Your joking?! - Page 2

nightsky · #21 24-04-2007, 01:57 PM

G'Day (Good Day)
Point taken Omaroo and fair nuf (enough)
Cheers
Arthur

matt · #22 24-04-2007, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ving

g'day Matt!.... oops i mean hello.
you try and tell that to the poeple of the 1800s. I am pretty sure that they wouldnt understand half of what is said today....

which english is more correct?

David... would that I could. However, given time machines have yet to be invented, I'll let that go straight through to the keeper.

The difference here, I believe, is that people are advocating we allow people who ostensibly speak the same language in the same era (ie 2007, 21C) to spell words however they like. So, we will see all manner of spelling and interpretation across people of the same cultural group and era.

Let's not bother bringing the 1800s into this debate. Although I understand the point you are making

Language is an organic creature, and yes, it changes over time.

At this moment in time... we have this thing called a dictionary and a language which, whether we like it or not, involves a large degree of agreement in terms of structure and definition at any given moment in time.

This new push is to do away with that formalised, agreed way of spelling words and constructing sentences etc etc

Omaroo (Chris Malikoff) · #23 24-04-2007, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merlin8r

Everyone is always so quick to blame a teacher. Do you teach your kids correct spelling and grammar? My parents did.

Sorry Merlin - by "teacher" I mean "someone who teaches". That could be anyone, including a school teacher, sibling, friend or parent.

matt · #24 24-04-2007, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omaroo

All I can tell a failed applicant is that they're not "actually worth anything" to me and my business if they don't think language is important. Some can't believe that I refuse them on that basis. Technically I don't have to tell them why I don't want them, but some may actually learn something useful by knowing.

A very, very important point.

Why hold yourself back and limit your options (professionally speaking) by not coming to terms with this?

ving (David) · #25 24-04-2007, 02:03 PM

I constantly correct my daughter. I hope it sinks in... it seems to

school isnt the only place of learning.

Omaroo (Chris Malikoff) · #26 24-04-2007, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matt

David... would that I could. However, given time machines have yet to be invented, I'll let that go straight through to the keeper.

The difference here, I believe, is that people are advocating we allow people who ostensibly speak the same language in the same era (ie 2007, 21C) to spell words however they like. So, we will see all manner of spelling and interpretation across people of the same cultural group and era.

Let's not bother bringing the 1800s into this debate. Although I understand the point you are making

Language is an organic creature, and yes, it changes over time.

At this moment in time... we have this thing called a dictionary and a language which, whether we like it or not, involves a large degree of agreement in terms of structure and definition at any given moment in time.

This new push is to do away with that formalised, agreed way of spelling words and constructing sentences etc etc

Yup yup yup. Language does evolve, but that evolution is officially ratified by its inclusion in the good 'ol Macquarie Dictionary as it goes. Given that, an 1800 dictionary was good for their time period - as is the one you'd go buy at a book store today for ours.

leon · #27 24-04-2007, 02:06 PM

I'm with Arthur.

Leon

matt · #28 24-04-2007, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ving

I constantly correct my daughter. I hope it sinks in... it seems to

school isnt the only place of learning.

True.

However, school is where so much of this is meant to be 'taught' and it is our children's educations at school which are under threat from this phonetic nonsense.

Personally, I believe it's just laziness. On everyone's part.

That's just my opinion. Although observation tends to suggest the standard of teaching, particularly areas such as English, has been slowly on the slide for a while.

Just my opinion.

duncan · #29 24-04-2007, 02:09 PM

I too,agree with this. Children of today should still be taught to spell and use grammar properly.

matt · #30 24-04-2007, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omaroo

Yup yup yup. Language does evolve, but that evolution is officially ratified by its inclusion in the good 'ol Macquarie Dictionary as it goes. Given that, an 1800 dictionary was good for their time period - as is the one you'd go buy at a book store today for ours.

yep. That's the point I was making

Omaroo (Chris Malikoff) · #31 24-04-2007, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leon

I'm with Arthur.

