At my Cambridge overseas oral English exam it took me some time to understand that the examiner was not interested in my answers but my ability to answer.
As was I, when I was a language trainer. Proficiency and form was were my/our focus even if and when the substance was intriguing. And this I would clearly state, to the student.
As was I, when I was a language trainer. Proficiency and form was were my/our focus even if and when the substance was intriguing. And this I would clearly state, to the student.
As was I, when I was a language trainer. Proficiency and form was were my/our focus even if and when the substance was intriguing. And this I would clearly state, to the student.
As was I, when I was a language trainer. Proficiency and form was were my/our focus even if and when the substance was intriguing. And this I would clearly state, to the student.
As was I, when I was a language trainer. Proficiency and form was were my/our focus even if and when the substance was intriguing. And this I would clearly state, to the student.
Its interesting that they did not mention the distinction between formal and informal language use. The 'getting it right' is about the definite and exact use of formal language. In teaching we need to learn the formal rules so that we have an option. Only knowing the informal colloquial use leaves a person open to the criticism of being 'uneducated;' but I must say it was a pleasure listening to such wonderful speakers of English. Thank you one and all.
I think they are indirectly arguing that because that's pretty much the same as when they said they agree on the basics. It's just the complexities of the language they argue and if we should care if someone does it correctly.
The against side were going after some sticklers that didn't exist in the debate. The problem is a basic level of standard grammar should be taught to all, but which is not being done today in schools. I'm guilty of it too.
You don’t need to teach language; you read and have a sense of aesthetic. Actors, speakers, announcers should be exemplars to help everyone improve. Just listening to Anton Lessor on an audio book is a free education.
From a blog entry by Adam Gopnik: The war against euphemism and cliché matters not because we can guarantee that eliminating them will help us speak nothing but the truth but, rather, because eliminating them from our language is an act of courage that helps us get just a little closer to the truth. Clear speech takes courage. Every time we tell the truth about a subject that attracts a lot of lies, we advance the sanity of the nation. Plain speech matters because when we speak clearly we are more likely to speak truth than when we retreat into slogan and euphemism; avoiding euphemism takes courage because it almost always points plainly to responsibility. To say ‘torture’ instead of ‘enhanced interrogation’ is hard, because it means that someone we placed in power was a torturer. That’s a hard truth and a brutal responsibility to accept. But it’s so. [If I recall correctly, Gopnik was commenting on the American detention center in Guantanamo Bay, but I think the point about language and responsibility is relevant. ]
Thank you for pointing out that the best way to teach students English is to explain that there are different registers used depending on the situation. I am a high school teacher and this is how the Language Arts teachers in our school teach conventions of speech.
What alot of nonsense. Every other country teaches the correct usage of their language, only here do we think that is somehow elitist and prescriptive. Increasingly, the only things children are taught as absolute unquestionable truths in our leftwing schools are the dogmas of gender self-identification.
English language is beautiful in many ways; in many dialects and accents. This does need to be taken into the account. Yet here on TH-cam we all meet and speak the language, that we all understand. I love to polish my English. I'm Polish.
59:40 Mary Beard suggests that we haven't 'given up' on making differences in language such as that between 'uninterested' and 'disinterested', but that we've found other ways of expressing that difference. Once again, she speaks for the educated, who might well understand what that difference is between the two and are able to express it in other language. No such luxury for those who don't understand the difference, because they've never been taught one or the other. The Kamm/Beard side of the argument constantly depicts itself as the liberator of the uneducated; it's not - and its arguments again and again depend on the acquisition of knowledge, from which truly liberated language can then flow. It consistently supports the argument that teaching and learning of the rules is, in fact, necessary.
Just to throw a spanner in to the works (I love doing this): I never use either term (uninterested or disinterested), in such a situation I would use the term "not interested".
Yes! Academic English language and its non-academic one which most non-English people make a very good effort to converse and communicate. After all, it is not 'an ORAL ENGLISH TEST' as long as the main ideas brought across may not be grammatically CORRECT!
My parents were from Fujian and my China's mother sent me to an British English school. In those days, there were four different types of school. When the British returned back to Singapore in 1945, two years later i was borned in 1947 as 'a British subject' stated in my birth certificate THE COLONY OF SINGAPORE. Now, 74 years having three National Anthems namely, 'God Save The Queen', Malaysia's 'Negaraku' and finally Singapore's 'Majulah Singapura' just simply incredible but honestly true!
@@simonsimon2888 I love Singapore and have visited many times ! I wanted to come there now for an operation but the lockdown has excluded me. I asked where you were from because your written English is not clear. (Sorry). If I ever manage to come to Sing again I can give you some English lessons. 😊 I am a retired English teacher. Best wishes.
The distinction between "speak" and "talk" seems to have been lost on the panel as is the distinction between a living and a dying language. A living language builds vocabulary . A dying language is ultimately reduced to grunts.
Learning German and being frustrated at how it is difficult, I still love the language all the more. The precise feelings and situations that one can describe, the range between formal and informal terms, it's just something to behold. I wish I'd learnt English when it was just so grand and full of culture and content.
I could easily assume, of myself, that I am sitting on the fence as both pro and against used examples that I agree with to highlight their side of the motion. I see that the limits of your language are the limits of your world (Wittgenstein) but also appreciate the journey that language makes of time and find the entomology of such utterly interesting. When the written word can lack the 'context' conveyed only with the spoken word those little marks can make such a difference to whether or not the complete message, as intended, was understood. Words are spoken so come with the context as intended, so perhaps if the debate had drawn the distinction between the written or spoken word it would have been easier to pick a side of that fence on which to come down on. (Just saying xx)
Also the addition or alteration of a word can add to the language, whereas with newspeak, the complete removal of an way of expressing a condition, feeling or otherwise by removing a word or comparatives, removes that expression ceasing it from being. Can Slavery exist without a word to represent it. I think this is why expressions like gaslighting have become recently so commonplace when its origins are unlike many words, that can claim Greek, Latin Saxon, French roots amongst others, was coined from a theatrical production from where Gaslighting was the title and the content lending a new meaning to a word that was previously only encountered in a very different circumstance. The word decadence now used to express something very different from its dictionary definition and words such as Ecstasy not recognisable from its original Shakespearian usages.
Both make good points. There is certainly an issue with people - at least people living near me - who struggle to communicate because of their lack of education. There's a difference between evolving language, and people that are so lazy that they can't even express themselves clearly in their own current tongue. Words are becoming terribly homogenised. How many words do we need for 'good'? Incredible doesn't mean good, it means incredible. We are losing vocabulary to an extent which robs us of the ability to actually describe what we mean sufficiently.
William Fenton The snag is that these anomalies creep in, under our guard. The first speaker referred to "problems" which no longer exists, having become "issues", a perfectly good word but not meaning "problem" and here it sneaks in under YOUR guard . The issue er sorry problem is that if we hear something often enough, our subconcious is battered with it and it simply "sounds right." Humpty Dumpty said "Words mean exactly what I want them to mean!"
Miss Beard is such an engaging speaker. She does miss the point though. You can't flaunt the rules creatively if you have no knowledge of or respect for said rules.
I think it is safe to say that what the majority of people consider to be a good grasp of the English language is a comprehensive knowledge of the framework and rules and the ability to play with those rules. What we do not do today is teach those rules. It is like asking a child to write music and be creative before teaching them how to play an instrument.
+clarry kitten Exactly! Once you know the rules, you can start playing and fooling around with them but without any basic common standard we might just end up failing to understand anyone except for the people from the same region or whichever variant becomes the most popular simply due to the sheer size of the community using it (so in case of the UK it might be some combination of Arabic and English and in the US a mixture of Spanish and English).
+Barney Laurance I think the analogy holds if you give the child one of those metal xylophones when she's very young and let her grow up with it. (Under these assumptions, she is for some inexplicable reason fascinated with the instrument throughout her entire childhood). The analogy holds but you must make allowances.
Confusion: John and Simon seem to say that we need to embrace change but rules are important, and Oliver and Mary are saying that rules are important but we need to embrace change. Who do I vote for??
The opposition forget that, at least in my experience, the word 'disinterest' is not just a casual word, it is also a concept famously expressed by Kant. Disinterestedness is not the same as being interested or uninterested. Disinterest for Kant represented a kind of distance and impartiality in the face of works of art, paintings, a play etc. Looking at something openly and without any personal considerations, but to just observe, think, reflect for its own sake.
@@fritzpendleton1476 That is an indicator of your education level. However pedantic you feel that somebody may be...THEY are still right and YOU are still wrong. Methinks that may be the story of your miserable, shallow existence. Gee..I nearly said "life". but as a pedant, I really have to get it right! There is no room for doubt! If your brains were dynamite, they wouldn't blow off a paper hat. Slither back under the stone whence you came!
@@MauriatOttolink If you had bothered to read my comment a bit more closely, you'd realize that I was being sarcastic. This is the kind of argument that he would make to cover poor usage.
@@fritzpendleton1476 Your unfounded confidence in yourself is displayed by your blind assumption that I did not read your comment a bit more closely..Nine bloody words? NINE? Can we suggest that your powers of sarcasm are just a trifle questionable? When it comes to sarcasm, I could bite off your bollocks and then eat a full English breakfast with extra fried bread,
"We should take an aesthetic pride in using the precision tool of our language properly". Bravo! To extend the metaphor a bit more, I think he hit the nail right on the head with that sentiment. (32:43)
Having taught ESL for years, students want to know the "proper" ways of communicating. Their futures depend on it. The reason that many minorities don't get good jobs is often because they can't express more than the most simple of ideas. Semi-literacy is a strong stigma. People who don't learn to communicate according to standards don't get far in the economy -- unless they're in the entertainment industry.
