This is a query not a complaint as I'm genuinely interested. When did our and are become interchangeable? I know that language evolves and words can take on very different meanings to their original definition. Is it to do with the sound as in "could have" being commonly written and said as "could of" ? Everyone understands both but one literally makes no sense. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I generally feel that I have a reasonable grasp of grammar and syntax; however I always struggle with effect and affect. "
One is a verb, the other a noun. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Along with, then and than, apparently the g on the end of some words ending in ing, has been replaced by a k, even when written. I don't think it's not being able to spell, with younger people, I think they have relearned them that way and don't get corrected, so now think they are correct  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"People are just stupid.
50% of the population are below average intelligence"
It's not fashionable to be smart... Stupid is hilarious, don't you know?! TOWIE wouldn't be a thing, otherwise  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I generally feel that I have a reasonable grasp of grammar and syntax; however I always struggle with effect and affect. "
I actually had to look that up...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"They're not. It's just that people can't spell...
/\
He’s right you know.
Have/Of is the same.
No he’s not, the words are spelt correctly, but are used incorrectly.  "
You can 'have' something...it's a verb. You cannot 'of' something...its a pronoun. You/something can 'be of' something. In this case 'be' is the verb.
It's probably a mixture of ignorance and laziness, but please remember for some on here English is not their first language. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I generally feel that I have a reasonable grasp of grammar and syntax; however I always struggle with effect and affect.
I actually had to look that up...
"
Am I right in saying
The effect was astounding, it was so effective
I was affected emotionally? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"People are just stupid.
50% of the population are below average intelligence"
If this was a joke, it pretty clever.
If you were just having a pop at people then it’s still funny, but I’m laughing at you not with you |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *exy7Man
over a year ago
Bristol |
"People are just stupid.
Nah it's just that the public education system is underfunded and under appreciated..."
I couldn’t agree more. You are spot on. However it suits our politicians so well. The thicker our citizens are the easier it is to manipulate them. Brexit comes to mind amongst many other things. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I generally feel that I have a reasonable grasp of grammar and syntax; however I always struggle with effect and affect.
I actually had to look that up...
Am I right in saying
The effect was astounding, it was so effective
I was affected emotionally?"
Would that mean that I would be right in saying that effectively I have had quite an affect on you.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is a query not a complaint as I'm genuinely interested. When did our and are become interchangeable? I know that language evolves and words can take on very different meanings to their original definition. Is it to do with the sound as in "could have" being commonly written and said as "could of" ? Everyone understands both but one literally makes no sense. "
i no what you mean butt its the English language its sew complicated lots of words can bee spelt the same weigh and mean different things  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *emini ManMan
over a year ago
There and to the left a bit |
"This is a query not a complaint as I'm genuinely interested. When did our and are become interchangeable? I know that language evolves and words can take on very different meanings to their original definition. Is it to do with the sound as in "could have" being commonly written and said as "could of" ? Everyone understands both but one literally makes no sense. "
Can you give an example as I'm struggling to think of where one would even fit being used instead of the other and haven't noticed them being interchanged. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"People are just stupid.
Nah it's just that the public education system is underfunded and under appreciated...
I couldn’t agree more. You are spot on. However it suits our politicians so well. The thicker our citizens are the easier it is to manipulate them. Brexit comes to mind amongst many other things. "
I used to know an ex charterhouse public schoolboy (he was a dealer lol). I remember him saying they'd have an entire lesson a week dedicated purely to learning vocabulary. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is a query not a complaint as I'm genuinely interested. When did our and are become interchangeable? I know that language evolves and words can take on very different meanings to their original definition. Is it to do with the sound as in "could have" being commonly written and said as "could of" ? Everyone understands both but one literally makes no sense.
Can you give an example as I'm struggling to think of where one would even fit being used instead of the other and haven't noticed them being interchanged."
I've seen people on Facebook saying things like "at last we can have people round to are house" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I generally feel that I have a reasonable grasp of grammar and syntax; however I always struggle with effect and affect.