Leon

LOL! (there you go..... a linguistic emoticon

)

You can't hide behind the couch forever Leon!

ving (David) · #32 24-04-2007, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matt

David... would that I could. However, given time machines have yet to be invented, I'll let that go straight through to the keeper.

The difference here, I believe, is that people are advocating we allow people who ostensibly speak the same language in the same era (ie 2007, 21C) to spell words however they like. So, we will see all manner of spelling and interpretation across people of the same cultural group and era.

Let's not bother bringing the 1800s into this debate. Although I understand the point you are making

Language is an organic creature, and yes, it changes over time.

At this moment in time... we have this thing called a dictionary and a language which, whether we like it or not, involves a large degree of agreement in terms of structure and definition at any given moment in time.

This new push is to do away with that formalised, agreed way of spelling words and constructing sentences etc etc

not wanting to bring back the olde 1800s (ok i do want to really

) but I am sure they had dictionaries too and when new terms and spellings were being created back then i am 90% sure that the learned people ear bashed those decendants of ours that created the modern english we now speak... i am guessing that since we dont speak ye olde english anymore they the scollars of the time caved in or perhaps they were more willing to embrace change than we are? there are times we need to hold change back and other times that it should be embraced. phonetic spelling has olny got to make things easier so maybe we should dump our old way as out ancestors did and give the new ways a warm loving embrace and make it feel welcome

ving (David) · #33 24-04-2007, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omaroo

Yup yup yup. Language does evolve, but that evolution is officially ratified by its inclusion in the good 'ol Macquarie Dictionary as it goes. Given that, an 1800 dictionary was good for their time period - as is the one you'd go buy at a book store today for ours.

and the dictionary of the 1800s evolved to the current version through changes in our language as is happening now. the macquarie is continually adding new entries, entries that a decade ago we would have laughed at but now are common vernacular. it it is very probable that there words you are now shunning will soon become part of said dictionary... will they then be embraced?

nightsky · #34 24-04-2007, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omaroo

Yup yup yup.

G'Day,
Really! Omaroo I am surprised Yup Yup Yup indeed

Cheers
Arthur

matt · #35 24-04-2007, 02:24 PM

David

Phonetic spelling dictates that we no longer have an agreed way of doing things.

It'll simply be a vowel-and-consonant free-for-all!

You can't keep refering to this 1800s dictionary and drawing comparisons to today, since going the phonetic way will, in effect, throw the dictionary out the window!

We're not talking about history repeating itself in terms of changes to the dictionary.

There will be no dictionary, since everyone will be spelling words however they want.

ving (David) · #36 24-04-2007, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matt

True.

Personally, I believe it's just laziness. On everyone's part.
Just my opinion.

twas most likely laziness that caused the change in from olde to new in the first place, no?

Omaroo (Chris Malikoff) · #37 24-04-2007, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nightsky

G'Day,
Really! Omaroo I am surprised Yup Yup Yup indeed

Cheers
Arthur

I do mock myself from time to time.

ving (David) · #38 24-04-2007, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matt

David

Phonetic spelling dictates that we no longer have an agreed way of doing things.

It'll simply be a vowel-and-consonant free-for-all!

You can't keep refering to this 1800s dictionary and drawing comparisons to today, since going the phonetic way will, in effect, throw the dictionary out the window!

stop me!

isnt language funny

nightsky · #39 24-04-2007, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MortonH

Anyone noticed the almost universal mis-use of your instead of you're these days???
Morton

G'Day,
You see what you started MortonH

As for me, being "Irish" born I never liked "English" anyway

Cheers
Arthur

fringe_dweller · #40 24-04-2007, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nightsky

G'Day,
I remember seeing a few months back in another thread,some bloke was really annoyed about the use of "Advise" and "Advice" go figure

as if life was not hard enough,who gives a %%%%%

Cheers
Arthur

that bloke was me, and you are lazily misrepresenting what I said, i was talking about seeing on it misused on a DAILY basis, for years on end (not just here) in THREAD TITLE'S
i love how people cant wait to misrepresent and twist what you say

and i am quite pleased to say i have rarely seen it since i said that -
really life is to hard and short to be complaining about someone complaining?

cant be that hard if your in here recalling something like that?