Just started the debate, but I imagine an important point will be this: People write/talk in different ways in different contexts. The fact that we have instant-messaging today, which invites a very informal and 'chatty' tone, does not mean that the language in general is in decline. It's merely the advent of a new genre, in my view
jenslyn87 I agree, to an extent. And yet - I completely despise this new genre. I text, sure. And you know what? It doesn't push me to shorten my words to sm wrd abbrvs tht dnt mak snse. Or rather, they do make some sense - but they are attacking my sense of aesthetics. :P
FichDichInDemArsch I actually was joking, but still - let me put it in the most polite way I can pull off after a long day of hard work... Fuck you. ;)
Go teach in an inner-city school, and witness the inability of the students to write a complete sentence. Language, and consequently thinking/logic, is absolutely in decline. Better yet, watch some old debates or interviews here on TH-cam, and you'll be amazed how far we've fallen.
I was taught that good English is about communicating accurately. Language changes over the years, so good English also entails paying attention to the world around you.
Except for the first speaker who contended that one has to learn grammar in order to learn a language, when every person on earth learns their language without it.
I think that 'I could care less' is simply the facetious opposite of 'I couldn't care less' . One needs to know what is right before attempting to decide what is wrong.
All children are language geniuses, it’s incredible how much and how fast they learn languages. If only we could bottle that ability for adults for learning new languages! Talking to, singing to and reading to children magnifies their incredible language learning ability.
Here are two interesting aspects of that rapid development phase: they don't have other serious commitments, and they have a tremendous tolerance for repetition. I watched my daughter vacuum up both Thai and Isaan, and it is indeed remarkable, but there are reasons as to why it occurs.
Any language starts with building blocks (words). Next comes putting the words together to make sense (Grammar). Later comes colloquial language. Grammar is absolutely necessary!
I found Mr. Oliver's arguments on solid founding and very well put. I think he argued for different dialects and styles but without breaking the immortal rules of the language.
Ye knowe eek that in forme of speche is chaunge With-inne a thousand yeer, and wordes tho That hadden prys, now wonder nyce and straunge Us thinketh hem, and yet thei spake hem so.
@stephen noonan That may be how you think Chaucer is pronounced in the US...we have hundreds, if not thousands, of regional accents. I have never heard Chaucer pronounced that way, but I've only been to 44 of the 50 states.
The thing I hate the most is the mangling of our language by Americans, especially the destruction of the third conditional. It's not " If I would have seen her..." it's " if I had seen her..."
I grew up bilingual, and in fifth grade I was introduced to English as a foreign language (60 years ago). The panel members all spoke in what might be described as 'announcer's English', and I could comprehend every word. I can't say the same for some of the comments from the audience, and in TV programs that insist on representing authentic local English speech, I have to turn on the subtitles.
@Andrew Szemeredy I don’t really believe that. American English is in the process of degenerating with this aweful vocal fry which represents fear and the rising inflection representing uncertainty and the general mumbling representing lack of education. This appears in films more and more as actors don’t even have trained diction any more
@@madeinengland1212 Fast forward to today. You need to keep your dictionary in loose leaf binder. I still use the words from 2000 and before no matter what pressure I'm under to change to preferred pronouns.
For many years I was active in a highly multilingual social forum that included many highly intelligent people, as well as many who were not so intelligent (at least with language). I sometimes wondered if commonly used grammar in other languages could be as awful as it is in English. Which is to say, if one can't speak one's own language correctly, there is little hope that they can speak another language with understandable accuracy. I need to say now that your English (of course after 60 years) is excellent. And Bravo for CONTINUING to learn and perfect, as many people fail to do. (PS: I often have to turn on the subtitles too, only because diction in America especially is a thoroughly lost cause.)
'They made love in front of the fire' (early 19th century) they flouted the social mores of the time, in full view of the fire! Impudent exposure! Subtlety of description being the point. During that period of history, they might not even have touched. 😊
I have just come from listening to Sir Oswald Mosley (a 1975 interview) to this; and if this is, as it should be, the best example of spoken English by native English people, then yes - English is going to the dogs. I say that with the greatest respect and tributes to what was a very articulate panel, but I firmly believe that English has declined due to cultural influences. If we listen to just about ANY BBC program or interview before possibly the mid '80s, we will find it obvious and striking how very much superior the quality of the language was. Even the accents were different, and to me, an Irishman, such accents even sounded like they were more capably suited to faster and more precise communication. Regarding our panel, I found the flow which Oliver spoke approvingly of, was rather poorly exhibited by himself, and best exhibited by Simon Heffer., though still, as proficient as Simon undoubtedly is, his articulation was nowhere nearly as masterful as Sir Oswald. I am not an English academic by any means, but in the comparing of this panel, I suspect that Simon's better ease with which to 'flow', was because of his better overall knowledge of the language and its mechanisms (than the others), as when spoken at its absolute, English is grandly satisfying in its precision and is breathtakingly beautiful and intriguing. I don't think we will see the likes of Mosley's or even Tolkien's level of English being publicly spoken ad hoc again. It saddens me. I will go back and listen to more of Sir Oswald!
I agree. I too listened to Oswald and was struck by the shift in a deterioration of English usage especially by today's so called 'interviewers; as well as their guests.
@Andrew Szemeredy If you google "grammar and the constitution" you will find that the U.S.'s founding documents are riddled with typographical errors. Not that means much, Shakespeare would laugh at your correlation of intelligence with adhering to syntactical rules, since he made up so much of the language itself. (If you're interested, look up linguist Noam Chomsky's talking points about how the grammar of standardized modern English is completely arbitrary and inorganic).
Try send a paper for publication in bad English. Each of the speakers had impeccable English and prof beard was very pompous while arguing against the cause. She clearly no longer edits her students’ texts: gave up exasperated and puts a good face to a bad game
@6:57: The word "sick" used in that way (to mean something like "amazing" or "unbelievable") has actually been around since the late-19th century, but disappeared after WWI until it suddenly came back. You can hear it uttered in period movies like "The illusionist" (2006), with Edward Norton, Jessica Biel, and Paul Giamatti.
Ultimately, yes, the English language /is/ going to the dogs. And the "for's" were addressing this properly, while the "against's" seemed to be missing the point. It's not about expanding definitions or shifting usage, it's really about that teacher who didn't know the difference between "could've" and "could of." It's about the plethora of people seen using "then" and "than" as if they're interchangeable. It's about the people who don't know which "there" or "which" to use in which case. This /IS/ a problem. And it's ultimately a problem with lax educational systems. As to technology, (excluding the plague that is autocorrect) I'm far more concerned about - at least in the US - the decline of PENMANSHIP, and that schools are no longer teaching cursive writing at all. Lastly, I find it really heart breaking that the globalization of English seems to be expediting the deaths of other languages, or at least their bastardizations. It feels like an unsalvageable loss of cultural variation for the sake of a wider, globalized way of communicating.
I'd make a distinction---i think there's a difference between "naming something" (i.e. coming up with a word/sound/symbol, abstracting and compartmentalizing an object or action for personal edification and empowerment) and language. The former would be "the fabric, the material of thought", and language is what springs forth from that. But language itself is always collective and communicative, it implies speaking or gesturing for others, and even if you're talking to yourself, that's a different experience than thinking inside yourself. I'd agree with your and Mr. Chomsky's depiction of language, but only if I was discussing language in terms of the individual, in a vacuum.
Oliver Kann is speaking critically about much higher concerns than are most of us who are trying to defend the ability to communicate. My students (in an art academy) have never been shown how "we drove on to the beach" is basically different from "we drove onto the beach." Or, citing a more famous example, the difference between "eats shoots and leaves" and "eats, shoots and leaves." Yet another example of the importance of linguistic structure is the difference between "I learned from God, my parents and Ayn Rande" and "I learned everything from my parents, Ayn Rande and God."
As a supply teacher, I was given a class of Year 6 juniors for a week. On introducing myself I noticed three or four well-known advertising slogans their usual teacher had written on the blackboard; one of them was "Should of gone to Spec-Savers". Oh, dear.....
Was there even any disagreement here? I feel like there wasn't any concrete point on which the two sides disagreed. All the people on the "against" side conceded that of course some degree of keeping to the rules of grammar is necessary if people are to understand each other, and all the people on the "for" side admitted that the development of new words, and shifts in meaning and grammatical rules are all good things and there's no reason to try and hold them back.
+Gaiacarra It seemed to me that one side was arguing that the glass was half full while the other side argued that on the contrary the glass was half empty. I agree with you. Not sure what they actually disagreed about.
I would agree with the third speaker. Knowledge of language usage is a measure of your knowledge in general. I don't want my young daughter to be immersed in a culture where people ignorant of contemporary usage dominate the conversation, because that, in short, compromises her ability to excel in this "stodgy old world" of academia and business where the ability to express yourself well is still prized.
Agreed! Others that trigger me: everyday when every day is meant; alot instead of a lot; it’s instead of its (and vice versa); insure when ensure is meant; compliment versus complement, etc., etc., etc. People like to blame their phones or spellcheck, but I find that to be a weak excuse for not paying attention to one’s writing. And don’t get me started on would of, could of, should of!
What about the overused "multiple," as in "There are multiple cars on the bridge"? Have you ever seen a multiple car? Whatever happened to "many"? Has it been sent into exile?
I think split infinitives should be valid. The adverb between to...verb is clearest place to specify which verb it modifies. They get rid of ambiguity, not make it worse. If anything they should be mandatory. Most other grammatical errors increase ambiguity. That is why they are to be avoided.
This is one of the most wonderful videos I have ever watched.Intelligence squared should organise more language debates.All the speakers were brilliantly eloquent in presenting their arguments though I really believe that english language is going to the dogs.Thoroughly enjoyed the video,nevertheless.
If you have the time, spend some time in your local planning or zoning department and watch as people try to figure out whether they can put up a garden shed. Or watch them try to write or approve an ordinance. I've seen region-changing development projects hang in the balance because someone in the '70s didn't know how to use an Oxford comma or know how to set a clause as restrictive or not. "Essential" is an understatement. Thumbs-up.
'Essential'? Ovbiiusly not the csae While major cokc-ups may occur due misplaced commas or missing, prepositions, unconventional script is more often (deeply, murderously) irritating rather than substansted.
