Impossible!These people probably know English, but nothing else ...
Don't they know English?
- Thread starter Madman Starryteller
- Start date
Impossible? Why? *curious*
Whoever wrote this knows how to spell and string a sentence together. That's English.
Their logic is completely false, true, but their English is fine.
Whoever wrote this knows how to spell and string a sentence together. That's English.
Their logic is completely false, true, but their English is fine.
Yes, I assumed it had something to do with the clucking classes.
"Such a looser" sounds like Swenglish.
In my eyes, the worst thing Tom Clancy ever did in his writing was to make a bunch of Norwegian naval officers sound like Tonto on The Lone Ranger.
I mean, how hard would it have been for him to meet a few Norwegians in a bar or something and listen to them for an hour or two?
It was lazy AF of him not to do so. Hell, he could've deducted an entire visit to Norway as a working expense.
I didn't know the Matrix was female.
A conclusion is what a process leads to. It may then lead to a decision, but it is not, in itself, necessarily a step to a decision. An investigative process can lead to a conclusion about who the murderer is.
Conclusion can also just mean "end".
Exactly. A person can come to a conclusion but only a group can come to a consensus.
I watched Dame Emma Thompson on Colbert's show the other night, and she referred to herself as an "actor," not an "actress." To quote Wikipedia:
"Thompson has won two Academy Awards, for Best Actress in James Ivory's Howards End ... and been nominated for three others. Thompson has also received three BAFTA Awards, two Golden Globe Awards, and a Primetime Emmy Award, in addition to nominations for two Grammy Awards, two Independent Spirit Awards, and six Screen Actors Guild Awards."
With that sort of resume she's entitled to call herself anything she wants, IMO.
Similarly, the lexicographer Kory Stamper wrote on the subject of Jimmy Carter's pronunciation of the word "nuclear" as "newcular":
"Jimmy Carter spent his time in the U.S. Navy working on propulsion systems for nuclear submarines, acting as an engineering officer of a nuclear power plant, and actually being lowered into a nuclear reactor that had melted down in order to dismantle it. To my mind, he has earned the right to pronounce 'nuclear' however he damned well pleases."
That's all very well for Jimmy Carter, but unfortunately "new-cular" is spreading, and folks who don't know better are starting to pronounce it that way - especially since both George W. Bush (who should know better) and Homer Simpson (who definitely should know better, since he works in a nuclear power plant, at least in theory) pronounces it that way.
I'm especially amazed that Homer "corrected" a drill sergeant and didn't get in trouble.
Is it really worse than 50 years ago, though? Hasn't the word always been a cultural shibboleth?
I'm old enough to remember a time when nobody considered the words such as female, actress, stewardess, policewoman, empress, etc. as inappropriate or bad English. Not only would people would've thought it to be absurd if someone called it inappropriate or bad English, they would've considered it as very bad English if words such as actress weren't used for what was considered as a rule, which every English speaker agreed upon at that time. When I was in middle school, I asked my teacher why people use he or she and never she or he. She thought it was a ridiculous question and that nobody uses she or he. That might change in the future, though I think that would be far in the future if it does happen because I don't hear people talk about it now.
What used to worry me about how my writing would be judged in the future is that I know a lot of what we consider as appropriate now could change. Part of it is from the change in politics, technology, science, etc. I say science because in astronomy, I remember a time when I would've been considered to be very idiotic if I said that Pluto wasn't a planet. Then several years ago, Neil deGrasse Tyson said in his podcast that Pluto is officially not a planet. As far as I know, the current situation is that scientists haven't come to a consensus about the definition of planet. On another subject, many of what the paleontologists considered to be true about the dinosaurs when I was a kid are now considered as false. Then I heard that the British novels that were written during the time of the British Empire are considered as inappropriate by certain professors now. These are just a fraction of every change that I witnessed. I have no doubt in my mind that the changes will continue. And the new changes will change again too.
Then I thought about how I'm into history and past archives. And I like to read classical novels, not just the modern ones. Regardless of the change, I think there'll continue to be readers of classical novels and novels that are at least a few decades old. I don't think much about how people will judge my writings now (not that I think a significant number would read it). In fact, I'd be more dismayed if our present becomes completely forgotten in the future.
What used to worry me about how my writing would be judged in the future is that I know a lot of what we consider as appropriate now could change. Part of it is from the change in politics, technology, science, etc. I say science because in astronomy, I remember a time when I would've been considered to be very idiotic if I said that Pluto wasn't a planet. Then several years ago, Neil deGrasse Tyson said in his podcast that Pluto is officially not a planet. As far as I know, the current situation is that scientists haven't come to a consensus about the definition of planet. On another subject, many of what the paleontologists considered to be true about the dinosaurs when I was a kid are now considered as false. Then I heard that the British novels that were written during the time of the British Empire are considered as inappropriate by certain professors now. These are just a fraction of every change that I witnessed. I have no doubt in my mind that the changes will continue. And the new changes will change again too.
