Whose in charge of the English Language?

[tony873004]

This really isn't a homework question, but a curiosity prompted by being marked off for a gramatical error.

I am going to go to the store.

I'm going to go to the store.

Both are accepted in conversational English, but in the 2nd one, I'm is a proper contraction for I am, but gonna, although commonly accepted in conversation, is not a proper contraction for going to.

Every year, it makes big news when Webster's Dictionary adds words. But who appointed them overseers of the English Language?

And if there are no overseers, then whose to say that gonna is not correct?

Also, American English came from England English. At what point did someone say that colour would now be color? And who had the authority to make this change? Is it just that the American masses started spelling it this way, and if the masses do it, that makes it correct? If so, gonna should also be correct. Or should color just be considered a common misspelling for colour?

 

[gnome]

Who had the authority to change couleur to colour?

Languages evolve.

 

[Nylex]

There's a mistake in your title .

 

[Data]

There is also a difference between formal English and informal English. In informal use, there is no real necessity to adhere to strict conventions, so the language can change quite quickly. Formally, ideas need to be expressed much more clearly and precisely, in most situations, so formal language evolves more slowly. What you're taught in school is oriented toward formal English. I would find it highly doubtful that very many native English speakers have trouble expressing themselves conversationally at, say, the high school level, but formal writing is a (much) different story.

 

[Doc Al]

There's a mistake in your title .

Good one, Nylex. :rofl:

 

[PBRMEASAP]

Also, American English came from England English. At what point did someone say that colour would now be color? And who had the authority to make this change? Is it just that the American masses started spelling it this way, and if the masses do it, that makes it correct? If so, going to should also be correct. Or should color just be considered a common misspelling for colour?

Until Noah Webster wrote the American English dictionary, spelling was pretty much a matter of personal taste. So in addition to establishing a standard spelling for words that had none, he decided to clean up some words that extra letters in them while he was at it. Hence "color" instead of "colour". He also realized that English is not the same thing as French, and thus we should write "center" instead of "centre".

 

[cepheid]

He also realized that English is not the same thing as French, and thus we should write "center" instead of "centre".

Funny how the English haven't come to this "realisation" yet. Sorry for the sarcasm, but what I mean is, what you are saying is contradictory and/or nonsensical. On the one hand you state correctly that spelling is based on completely arbitrary conventions. On the other hand, you start talking about what we "should" and "should not" write in order to distinguish English from French. That makes no sense...what part about "arbitrary" didn't you understand? You speak of English as though it has preordained natural characteristics that distinguish it from other languages, characteristics that are somehow out of our control and that we are simply forced to adhere to once we "come to realize" their true nature! That is not so, as language is a human invention; only conventions force us to adhere to certain spellings. Who's to say that the correct English spelling is not exactly the same as the correct French spelling (and that happens to be so, for the word centre). I have no problem with the fact that conventions change, as they have in the US. I'm simply pointing out that the way in which you stated your assertion implied that you thought that it was some sort of universal truth or fundamental law of nature (out of our hands...and discovered by Webster in an epiphany) that English must have slightly different spellings from analogous French words, and that is just funny .

 

[brewnog]

Whose

(sic)

in charge of the English Language?

As far as this board is concerned, I am.

Who the Fegg is Webster anyway? He sounds like a right pillock.

 

[russ_watters]

Webster's bases their decisions on usage. They are reactive, not proactive. If anyone controls the language, its the MLA.

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry for the sarcasm, but what I mean is, what you are saying is contradictory and/or nonsensical. On the one hand you state correctly that spelling is based on completely arbitrary conventions. On the other hand, you start talking about what we "should" and "should not" write in order to distinguish English from French. That makes no sense...what part about "arbitrary" didn't you understand?

It is not contradictory to say that you should write a certain way based on convention. That's the whole point of a convention.

 

[mattmns]

I think popular society controls the English language as in words. I also think your teacher is right: I bet s/he wants you to write in formal english, not conversational.

 

[BobG]

Funny how the English haven't come to this "realisation" yet. Sorry for the sarcasm, but what I mean is, what you are saying is contradictory and/or nonsensical. On the one hand you state correctly that spelling is based on completely arbitrary conventions. On the other hand, you start talking about what we "should" and "should not" write in order to distinguish English from French. That makes no sense...what part about "arbitrary" didn't you understand? You speak of English as though it has preordained natural characteristics that distinguish it from other languages, characteristics that are somehow out of our control and that we are simply forced to adhere to once we "come to realize" their true nature! That is not so, as language is a human invention; only conventions force us to adhere to certain spellings. Who's to say that the correct English spelling is not exactly the same as the correct French spelling (and that happens to be so, for the word centre). I have no problem with the fact that conventions change, as they have in the US. I'm simply pointing out that the way in which you stated your assertion implied that you thought that it was some sort of universal truth or fundamental law of nature (out of our hands...and discovered by Webster in an epiphany) that English must have slightly different spellings from analogous French words, and that is just funny .