How tf do u think language evolves? Are we all collectively trying to reach a goal with the English language despite the fact that most of us can't even decide whether or not pineapple belongs on pizza. English "went to the dogs" hundreds of years ago if it ever did become downtrodden. We should teach grammar as it is an incredible tool for speech and writing but we cannot protect languages from the convulsions we put through it today
Muddling disinterested and uninterested does not make the language more expressive, or free, just confusing. In modern English, both uninterested and disinterested mean uninterested. The concept of disinterested has dropped from the language. This is not a good thing.
+Roedy Green Actually no... Modern English is a sham brought along in order to help teachers teach English in schools. This lady don't even give any credit to the Englishes of the Appalachian.... She had the fricken stage-light and didn't do nothing (a'nything) about it.
When I was a child all the presenters on television spoke BBC English. As an adult I lived and worked abroad and when I came back to England I was shocked at the ungrammatical English being spoken by the presenters. My first thought was how difficult it must make it for the children to know how to speak 'properly'. I also noticed children using American words, including that nauseating 'whatever!'. I have taught English abroad and I also thought how little evidence of the correct English grammar that my students had needed to pass their exams they would hear on English television. I speak several languages and the 'italo-inglese' being used in Italy horrifies me. It is so sad to hear italians misusing an English word, when they have a perfectly good italian word for the purpose! If any of you speak italian I recommend the brilliant Tedx talk ' From Bello to Biutiful'. I noticed recently that Macron is using Franglais on posters.
Every dialect has its rules. There might not be a book explaining them all, but there are clearly sentences that are correct and incorrect in that dialect that a native speaker would recognise. Read Pinker The Language Instinct. You have to be aware of what dialect you are speaking . If you say sentences from some other dialect, chances are they will be WRONG. Oliver seems to disagree.
A absolutely brilliant and absorbing debate ,I am a high school Professional English literature, language and social sciences teacher .I have done English literature in my M.A. A assure Oliver that English language will never be at any point of losing its popularity or demand to be taught. I too agree with Simon that another foreign language need to be taught, such as the French or Latin because many English words are taken from those languages.And I too have done Frence .As for BBC I am listening to BBC from 1984 and even didn't know that the language is called received pronunciation or R.P. I find it the most easiest accent to understand. In India we didn't have the cable in the 80th so listened to BBC and Voice of America. In the end I do like the way Erika handles the entire debate.Thanks for presenting such a video on the TH-cam.
Stop making the issue political! The English language, as any other language, is continually evolving. Samuel Johnson recognized this over 200 years ago: as soon as a language stops doing so, it becomes endangered.
As a native Chinese speaker, I sincerely believe that Chinese is a superior language. Every english speaker should try to learn Chinese. Afterall, there are more manderin speakers in the world. Chinese language does not require course in grammar. I was not taught Chinese grammar in my ten years' schooling in Taiwan.
"Between you and me, the language is going to the dogs. You and I must understand this." I do not want to read any more of such incorrectness in the advertising. Do you know what I means?
Once upon a time there was a wonderful collection of 20 sentences under the title "English is crazy" Each sentence had three words that were pronounced identically whilst having radically different spellings and meanings I recall the one in the middle of the Iist could hardly speak out loud English is a creole of German. French, Latin and god knows what else Explain the spellings of enough and stuff to someone trying to learn English
I clicked on this because of the glaring error in the title- glad to see it was intentional. I have a good friend who continually makes the same error - rather than "xyz happened to she and me", he says "her and I". After a few times correcting him, and explaining how to remember the correct usage, I finally gave up. We're still friends, but I still notice.
I reviewed a three paragraph, handwritten letter this week with no less than eight simple spelling errors. The person who drafted it was a second year university student.
Quite so. The preposition between would have been in the ablative or locative case in another language. When this sort of thing happens in English, it necessitates the use of an object pronoun
Great discussion/debate, as a American, I actually prefer the English way of speaking, expressing things, but appreciate the various forms of speaking, even those whose English is not their native language, when I use to travel, those I encountered alway apologized for their English, to which I replied, your English is better than me trying to speak your language, but I must agree, one must lean how to speak English correctly (not sure exactly what that mean) before adapting to all the various form of speaking, however growing up English was my second worst subject, math was my worst, I’m dyslexic and left handed, anyways, you all killed this subject, also great comments and questions by those in the audience, I thoroughly enjoyed this, thank you, IQ2 puts on the most interesting programs, even though many of these accrued years ago, again thank you, this discussion is as relevant today as it was then..
Actually, Beard spent all her time mocking them and telling anecdotes rather than proving her point. She injects her leftist politics into a linguistics debate. She comes off as an articulate undergraduate. She was poor
45:30 Beard: "Rules allow us to debate and transcend them." (not verbatim). Yes, but only if you have a knowledge of them in the first place. It's like Wilde's assertion that All Art is Quite Useless; you don't know this until you've spent a lifetime absorbing it, studying it and discussing it. Enlightenment through knowledge! This knowledge endows us with confidence - and what is lacking in modern speakers and writers and is precisely the (in italics) confidence to use language effectively because, precisely, they know the rules! Mary Beard herself then makes this very point! So her argument is: Language sticklers are silly; but being a stickler allows you to subvert the language effectively; but sticklers are still silly. Great argument.
"You and I" correlates to "we." "You and me" correlates to "us." We say, "between us" not "between we." Therefore the title should be "Between You and me, the English Language is Going to the Dogs."
Alternatively, italics (or quotation marks, perhaps) could be added to the title as follows: 'Between You and I' the English Language is Going to the Dogs.
May someone please help me understand, "the English language is going to the dogs." What exactly does "going to the dogs" mean especially if figuratively in context of the proposition. English is not my first language. Thank you in advance!
@@yengsabio5315 There are at least two potential origins of the phrase. The two that I am aware of are very different from each other but have the same ultimate meaning. One is of ancient Chinese origin in which dogs lived outside the city walls and received scraps of food being thrown out implying the lower quality or unacceptable food is what went to the dogs. A more recent source is from the 1700s in which people that gambled money on dog races may have suffered financially and some became destitute implying their financial resources were weakened if not obliterated. Hence, "going to the dogs" implies a less desirable situation or one from which it is more difficult to recover.
One thought that failed to get expressed in this debate is that standard English is important for a very practical reason: it is the common ground that defines our shared expectations of pronunciation and spelling and punctuation and grammar. If you speak a dialect with a thick accent you limit those you can communicate with to only others who share your own dialect. If, on the other hand, you are fluent in standard English, pretty much anybody who claims to be fluent in any dialect of English is going to be able to understand you. A Scotsman and a Cockney have very different accents that are well-nigh unintelligible to outsiders. If they want to make themselves understood to the English world at large, they have to move toward standard English. The rules of standard English may be as arbitrary as that of any other dialect, but it's the dialect you have to use if you want to reach the widest audience. Similarly, if your spelling and punctuation deviate significantly from standard English without good reason, you limit your audience and impose an increased burden of communication on the audience you can attract. It matters not that the spelling and punctuation rules of standard English are needlessly arcane. I do sympathize with the position of the "against" argument, that there is no right and wrong, just dialects, but within the dialect of standard English, as with all other dialects, there are clearly rules that you will be judged on. That makes them, for better or worse, right or wrong in a practical sense. One more thing: the descriptivists who insist that there is no right and wrong and that the real grammar rules are *instinctive* and therefore don't need to be taught are fighting a losing battle. The whole reason prescriptivists are in the fight in the first place is that they see an unfamiliar construction and they *instinctively* know that it isn't right. As practiced speakers of the language they would never do that and furthermore, after only a moment's reflection they can articulate why and what they would say instead. That's far different than mistakenly applying the rules of Latin grammar to English or some other such nonsense. It's also quite different from seeing an unfamiliar construction and *instinctively* reacting in the opposite way, that it is a novel and admirable addition or change to the language which they would proudly emulate.
57:15 Kamm: "People know from the context what the difference is between 'uninterested' and 'disinterested' ". Do they? I'd say yes, sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. Context might reduce the possibility of misunderstanding, but it doesn't eliminate it - which 'correct' usage does. Kamm is arguing for partial chaos rather than total chaos - that's all.
What complacency Mary Beard displays, and we now have youngsters unable to spell, speak incoherently, and possess a seriously depleted vocabulary, that's where it leads. Some TV announcers, and commentators now, sound infantile in their pronunciation.
What an old reactionary Humphries - he was'nt sacked early enough by the BBC . He is a bore , humourless and overagressive fool. He misquoted Orwell and Redhead.
Your English writing is dreadful too. “Unable to spell, speak incoherently” is stating that they’re unable to speak incoherently, meaning they’re… coherent.
I really enjoyed this debate - it was vey entertaining. Although I liked the points made by each of the speakers - and their engaging styles - I did feel that Oliver's knowledge was outstanding and his impassioned delivery was delightfully infectious. Thank you for putting this up on TH-cam! It's certainly a viewing I will recommend to my colleagues.
One of the first things you'll learn in English Language theory is that language is in a 'constant state of flux', continuously adapting and evolving to meet the contextual and environmental needs of its users. Language is not empirical, so there is no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong' language. We have many different registers; we are capable of writing an essay, talking to your grandmother, chatting to friends at a party, or being interviewed by an employer, using different language choices for each. Neither of these choices are inherently better than the other, they are just different examples of language at work. You could have zoned out when Heffer was introduced as a writer for the daily mail, but anyway, I found it very ironic that he used the term 'beef' in his opening monologue. When surely that's the colloquial, 'improper' use of language that he's a self knighted crusader against. The phrase 'going to the dogs' in the title is another example of this. To be prescriptivist and think that language was somehow better back in your day is a trick of nostalgia and arrogance.
You can talk a good game on the streets and understand what the other dude says, but are you able to properly express yourself when you're aiming for precise and clear language?
Language within contracts and the law has to be right and you will find yourself in grave trouble for the misuse of it. Even the wrong punctuation can alter the meaning of a term and have it applied differently.
