capo

<i>Languages are in constant evolution, but standards are more than just consensus. For better or worse, and whether we like it or not, certain dominant parts of society establish standards (which do get changed eventually) and those who don't quite use language as prescribed or expected are judged as less competent or worthy.</i>

I agree with you, Cassandra, that those who don't use language as prescribed or expected are, or can be, judged as less competent or worthy, but I don't feel that that standards are more than just consensus. One of the definitions of [a] &quot;standard&quot; is: &quot;something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example&quot; and what is authority but some group given that power by general consent?

Anyway, I just found these three comments I really like, all from <i>The Story of English</i>, by Robert McCrum, William Cran, and Robert MacNeil...

&quot;When we see men grow old and die at a certain time one after another, from century to century, we laugh at the elixir that promises to prolong life to a thousand years; and with equal justice may the lexicographer be derided, who, being able to produce no example of a nation that has preserved their words and phrases from mutability, shall imagine that his dictionary can embalm his language, and secure it from corruptino and decay...&quot; -- Dr. Samuel Johnson, from his Preface to <i>A Dictionary of the English Language</i>, 1755

&quot;A living language is like a man suffering incessantly from small haemorrhages, and what it needs above all else is constant transactions of new blood from other tongues. The day the gates go up, that day it begins to die.&quot; -- H.L. Mencken, from <i>The American Language</i>, 1919

&quot;We have tried to tell the whole story. Some academic studies tend to dwell on the catalogued literary past rather than on the messier, teeming present, on Chaucer and Noah Webster at the expense of Caribbean creole or space-speak. . . . We have also paid attention to the everyday spoken English of fisherman, wheelwrights, cowboys, folk singers, priests, doctors, sugar planters, computer hackers, etc., talking about their work in their own variety of the language. This approach emphasizes an important truth about language which the fixity of print can sometimes obscure: <i>that is is always in flux, and that its form and expression are beyond the control of schoolteachers or governments.</i> What is more, when you look at language under a microscope, you can see it changing almost as you watch it: words and phrases, pronounciations and rhythms become widely imitated at astonishing speed.&quot; -- McCrum, Cran, and MacNeil, in the Introduction.

Shanna

The purpose of language is to communicate and the purpose of the rules is to facilitate communication. Unfortunately, rules offend many people and so they would prefer to be misunderstood than to be believed to be oppressed, sheep, or anal. All this is interesting but bring and take still are not interchangeable.

capo

<i>The purpose of language is to communicate and the purpose of the rules is to facilitate communication.</i>

Both true. And communication may be difficult if those rules are completely broken. But if they're bent -- even to an annoying degree -- communication can still occur.

I'm reminded, for example, of a phrase that used to grate on me back in junior high and high school. It was fairly common for people to say, &quot;Can you borrow me a quarter?&quot; Now, if they had said something like, &quot;Can you fry a quarter?&quot;, I would've said, &quot;Huh?&quot; But, as it was, communication still took place and -- especially if they were big and menacing -- they always got their quarter &quot;borrowed&quot; to them.

Shanna

Hi Capo. I can recall hearing that same usage - borrow instead of loan. Actually, they ususally said &quot;borry&quot; not borrow. And I recall that not only was I able to understand what they wanted, I also learned that I would not wish to become too familiar with them and, consequently, I didn't loan them a quarter, or lend them my sweater or my homework. So, in that instance, the communication worked for me but not for them. I know, I'm a bit of a snob which probably explains why, to this day, I have no &quot;posse.&quot;

capo

<i>So, in that instance, the communication worked for me but not for them.</i>

Pretty funny, Shanna! In my case, when they were big and menacing, I knew they didn't even mean &quot;lend&quot; for &quot;borrow.&quot; They meant &quot;give.&quot; And I ususually figured two bits was a small price to pay for not being beat up.

Neil_Oz

Memo Neil: do NOT argue with Ira. Repeat, do NOT....

Capo, how about &quot;spitted&quot;? Or would that confuse expectoration with barbecues?

Lanceolot: you're right, a flip-flop is a thong here, and a thong is a thong too. And (except for some cheerleaders) we don't &quot;root&quot; for our favourite football team either, as that word (n, vt) is more commonly used in the same sense as it is in an early chapter of Larry McMurtry's &quot;Lonesome Dove&quot;.

capo, great quotes (or should I say &quot;quotations&quot;? - curse this thread). Glad someone else is a fan of &quot;The Story of English&quot; - also an excellent BBC-TV series. Can't remember the author, who's a professor of linguistics at Stanford I think, but also look out of &quot;The Word on the Street&quot; for an excellent insight into the shifting sands of English.