I think what I like best about today's strip [megagamerz.com] is that Gamer 1 uses the subjunctive mode incorrectly in panel 3.

It's one of those things about which I have strong [goats.com] feelings [goats.com].

It is the nature of language to change. Use determines what is correct or incorrect, not prescribed rules. [pbs.org]

In Response to gooofy (#31447):

but in End of the Road, by John Barth. the protagonist argues the exact opposite.

he says that if useage were to determine what was correct, then our language would be reduced to nothing but garbled speech. it would also render english class pointless and obsolete

In Response to obscure (#31843):

What about languages that are not taught in class, and that have no standard written form? Have the tribal languages in Thailand been reduced to nothing by garbled speech because they are not taught in school? Of course not. Why is English any different?

In Response to gooofy (#31883):

you are right, but who says that these cultures dont have their own form of education that teaches the children the proper way of speech? the tribal groups in thailand need a way to educate the children as much as any english speaking country does.

In Response to obscure (#31887):

Yes, it's called language acquisition. School doesn't have much to do with it. Most English speakers can speak English before they start school; I know I could.

My point is that school teaches a standard language to children who already know a variety of the language. Take away the formal teaching of language, and you will not end up with "nothing but garbled speech." Language does not work like that.

In Response to gooofy (#31892):

but it really depends on what your idea of "a variety of the language" is. People living in inner cities develop a "variety" of their language that, from the point of view from someone that knows the formal variety of the language, is almost impossible to cohere. how can you say that this type of language will not eventually collapes over itself into nothing?

In Response to obscure (#31925):

Because languages don't "eventually collape into nothing." Find me an example of a language that has collapsed. What does that even mean?

Languages don't deteriorate or collapse, they change. They might change so that one group of speakers doesn't understand another group of speakers, or they might die out, but they don't become worse. What good would language be if it deteriorated over time?

If you are a native English speaker, you learned your language before you started school. You have a set of rules that you use to speak and understand, and these rules are part of your unconscious knowledge. You don't need to think consciously about how to pronounce, or the order to put words in. This unconscious knowledge is a complex system of rules that lets you speak and understand language.

Take a language with no writing system, no prescribed grammar, such as the Hixkaryana language of the Amazon. The speakers understand one another. Is the Hixkaryana language of the Amazon somehow corrupt or inferior because it has no formal grammar books? (Answer: no.) Hixkaryana children learn the language thru the normal process of language acquisition. It helps that they are a relatively small group of speakers that don't communicate with other groups over long distances. For English speakers, it makes sense to have a standard form of English so that speakers of different English varieties can communicate.

BUT take away the formal teaching of English, and nothing will happen to English that hasn't been happening to languages for thousands of years.

Sorry, that post above is mine.

In Response to gooofy (#31936):

yeah okay, i understand. i sort of knew i lost this argument from the beginning, but its always fun to try and debate a wrong point. props to gooofy for being ridiculously intelligent and breaking down my argument.

congratulations, i hope we can do this again sometime

In Response to obscure (#31950):

Thanks for the discussion, obscure. I always enjoy talking about language. Respect.

In Response to gooofy (#31953):

What I find amusing is that both of you actually took the first post in this thread seriously.

i think both statements are correct. When looking at temporary communication (ie interpersonal, unrecorded) it is fine to have a changing language.

however, if you want to see written word, a changing language is ultimately detrimental. See the difficulty in reading ancient hebrew by anyone who knows modern hebrew to understand, similarly with Shakespearean english verses american english.

a changing language is inevitable, but will be countered by written standards. by enforcing those standards you can maintain a neutral territory for people to converse and yet they can go home and resume regional dialects for everyday conversation.

In Response to AsphaltBuffet (#32104):

I almost agree with that.

As you say, standard English is very useful. But it is a standard, it is not superior to other forms of English. It is a tool that we can adapt to suit our needs.

"a changing language is ultimately detrimental" - sure, in the same way a changing culture is ultimately detrimental, in that we might find it hard to understand what people did hundreds of years ago. But that doesnt necessarily mean that we should try to prevent language from changing. It won't work anyway.

In Response to gooofy (#32135):

 in the same way a changing culture is ultimately detrimental

 um, no. language diverges from the norm making it harder for different groups to communicate. culture evolves to incorporate or exclude groups and ideas. I don't know that it is detrimental as it is just different. Diverging language doesn't really have a positive use other than alienation and separation.

In Response to AsphaltBuffet (#32921):

Languages evolve to incorporate or exclude groups as well.

when you say Diverging language doesn't really have a positive use other than alienation and separation you make it sound like it's an invention or something that we can change. You probly didn't mean that, but I think it's important to say that language change is normal and regular, and trying to prevent language change is hard, and I think, counterproductive.