Sam Walters. Well it needs to be right if you want to extract or pass on a precise meaning. Consider the following for any ambiguity which you might find.. "Mother had to help Uncle jack off his horse!" I leave it with you!
I don't really think either side essentially contradicted each other. The speakers for the motion seemed to articulate a view of language bound by rules and principles, yet they didn't necessarily state that anything outside that language was inherently wrong. Even John Humhreys at the end said he admired how the youth missed language, which resonated with Oliver Kamm's argument that people can use different registers in different situations. All the opposition argued was that there are conventions, not rules, and that these are changeable. (Although the distinction between "law" and "convention" is ambiguous since no grammatical rule is actually enforced by law, so the words "law" and "convention" have less meaning here.) The opposition accepted that some linguistic conventions are cemented; they didn't advocate a free-for-all. I think the dispute really boils down to semantics - what are rules and conventions?
I would love having the younger guy try to read the writing of our high school students. There ARE grammatical rules that are used to write clearly and meet the standards necessary to communicate effectively.
Exactly, all the boomer types that have done their best to liberate the younger generation from the grammar nazis, doing so from their positions of power which they were only able to obtain on the basis of their high standard of education at the hands of such nazis, are now delighting in the fact that there are now no younger people to take their power away from them, because they're too dumb to do so.
OMG, how true. Because it should be "between you and me". I am the subject of the sentence, whereas 'me' is the direct objet. So it's "just between you (subject) and me (direct object)".
It's a breath of fresh air hearing mainstream people saying this PC culture of limiting your words, thought crime etc is wrong and incredibly harmful to society. Generally the only people I see saying things like this are fringe news agencies and TH-camrs and commenters.
The English language is centred around a few words now like hot,cool and expressions centred around a certain part of the human anatomy.Perfectly straightforward words have taken on an entirely different meaning so one can not use them because of the double meanings that they now have.
John Humphry’s won the debate in one line...when he pointed out that his opponents spoke such beautiful and articulate English...so even they know it’s important. 😂
I'm American, and I didn't realize the moderator was American. I thought she was Irish or Welsh or something. It was clear she spoke differently than the debaters, but it didn't sound American. So how about that for an answer to the question? The reality is that often people who we think "have gone to the dogs" may have quite strongly adapted to their surroundings. Everyone puts their pants on one leg at a time, as my mom would say. (Or your trousers, I guess. But that makes me feel like I'm in a Wallace and Gromit film when I say that. . . ).
On the english lingo goin' south: As a danish person I appreciate RP, because it is very easy to understand, clearly articulate and of course familiar. And I also love all the thick accents very dearly. They are highly inspirational, wonderful and beautiful. And also educational, in that they expand my view of the english language - because they obviously add to said language. As do all the american quirks, twists and, to use a danish phrase, language flowers. Sprogblomster. I of couse think that both points of view are correct. As a musician, I know that it is important to know a song, if you want to expreass yourself singing it. As Tommy Emmanuel, a great australian guitarist once said (paraphrasing): "Practice until you know it by instinct. Then, keep practicing, because that will make it easier!" So, teach your children well. And while you do so, let them play. Finland has the best school. Go, see, whatch, learn, copy, paste. What's with all the talkativity? And knowing that no english speaking person would understand the language of Shakespeare, who by the way spelled his name in many different ways - once he even spelled it in two different ways on the same occation - I believe that the english language is growing in number of words, ways to speak, dialects in which to do so and degrees of depth and clarity. So it's perhaps like the old indian myth of the three gods, one creating, one preserving and one destroying. And the one relatively moderne word (ancient greece) that is a kind of short form: Cycle. So here's my take on it all: We are on a bicycle. One wheel is steering, the other is driving. We have a conservative steering wheel to remain balance, and a progressive rear to provide thrust. And we have a panel of people who are debating which one is right? But thei're both centre, or else we would lose ballance, then grip, then conciousness... Thanks for an interestiing debate, which I watched to the very end with amusement and pressure, sorry pleasure (Asian joke: Asier is a danish word for pickles.) no I did mean asian joke.
Perhaps to an American who doesn't get the cultural context. In England it is hard to find a more archetypal pair of 'grumpy old men'. Gosh, if only you had listened to the Today Show, or read the Daily Mail, then you might know what I mean.
List night I went to a foot ball game and the announcer's voice came over the loud speaker stating "Once you enter the stadium you cannot reenter", I told a young girl setting there, "That is so true, once you enter the stadium you cannot reenter because you are already in the stadium", she thought about it for a minute and then laughed "Oh, (ha ha) I just got it". It appears that intelligence may not be required for communication in regards to language.
English is my fifth language, not second (standard problem of being a stateless kurdish refugee) but I feel that I speak it at a reasonable level. Especially since I have lived in Scandinavia since I was 10 years old and furthermore since I am working on my PhD degree in Canada & the US. I certainly don't think that the english language is going to the dogs. The language might change due to the large amount of second-language speakers, but english itself is already a crossbreed of germanic, latin, old norse, norman french and other languages. I think it will survive just fine, even be quite robust against many influences. However, many other languages are going to the dogs due to the overwhelming influence of the english language and (mostly american) culture. My generation in Denmark make use of more english vocabulary and expressions than the previous generation. During my last visit back to Denmark to see my family, I noticed that the younger generation is doing much worse. Sitting in the train and listening to 16-20 year olds converse, it was hard for me to find a single sentence without an english word like: ridiculous, game, awkward, amazing, etc. I have observed the same trend in many other languages as well. Interestingly, most of the loan words are adjectives but some nouns are loaned too. I can only imagine that this influence will keep reducing the linguistic diversity in our world. The biggest problem is the smaller languages that do not have a body to keep them safe. Many of these will most likely go extinct and english will contribute by dramatically accelerating this process.
![ทุกครั้งที่หลับตา (Lucid Dream) - AYLA's [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4i1OBAQyv58/mqdefault.jpg)
At my Cambridge overseas oral English exam it took me some time to understand that the examiner was not interested in my answers but my ability to answer.
As was I, when I was a language trainer. Proficiency and form was were my/our focus even if and when the substance was intriguing. And this I would clearly state, to the student.
As was I, when I was a language trainer. Proficiency and form was were my/our focus even if and when the substance was intriguing. And this I would clearly state, to the student.
As was I, when I was a language trainer. Proficiency and form was were my/our focus even if and when the substance was intriguing. And this I would clearly state, to the student.
As was I, when I was a language trainer. Proficiency and form was were my/our focus even if and when the substance was intriguing. And this I would clearly state, to the student.
As was I, when I was a language trainer. Proficiency and form was were my/our focus even if and when the substance was intriguing. And this I would clearly state, to the student.
Its interesting that they did not mention the distinction between formal and informal language use. The 'getting it right' is about the definite and exact use of formal language. In teaching we need to learn the formal rules so that we have an option. Only knowing the informal colloquial use leaves a person open to the criticism of being 'uneducated;' but I must say it was a pleasure listening to such wonderful speakers of English. Thank you one and all.
I think they are indirectly arguing that because that's pretty much the same as when they said they agree on the basics. It's just the complexities of the language they argue and if we should care if someone does it correctly.
All languages change all the time.17th century english would be unintelligable to the average britain in the 20th century
The against side were going after some sticklers that didn't exist in the debate. The problem is a basic level of standard grammar should be taught to all, but which is not being done today in schools. I'm guilty of it too.
You don’t need to teach language; you read and have a sense of aesthetic. Actors, speakers, announcers should be exemplars to help everyone improve. Just listening to Anton Lessor on an audio book is a free education.
No, many aspects of language do in fact need to be taught.
From a blog entry by Adam Gopnik:
The war against euphemism and cliché matters not because we can guarantee that eliminating them will help us speak nothing but the truth but, rather, because eliminating them from our language is an act of courage that helps us get just a little closer to the truth. Clear speech takes courage. Every time we tell the truth about a subject that attracts a lot of lies, we advance the sanity of the nation. Plain speech matters because when we speak clearly we are more likely to speak truth than when we retreat into slogan and euphemism; avoiding euphemism takes courage because it almost always points plainly to responsibility. To say ‘torture’ instead of ‘enhanced interrogation’ is hard, because it means that someone we placed in power was a torturer. That’s a hard truth and a brutal responsibility to accept. But it’s so.
[If I recall correctly, Gopnik was commenting on the American detention center in Guantanamo Bay, but I think the point about language and responsibility is relevant. ]
Thanks for that
Thanks for that! Brilliant thought.
Spot on. Euphemism are the language of insecure people. While acting morally superior.
Thank you for pointing out that the best way to teach students English is to explain that there are different registers used depending on the situation. I am a high school teacher and this is how the Language Arts teachers in our school teach conventions of speech.
What alot of nonsense. Every other country teaches the correct usage of their language, only here do we think that is somehow elitist and prescriptive. Increasingly, the only things children are taught as absolute unquestionable truths in our leftwing schools are the dogmas of gender self-identification.
English language is beautiful in many ways; in many dialects and accents. This does need to be taken into the account. Yet here on TH-cam we all meet and speak the language, that we all understand. I love to polish my English. I'm Polish.
59:40 Mary Beard suggests that we haven't 'given up' on making differences in language such as that between 'uninterested' and 'disinterested', but that we've found other ways of expressing that difference. Once again, she speaks for the educated, who might well understand what that difference is between the two and are able to express it in other language. No such luxury for those who don't understand the difference, because they've never been taught one or the other. The Kamm/Beard side of the argument constantly depicts itself as the liberator of the uneducated; it's not - and its arguments again and again depend on the acquisition of knowledge, from which truly liberated language can then flow. It consistently supports the argument that teaching and learning of the rules is, in fact, necessary.
Don't forget the poop scooper and the bag
Just to throw a spanner in to the works (I love doing this): I never use either term (uninterested or disinterested), in such a situation I would use the term "not interested".
Wonderful debate: it is telling that all the presenters use standard English.
Erica has a mixed accent and could be said to be speaking her own distinct idiolect so not really 'standard English'.