In theory, every language should have enough standardization that a person can determine the pronunciation from the spelling and vice versa. The 'correct' spelling is the spelling that conforms to some pattern that makes it comprehensible.

However, if you're confining your comment just to the English language, then I agree.

 

[Soilwork]

I think I would shoot myself if 'gonna' became an accepted abbreviation for 'going to'.
It is also disgraceful to see what words have actually made their way into the Dictionary.
I will leave you to look these up yourselves if you don't know them, but here are some pretty awful examples of how idiots are corrupting the language so to speak.

Daisychain
Gloryhole
Golden shower (I think that's right)

Another thing that kind of annoys me is the mispronunciation and misuse of words.
Enormity - Use the word enormousness when referring to the size of something.
Negotiate - Last time I checked negotiate wasn't spelled negociate so it isn't upper class to pronounce it that way...it's wrong!

Well there are a lot more, but I won't bore you guys with my crap :)

 

[brewnog]

Correct pronunciation encompasses a much wider range than does correct spelling. Even confining outselves to an individual language (and here I'll say English, for reasons of familiarity) pronouncing a word in a geordie, brummie, scouse, welsh or any other accent is no less valid or correct than pronouncing the same word in RP.

I don't know what the American English version of RP is, (perhaps it's the same, perhaps Moonbear knows?) but I'm sure that it's no more valid than any crazy strange accent from, well, anywhere.

What's wrong with daisychain? It's quite common for words which have been hyphenated which have developed distinct meanings from their original words to then be contracted to form a new word.

 

[faust9]

To daisychain is very common, so I don't see it as "disgraceful". People daisychain computers. CAN and I2C are daisychained protocols. The other two I don't ever recall seeing in the dictionary, nor are they listed on webter's web site.

Now, to complain about the volution of language is akin to complaining about the sun not raising when you want it to. We could all revert back to old english now couldn't we; however, I believe most people today would have a problem with that. There's a reason language evolves--it needs to meet and keep up with changes in technology and society as well.

[edit]It also appears websters doesn't have a definition for the contracted form of daisychain http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Daisychain&x=0&y=0

 

[mapper]

When do you think they will add "woot" to the dictionary?

 

[rygar]

i'm pretty sure the admittance of words into dictionaries today is controlled by a committee respective to the dictionary they are working on. which is why different dictionaries have different words. the committees are usually made up of intelligent scholars... I'm sure you could google a list of names.

however admittance of new words is pretty strict. again, i don't know the requirements, but you might be able to google those too. even if a dictionary decides to add a word from common usage, they'll often note it as slang.

but then again, who cares about orthography anyway? it's only a convention, and doesn't really have any concrete basis.

 

[honestrosewater]

I get cepheid's point but spelling is not based on arbitrary conventions. Words are usually spelled the way they're pronounced- and for good reasons. Spelling is also consistent for the most part. The choice of symbols isn't arbitrary either; Having 2 or 100,000 or extremely complex symbols isn't practical. The symbols also correspond to phonemes whose numbers are limited by our speech organs. And so on. There may not be much of a difference between "color" and "colour", but there's a bigger difference between "color" and "coler", and a huge difference between "color" and "dkpmrwt".
Anywho, if a language document is meant to be used for a long time to come, to become part of a larger set of documents, or to be read by a wide variety of people, doesn't it make sense to have a wiser, stricter, more constant set of rules which don't change from person to person, place to place, or generation to generation? Actually, a problem of many constructed languages has been that the rules were changed too often, people couldn't keep up, stability was lost, and the language fell out of use.

 

[brewnog]

Anywho, if a language document is meant to be used for a long time to come, to become part of a larger set of documents, or to be read by a wide variety of people, doesn't it make sense to have a wiser, stricter, more constant set of rules which don't change from person to person, place to place, or generation to generation? Actually, a problem of many constructed languages has been that the rules were changed too often, people couldn't keep up, stability was lost, and the language fell out of use.

This goes exactly back to the point made earlier stating why, in schools, you are taught how to use the English language correctly. Written documents hang around a lot longer than spoken words, and the amount by which they are globally understood is imperative to areas such as law and the sciences.

If you're just chatting to your mates, it doesn't really matter how good the language is, as long as you know that they have understood you. This luxury is not often afforded in written media, a notable exception being internet chat rooms and forums, where the communication exchange is much more like a verbal conversation than a series of letters.

 

[franznietzsche]

This really isn't a homework question, but a curiosity prompted by being marked off for a gramatical error.

