Between You and I the English Language is Going to the Dogs
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- Want to join the debate? Check out the Intelligence Squared website to hear about future live events and podcasts: www.intelligenc...
__________________________
www.intelligenc...
Filmed at the Royal Geographical Society on 5th March 2014.
The English language is going to the dogs. "Between you and I" is just one of the howlers those of us with linguistic sensibilities have to endure. The distinctions between words such as 'infer' and 'imply', and 'uninterested' and 'disinterested' are disappearing. Americanisms such as 'gotten', 'different than' and 'can I get..?' abound. Every office resounds with horrible new jargon such as 'going forward', 'deliverables', 'touch base' and 'heads up'. Infinitives are split, participles dangle. Language is based on established practice and rules. When the rules are continually (and that isn't continuously) broken, the language suffers and those who care suffer too.
That's the line taken by the so-called sticklers in this debate, but they are mistaken according to laissez faire linguists. English wasn't set in stone by 19th-century grammarians -- the kind who decreed it's wrong to split an infinitive in English just because you can't in Latin. Language changes but that doesn't mean it's in decline. Traditionalists may argue that digital technology has a pernicious effect on language, but in fact children who text a lot have higher rates of literacy. And it's hard to deny that Facebook, Twitter and email have enriched the expressiveness of our language: ten years ago who could have written "OMG he's RTd my selfie!!"
![Would We Be Better Off Without Religion? - Christopher Hitchens [2007] ✝️ | Intelligence Squared](/img/n.gif)
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.
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.
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.
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'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."
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 pound has plunged!...media proclaimed...it had fallen around 1%.
Great debate. I also left school at 16 , with 9 O levels including both English lit and grammar , but with no formal grammar lessons as such . I am poor at specifying what the rules of grammar are, but I believe I instinctively know how to construct sentences grammatically. No doubt someone will quickly point out some mistakes I have already made.
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.
I was literally impacted by the issues raised across the piece.
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.
Min 20:14 is fun
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you use words incorrectly, pronounce words eccentrically, and mangle your grammar, the older people who decide if you should be hired or promoted will evaluate you as an idiot, ditto if you have verbal tics, such as upspeak, frying or talking like a drag performer, randomly elongating and emphasising syllables. Nearly all young people, especially female, show some signs of these tics.
Get rid of your "um" filler words such as and, and stuff, as it will, at the end of the day, basically, big in size, eh, cruel in nature, honestly, I mean, if you will, like, literally, lot of, move forward, perfect storm, red in colour, step up to the plate, to be honest, to tell the truth, yeah, yes, you know, you know what I mean, you know what I’m saying, uh, um, very.
+Roedy Green Olivier called the applicant " The Boy" . I would not work for Olivier nor any other employer if they called me a Girl. I am not a child at 38 years of age.
+Roedy Green We need maps
Good grief. Your question begs a response, and I do not know how to start. "Do you want to be hired..."? Affirmative.
This actually turned out to be a great debate. Both sides had solid points, I'm not sure which way to vote.
What is the actual debate about? I am still trying to find out. I fast-forwarded back and forth, and there is no mention of defining what the hell the debate is about.
@@andrewszemeredy4458
Well, that saves me having to watch it!
@@andrewszemeredy4458 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)
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!"
William Arthur Fenton, you spake the way your name made me expect you to speak: intelligently, comprehensibly, with clear, common-sense, yet educated content. Well done. (I say that without the apparent yet misleading pretension.)
@Julie Frazier I thought that the Bible was infinitely complex in its content. So how can these people comprehend the preacher, if they were illiterate and incapable of complex language appreciation? I say the congregation and the general populus there in your (probably sleepy, mid-West, dusty town, reminiscent of the type Mark Twain wrote so lovingly of) is infinitely inteligent, good looking, and skilled in language, because they understand the Bible. Why read anything else? It's all in there.
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.
you will be judged instantly either consciously or subconsciously by others by the way you speak.......so if you or the children you raise want to speak in a trashy non refined way, good for you! not good for me and my children.