Yes! Academic English language and its non-academic one which most non-English people make a very good effort to converse and communicate. After all, it is not 'an ORAL ENGLISH TEST' as long as the main ideas brought across may not be grammatically CORRECT!
@@simonsimon2888 What is your country of origin ?
My parents were from Fujian and my China's mother sent me to an British English school. In those days, there were four different types of school. When the British returned back to Singapore in 1945, two years later i was borned in 1947 as 'a British subject' stated in my birth certificate THE COLONY OF SINGAPORE. Now, 74 years having three National Anthems namely, 'God Save The Queen', Malaysia's 'Negaraku' and finally Singapore's 'Majulah Singapura' just simply incredible but honestly true!
@@simonsimon2888 I love Singapore and have visited many times !
I wanted to come there now for an operation but the lockdown has excluded me.
I asked where you were from because your written English is not clear. (Sorry).
If I ever manage to come to Sing again I can give you some English lessons. 😊
I am a retired English teacher.
Best wishes.
The distinction between "speak" and "talk" seems to have been lost on the panel as is the distinction between a living and a dying language. A living language builds vocabulary . A dying language is ultimately reduced to grunts.
Learning German and being frustrated at how it is difficult, I still love the language all the more. The precise feelings and situations that one can describe, the range between formal and informal terms, it's just something to behold. I wish I'd learnt English when it was just so grand and full of culture and content.
This actually turned out to be a great debate. Both sides had solid points, I'm not sure which way to vote.
@Andrew Szemeredy
Well, that saves me having to watch it!
@Andrew Szemeredy it feels like intellectual masturbation - I guess the format of this event does.
Go back to India.
I could easily assume, of myself, that I am sitting on the fence as both pro and against used examples that I agree with to highlight their side of the motion. I see that the limits of your language are the limits of your world (Wittgenstein) but also appreciate the journey that language makes of time and find the entomology of such utterly interesting. When the written word can lack the 'context' conveyed only with the spoken word those little marks can make such a difference to whether or not the complete message, as intended, was understood. Words are spoken so come with the context as intended, so perhaps if the debate had drawn the distinction between the written or spoken word it would have been easier to pick a side of that fence on which to come down on. (Just saying xx)
Also the addition or alteration of a word can add to the language, whereas with newspeak, the complete removal of an way of expressing a condition, feeling or otherwise by removing a word or comparatives, removes that expression ceasing it from being. Can Slavery exist without a word to represent it. I think this is why expressions like gaslighting have become recently so commonplace when its origins are unlike many words, that can claim Greek, Latin Saxon, French roots amongst others, was coined from a theatrical production from where Gaslighting was the title and the content lending a new meaning to a word that was previously only encountered in a very different circumstance. The word decadence now used to express something very different from its dictionary definition and words such as Ecstasy not recognisable from its original Shakespearian usages.
Both make good points. There is certainly an issue with people - at least people living near me - who struggle to communicate because of their lack of education. There's a difference between evolving language, and people that are so lazy that they can't even express themselves clearly in their own current tongue.
Words are becoming terribly homogenised. How many words do we need for 'good'? Incredible doesn't mean good, it means incredible. We are losing vocabulary to an extent which robs us of the ability to actually describe what we mean sufficiently.
AWESOME comment!
William Fenton
The snag is that these anomalies creep in, under our guard.
The first speaker referred to "problems" which no longer exists, having become "issues",
a perfectly good word but not meaning "problem" and here it sneaks in under YOUR guard .
The issue er sorry problem is that if we hear something often enough, our subconcious is battered with it and it simply "sounds right."
Humpty Dumpty said "Words mean exactly what I want them to mean!"
The irony being that your punctuation is off.
Also, most people understand the nuance in meaning between analagous words.
To the students for whom English is the second language, it is the exception to the rule in grammar that always confounds.
Does the debate's effect change when you realise that the one arguing most strongly against standards is jewish?
Only if you pay too much attention to it.
'Is our children learning?'- George W Bush
Ramesh Hansa Ravendra And yet George Bush resembles Oliver Kamm in comparison to the current incumbent.
Miss Beard is such an engaging speaker. She does miss the point though. You can't flaunt the rules creatively if you have no knowledge of or respect for said rules.
+pretty peggy I very much agree, although I don't have the belief that the rules must be known explicitly.
'Flaunt the rules creatively . . .'
So we're talking about unconventional pedants, now ?
Sorry, I had to.
(flaunt = ~display ; flout = ~blur)
Flout the stubborn trout*
@stephen noonan Exactly - and all the credentials to be a favourite of the BBC.
A rule is _flouted_ , not flaunted. But I agree with your point.
What a swell blend of information, debating and entertainment.
I think it is safe to say that what the majority of people consider to be a good grasp of the English language is a comprehensive knowledge of the framework and rules and the ability to play with those rules. What we do not do today is teach those rules. It is like asking a child to write music and be creative before teaching them how to play an instrument.
+clarry kitten Exactly! Once you know the rules, you can start playing and fooling around with them but without any basic common standard we might just end up failing to understand anyone except for the people from the same region or whichever variant becomes the most popular simply due to the sheer size of the community using it (so in case of the UK it might be some combination of Arabic and English and in the US a mixture of Spanish and English).
+Barney Laurance I think the analogy holds if you give the child one of those metal xylophones when she's very young and let her grow up with it. (Under these assumptions, she is for some inexplicable reason fascinated with the instrument throughout her entire childhood). The analogy holds but you must make allowances.
Confusion: John and Simon seem to say that we need to embrace change but rules are important, and Oliver and Mary are saying that rules are important but we need to embrace change. Who do I vote for??
Leonore Rochlitz It’s “For whom do I vote?”
Joe Biden
The opposition forget that, at least in my experience, the word 'disinterest' is not just a casual word, it is also a concept famously expressed by Kant. Disinterestedness is not the same as being interested or uninterested. Disinterest for Kant represented a kind of distance and impartiality in the face of works of art, paintings, a play etc. Looking at something openly and without any personal considerations, but to just observe, think, reflect for its own sake.
I'm not a native English person but I believe thoroughly that the grammatical or syntactical accuracy of English language should be preserved.
A weird position to hold granted your glaring omission of necessary punctuation and tautological use of the word "syntactical."
25:25 Rivers don't flow through tributaries. Tributaries flow INTO rivers, ie they contribute.
Oliver said, "It flows through many tributaries ; hence one main river at inception !
"Haha, your silly rules don't apply to me, pedants!"
@@fritzpendleton1476
That is an indicator of your education level.
However pedantic you feel that somebody may be...THEY are still right and YOU are still wrong.
Methinks that may be the story of your miserable, shallow existence. Gee..I nearly said "life".
but as a pedant, I really have to get it right! There is no room for doubt!
If your brains were dynamite, they wouldn't blow off a paper hat.
Slither back under the stone whence you came!
@@MauriatOttolink If you had bothered to read my comment a bit more closely, you'd realize that I was being sarcastic. This is the kind of argument that he would make to cover poor usage.
@@fritzpendleton1476
Your unfounded confidence in yourself is displayed by your blind assumption that I did not read your comment a bit more closely..Nine bloody words? NINE? Can we suggest that your powers of sarcasm are just a trifle questionable? When it comes to sarcasm, I could bite off your bollocks and then eat a full English breakfast with extra fried bread,
"We should take an aesthetic pride in using the precision tool of our language properly". Bravo! To extend the metaphor a bit more, I think he hit the nail right on the head with that sentiment. (32:43)
My new favo>u
Having taught ESL for years, students want to know the "proper" ways of communicating. Their futures depend on it. The reason that many minorities don't get good jobs is often because they can't express more than the most simple of ideas. Semi-literacy is a strong stigma. People who don't learn to communicate according to standards don't get far in the economy -- unless they're in the entertainment industry.
or a politician
Soros Oria Oh, semi-literacy is most irritating, for example, the use of the construction: “the reason ... is because ...”
@@irenemax3574
I quite agree.
Just started the debate, but I imagine an important point will be this: People write/talk in different ways in different contexts. The fact that we have instant-messaging today, which invites a very informal and 'chatty' tone, does not mean that the language in general is in decline. It's merely the advent of a new genre, in my view
jenslyn87 I agree, to an extent. And yet - I completely despise this new genre. I text, sure. And you know what? It doesn't push me to shorten my words to sm wrd abbrvs tht dnt mak snse. Or rather, they do make some sense - but they are attacking my sense of aesthetics. :P
FichDichInDemArsch I actually was joking, but still - let me put it in the most polite way I can pull off after a long day of hard work...
Fuck you. ;)
Go teach in an inner-city school, and witness the inability of the students to write a complete sentence. Language, and consequently thinking/logic, is absolutely in decline. Better yet, watch some old debates or interviews here on TH-cam, and you'll be amazed how far we've fallen.
@@ata5855
Go back to the 1920s, teach in a poor area and those children would probably write garbage as well.
Simon Heffer at 1:06. This is the whole argument. We teach to prepare our children.
I was taught that good English is about communicating accurately. Language changes over the years, so good English also entails paying attention to the world around you.
All the speakers made excellent points.
72Yonatan .
Except for the first speaker who contended that one has to learn grammar in order to learn a language, when every person on earth learns their language without it.
Two of my pet peeves are "Quote, unquote' and, "I could care less". Neither use makes a bit of sense.
Hold down the fort.
Two of mine are: "go-getter" and "from the get-go."
I think it's quote, end quote.
Also it is " I could NOT care less" b/c i already don't care as little as is possible.
I think that 'I could care less' is simply the facetious opposite of 'I couldn't care less' . One needs to know what is right before attempting to decide what is wrong.
Min 20:14 is fun
All children are language geniuses, it’s incredible how much and how fast they learn languages. If only we could bottle that ability for adults for learning new languages! Talking to, singing to and reading to children magnifies their incredible language learning ability.
Here are two interesting aspects of that rapid development phase: they don't have other serious commitments, and they have a tremendous tolerance for repetition. I watched my daughter vacuum up both Thai and Isaan, and it is indeed remarkable, but there are reasons as to why it occurs.