I am going to go to the store.

I'm going to go to the store.

Both are accepted in conversational English, but in the 2nd one, I'm is a proper contraction for I am, but gonna, although commonly accepted in conversation, is not a proper contraction for going to.

Every year, it makes big news when Webster's Dictionary adds words. But who appointed them overseers of the English Language?

And if there are no overseers, then whose to say that gonna is not correct?

Also, American English came from England English. At what point did someone say that colour would now be color? And who had the authority to make this change? Is it just that the American masses started spelling it this way, and if the masses do it, that makes it correct? If so, gonna should also be correct. Or should color just be considered a common misspelling for colour?

In 50 years, going to probably will be.

Its who's, not whose. That error is just obscene.

It should be British English, or English English. You didn't say America English did you? Then why would you say England English?

Couldn't resist.

 

[honestrosewater]

Most dictionaries contain a section explaining how words are selected for inclusion, the intended use of the dictionary, and such, usually in the prefatory material. If it bothers anyone that certain words are added to the dictionary, read that section. It will probably say, as others have pointed out, that the main purpose of the dictionary is to keep track of how words are used, not to condone such usage. Also, I think any "corruption" of a language is relative; The only way I can see to corrupt a language is to render it unusable to a certain group of people. And if the changes to a language are drastic enough, then a new language will be born (or a new variant, period, dialect, etc).
"British English" and "American English" are the common names for those variants of English. "English English" does have a nice ring to it though.
Okay, I just had to do this- these are some funny ones- well, at least they're funny to me.
American - British
Band-Aid - Elastoplast
clumsy - cackhanded
cupcake - fairycake
Emergency Room - Casualty
hamburger bun - bap
sandwich - butty
liquor store - offy
ladybug - ladybird
Jello is jelly and jelly is jam, private school is public school and public school is state school, bollocks are testicles (also means b.s.), but the dog's bollocks means very nice or cool. What the ??

 

[franznietzsche]

I get cepheid's point but spelling is not based on arbitrary conventions. Words are usually spelled the way they're pronounced- and for good reasons.

More accurately they're spelled the way the were pronounced in the 15th century. English is anything but phonetic nowadays because pronounciation has changed, while spelling has not.

Originally, the spelling was phonetic.

Having 2 or 100,000 or extremely complex symbols isn't practical.

A large portion of the world's written languages throughout history would disagree with you. Including quite a few major modern ones.

 

[honestrosewater]

More accurately they're spelled the way the were pronounced in the 15th century. English is anything but phonetic nowadays because pronounciation has changed, while spelling has not.

Originally, the spelling was phonetic.

Well, I did say "usually"; There are exceptions of course. Phonemes are sounds- they don't come with symbols. The rules connecting sounds with symbols may have gotten more complicated, but you can still usually figure out pronunciation from spelling and vice versa. I can think up a word- phacket- and most speakers would pronounce it the same way. There may be several acceptable ways of spelling it- facket, phackit, etc.- but "train" still wouldn't be one of them.

A large portion of the world's written languages throughout history would disagree with you. Including quite a few major modern ones.

By symbols I meant symbols of an alphabet. Constructing words from 2 or 10,000 or extremely complex symbols isn't practical. If you're thinking of, say, Chinese, it doesn't have an alphabet- its symbols represent whole words, phrases, concepts, and such. If you're thinking of, say, Sanskrit, I wouldn't consider its alphabet extremely complex, though it's more complex than English. I shouldn't really make a comparison, because I was talking about English, and the way English is structured, an alphabet of 2 or 10,000 or extremely complex symbols isn't practical. My point was that there's a point- whatever that point may be- where a writing system becomes impractical, so the choice of writing system is not completely arbitrary.
Edit: Oh, and in case it wan't clear, I meant natural languages.

 

[rygar]

honestrosewater:

i disagree!

have you seen the english language recently? it barely resembles is phonological sound like the IPA does.

the discrepency arrises from the fact that printers required standarization of the language, which lags behind the change in sound that occurs in language. which is why, usually, the newer a language is, the more its alphabet will resemble the phonological sounds being made. but no alphabet thus far has been able to avoid the inevitable change over time. i would venture a guess that modern communication, including telephone and tv, will greatly factor into the way words look and sound in the future, but i don't know enough about it to make any strong claims.

 

[Soilwork]

Well no look up Daisychain in the Oxford Dictionary.
And umm I wasn't saying that people who are foreign who don't have English as their first language mispronoucning words was bad.
It's people who pronounce a word like negotiate with a soft c because they think it's upper class that get to me.
These are people who have English as their first language and won't listen to anyone who tells them that it might not be pronounced the way the pronounce it.
Anyway daisychain is really sick when you find the definition in the Oxford Dictionary.

