Language, Should there be rules?

[Jeff_Spectre]

I put up this thread on a 360 forum and had some interesting feedback, but this forum seems far more intelligent so i hope there will be more intelligent discussion.

Basically, i have pondered this question ever since year 9 english:
"Should language have rules?"
is it imporant that language (for this example i'm going with english for fluidity of the hopefully resulting discussion) has standards and complete strict form in order to maintain continuity or should be diverse with "youth speak", text language, and panglish, even "engrish".
Language has always been about expression, but now in a society thats teaches almost every child to read and write there is a far greater amount of individuals that can have an impact on language and literature. Does that mean that it is important that language is kept static, or does it poes the possibility of unprecedented diversity of expression?

I personally have not made up my mind on this matter, so please don't write hate about my opinion, beacause as of yet, i don't have one.

[kjkg]

I liked this post, made me think. Im like you, I have not formed an opinion on this, partly because there is no right or wrong answer but also because it is Friday morning and I have a hangover.

I have one point to make on language and speech in particular. I am not a perfect speeker, (or speller for that matter) but when I say or type a shortened word, or "slang" I know what the original word is that I have altered.

It seems that more and more people are unaware that what they are saying is not the right way to say or pronounce. ( I sadly can't think of any examples but will think about that).

Anyway, to try and create some sort of opinion, I would say that language maybe does have to start creating a stricter set of "rules" as you put it, for fear that the U.K. population will all end up sounding like chavs, bams, neds, scallys, townies or meaders.

[JakeSS14]

Its impossible to keep something like this under watch, people are going to make mistakes with there language. If a post is really poor then a member of staff can edit it or remove it. Don't think there needs to be rules.

[kjkg]

Its impossible to keep something like this under watch, people are going to make mistakes with there language. If a post is really poor then a member of staff can edit it or remove it. Don't think there needs to be rules.

I don't think he means on this site. I think he means in society should we have governing rules for language.

[JakeSS14]

Teaches me to skim read, i cant be arsed to read a block, if it was seperated it would be a different matter.

[fs86]

Yeah I think it's society in general. I do have an opinion, although it might be slightly hypocritical, bear with me. I believe that language is a huge part of any human society, as it not only governs communication, but the arts as well. It is a tool we all use every day to convey our thoughts, feelings, orders, etc.

As such, I think that for society to evolve, a certain fluidity of language is necessary. It needs to be able to "go its own way", if you like. If it didn't, we'd still all be speaking Olde English, or some of us, Auld Scots. We aren't though, and communication has benefitted from it, allowing for a far broader exchange of ideas. Who knows what we'll be speaking a few hundred years down the line?

That being said, I'm a fan of more formal English, and try to use it where I can. I'm not particularly fond of things like text-speak and so on, even though it is now a part of who we are. This is mostly because I believe that if something is worth writing, it's worth making it legible. Hell one of my friends won't even talk to people that communicate like that... :P

So yeah, hypocritical, I prefer using more formal language, while believing that evolution of language is necessary to culture and civilisation as a whole... Just my couple of pennies though

[kjkg]

or some of us, Auld Scots.

Who would have guessed the two Glaswegians are two of the first to give intellectual answers!?

I like the point about your friend and his refusal to talk to someone that uses it. I don't mind it in forums or texts, but I dont use all of the phrases myself (I prefer to say haha when something is funny, not a fan of lol).

However, what I can't handle is when someone uses text chat, in actual vocal communication. That is lazy and to be honest, makes the person look slightly dim. I realise that is only my opinion but I cant take someone serious who does that.

[the_only_moggy]

Teaches me to skim read, i cant be arsed to read a block, if it was seperated it would be a different matter.

I know what you mean, larger blocks of text are off putting, but when they're the first post, or in this 'Serious Discussion' Sub-Forum I try give the benefit of the doubt, I mean this is the place for well reasoned debate.


when I say or type a shortened word, or "slang" I know what the original word is that I have altered.
It seems that more and more people are unaware that what they are saying is not the right way to say or pronounce. ( I sadly can't think of any examples but will think about that).

kjkg; I think a good example is 'ignorant,' people use it today as an insult that is synonymous with stupid wheras it's real meaning is to be lacking in knowledge. Another example on a different level, one which I feel illustrates the issue is 'lol.' how many of you have heard someone actually say lol while or instead of laughing in a conversation; that's the point when someone is aware of a 'word's' meaning but has used the acronym for so long it replaces a real laugh, scary.

In my opinion rules in language are important for two reasons; firstly to aid understanding, language is universal because it's rules mean any user must abide by them not only to be understood, but also to understand; in this way it's possible to see these new versions of English as a way of alienating those they don't want to interact with: high school mentality.

Secondly these rules are important so as they can be broken; Poetry is in some ways defined by walking the line between lingual rules and breaking them, creating an understanding through walking a line inbetween, and some of the best literature breaks conventional rules so as to communicate differently, and create a fresh perspective.

In the end though I would be wary of many of these new forms of English, especially those like 'txt spk' and 'l33tspeak' for the simple reason that they dumb down language in a manner similar to 'Newspeak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak)' in 1984; dumb language makes for dumb people.