Any language starts with building blocks (words). Next comes putting the words together to make sense (Grammar). Later comes colloquial language. Grammar is absolutely necessary!
The same with the german language!
But one small detail I want to make clear:
Communication and language are not the same.
The last time I checked, German was spelled with a capital G.
@@adoremus4014
Well ... if you prefer we can communicate in German!
@@diderichlangmannen I would prefer Sanskrit as it's less corrupt than German.
Adoremus
Let‘s be fair!
Han-Chinese?
@@diderichlangmannen Well done for writing Han-Chinese with capitals H and C. English lesson complete, passed with honours!
I found Mr. Oliver's arguments on solid founding and very well put. I think he argued for different dialects and styles but without breaking the immortal rules of the language.
Mr. Kamm's
Ye knowe eek that in forme of speche is chaunge
With-inne a thousand yeer, and wordes tho
That hadden prys, now wonder nyce and straunge
Us thinketh hem, and yet thei spake hem so.
chaucer?
Yeah, Chewbacca Yoda Obi Wan Jar Jar.
Perfect grammar.
Sarago Gotye: Justin Trudeau...?
@stephen noonan That may be how you think Chaucer is pronounced in the US...we have hundreds, if not thousands, of regional accents. I have never heard Chaucer pronounced that way, but I've only been to 44 of the 50 states.
I could listen to Oliver all day long !
The pound has plunged!...media proclaimed...it had fallen around 1%.
The thing I HATE the most is double negatives! Like “I didn’t see nothing!”
The thing I hate the most is the mangling of our language by Americans, especially the destruction of the third conditional. It's not " If I would have seen her..." it's " if I had seen her..."
I grew up bilingual, and in fifth grade I was introduced to English as a foreign language (60 years ago). The panel members all spoke in what might be described as 'announcer's English', and I could comprehend every word. I can't say the same for some of the comments from the audience, and in TV programs that insist on representing authentic local English speech, I have to turn on the subtitles.
@Andrew Szemeredy I don’t really believe that. American English is in the process of degenerating with this aweful vocal fry which represents fear and the rising inflection representing uncertainty and the general mumbling representing lack of education. This appears in films more and more as actors don’t even have trained diction any more
@@madeinengland1212 Fast forward to today. You need to keep your dictionary in loose leaf binder. I still use the words from 2000 and before no matter what pressure I'm under to change to preferred pronouns.
For many years I was active in a highly multilingual social forum that included many highly intelligent people, as well as many who were not so intelligent (at least with language). I sometimes wondered if commonly used grammar in other languages could be as awful as it is in English. Which is to say, if one can't speak one's own language correctly, there is little hope that they can speak another language with understandable accuracy. I need to say now that your English (of course after 60 years) is excellent. And Bravo for CONTINUING to learn and perfect, as many people fail to do.
(PS: I often have to turn on the subtitles too, only because diction in America especially is a thoroughly lost cause.)
'They made love in front of the fire' (early 19th century) they flouted the social mores of the time, in full view of the fire! Impudent exposure! Subtlety of description being the point. During that period of history, they might not even have touched. 😊
I have just come from listening to Sir Oswald Mosley (a 1975 interview) to this; and if this is, as it should be, the best example of spoken English by native English people, then yes - English is going to the dogs. I say that with the greatest respect and tributes to what was a very articulate panel, but I firmly believe that English has declined due to cultural influences. If we listen to just about ANY BBC program or interview before possibly the mid '80s, we will find it obvious and striking how very much superior the quality of the language was. Even the accents were different, and to me, an Irishman, such accents even sounded like they were more capably suited to faster and more precise communication.
Regarding our panel, I found the flow which Oliver spoke approvingly of, was rather poorly exhibited by himself, and best exhibited by Simon Heffer., though still, as proficient as Simon undoubtedly is, his articulation was nowhere nearly as masterful as Sir Oswald. I am not an English academic by any means, but in the comparing of this panel, I suspect that Simon's better ease with which to 'flow', was because of his better overall knowledge of the language and its mechanisms (than the others), as when spoken at its absolute, English is grandly satisfying in its precision and is breathtakingly beautiful and intriguing.
I don't think we will see the likes of Mosley's or even Tolkien's level of English being publicly spoken ad hoc again. It saddens me. I will go back and listen to more of Sir Oswald!
I agree. I too listened to Oswald and was struck by the shift in a deterioration of English usage especially by today's so called 'interviewers; as well as their guests.
The tension between tradition and novelty in language is exactly the mirror of the tension between social conformity and revolution.
@Andrew Szemeredy If you google "grammar and the constitution" you will find that the U.S.'s founding documents are riddled with typographical errors. Not that means much, Shakespeare would laugh at your correlation of intelligence with adhering to syntactical rules, since he made up so much of the language itself. (If you're interested, look up linguist Noam Chomsky's talking points about how the grammar of standardized modern English is completely arbitrary and inorganic).
Try send a paper for publication in bad English. Each of the speakers had impeccable English and prof beard was very pompous while arguing against the cause. She clearly no longer edits her students’ texts: gave up exasperated and puts a good face to a bad game
@Andrew Szemeredy I'm not saying that grammar isn't important, I'm just saying that equating grammar directly with intelligence is elitist nonsense.
@6:57: The word "sick" used in that way (to mean something like "amazing" or "unbelievable") has actually been around since the late-19th century, but disappeared after WWI until it suddenly came back.
You can hear it uttered in period movies like "The illusionist" (2006), with Edward Norton, Jessica Biel, and Paul Giamatti.
Le Huy-Anh ,Period......2006.....what?
So nice to see John H. doing something different and more lite-'arted..
Ultimately, yes, the English language /is/ going to the dogs. And the "for's" were addressing this properly, while the "against's" seemed to be missing the point. It's not about expanding definitions or shifting usage, it's really about that teacher who didn't know the difference between "could've" and "could of." It's about the plethora of people seen using "then" and "than" as if they're interchangeable. It's about the people who don't know which "there" or "which" to use in which case.
This /IS/ a problem. And it's ultimately a problem with lax educational systems.
As to technology, (excluding the plague that is autocorrect) I'm far more concerned about - at least in the US - the decline of PENMANSHIP, and that schools are no longer teaching cursive writing at all.
Lastly, I find it really heart breaking that the globalization of English seems to be expediting the deaths of other languages, or at least their bastardizations. It feels like an unsalvageable loss of cultural variation for the sake of a wider, globalized way of communicating.
As a novelist and poet I disagree that the primary purpose of language is to communicate. It is the fabric the material of thought.
Chomsky said that too.
I'd make a distinction---i think there's a difference between "naming something" (i.e. coming up with a word/sound/symbol, abstracting and compartmentalizing an object or action for personal edification and empowerment) and language. The former would be "the fabric, the material of thought", and language is what springs forth from that. But language itself is always collective and communicative, it implies speaking or gesturing for others, and even if you're talking to yourself, that's a different experience than thinking inside yourself.
I'd agree with your and Mr. Chomsky's depiction of language, but only if I was discussing language in terms of the individual, in a vacuum.
Oliver Kann is speaking critically about much higher concerns than are most of us who are trying to defend the ability to communicate. My students (in an art academy) have never been shown how "we drove on to the beach" is basically different from "we drove onto the beach." Or, citing a more famous example, the difference between "eats shoots and leaves" and "eats, shoots and leaves." Yet another example of the importance of linguistic structure is the difference between "I learned from God, my parents and Ayn Rande" and "I learned everything from my parents, Ayn Rande and God."
I completely agree with Simon Heffer.
As a supply teacher, I was given a class of Year 6 juniors for a week. On introducing myself I noticed three or four well-known advertising slogans their usual teacher had written on the blackboard; one of them was "Should of gone to Spec-Savers". Oh, dear.....
@andrewszemeredy4458have
Was there even any disagreement here? I feel like there wasn't any concrete point on which the two sides disagreed. All the people on the "against" side conceded that of course some degree of keeping to the rules of grammar is necessary if people are to understand each other, and all the people on the "for" side admitted that the development of new words, and shifts in meaning and grammatical rules are all good things and there's no reason to try and hold them back.
+Gaiacarra It seemed to me that one side was arguing that the glass was half full while the other side argued that on the contrary the glass was half empty. I agree with you. Not sure what they actually disagreed about.
I would agree with the third speaker. Knowledge of language usage is a measure of your knowledge in general. I don't want my young daughter to be immersed in a culture where people ignorant of contemporary usage dominate the conversation, because that, in short, compromises her ability to excel in this "stodgy old world" of academia and business where the ability to express yourself well is still prized.
Speakers, Commenters.
Evolution's the rhythm of the moment!
Get back to teaching GRAMMAR in schools. Example: Which is correct..1. I see seven girl's in the bus OR I see seven girls in the bus.
Your ..You're and Their ..There ...There are times i could scream !
Agreed! Others that trigger me: everyday when every day is meant; alot instead of a lot; it’s instead of its (and vice versa); insure when ensure is meant; compliment versus complement, etc., etc., etc. People like to blame their phones or spellcheck, but I find that to be a weak excuse for not paying attention to one’s writing. And don’t get me started on would of, could of, should of!
Cleave the one in twain;
Then cleave them together again
@ladywharton Yeah, I get that quite a bit too. Some people are nice and grateful for the correction but they are few and far between.
I quite often do!
What about the overused "multiple," as in "There are multiple cars on the bridge"? Have you ever seen a multiple car? Whatever happened to "many"? Has it been sent into exile?
I think split infinitives should be valid. The adverb between to...verb is clearest place to specify which verb it modifies. They get rid of ambiguity, not make it worse. If anything they should be mandatory. Most other grammatical errors increase ambiguity. That is why they are to be avoided.
This is one of the most wonderful videos I have ever watched.Intelligence squared should organise more language debates.All the speakers were brilliantly eloquent in presenting their arguments though I really believe that english language is going to the dogs.Thoroughly enjoyed the video,nevertheless.