 

[franznietzsche]

honestrosewater:

i disagree!

have you seen the english language recently? it barely resembles is phonological sound like the IPA does.

the discrepency arrises from the fact that printers required standarization of the language, which lags behind the change in sound that occurs in language. which is why, usually, the newer a language is, the more its alphabet will resemble the phonological sounds being made. but no alphabet thus far has been able to avoid the inevitable change over time. i would venture a guess that modern communication, including telephone and tv, will greatly factor into the way words look and sound in the future, but i don't know enough about it to make any strong claims.

As i said, the spellings were largely set in the 15th century, marked by the invention of the printing press.

 

[brewnog]

American - British
Band-Aid - Elastoplast
clumsy - cackhanded
cupcake - fairycake
Emergency Room - Casualty
hamburger bun - bap
sandwich - butty
liquor store - offy
ladybug - ladybird
Jello is jelly and jelly is jam, private school is public school and public school is state school, bollocks are testicles (also means b.s.), but the dog's bollocks means very nice or cool. What the ??

This is a pretty misguided list. It's fine to use it the other way round, to attempt to interpret some pretty esoteric pieces of British English language, but you'd be laughed back across the Atlantic if you tried to slip most of these into conversation. The examples which aren't already outdated (eg. casualty) or trademarks (eg. Elastoplast) are slang.

 

[Nylex]

People use "private school" and "public school" to mean the same thing here too.

 

[honestrosewater]

honestrosewater:

i disagree!

have you seen the english language recently? it barely resembles is phonological sound like the IPA does.

Fine, people can test this themselves. Just go through a dictionary and see if letters and strings of letters usually correspond to the same pronunciation symbols. You'll find that the letter "b'" usually corresponds to the pronunciation symbol "b" (or whatever symbol your dictionary uses). The letter "c" usually corresponds to the pronunciation symbols "k" or "s". The letter string "ch" usually corresponds to the pronunciation symbol "ch". The suffix "-tion" usually corresponds to "shən". In the pattern "[vowel][consonant]e", the first vowel is usually long, and the "e" is silent. And so on. According to the dictionary, I'm right: Spelling and pronunciation usually correspond. If you don't trust the dictionary, then you can do your own research to try to prove me wrong.

 

[honestrosewater]

This is a pretty misguided list. It's fine to use it the other way round, to attempt to interpret some pretty esoteric pieces of British English language, but you'd be laughed back across the Atlantic if you tried to slip most of these into conversation. The examples which aren't already outdated (eg. casualty) or trademarks (eg. Elastoplast) are slang.

The list was just for fun.

 

[Andromeda321]

This thread reminds me: anyone here ever read the book Frindle? For those who haven't, it's a middle school book about a kid who has a grammar Nazi type English teacher who is in love with the dictionary. In order to retaliate he decides to make up a new word, Frindle, which means pen, and hilarity ensues. Really a cute little book.

 

[Danger]

In order to retaliate he decides to make up a new word, Frindle, which means pen, and hilarity ensues. Really a cute little book.

Puts me in mind of my grade 10 Marketing course. Nobody else in class had ever heard the word 'widget', which the teacher used when setting up a hypothetical situation. I got into a public, year-long conversation with him regarding what kind of widgets we preferred, and ideas for design variations, and speculation about the future of widgets... The other students were going nuts trying to get us to tell them what the hell a widget was. We never did.

 

[brewnog]

Ahhhhh Danger. You're missing out. A few years back, John Smiths (beer) had a lovely advert, showing off the new inclusion of a Widget in their cans. Just a plastic ball which released nitrogen (I think) into the beer when opened, making it lovely and smooth. Mmmmm.

The song went something like this:

"Widget! It's got a widget, a lovely widget, a widget it has got"

Try and sing along!

 

[Danger]

Try and sing along!

Hi Noggie;
I've been known to demolish a pint or two of Smith's bitters whilst playing darts. Haven't had any in over a decade, though. Guinness uses those (what we call 'squibs') for their canned draught, but I didn't know anyone else did.
Some of our language differences put us about half way between you and the Yanks. A lot of our everyday language is shared with them rather than you. I still remember a joke that I thought was hilarious and none of my friends got it. It was in one of Ronny Corbett's monologues from 'The Two Ronnies'. He mentioned that he'd "got a traffic summons for parking on the pavement. Well... I didn't really park, you know, on the pavement. I was overtaking an omnibus on the near side and ran out of petrol." Of course it was his totally benign, innocent delivery that really made it funny, but I had to translate the terms before my mates could get it at all.

 

[brewnog]

Good old Ronnie, bless his socks.

I almost wonder if he did it on purpose...