic animation, I guessed that there was some tertiary structure only in the last 30 seconds or so. Great job!!