I actually had to look that up...
Am I right in saying
The effect was astounding, it was so effective
I was affected emotionally?
Would that mean that I would be right in saying that effectively I have had quite an affect on you. "
I think you would be  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I generally feel that I have a reasonable grasp of grammar and syntax; however I always struggle with effect and affect. "
Something that might help that - you affect always comes before the effect because a is before e in the alphabet. For example. You can affect something and this will leave you with the effect. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This wasn't an invitation to criticism. I am genuinely interested in how language develops. Chaucer and Shakespeare would find it hard to understand us. "
Although it’s descended into that I just wanted to add that it’s probably people typing how they talk and not a reflection of illiteracy at all as others, not you, have said. I’m sure in professional or academic settings they’re aware of the correct term and use it but it’s just typing how they speak. So if when they speak it sounds like ‘are’ they’ll type that? Same with people that say am instead of I’m maybe? Although they may be interchangeable I’m not a linguist haha.
This is all opinion so probably wrong but  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *emini ManMan
over a year ago
There and to the left a bit |
"This is a query not a complaint as I'm genuinely interested. When did our and are become interchangeable? I know that language evolves and words can take on very different meanings to their original definition. Is it to do with the sound as in "could have" being commonly written and said as "could of" ? Everyone understands both but one literally makes no sense.
Can you give an example as I'm struggling to think of where one would even fit being used instead of the other and haven't noticed them being interchanged.
I've seen people on Facebook saying things like "at last we can have people round to are house" "
Interesting haven't seen that myself but do wonder if it's an auto-correct thing at play? Because I still don't see how anyone would mix those two particular words deliberately even though phonetically they are similar |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This wasn't an invitation to criticism. I am genuinely interested in how language develops. Chaucer and Shakespeare would find it hard to understand us. "
I think language develops through both laziness and innovation. As items etc are invented or created, words need to be invented to be pertinent to those new items. Both Chaucer and Shakespeare created new words to fit their narratives. Shakespeare is responsible for such words as "bandit", "critic" and "dauntless", and Chaucer gave us "plumage", "femininity" and "twitter". Today, these are all perfectly perficious words  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This wasn't an invitation to criticism. I am genuinely interested in how language develops. Chaucer and Shakespeare would find it hard to understand us.
Although it’s descended into that I just wanted to add that it’s probably people typing how they talk and not a reflection of illiteracy at all as others, not you, have said. I’m sure in professional or academic settings they’re aware of the correct term and use it but it’s just typing how they speak. So if when they speak it sounds like ‘are’ they’ll type that? Same with people that say am instead of I’m maybe? Although they may be interchangeable I’m not a linguist haha.
This is all opinion so probably wrong but "
That's probably one reason I reckon. I'm not a linguist either I'm just interested having learned languages all my life.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This wasn't an invitation to criticism. I am genuinely interested in how language develops. Chaucer and Shakespeare would find it hard to understand us.
I think language develops through both laziness and innovation. As items etc are invented or created, words need to be invented to be pertinent to those new items. Both Chaucer and Shakespeare created new words to fit their narratives. Shakespeare is responsible for such words as "bandit", "critic" and "dauntless", and Chaucer gave us "plumage", "femininity" and "twitter". Today, these are all perfectly perficious words "
I was thinking of "naughty" which originally meant worthless ie "noughty" but means badly behaved now |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think it is a sound thing, like "could of".
I believe I read somewhere that spoken and written English are separate dialects (even within the same dialect). If you don't have a good handle on written English and try to convey your spoken English, you translate your sounds to words rather than using an implicit sense of grammar. So "could 'ave", where the "a" is softened as a form of further elision, becomes difficult to distinguish from "could of". And depending on your natural pronunciation, "are/our" may sound extremely similar.
I'm not sure that literacy is getting worse. I think we're just seeing people writing in a way we wouldn't have done before social media existed, and an explosion of informal writing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This wasn't an invitation to criticism. I am genuinely interested in how language develops. Chaucer and Shakespeare would find it hard to understand us.