I'll be honest, I like long words, why say something in 3 words when it can be said in 1? And while I understand some people's dislike of longer words and the rise of a language to be typed, quickly and informally, but I feel we should be wary of letting this kind of language over-take formal language since the ability to describe or explore eloquently and concisely is important to a culture, as long as art has a place anyway.

[fs86]

Who would have guessed the two Glaswegians are two of the first to give intellectual answers!?

haha yeah, on a language question of all things... :P



However, what I can't handle is when someone uses text chat, in actual vocal communication. That is lazy and to be honest, makes the person look slightly dim. I realise that is only my opinion but I cant take someone serious who does that.

Yeah I hate that, I mean I don't mind new words making it to common usage, but to say lol instead of laughing (yes, i know a girl that does that) just pisses me off. If it's funny, LAUGH!

Like I said before, I think evolution of language is necessary, but not to the point where all we do is abbreviate phrases instead of using one word/sound. I dunno, part of me thinks it's elitism creeping in, but I'm not sure if it's that, or just "well this is how i write".

[Jeff_Spectre]

I don't think he means on this site. I think he means in society should we have governing rules for language.

yea sorry i meant in society in general,
love the irony that i didn't make my point clear enough on a thread about communication though :P

[f0nz13]

To be fair English already does have a set of rules on how to speak it. It's just that it has a lot of exceptions! We don't really notice that our own language has rules, since it's our native tongue, we can speak it without effort or thinking of these rules.

To set a standard English would probably take away the languages most beautiful aspect, the sheer amount we can express ourselves. Any attempt to dumb down English would remove all of those powerful and light words that we take for granted so much when we speak. We would end up with either a very practical and relatively unexpressive language like German is.

As for how we could continue to understand each other as our dialects move further apart, the answer lies in Arabic. In Arabic, there are several dialects, the main ones being Gulf and Egyptian I think. However, these dialects are only particularly useful in the areas they are spoken. To solve this, news stations and other international services use MSA, Modern Standard Arabic, which, whilst sounding robotic, can get the point across.

I think there already exists some form of this in English; I believe there's simplified English and the Queen's English of course! In schools they are supposed to at first teach the Queen's english -as it is the most standard we have- before branching out into literature and such. Perhaps they could teach simplified English as well if communication ever becomes such a problem? Then again, English is already an easy language to understand, a foreigner can get themselves understood pretty easily in English, as natives are able to quickly change words if they are incorrect so they can understand what the foreigner is saying. Perhaps to an extent this could work as well?

Of course we could use the old method. If somebody doesn't understand what we say, go over it a little more simply and with less accent (I'm lucky enough to not have a very thick accent at all, but I do speak very fast, so I have to do this often). If somebody is too rude to explain and accept that they can't always get the point across by saying ''Yeah bra' 'dis get right down'' or something, then it's their loss.

[Murton]

When I saw this thread title, I had in my head exactly what I was going to write, which was....


As such, I think that for society to evolve, a certain fluidity of language is necessary. It needs to be able to "go its own way", if you like. If it didn't, we'd still all be speaking Olde English, or some of us, Auld Scots. We aren't though, and communication has benefitted from it, allowing for a far broader exchange of ideas. Who knows what we'll be speaking a few hundred years down the line?

That being said, I'm a fan of more formal English, and try to use it where I can. I'm not particularly fond of things like text-speak and so on, even though it is now a part of who we are. This is mostly because I believe that if something is worth writing, it's worth making it legible. Hell one of my friends won't even talk to people that communicate like that... :P

So yeah, hypocritical, I prefer using more formal language, while believing that evolution of language is necessary to culture and civilisation as a whole... Just my couple of pennies though

That.

Even to the point of not responding to text speak (and l33t speak just pisses me off).

Quite scary, it's like someone has a time-share in my head!!


As an aside, a personal bug-bear of mine is a local thing, whereby people will say "treat" (pron. "tret") instead of treated. Really does wind me up, especially when I find myself doing it because it's so commonplace.

Another that annoys me, is 'e-mails'. That's just like saying a farmer has 'sheeps'... :veryangry:

[fs86]

When I saw this thread title, I had in my head exactly what I was going to write, which was....



That.

Even to the point of not responding to text speak (and l33t speak just pisses me off).

Quite scary, it's like someone has a time-share in my head!!



As an aside, a personal bug-bear of mine is a local thing, whereby people will say "treat" (pron. "tret") instead of treated. Really does wind me up, especially when I find myself doing it because it's so commonplace.

Another that annoys me, is 'e-mails'. That's just like saying a farmer has 'sheeps'... :veryangry:[/QUOTE]

Lol that's quite creepy, but ok... I'll get out your head :P Also, stuff like that annoys the hell out of me, especially when concerning new "common usage" words. I mean, people calling text messages "texes"? WTF? Admittedly, not many people call them that, but the ones that do...

[Guyers94]

You want to try coming to Liverpool. We have tonnes of annoying colloquial terms.

"Swerve it lad". (Stop that) is the most annoying one.

Plus I was out with a couple of friends before and we noticed you couldn't pass someone on the street without them shouting Ahrite Laaad at you. It's so annoying.