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,
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".
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
Que bueno que ve.que yo soy intilijente clo esto no lo hace cualquiera yo logre por me critican por que me jusgan si yo comparti musica y peliculas de Hollywood eso e.echo nada.mas y no se edtoy en el hojo del mundo como si fuera una criminal no yo soy una persona muy capas muy actualisada lo que no.me inereso son los idiomas yo solo español nada mas espero que entiendan yo solo compsrto gracias
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.
'Is our children learning?'- George W Bush
Ramesh Hansa Ravendra And yet George Bush resembles Oliver Kamm in comparison to the current incumbent.
GWB was a walking, talking, wind-up doll, inside of whom someone mixed up the pre-recorded tapes.
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.
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.
Iguess I am a pedant; because some uses of english affect me like sand in my shorts
john landis like missing spaces between word, perhaps?
Seneca’s Adoptive Son and missing capitalization...
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.
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.
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!
@H Walsh Thank you very much for responding! 😊
It's actually pretty bad everywhere. Chinese language experiences the same problems
Was that irony or did they not know that the pronoun is objective (you and *_me_* )?
6:27 - i was wondering the same, but they've got it circled on the slide, so i'd say it was intentional
One cannot possibly say "You and I" in place of an object in other Indo-European languages, definitely not in Russian (if one is sober). English is like a hard wooden board as far as inflecting the Object in a sentence to comply with the Subject and the action of the verb is concerned. Plus, no one reads to the kids anymore.
@@lunaridge4510 I read to mine, in English and in French.
@@lunaridge4510 I do
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.
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.
I loved this presentation and am a huge fan of beautifully spoken English. But this host doesn't sound like any American I know and I'm from there. I thought she might be Canadian at first, then I thought Irish.. strange. Her accent seems a little put on to me. Still, a great debate.
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.
Everything has gone to the dogs. This is not news. Take responsibility for your absurd ways of living. Let fear rule you and money guide you and a society much like the one we have is what you get. Goodluck humanity...
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.
Here's a speculation. The number of English speakers in the world has simply exploded due to historical factors such as colonialism, globalization, mass migration, improvements in telecommunication and effect of mass media. Given that a majority of these individuals are not native speakers of the language, they are starting on a weaker footing. So yes, the effect may seem like a dilution of the quality of the English language given that many of these individuals are educated through the medium of English. But this is simply a new phenomenon. Just like how most people read user created content through screens and not literature per say. It certainly has an effect on the usage of the language. But I don't think it is altogether a cause for dismay, despite the many lamentations of those who may have attended grammar schools. Who should worry? It is the speakers of non English languages, given that english is simply eating every other language alive.
What a swell blend of information, debating and entertainment.
English translated all literature science mathematics technology from European languages and learn in their mother tongue so they understand science mathematics technology so they develop intelligence so any nation should learn science mathematics technology in their mother tongue.
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?
It saddens me that the only panelist being rude is that woman. (On top of being wrong and irritating). Otherwise; interesting discussion)
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
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.
"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.
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!
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?
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. . . ).
I hate a moderator who clearly favors one side as she does when she gives the original vote.
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.
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.
KKK Design Services: Absolutely not. This is not a political issue at all. You are being... American, even if you are not.
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.
Wonderful debate. Terrible youtube comments. Typical result.
There is no verb in any of your sentences!
@@jvincent6548 🤣😂🤣😂🤣
"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
Between you and I the English language is going to the dogs.
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.
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.
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..."
Would very much like to see an update of this debate for our current time.
Second speaker boring
8:25 Okay... his inner George Carlin is coming out! xD
I did my phd at a quite prestigious english university in a scientific discipline. in a 'scientific english course' i was told that the level at which i was expected to write was that of 16 year-olds (not above!!!!).
