toomanyhelicopters wrote:

joshsolberg wrote:(this is kind of a bad example, as I think this more than others examined by the Electrical Audio forum initiates results mostly from the laziness of a society overburdened by numbers, but I digress...).

i'm not sure what i like best about this post. could it be 1) the thoroughly flawed premise that folks who say "oh" instead of saying "zero" are in some way ignorant or uneducated, or could it be 2) the fact that every one of the sentences in this post is in some way gramatically incorrect, with only two or three exceptions as far as i can see, or could it be 3) the last sentence, which in addition to being a gramatically incorrect use of a word that's messed up to begin with (i.e. ain't) seems to imply that the entire post is just a joke. i really can't pick just one.

so i guess i'll go with this little section of one of the giant runons:

"...when, if you think about it, the thought of language needing to change to assure its continued survival, while for sure having applicability to the discovery of new objects (like, e.g., the "jungle"),..."

because the use of "for sure" here, i mean, wow. if there were ever a more clear example of somebody using a bullshit expression that was added recently into the lexicon (for example, i.e., e.g., like totally, ya!) well hell, i dunno.

salut the joshsolberg, for this irony-laden post!

First, you will please note the parenthetical phrase remaining from my original post. It takes care of your critique #1. My premise wasn't really about people who say "oh" instead of "zero" at all, but was rather about those who create some of the artifices that just happened to have been raised in the discussion of those who say "oh" instead of "zero".

Second, a sentence is not a run-on unless it contains multiple phrases with different subjects (e.g. "I like motorcycles and Jeff likes cars."). A sentence can contain an infinite number of subordinate clauses without being a run-on. As long as all of those phrases properly relate to the subject-as-subject and the predicate-as-predicate, the inclusion of them does not preclude the sentence from being grammatically correct. I admit that I tend toward long sentences, and concede that my subordinate clauses sometimes get the best of me. I am not perfect. I never said I was. Nor did I attempt to argue for perfection in language.

Third, yes, the phrase "for sure' is a recent addition to the lexicon, when used in place of the adverbs "assuredly" or "certainly". If my argument came across as one against change in the English language, which it apparently did to you, I apologize. Let me summarize what I meant to say: change happens, but we need to be careful lest our justifications of those changes reinforce the social inequalities that have led to the changes.

Fourth, the last sentence's use of the colloquial "aint" was indeed a bit of irony, in an otherwise totally un-ironic post. Thanks for noticing.

Fifth, let me point out that in spending your post critiquing my writing ability (though you couched it in praise of my "irony-laden post"), you took the position against which you initially argued by focusing on the form instead of the content. Good job.

joshsolberg wrote:

toomanyhelicopters wrote:

joshsolberg wrote:(this is kind of a bad example, as I think this more than others examined by the Electrical Audio forum initiates results mostly from the laziness of a society overburdened by numbers, but I digress...).

i'm not sure what i like best about this post. could it be 1) the thoroughly flawed premise that folks who say "oh" instead of saying "zero" are in some way ignorant or uneducated, or could it be 2) the fact that every one of the sentences in this post is in some way gramatically incorrect, with only two or three exceptions as far as i can see, or could it be 3) the last sentence, which in addition to being a gramatically incorrect use of a word that's messed up to begin with (i.e. ain't) seems to imply that the entire post is just a joke. i really can't pick just one.

so i guess i'll go with this little section of one of the giant runons:

"...when, if you think about it, the thought of language needing to change to assure its continued survival, while for sure having applicability to the discovery of new objects (like, e.g., the "jungle"),..."

because the use of "for sure" here, i mean, wow. if there were ever a more clear example of somebody using a bullshit expression that was added recently into the lexicon (for example, i.e., e.g., like totally, ya!) well hell, i dunno.

salut the joshsolberg, for this irony-laden post!

First, you will please note the parenthetical phrase remaining from my original post. It takes care of your critique #1. My premise wasn't really about people who say "oh" instead of "zero" at all, but was rather about those who create some of the artifices that just happened to have been raised in the discussion of those who say "oh" instead of "zero".

Second, a sentence is not a run-on unless it contains multiple phrases with different subjects (e.g. "I like motorcycles and Jeff likes cars."). A sentence can contain an infinite number of subordinate clauses without being a run-on. As long as all of those phrases properly relate to the subject-as-subject and the predicate-as-predicate, the inclusion of them does not preclude the sentence from being grammatically correct. I admit that I tend toward long sentences, and concede that my subordinate clauses sometimes get the best of me. I am not perfect. I never said I was. Nor did I attempt to argue for perfection in language.