Then I thought about how I'm into history and past archives. And I like to read classical novels, not just the modern ones. Regardless of the change, I think there'll continue to be readers of classical novels and novels that are at least a few decades old. I don't think much about how people will judge my writings now (not that I think a significant number would read it). In fact, I'd be more dismayed if our present becomes completely forgotten in the future.
Well, the the International Astronomical Union (IAU) agreed that Pluto was a "dwarf planet" in 2006, based on the criteria they decided was relevant. That's about as close to a consensus that we'll ever get. When you start trying to put things into inflexible categories, you're always going to find grey areas, and people who disagree what the boundaries of that category are. Most (but not all) scientists agree that dinosaurs are not reptiles, and that birds are really a subspecies of dinosaur.
As for those professors who deem the English literature of the Empire period inappropriate, they are right to call out the differences between that society and this one. That period's attitude toward women and African and Asian people would be considered horrifying today. But as instruments for peering into those outmoded constructs of the world, they are still valuable as a history of that mind-set. A student may read them for that purpose, as long as it's understood that the world that the books describe is no longer the one that we find acceptable today.
In the US, several groups want to ban Huckleberry Finn from their libraries, on the grounds that Twain used the word "nigger" as profusely as any teenager of the deep south would. But they'd clearly missed the point that the whole story arc of the book was the Huck's gradual repudiation of that region's mores. To expunge the word from a new printing of the book might make it easier to sell to southern school boards, but it would diminish Huck's personal transformation.
I'd rather put in a forward to the book explaining that Twain was representing the society as it was and as it thought, a society that Huck eventually abandoned.
As for those professors who deem the English literature of the Empire period inappropriate, they are right to call out the differences between that society and this one. That period's attitude toward women and African and Asian people would be considered horrifying today. But as instruments for peering into those outmoded constructs of the world, they are still valuable as a history of that mind-set. A student may read them for that purpose, as long as it's understood that the world that the books describe is no longer the one that we find acceptable today.
In the US, several groups want to ban Huckleberry Finn from their libraries, on the grounds that Twain used the word "nigger" as profusely as any teenager of the deep south would. But they'd clearly missed the point that the whole story arc of the book was the Huck's gradual repudiation of that region's mores. To expunge the word from a new printing of the book might make it easier to sell to southern school boards, but it would diminish Huck's personal transformation.
I'd rather put in a forward to the book explaining that Twain was representing the society as it was and as it thought, a society that Huck eventually abandoned.
Agreed. On the subject of the N-word (and other outdated attitudes to women, blacks, Asians and gays):
I have read, and very much enjoyed, the work of Dashiell Hammett, Raymond Chandler and Ian Fleming. All three include language and attitudes that were common in the USA from the 1920s to the 1960s, but so what? It doesn't make their work any less enjoyable or important.
For that matter, Charles Dickens uses extreme anti-Semitic language in his work, especially when describing Fagin. But nobody nowadays suggests banning Dickens.
Thirdly and finally, the BBC has come under pressure to ban Fawlty Towers, because the character of "the Major" uses the N-word to describe the West Indies cricket team. (To be clear, the Major doesn't use this in a derogatory way, and everyone else in the show thinks that he is outdated. As far as I can see, it's simply a way to show that he's unthinkingly racist).
I'm curious. If we ban anything that uses language or attitudes that we find objectionable, where will it end? Perhaps we should ban Blazing Saddles, simply because the entire town (and even Cleavon Little) uses the N-word?
Much more sensible, I think, would be to keep such content as it is -- but to include a short preamble and explain that although such language isn't acceptable now, it was much more widespread then. (Note the word "short": there's no need to ramble on about it).
Does that sound reasonable?
It does date them. Although Fleming excelled in writing about places and food, he couldn't write American dialog for sour apples, so if you're looking for how Americans actually spoke, you wouldn't find it there.
Agreed.
I saw a heavily edited version of that movie on American network television, and it was painful to watch. No farts in the bean scene, all references to the N-word either edited or bleeped out. When the original movie was previewed by the studio bosses, they enumerated all those things in their list of things to cut, and Mel Brooks wrote down every item and said, Yes, sir. I'll take care of it." But they were contractually obligated to give him final cut, and he threw the list away when he left the room.I'm curious. If we ban anything that uses language or attitudes that we find objectionable, where will it end? Perhaps we should ban Blazing Saddles, simply because the entire town (and even Cleavon Little) uses the N-word?
Grammar: The difference between helping your Uncle Jack off a horse and helping your uncle jack off a horse.
Grammar: The difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit.
Grammar: The difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit.
I recall "Large snake tamer receives award". An award is good, but I didn't think there was any need to body-shame her.