I think language develops through both laziness and innovation. As items etc are invented or created, words need to be invented to be pertinent to those new items. Both Chaucer and Shakespeare created new words to fit their narratives. Shakespeare is responsible for such words as "bandit", "critic" and "dauntless", and Chaucer gave us "plumage", "femininity" and "twitter". Today, these are all perfectly perficious words
I was thinking of "naughty" which originally meant worthless ie "noughty" but means badly behaved now"
Different generations, I think, like to put their own "stamp" on language to give themselves an identity. Words like "bad, sick, twisted, badass, peachy" etc etc now mean "good". I love languages and word-play |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think some of the our Vs are is simply due to predictive text and as it's not highlighted as an incorrect spelling on your phone, people don't see it.
With other examples on the thread, doesn't every generation try and use their own version of language to distinguish themselves from their elders? For example all the new words used in the 60's. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think it is a sound thing, like "could of".
I believe I read somewhere that spoken and written English are separate dialects (even within the same dialect). If you don't have a good handle on written English and try to convey your spoken English, you translate your sounds to words rather than using an implicit sense of grammar. So "could 'ave", where the "a" is softened as a form of further elision, becomes difficult to distinguish from "could of". And depending on your natural pronunciation, "are/our" may sound extremely similar.
I'm not sure that literacy is getting worse. I think we're just seeing people writing in a way we wouldn't have done before social media existed, and an explosion of informal writing."
I agree with you. I think expressing thoughts and ideas is a good thing, it must be understandable though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This wasn't an invitation to criticism. I am genuinely interested in how language develops. Chaucer and Shakespeare would find it hard to understand us.
I think language develops through both laziness and innovation. As items etc are invented or created, words need to be invented to be pertinent to those new items. Both Chaucer and Shakespeare created new words to fit their narratives. Shakespeare is responsible for such words as "bandit", "critic" and "dauntless", and Chaucer gave us "plumage", "femininity" and "twitter". Today, these are all perfectly perficious words
I was thinking of "naughty" which originally meant worthless ie "noughty" but means badly behaved now
Different generations, I think, like to put their own "stamp" on language to give themselves an identity. Words like "bad, sick, twisted, badass, peachy" etc etc now mean "good". I love languages and word-play "
Yes! I love language and word play too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think some of the our Vs are is simply due to predictive text and as it's not highlighted as an incorrect spelling on your phone, people don't see it.
With other examples on the thread, doesn't every generation try and use their own version of language to distinguish themselves from their elders? For example all the new words used in the 60's. "
They do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think it is a sound thing, like "could of".
I believe I read somewhere that spoken and written English are separate dialects (even within the same dialect). If you don't have a good handle on written English and try to convey your spoken English, you translate your sounds to words rather than using an implicit sense of grammar. So "could 'ave", where the "a" is softened as a form of further elision, becomes difficult to distinguish from "could of". And depending on your natural pronunciation, "are/our" may sound extremely similar.
I'm not sure that literacy is getting worse. I think we're just seeing people writing in a way we wouldn't have done before social media existed, and an explosion of informal writing.
I agree with you. I think expressing thoughts and ideas is a good thing, it must be understandable though. "
Yes. I see it as give and take. I know what "could of" means and can work out that are might mean our. There's a degree of compromise required. I try. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *emini ManMan
over a year ago
There and to the left a bit |
"I think some of the our Vs are is simply due to predictive text and as it's not highlighted as an incorrect spelling on your phone, people don't see it.
With other examples on the thread, doesn't every generation try and use their own version of language to distinguish themselves from their elders? For example all the new words used in the 60's. "
My thinking exactly re auto-correct and "are" vs "our"
As for linguistics and evolving definitions and new words it's a never ending thing - there are countless new entries to the OED each year which is partly down to the generational thing, partly new technologies and even the influence of the media and entertainment etc - definitely fascinating |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *emini ManMan
over a year ago
There and to the left a bit |
"I think it is a sound thing, like "could of".