Third, yes, the phrase "for sure' is a recent addition to the lexicon, when used in place of the adverbs "assuredly" or "certainly". If my argument came across as one against change in the English language, which it apparently did to you, I apologize. Let me summarize what I meant to say: change happens, but we need to be careful lest our justifications of those changes reinforce the social inequalities that have led to the changes.

Fourth, the last sentence's use of the colloquial "aint" was indeed a bit of irony, in an otherwise totally un-ironic post. Thanks for noticing.

Fifth, let me point out that in spending your post critiquing my writing ability (though you couched it in praise of my "irony-laden post"), you took the position against which you initially argued by focusing on the form instead of the content. Good job.

Ding Ding. Round one to joshsolberg.

I think equating "linguistic purity" with elitism and the technically incorrect use of the traditional linguistic forms with populism or evolution is a big, fat liberal knee-jerk that serves only to further the power relationship that created the technically incorrect uses in the first place.

It's nice that you think that, but the fact is that history proves you wrong. Only the language of the masses can stand the test of time. In fact, if someone invents a word of their own, it can become part of the vernacular, so long as it's popular enough and given enough exposure, much along the lines of bootylicious and bling-bling, which, for your information, have already been accepted by the leading dictionaries of English.

Actually, your perspective has been found throughout history. Many individuals professing your very thoughts (that the "misuse" of language stems from lack of education or poverty) were strong critics of Shakespeare.

After all, he invented all kinds of words such as the ones above that many people with your viewpoint deemed pure nonsense and never dreamed would catch on. Among them:

accused
addiction
advertising
amazement
arouse
assassination
backing
bandit
bedroom
beached
birthplace
blanket
bloodstained
barefaced
blushing
bet
bump
buzzer
caked
cater
champion
circumstantial
cold-blooded
compromise
courtship
countless
critic
dauntless
dawn
deafening
discontent
dishearten
drugged
dwindle
epileptic
equivocal
elbow
excitement
exposure
eyeball
fashionable
fixture
flawed
frugal
generous
gloomy
gossip
green-eyed
gust
hint
hobnob
hurried
impede
impartial
invulnerable
jaded
label
lackluster
laughable
lonely
lower
luggage
lustrous
madcap
majestic
marketable
metamorphize
mimic
monumental
moonbeam
mountaineer
negotiate
noiseless
obscene
obsequiously
ode
olympian
outbreak
panders
pedant
premeditated
puking
radiance
rant
remorseless
savagery
scuffle
secure
skim milk
submerge
summit
swagger
torture
tranquil
undress
unreal
varied
vaulting
worthless
zany

If your friends back then could have had it their way, none of these bothersome words would have ever entered our vocabulary.

Many purists, like yourself, confused Shakespeare's creative genius with "incorrect usage" of the language. Like you, they considered his "misuse" of the language a symptom of both the author and his audience: the poor and uneducated masses.

I, for one, aint gonna take it.

Sorry, but you'll have to:

The word "o" or "oh" as a synonym of "zero" has already been accepted as a perfectly correct usage in the English language. (http://dictionary.cambridge.org).

Too bad the self-proclaimed "educated" guy wasn't smart enough to look in the dictionary.

Mr. Not an Internuncio,

Erecting and then sticking a bic to your own little straw duode is fine and I wouldn’t try to stop you even if I cared for the thing, but I don’t think you understand the post you are replying to. Nobody has suggested that neologisms, slang, etc, are linguistically unhygienic. Rather, what was said, as I understand it, is that it’s not ‘all good.’

To contest language and language use is, at some level, to meddle with the most important medium of reality. Members of the historical avant-garde (Tzara, Joyce, Burroughs, whomever) were all about fucking up language. I’m in favor of this. It seldom affects the masses, but it brings hope, wonder, and pleasure to some folks.

Nonetheless, you may wish to consider some or all of the following:

1) The hegemonic influence of media/advertising/the“culture industry.â€

PS. You missed a sentence in the post you replied to. It went like this:

joshsolberg wrote:Let me summarize what I meant to say: change happens, but we need to be careful lest our justifications of those changes reinforce the social inequalities that have led to the changes.

Wow. Haven't heard a rebuttal this masterful since "What about Poland?"

4) As one of the least read authors by the ‘general reading public’ (outside public educational institutions), Shakespeare is the last person you should be citing to make the point you think you're making.