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
I was not one of the privilege few to go to university.I have bettered my self with trying to learn anything that I could,education wise. I do love to hear what we call our Queen’s spoken language . Nowadays I really do not like slang .John , I really do agree with him . I grew up during the Second World War and got no education at all . But I am fortunate to be what people call bright, and have lots of common sense . I can comprehend and see through people and problems . And BBC has really lowered its standard . And let’ our country and people , down against other nations .Let us have better spoken teachers , instead of badly spoken sloven uneducated ones in English .Lets have correct English .ones to teach our children and stand proud in our spoken word .Lets have class,it goes a long way .
Speakers, Commenters.
Evolution's the rhythm of the moment!
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.
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
@Russ Gallagher Hence the irony in the title of a seventies' record, I think by Genesis, that spelled "A New, Clear, Dawn." I never listened to the songs, but I surmise it's about the nuclear holocaust we generally were preoccupied by in the cold-war era.
The only question is do students know enough to read BOOKS, not fiction but non fiction as THAT'S our history and is super important.
I'd say they should be able to read fiction as well, which for me has been at least as important as non-fiction.
Yes. It is going to the dogs. English must be improved by philosophers with goals of consistent semantics, grammar of meanings , rules for spelling and for pronounciation. Language should be as precise as mathematics.
I'm not quite sure you understand what semantics is. Nor dialects for that matter.
It is an accident that English became the most important lanaguage. The Ottoman Empire conquered the East Mediterranian and the Italian bankers moved their banks, first to Flanders and Holland, and then to London, across the channel.
Simon Heffer at 1:06. This is the whole argument. We teach to prepare our children.
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.
So nice to see John H. doing something different and more lite-'arted..
I didn't look at this video yet, but the title *Between You and I the English Language is Going to the Dogs* got my attention. It says English is going to the dogs, but the title itself is incorrect English grammar. I wonder if that was done intentionally. Take for example: "This is between we". A native speaker would not say that, but s/he would say, "this is between us". So in the case here, "between you and I" is incorrect. It should be "between you and me". For some reason, most English-speaking people use "I" incorrectly in this manner. It reminds me of "I am going to lay down" That is wrong. But almost everybody says it! The correct way to say that, though, is "I am going to *lie* down".
It was deliberate. About six seconds into the video you will see the title written on the wall behind the guest speakers in large letters. The 'I' at the end is circled in red (as a lecturer/ teacher would do to point out an error). The good folk at IQ² wouldn't be that careless, surely! (Would they?! :) )
This conversation is pointless.
Maybe not to you but to others it does. Some people care about the language. If you can't see that this has enormous value, I can only guess that the language doesn't mean much to you in which case, why are you even here?! :)
i was hoping it was irony - yikes. it's so embarrassing!
Yes, it's irony. Not as obviously ironic as I thought it was, though! It would be embarrassing if it wasn't, that's for sure.
I could listen to Oliver all day long !
All over Oliver, eh, Yoga Shan?
Can't get past the first four words. Should be "Between you and me...".
Is that not the point of the debate? Pay attention!
However, the title is missing a comma as well as a period.
the only bugaboo that bugaboos me is "affect for "effect'. bye now...
What about the now-common 'should of' instead of 'should have'?
Whilst I'm a fierce complainant about Americanism, please don't get caught out, as was I, with GOTTEN.
It isn't American. It's "olde English".
We stopped using it. Our colonial cousins didn't. We have no problem with 'Ill gotten gains' or 'forgotten'.
There are more non-American Americanisms than we realise but unfortunately too many of the other variety.
Somebody said "Americanisms all started after I was born!"
The use of bring for take I find so annoying.
Gift is not a verb
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.
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. 😂
It's pathetic what's happened to the English language.
That very statement had been made for centuries.
In terms of the English Language, that cry for the language to be some kind of exactness will forever be irrelevant to the reality that is the English Language.
If you might have a sit-down chat with Shakespeare, he would enlighten you Himself.
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 think "that is uninteresting" and "I am disinterested" is right. Easier to just say "NOT INTERESTING" or "NOT INTERESTED".