I believe I read somewhere that spoken and written English are separate dialects (even within the same dialect). If you don't have a good handle on written English and try to convey your spoken English, you translate your sounds to words rather than using an implicit sense of grammar. So "could 'ave", where the "a" is softened as a form of further elision, becomes difficult to distinguish from "could of". And depending on your natural pronunciation, "are/our" may sound extremely similar.
I'm not sure that literacy is getting worse. I think we're just seeing people writing in a way we wouldn't have done before social media existed, and an explosion of informal writing.
I agree with you. I think expressing thoughts and ideas is a good thing, it must be understandable though. "
Understandable and inclusive being the key |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think it is a sound thing, like "could of".
I believe I read somewhere that spoken and written English are separate dialects (even within the same dialect). If you don't have a good handle on written English and try to convey your spoken English, you translate your sounds to words rather than using an implicit sense of grammar. So "could 'ave", where the "a" is softened as a form of further elision, becomes difficult to distinguish from "could of". And depending on your natural pronunciation, "are/our" may sound extremely similar.
I'm not sure that literacy is getting worse. I think we're just seeing people writing in a way we wouldn't have done before social media existed, and an explosion of informal writing.
I agree with you. I think expressing thoughts and ideas is a good thing, it must be understandable though.
Yes. I see it as give and take. I know what "could of" means and can work out that are might mean our. There's a degree of compromise required. I try."
Me too. I'm very trying  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This wasn't an invitation to criticism. I am genuinely interested in how language develops. Chaucer and Shakespeare would find it hard to understand us. "
And add the bastardisation of original English by the U.S. which, over the past 20 years, has been cemented by the use of Microsoft’s spell check. How many of us now type in UK and US English and in numerous event not even realizing that we do?! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This wasn't an invitation to criticism. I am genuinely interested in how language develops. Chaucer and Shakespeare would find it hard to understand us.
And add the bastardisation of original English by the U.S. which, over the past 20 years, has been cemented by the use of Microsoft’s spell check. How many of us now type in UK and US English and in numerous event not even realizing that we do?!"
While globalisation has much to answer for, I dislike the notion that one dialect of English is (implicitly) inferior to another. We all influence each other, and if you dislike the American influence, don't incorporate it into your language use. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think it is a sound thing, like "could of".
I believe I read somewhere that spoken and written English are separate dialects (even within the same dialect). If you don't have a good handle on written English and try to convey your spoken English, you translate your sounds to words rather than using an implicit sense of grammar. So "could 'ave", where the "a" is softened as a form of further elision, becomes difficult to distinguish from "could of". And depending on your natural pronunciation, "are/our" may sound extremely similar.
I'm not sure that literacy is getting worse. I think we're just seeing people writing in a way we wouldn't have done before social media existed, and an explosion of informal writing.
I agree with you. I think expressing thoughts and ideas is a good thing, it must be understandable though.
Understandable and inclusive being the key "
Too much pseudo intellectual psychobabble on fab  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *zoreanMan
over a year ago
Witney |
In school back in Portugal, when learning English, the emphasis was mainly on the grammar, it came as a surprise when I moved to the UK to learn that people can't write properly and it bothers the hell out of me lol. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think some of the our Vs are is simply due to predictive text and as it's not highlighted as an incorrect spelling on your phone, people don't see it.
With other examples on the thread, doesn't every generation try and use their own version of language to distinguish themselves from their elders? For example all the new words used in the 60's. "
Shouldn't they know it's an incorrect word before they are old enough to have a phone though?!? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This wasn't an invitation to criticism. I am genuinely interested in how language develops. Chaucer and Shakespeare would find it hard to understand us.
And add the bastardisation of original English by the U.S. which, over the past 20 years, has been cemented by the use of Microsoft’s spell check. How many of us now type in UK and US English and in numerous event not even realizing that we do?!