Actually, Shakespeare is the most widely read author in English speaking countries. His works are second only to the Bible in popularity. You might want to research such statements before posting them in the future. At any rate, my point was that Shakespeare became popular *because* of the masses, not that he is currently on the NY Times best-seller list.

5) In the end, the glorification of splendid underdogs is only the glorification of the splendid system that allowed them that status.

I believe I discussed this system in my first post. It's called democracy.

Dear sir,

You clearly haven't the faintest concept of literary canon formation, sociolinguistics, the history of ideas, sociology, media, or ideology.

I give up. Good day to you freedom fighter. Keep on surfing that wave.

Your Imaginary friend,

The Masses.

the masses wrote:You clearly haven't the faintest concept of literary canon formation, sociolinguistics, the history of ideas, sociology, media, or ideology.

Ahhh, where would discussion board arguments be without the old, "You clearly haven't the faintest concept of INSERT TOPIC A HERE, INSERT TOPIC B HERE and INSERT TOPIC C HERE." argument. Nicely done!

So far, all that you've provided are rambling, confused posts with big words. Me no likee dat.

I'd say it's "ding ding....K.O." time.

joshsolberg wrote:Fourth, the last sentence's use of the colloquial "aint" was indeed a bit of irony, in an otherwise totally un-ironic post. Thanks for noticing.

Fifth, let me point out that in spending your post critiquing my writing ability (though you couched it in praise of my "irony-laden post"), you took the position against which you initially argued by focusing on the form instead of the content. Good job.

josh,

"...an otherwise totally un-ironic post." ... if you write a big ol' post about how we need to be careful how we justify our changes of the english language, but then you have grammatical errors throughout your post (check your use of "its" vs "it's" for a quick, easy example), to me that seems to be a bit ironic. i dunno for sure, but i tend to think that when you put forth a position that in any way relates to correct/incorrect use of language, if that post is full of grammatical errors, unless it's saying "i don't really give two shits about how language is messed with", it's ironic. to me. maybe i'm wrong there. but talking about oneself as an "educated liberal" and talking about how we have to be careful to not change our language in a way that patronizes the stupid, uneducated, dishevelled masses, all the while showing a bit of reckless abandon with regard to the proper use of the English language... that's ironic. i think so anyways.

and regarding the second statement i quoted above... i really don't care about people butchering the english language so long as they have a solid understanding of how it's "supposed" to work. i'm a proponent of this practice, in fact. i salute you for taking part in it. i am actually somewhat proud of myself for such an accomplishment as this: i have written fancy-pants proposals, contracts, reports, instruction manuals, all kinda business letters, etc, that have followed the rules of the English language very strictly. i know how to do it when it's required. i don't generally care to, but i know how to do it. i have also started threads here where i put forth my assertion that words like "wouln'ta" should be brought into the lexicon, because they are very efficient contractions (much more economical than "would not have") that are almost universally understood. so you can see that i don't ultimately care about people butchering the English language, or rather taking it outside of the normal bounds in which educated folk use it. BUT. in a case like yours, where someone is getting all philosophizin' about how dangerous it is to change the English language to allow dummies to stay dumb and not be made to feel dumb, and you're doing that with error after error in your text, well i thought that was worth mentioning. i found it amusing. i found it ironic. it in no way changed my original position, that it's okay for folks to step outside the normal bounds of rigid, structured, ancient English. it did, however, prompt me to point out another position of mine, the one where i find it amusing when somebody says something that sounds (to me) like "all us smarties need to watch out for the interest of the dummies, we need to make sure the language isn't mutated into dummy language for the sake of keeping dummies from feeling bad about being dumb, but rather we need to make systemic changes to make them into smarties" all the while breaking smarty rules and feeling like it's okay for you to do it cause you're an "educated liberal"... i just thought that was worth mentioning. your post made its points, it wasn't like you wrote it in some bizarre language that was incomprehensible, i just thought it funny that you broke plenty of rules, etc etc. again, i don't think there's anything wrong with the practice of ignoring the strict rules. but i thought it was funny that you made no specific mention of why it was okay for you to skip out on the rules. whatever. maybe it wasn't funny after all.

ps - please consider this post an example of my profound skills in the use of the english language, specifically with regard to capitalization, sentence structure, paragraphing, etc.

*to imaginary music in my head*

"eight-six-seven five-three-zero-nieeeyine"

nope. doesn't work.