My biggest complaint is people who say "is" instead of "are" in sentences. For example "There's people who....... etc. etc." I hear it everywhere, every day - newsreaders are the biggest sinners - they should know better. It has got to the stage where it is generally accepted!!
Wots dis all aboot ?
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
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?
Yeah I do hate when people use "them and I"/"them and me" incorrectly. Funnily enough it's often the 'smart' ones going to the extra effort but get it wrong :D
Right off the bat you added to the problem: It's between you and me, not I.
38:40 - 38:48 cringe of the day right there
Looking at the description, why should I even bother watching? All I can see is this glaring piece of garbage: "Americanisms such as 'gotten'". Americanism?! Gotten as the past participle of get is actually the original form, coming from Middle English. The exclusive use of "got" in these context is a relatively new invention. You can't call yourself a stickler if you don't even know what you're talking about.
Let's mourn the loss of "literally".
Do you literally mean that or do you mean that literally?
Since the second war perhaps earlier language has been becoming more simple and less colourful. Ironically George Orwell is partly to blame for his style
The excessively permissive attitude of those opposed to the motion has led to the current abysmal state of affairs where "anything goes" and any criticism of the hapless, incoherent gibberish that frequently passes for language is likely to find one simply being dismissed as a "Grammar Nazi"...
The only purpose of language is to convey thought. I don't think I need to remind you that the language you are speaking will one day be gone.
With that being said, the futile preservation of a certain language only holds back it's adaptation to the world and society in which said language flourishes.
If everyone thought like you when Latin was a major language then there would be no words for many things that exist in current times. The words would have to be made up and the syntax of the language possibly changed as well to suit the needs of a linguistic population.
A prime example of what I am referring to is Japanese. That language has a very hard time coming up with new words and thus, above 10% of the words in their mother-tongue are loanwords from English. Example: Table = taberu, ice cream = Isuu creeme.
I would also like to add that language itself was an adaptation of verbal communication, and I trust you see the irony in taking a non-adaptation stance on language even if you do consider it gibberish.
Your attempt at denigrating those with 'permissive attitudes' only bolsters the sort of sentiment that kills languages and restricts them from evolving.
If a language does deteriorate and your opinions are correct, then it is of no consequence anyways. There will always be another language to take its place.
Nerf Herder Seems I must have failed in the "only purpose of language" given you completely misunderstood the point I was attempting to make. Either that, or you deliberately ignored what was _actually_ said in order to expound instead your rather nihilistic theory about language.
Along with many of the speakers debating in favour of the proposition, I'm likewise not suggesting by any means that the English language should be preserved in amber. Part of its genius and what has made it so successful around the world is its ability to assimilate, adapt and evolve. That doesn't mean however that certin rules shouldn't apply (if only to be deliberately broken when needed) or that an attitude of "anything goes" should be encouraged and applied to validate rubbish as being acceptable. There is, for example, an enormous difference between the artful stylings of E.E. Cummings and someone who is just too damn lazy to employ capitals.
My "denigrating" those people who appear to think that punctuation is completely irrelevant, who WRITE IN ALL CAPS ALL THE TIME, or who think proper spelling is some elitist, fancy-pants affectation, in no way contributes to a sentiment that will ultimately result in the death of the English language or prevent it from evolving. If the sole purpose of language is to convey thought, then perhaps you might agree with me that doing so with some degree of fidelity is fairly essential to the mission, no? Poor writing does not make for effective communication of thought - quite the opposite, in fact. It frequently just creates a lot of needless confusion and misunderstanding.
As for the language I'm speaking eventually being gone, that's highly unlikely to be the case owing to the vast number of people around the world that speak English and its predominent role in global commerce.
Nice piece of rhetoric. But on what foundation does it stand? Prescriptivism is unscientific and all the properly proper linguists know it.
Agreed. I think I will stick with all hard-core Grammar Nazis. Indeed, I'm one.
Nerf Herder Of course you have no problem with shit-speak. You use it.