While globalisation has much to answer for, I dislike the notion that one dialect of English is (implicitly) inferior to another. We all influence each other, and if you dislike the American influence, don't incorporate it into your language use."
Globalisation irrelevant ...... Technology relevant
Dislike? ...... Pray tell
Inferior? ...... Pray tell
Implied? ..... Pray tell
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In school back in Portugal, when learning English, the emphasis was mainly on the grammar, it came as a surprise when I moved to the UK to learn that people can't write properly and it bothers the hell out of me lol."
When I was at school, teaching grammar was pedagogically unfashionable (to the point where we were discouraged from using words like noun or verb. Naming words and doing words). Most of what I know about English grammar I picked up while learning other languages. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *exy7Man
over a year ago
Bristol |
And then we wonder why the Brits are so crap at foreign languages. How can you learn to speak a foreign language without grasping its grammar? And how can you grasp the grammar of another language without understanding the grammar of your mother tongue??!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think some of the our Vs are is simply due to predictive text and as it's not highlighted as an incorrect spelling on your phone, people don't see it.
With other examples on the thread, doesn't every generation try and use their own version of language to distinguish themselves from their elders? For example all the new words used in the 60's.
Shouldn't they know it's an incorrect word before they are old enough to have a phone though?!? "
I'm sure most would know which one is correct. However, online it's often a dash to get your opinion out there before everyone else does. Hands up I'm guilty of it on here on a heated debate, I press post and then see an obvious error. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *exy7Man
over a year ago
Bristol |
"In school back in Portugal, when learning English, the emphasis was mainly on the grammar, it came as a surprise when I moved to the UK to learn that people can't write properly and it bothers the hell out of me lol."
It’s like in the whole of Europe. Another thing that we should copy from our european friends but we’d rather look the American way for everything these days. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Im also amazed at how many people spell 'oops' as 'opps'. "
This is one of those words being dyslexic gets me every time, to me personally it sounds like it should start with a w not a o. Which is why I rarely type is lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *emini ManMan
over a year ago
There and to the left a bit |
"Im also amazed at how many people spell 'oops' as 'opps'. "
Again a typo thing I suspect eith the 'p' and 'o' being next to each other on the keyboard - bet it doesn't happen in handwritten English |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *exy7Man
over a year ago
Bristol |
"Unfortunately this sort of decline in use of correct grammar and vocabulary will likely only get worse as people rely on spell check and autocorrect more and more."
We should of been careful before.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *emini ManMan
over a year ago
There and to the left a bit |
"Unfortunately this sort of decline in use of correct grammar and vocabulary will likely only get worse as people rely on spell check and autocorrect more and more."
Is it a decline though? Or a natural progression of the language that has evolved over centuries driven by technology?
I personally loathe textspeak and hope it never becomes the accepted norm but can see a time where "u" (for example) is in sufficient enough use that it gets defined as a shorthand version of "you" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Unfortunately this sort of decline in use of correct grammar and vocabulary will likely only get worse as people rely on spell check and autocorrect more and more."
As someone in higher education, I've not seen a decline to be honest. I think they see a clear definition between how the write on line and how they'd write an essay for example. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *.D.I.D.A.SMan
over a year ago
London/Essex... ish... Romford to be exact |
"Im also amazed at how many people spell 'oops' as 'opps'.
This is one of those words being dyslexic gets me every time, to me personally it sounds like it should start with a w not a o. Which is why I rarely type is lol "
I think whoops. Or whoospies or other variants are acceptable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *.D.I.D.A.SMan
over a year ago
London/Essex... ish... Romford to be exact |
"Unfortunately this sort of decline in use of correct grammar and vocabulary will likely only get worse as people rely on spell check and autocorrect more and more.
As someone in higher education, I've not seen a decline to be honest. I think they see a clear definition between how the write on line and how they'd write an essay for example. "
Do you think emojis will be acceptable as formal means of expressions one day? Would make things much easier. I'm off to check out my |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Unfortunately this sort of decline in use of correct grammar and vocabulary will likely only get worse as people rely on spell check and autocorrect more and more.