The precise use of language is essential for understandable communication.
If you have the time, spend some time in your local planning or zoning department and watch as people try to figure out whether they can put up a garden shed. Or watch them try to write or approve an ordinance. I've seen region-changing development projects hang in the balance because someone in the '70s didn't know how to use an Oxford comma or know how to set a clause as restrictive or not. "Essential" is an understatement.
Thumbs-up.
'Essential'? Ovbiiusly not the csae While major cokc-ups may occur due misplaced commas or missing, prepositions, unconventional script is more often (deeply, murderously) irritating rather than substansted.
@@SimsulatedId th-cam.com/video/Q1s9X1ub2Co/w-d-xo.html
Would very much like to see an update of this debate for our current time.
The corruption of English is altogether intentional. It's meant to obfuscate. If you don't mean anything, you can never be wrong.
How tf do u think language evolves? Are we all collectively trying to reach a goal with the English language despite the fact that most of us can't even decide whether or not pineapple belongs on pizza.
English "went to the dogs" hundreds of years ago if it ever did become downtrodden.
We should teach grammar as it is an incredible tool for speech and writing but we cannot protect languages from the convulsions we put through it today
This is something up with which I shall not put.
@@orangebetsy Can't imagine what you brought that up for.
@Andrew Szemeredy And- I didn't worked yesterday..-- And your for you are.😐
No girl has ever been impressed by a bass player. OK, maybe Mandy Smith but the point still holds.
The first speaker in voice and mannerisms reminds me so much of Rowan Atkinson
He has a quiz show. Search “mastermind bbc” on TH-cam.
I hate a moderator who clearly favors one side as she does when she gives the original vote.
Muddling disinterested and uninterested does not make the language more expressive, or free, just confusing.
In modern English, both uninterested and disinterested mean uninterested. The concept of disinterested has dropped from the language. This is not a good thing.
+Roedy Green Hear hear!
+Roedy Green The subject or topic , I found uninteresting. I am disinterested in attending that lecture because of the topic.
+Roedy Green Actually no... Modern English is a sham brought along in order to help teachers teach English in schools. This lady don't even give any credit to the Englishes of the Appalachian.... She had the fricken stage-light and didn't do nothing (a'nything) about it.
Hear, hear mate.
This is true
When I was a child all the presenters on television spoke BBC English. As an adult I lived and worked abroad and when I came back to England I was shocked at the ungrammatical English being spoken by the presenters. My first thought was how difficult it must make it for the children to know how to speak 'properly'. I also noticed children using American words, including that nauseating 'whatever!'. I have taught English abroad and I also thought how little evidence of the correct English grammar that my students had needed to pass their exams they would hear on English television.
I speak several languages and the 'italo-inglese' being used in Italy horrifies me. It is so sad to hear italians misusing an English word, when they have a perfectly good italian word for the purpose! If any of you speak italian I recommend the brilliant Tedx talk ' From Bello to Biutiful'.
I noticed recently that Macron is using Franglais on posters.
Every dialect has its rules. There might not be a book explaining them all, but there are clearly sentences that are correct and incorrect in that dialect that a native speaker would recognise. Read Pinker The Language Instinct.
You have to be aware of what dialect you are speaking . If you say sentences from some other dialect, chances are they will be WRONG. Oliver seems to disagree.
Right off the bat you added to the problem: It's between you and me, not I.
Sounds like the humble schoolteacher righted the entire debate! Good for her! Excellent debate.
A absolutely brilliant and absorbing debate ,I am a high school Professional English literature, language and social sciences teacher .I have done English literature in my M.A. A assure Oliver that English language will never be at any point of losing its popularity or demand to be taught. I too agree with Simon that another foreign language need to be taught, such as the French or Latin because many English words are taken from those languages.And I too have done Frence .As for BBC I am listening to BBC from 1984 and even didn't know that the language is called received pronunciation or R.P. I find it the most easiest accent to understand. In India we didn't have the cable in the 80th so listened to BBC and Voice of America. In the end I do like the way Erika handles the entire debate.Thanks for presenting such a video on the TH-cam.
Stop making the issue political! The English language, as any other language, is continually evolving. Samuel Johnson recognized this over 200 years ago: as soon as a language stops doing so, it becomes endangered.
It's devolving, actually. (I'd wink but I'm against it)
Stefan Roques It's never been richer. You clearly lack the imagination to see its potential.
I suggest you find "Politics and the English Language," by George Orwell, online and read it. Speaking of language use and politics.
English is filled with spelling and pronunciation conflicts. It needs serious organization.
DarKool81
It's a political issue whether you like it or not.
As a native Chinese speaker, I sincerely believe that Chinese is a superior language. Every english speaker should try to learn Chinese. Afterall, there are more manderin speakers in the world. Chinese language does not require course in grammar. I was not taught Chinese grammar in my ten years' schooling in Taiwan.
What do you mean by a "superior language"?
Stephen C Yang Mandarin.
"Between you and me, the language is going to the dogs. You and I must understand this." I do not want to read any more of such incorrectness in the advertising. Do you know what I means?
Yeah, that's the joke.
Yo dude, 'Do you know what I means bruv?', i'n' it! : )
Once upon a time there was a wonderful collection of 20 sentences under the title "English is crazy"
Each sentence had three words that were pronounced identically whilst having radically different spellings and meanings
I recall the one in the middle of the Iist could hardly speak out loud
English is a creole of German. French, Latin and god knows what else
Explain the spellings of enough and stuff to someone trying to learn English
th-cam.com/video/ZXa8cO9mXFk/w-d-xo.html
Apparently one must be a raving lunatic to comprehend English
I clicked on this because of the glaring error in the title- glad to see it was intentional. I have a good friend who continually makes the same error - rather than "xyz happened to she and me", he says "her and I". After a few times correcting him, and explaining how to remember the correct usage, I finally gave up. We're still friends, but I still notice.
I draw the line at pronouncing "nuclear" as "nu-cu-lar."
I learned English via phonics. Just why did that go away?
@Russ Gallagher really? I've always pronounced it new-kyu-lar
I reviewed a three paragraph, handwritten letter this week with no less than eight simple spelling errors. The person who drafted it was a second year university student.
It’s “between you and me” by the way. Just a small point when you’re bashing the English language...
Quite so. The preposition between would have been in the ablative or locative case in another language. When this sort of thing happens in English, it necessitates the use of an object pronoun
woosh
I thought it was done on purpose. Hope so!
'Twas but a jest you twit
@@normanmazlin6741
'Twixt thee and me th'art right.
Great discussion/debate, as a American, I actually prefer the English way of speaking, expressing things, but appreciate the various forms of speaking, even those whose English is not their native language, when I use to travel, those I encountered alway apologized for their English, to which I replied, your English is better than me trying to speak your language, but I must agree, one must lean how to speak English correctly (not sure exactly what that mean) before adapting to all the various form of speaking, however growing up English was my second worst subject, math was my worst, I’m dyslexic and left handed, anyways, you all killed this subject, also great comments and questions by those in the audience, I thoroughly enjoyed this, thank you, IQ2 puts on the most interesting programs, even though many of these accrued years ago, again thank you, this discussion is as relevant today as it was then..
they're approaching this as if language was something that one could have ultimate control over
This was a real treat to watch!
Actually, Beard spent all her time mocking them and telling anecdotes rather than proving her point. She injects her leftist politics into a linguistics debate. She comes off as an articulate undergraduate. She was poor
45:30 Beard: "Rules allow us to debate and transcend them." (not verbatim). Yes, but only if you have a knowledge of them in the first place. It's like Wilde's assertion that All Art is Quite Useless; you don't know this until you've spent a lifetime absorbing it, studying it and discussing it. Enlightenment through knowledge! This knowledge endows us with confidence - and what is lacking in modern speakers and writers and is precisely the (in italics) confidence to use language effectively because, precisely, they know the rules! Mary Beard herself then makes this very point! So her argument is: Language sticklers are silly; but being a stickler allows you to subvert the language effectively; but sticklers are still silly. Great argument.
"You and I" correlates to "we."
"You and me" correlates to "us."
We say, "between us" not "between we."
Therefore the title should be "Between You and me, the English Language is Going to the Dogs."
Alternatively, italics (or quotation marks, perhaps) could be added to the title as follows: 'Between You and I' the English Language is Going to the Dogs.
May someone please help me understand, "the English language is going to the dogs." What exactly does "going to the dogs" mean especially if figuratively in context of the proposition.
English is not my first language. Thank you in advance!
@@yengsabio5315 There are at least two potential origins of the phrase. The two that I am aware of are very different from each other but have the same ultimate meaning. One is of ancient Chinese origin in which dogs lived outside the city walls and received scraps of food being thrown out implying the lower quality or unacceptable food is what went to the dogs. A more recent source is from the 1700s in which people that gambled money on dog races may have suffered financially and some became destitute implying their financial resources were weakened if not obliterated. Hence, "going to the dogs" implies a less desirable situation or one from which it is more difficult to recover.
@@jaredprince4772 Thank you very much! At least, it's clear to me now.
Cheers & mabuhay to you from tropical Philippines!
Yeng Sabio “going to the dogs” is very similar to “going down the toilet” o “going down the drain”, it means it’s being destroyed.
dear god such breathtaking cheekiness and cleverness on every side. I'm so entranced. such shining lights
One thought that failed to get expressed in this debate is that standard English is important for a very practical reason: it is the common ground that defines our shared expectations of pronunciation and spelling and punctuation and grammar. If you speak a dialect with a thick accent you limit those you can communicate with to only others who share your own dialect. If, on the other hand, you are fluent in standard English, pretty much anybody who claims to be fluent in any dialect of English is going to be able to understand you. A Scotsman and a Cockney have very different accents that are well-nigh unintelligible to outsiders. If they want to make themselves understood to the English world at large, they have to move toward standard English. The rules of standard English may be as arbitrary as that of any other dialect, but it's the dialect you have to use if you want to reach the widest audience.