As someone in higher education, I've not seen a decline to be honest. I think they see a clear definition between how the write on line and how they'd write an essay for example. Do you think emojis will be acceptable as formal means of expressions one day? Would make things much easier. I'm off to check out my "
Actually now I come to think of it know a lecturer who uses  when marking essays. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I must say I think we should all go back to calling a cunt a queynte.. it’s such a a quaint word.
Flipping heck I'd never remember how to spell that in a month of Sunday's!!!!"
I only remember shit like this, anything important I instantly forget |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In school back in Portugal, when learning English, the emphasis was mainly on the grammar, it came as a surprise when I moved to the UK to learn that people can't write properly and it bothers the hell out of me lol."
Back in the late 1970s/early 1980s a friend of mine learnt French. She had a French pen-pal, and would spend the summer holidays with them. Back in school in September, the French teacher would ask, in French, what she did over the summer holidays, and when she started babbling on in French the teacher had problems understanding her. She was using French slang, relaxed grammar and syntax and dialect in the same way as her pen-pal family, not the French the teacher was using. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I must say I think we should all go back to calling a cunt a queynte.. it’s such a a quaint word.
Flipping heck I'd never remember how to spell that in a month of Sunday's!!!!
I only remember shit like this, anything important I instantly forget "
Lol. I can forget what I'm going to the fridge for in the time it takes me to walk from the cooker |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I must say I think we should all go back to calling a cunt a queynte.. it’s such a a quaint word.
Flipping heck I'd never remember how to spell that in a month of Sunday's!!!!
I only remember shit like this, anything important I instantly forget "
Likewise  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Unfortunately this sort of decline in use of correct grammar and vocabulary will likely only get worse as people rely on spell check and autocorrect more and more.
Is it a decline though? Or a natural progression of the language that has evolved over centuries driven by technology?
I personally loathe textspeak and hope it never becomes the accepted norm but can see a time where "u" (for example) is in sufficient enough use that it gets defined as a shorthand version of "you""
I appreciate that language changes, but I’d say using incorrect words interchangeably in a manner that doesn’t actually make sense like our/are as per the original post is a decline in standards of communication at least. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think it's accent/ dialect.
Liam Gallagher talking about "are kid".
Similar reason with "could of". People sometimes write how they speak. "
For the most part I believe this to be true.
Phonetic spelling, spell it how it sounds.
I used to message a guy quite some time ago and could tell he was Scottish before I even heard his voice. He was shocked that I could tell!!
It's the same with mum/mam/mom. It tends to be regional. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"They're not. It's just that people can't spell...
/\
He’s right you know.
Have/Of is the same."
They aren't the same. "Could have" became "could've" (which is ok) which then people heard as "could of" because they heard it rather than saw it written.
"Could of" is utterly wrong.
And don't get me started on are and our, or there, their and they're |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *emini ManMan
over a year ago
There and to the left a bit |
"Unfortunately this sort of decline in use of correct grammar and vocabulary will likely only get worse as people rely on spell check and autocorrect more and more.
Is it a decline though? Or a natural progression of the language that has evolved over centuries driven by technology?
I personally loathe textspeak and hope it never becomes the accepted norm but can see a time where "u" (for example) is in sufficient enough use that it gets defined as a shorthand version of "you"
I appreciate that language changes, but I’d say using incorrect words interchangeably in a manner that doesn’t actually make sense like our/are as per the original post is a decline in standards of communication at least. "
I agree for the most part and was to an extent playing devils advocate - but then there are words from our youth that had completely different meanings to the commonly accepted current meaning - take "gay" or "cool" as examples both had distinctly different meanings until culture adopted them and shaped them to mean something else.
I personally don't see the interchangability of the example given in the OP but then there were probably those back in the day that were the same with words like the examples I gave. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