Similarly, if your spelling and punctuation deviate significantly from standard English without good reason, you limit your audience and impose an increased burden of communication on the audience you can attract. It matters not that the spelling and punctuation rules of standard English are needlessly arcane.
I do sympathize with the position of the "against" argument, that there is no right and wrong, just dialects, but within the dialect of standard English, as with all other dialects, there are clearly rules that you will be judged on. That makes them, for better or worse, right or wrong in a practical sense.
One more thing: the descriptivists who insist that there is no right and wrong and that the real grammar rules are *instinctive* and therefore don't need to be taught are fighting a losing battle. The whole reason prescriptivists are in the fight in the first place is that they see an unfamiliar construction and they *instinctively* know that it isn't right. As practiced speakers of the language they would never do that and furthermore, after only a moment's reflection they can articulate why and what they would say instead. That's far different than mistakenly applying the rules of Latin grammar to English or some other such nonsense. It's also quite different from seeing an unfamiliar construction and *instinctively* reacting in the opposite way, that it is a novel and admirable addition or change to the language which they would proudly emulate.
57:15 Kamm: "People know from the context what the difference is between 'uninterested' and 'disinterested' ". Do they? I'd say yes, sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. Context might reduce the possibility of misunderstanding, but it doesn't eliminate it - which 'correct' usage does. Kamm is arguing for partial chaos rather than total chaos - that's all.
What complacency Mary Beard displays, and we now have youngsters unable to spell, speak incoherently, and possess a seriously depleted vocabulary, that's where it leads. Some TV announcers, and commentators now, sound infantile in their pronunciation.
It’s been happening up north for decades
Pssht, whatever. Y'all fools be trippin up in this mofo.
Terrible use of punctuation.
What an old reactionary Humphries - he was'nt sacked early enough by the BBC . He is a bore , humourless and overagressive fool. He misquoted Orwell and Redhead.
Your English writing is dreadful too. “Unable to spell, speak incoherently” is stating that they’re unable to speak incoherently, meaning they’re… coherent.
I really enjoyed this debate - it was vey entertaining. Although I liked the points made by each of the speakers - and their engaging styles - I did feel that Oliver's knowledge was outstanding and his impassioned delivery was delightfully infectious. Thank you for putting this up on TH-cam! It's certainly a viewing I will recommend to my colleagues.
One of the first things you'll learn in English Language theory is that language is in a 'constant state of flux', continuously adapting and evolving to meet the contextual and environmental needs of its users. Language is not empirical, so there is no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong' language.
We have many different registers; we are capable of writing an essay, talking to your grandmother, chatting to friends at a party, or being interviewed by an employer, using different language choices for each. Neither of these choices are inherently better than the other, they are just different examples of language at work.
You could have zoned out when Heffer was introduced as a writer for the daily mail, but anyway, I found it very ironic that he used the term 'beef' in his opening monologue. When surely that's the colloquial, 'improper' use of language that he's a self knighted crusader against. The phrase 'going to the dogs' in the title is another example of this.
To be prescriptivist and think that language was somehow better back in your day is a trick of nostalgia and arrogance.
You can talk a good game on the streets and understand what the other dude says, but are you able to properly express yourself when you're aiming for precise and clear language?
well said!
Language within contracts and the law has to be right and you will find yourself in grave trouble for the misuse of it. Even the wrong punctuation can alter the meaning of a term and have it applied differently.
Sam Walters.
Well it needs to be right if you want to extract or pass on a precise meaning.
Consider the following for any ambiguity which you might find..
"Mother had to help Uncle jack off his horse!"
I leave it with you!
I don't really think either side essentially contradicted each other. The speakers for the motion seemed to articulate a view of language bound by rules and principles, yet they didn't necessarily state that anything outside that language was inherently wrong. Even John Humhreys at the end said he admired how the youth missed language, which resonated with Oliver Kamm's argument that people can use different registers in different situations. All the opposition argued was that there are conventions, not rules, and that these are changeable. (Although the distinction between "law" and "convention" is ambiguous since no grammatical rule is actually enforced by law, so the words "law" and "convention" have less meaning here.) The opposition accepted that some linguistic conventions are cemented; they didn't advocate a free-for-all. I think the dispute really boils down to semantics - what are rules and conventions?
I would love having the younger guy try to read the writing of our high school students. There ARE grammatical rules that are used to write clearly and meet the standards necessary to communicate effectively.
This video is from 2014.
Exactly, all the boomer types that have done their best to liberate the younger generation from the grammar nazis, doing so from their positions of power which they were only able to obtain on the basis of their high standard of education at the hands of such nazis, are now delighting in the fact that there are now no younger people to take their power away from them, because they're too dumb to do so.
OMG, how true. Because it should be "between you and me". I am the subject of the sentence, whereas 'me' is the direct objet. So it's "just between you (subject) and me (direct object)".
This IS a joke, isn't it? You do know that "between you and me" is not a sentence.
It's a breath of fresh air hearing mainstream people saying this PC culture of limiting your words, thought crime etc is wrong and incredibly harmful to society. Generally the only people I see saying things like this are fringe news agencies and TH-camrs and commenters.
Your first speaker speaks to me. Language influences. Wonderful topic and debate.
The English language is centred around a few words now like hot,cool and expressions centred around a certain part of the human anatomy.Perfectly straightforward words have taken on an entirely different meaning so one can not use them because of the double meanings that they now have.
- Overuse of "centred."
- Cannot*
- Conclusion that makes no sense.
Yep-sounds like your average language prescriptivist.
It saddens me that the only panelist being rude is that woman. (On top of being wrong and irritating). Otherwise; interesting discussion)
John Humphry’s won the debate in one line...when he pointed out that his opponents spoke such beautiful and articulate English...so even they know it’s important. 😂
I'm American, and I didn't realize the moderator was American. I thought she was Irish or Welsh or something. It was clear she spoke differently than the debaters, but it didn't sound American. So how about that for an answer to the question? The reality is that often people who we think "have gone to the dogs" may have quite strongly adapted to their surroundings. Everyone puts their pants on one leg at a time, as my mom would say. (Or your trousers, I guess. But that makes me feel like I'm in a Wallace and Gromit film when I say that. . . ).
Let's mourn the loss of "literally".
Do you literally mean that or do you mean that literally?
On the english lingo goin' south:
As a danish person I appreciate RP, because it is very easy to understand, clearly articulate and of course familiar.
And I also love all the thick accents very dearly. They are highly inspirational, wonderful and beautiful. And also educational, in that they expand my view of the english language - because they obviously add to said language.
As do all the american quirks, twists and, to use a danish phrase, language flowers. Sprogblomster. I of couse think that both points of view are correct.
As a musician, I know that it is important to know a song, if you want to expreass yourself singing it. As Tommy Emmanuel, a great australian guitarist once said (paraphrasing): "Practice until you know it by instinct. Then, keep practicing, because that will make it easier!"
So, teach your children well. And while you do so, let them play. Finland has the best school. Go, see, whatch, learn, copy, paste. What's with all the talkativity?
And knowing that no english speaking person would understand the language of Shakespeare, who by the way spelled his name in many different ways - once he even spelled it in two different ways on the same occation - I believe that the english language is growing in number of words, ways to speak, dialects in which to do so and degrees of depth and clarity. So it's perhaps like the old indian myth of the three gods, one creating, one preserving and one destroying. And the one relatively moderne word (ancient greece) that is a kind of short form: Cycle.
So here's my take on it all: We are on a bicycle. One wheel is steering, the other is driving. We have a conservative steering wheel to remain balance, and a progressive rear to provide thrust.
And we have a panel of people who are debating which one is right? But thei're both centre, or else we would lose ballance, then grip, then conciousness...
Thanks for an interestiing debate, which I watched to the very end with amusement and pressure, sorry pleasure (Asian joke: Asier is a danish word for pickles.) no I did mean asian joke.
There is a more fundamental question here. Do the distinctions between "conservative" and "liberal" mean anything any longer?
KK Design Services
EXACTLY!!!!!!
It's still a difference in the rhetoric used to woo voters.
It's not a difference in a politician's actions, once elected.
Words shape thoughts. Thoughts shape behaviour. Behaviour shapes society.
Beard comes across as a patronising frump when she describes her opponents as 'grumpy old men'
Perhaps to an American who doesn't get the cultural context. In England it is hard to find a more archetypal pair of 'grumpy old men'. Gosh, if only you had listened to the Today Show, or read the Daily Mail, then you might know what I mean.
@@Ryan-fc9lq Is it acceptable in England to wear a raincoat indoors?
List night I went to a foot ball game and the announcer's voice came over the loud speaker stating "Once you enter the stadium you cannot reenter", I told a young girl setting there, "That is so true, once you enter the stadium you cannot reenter because you are already in the stadium", she thought about it for a minute and then laughed "Oh, (ha ha) I just got it". It appears that intelligence may not be required for communication in regards to language.
English is my fifth language, not second (standard problem of being a stateless kurdish refugee) but I feel that I speak it at a reasonable level. Especially since I have lived in Scandinavia since I was 10 years old and furthermore since I am working on my PhD degree in Canada & the US. I certainly don't think that the english language is going to the dogs. The language might change due to the large amount of second-language speakers, but english itself is already a crossbreed of germanic, latin, old norse, norman french and other languages. I think it will survive just fine, even be quite robust against many influences.
However, many other languages are going to the dogs due to the overwhelming influence of the english language and (mostly american) culture. My generation in Denmark make use of more english vocabulary and expressions than the previous generation. During my last visit back to Denmark to see my family, I noticed that the younger generation is doing much worse. Sitting in the train and listening to 16-20 year olds converse, it was hard for me to find a single sentence without an english word like: ridiculous, game, awkward, amazing, etc. I have observed the same trend in many other languages as well. Interestingly, most of the loan words are adjectives but some nouns are loaned too. I can only imagine that this influence will keep reducing the linguistic diversity in our world. The biggest problem is the smaller languages that do not have a body to keep them safe. Many of these will most likely go extinct and english will contribute by dramatically accelerating this process.