What happened to the spelling/language thread?
 

Too bad it seems to have disappeared, b/c on my way home from work I was waiting to add this example. I just heard the leader of the free world--a purported native speaker of English--make reference to one foreign country that should be sure not to "contravene" an agreement they had w/the US about the rights of another country. Now mind you, I am spelling the word by sound, as I do not believe it is one I have ever seen in print.

did you think to look it up? it means to violate, or act contrary to....

Just means "oppose" doesn't it?

It seems like the spelling and language brigade are spiralling out of control.

Well if that is the case, then I stand corrected. I guess (apolgies to Dave Barry) that our leader is more of a "Mr. Language Person" than I am!! They say you learn something everyday, and that is *my* lesson for today.:) No more venting when I come in the door from work!!

So what did happen to the spelling/language thread?

Maybe the folks who pay for the bandwidth wanted to quit paying for threads that had little to nothing to do with travel and a lot to do with "showing off".

I bet you're right about that CarolA.

...but I had hoped to add this for Ira's edification before it was hacked...

http://www.theconglomerate.org/2004/..._as_a_tra.html

Someone explain to me how deleting a thread decreases a server's bandwidth requirement. You mean they can get by with a DS3 instead of an OC3?

The English language---all language, as many have pointed out--is constantly changing in response to, or in tandem with, popular culture. But it seems to be changing more rapidly of late, and in my opinion it is changing for the worse by becoming less exact. The fact that your source of information is a blog, Nimrod, both explains and illustrates the current light-speed of change.

Yes, when English lost the dual number, it became less precise.

When it shed the distinction between second person singular and plural, it became less precise.

When it was diluted (or polluted, as some prefer) by Norman French in the 11th Century, it lost precision. So it's not as if the trend towards simplification were a new thing.

But language behaves as a liquid: it fills the container it occupies, regardless of that container's shape. It will be exactly as precise as it needs to be.

If the language has lost subtlety, it's because the popular culture has no use for any. I don't think stabilizing the language will prevent the president from misunderestimating the nucular threat.

"Less exact" probably has much more to do with the words chosen by the user than any "lack of precision" on the part of the language itself.

For example, I suspect the phrase, "You are fired" is precise enough for most folks to understand.

"Maybe the folks who pay for the bandwidth wanted to quit paying for threads that had little to nothing to do with travel and a lot to do with "showing off"."

Isn't it the belief that one's opinion is worthy of publication that betrays one's desire to show off, not the subject matter? Notwithstanding the popular phrase, 'IMHO', nobody with an opinion can truly be said to be humble. Which indicts just about everyone posting here as a show-off (shall I lend out my feather boa?):)

To some, the thread was an irritation, it sounded too much like personal criticism, all attempts at reassurance notwithstanding. That's fair enough, one should not feel ashamed to describe one's feelings. But to me, disagreement is fair only if it is itself not expressed personally in a personal way. It is one thing to point the way to a solution or improved state, e.g. "if you refrain from correcting others' spelling, people as a rule might feel less intimidated about posting" (or whatever.) It is another to attack personally ("you're bad and unpleasant people, show-offs, for correcting spelling, even in a thread not directed at any specific person."

I don't recall having corrected you, CarolA, but if I did, my apologies for making you feel badly.

I agree. Probably pulled because it had nothing to do with travel.

I also agree that the thread was full of show-offs and gobbedly-gook.

Save it for your thesis.

Hi nimrod,

Thanks for the link.
>...It seems likely, therefore, that the verb impact will eventually become as usual as the verb contact has become over the last 30 years.<

I have no doubt that it will, but I shall not use it.

Hi Robe

>When it shed the distinction between second person singular and plural, it became less precise.<

Hmmmm. Wasn't that more a matter of dropping the distinction between the familiar and the formal "you" (eg, tu vs vous) rather than precision of communication?

((I))

<i>&quot;my apologies for making you feel badly&quot;</i>

Therapy 101: Nobody can <b>make</b> anyone <i>feel</i> anything. Only you (the reader) is responsible for how you feel. To say otherwise is to validate a false superiority and to surrender all personal control and responsibility.

Yes, many here can incite furor and mayhem but the manner in which you &quot;take&quot; this information is solely your responsibility. Nobody has the right to lay claim on your feelings.

ps Sue, I think you could have chosen better words of support for CarolA.

Nice one socialworker. You should work at CBS. But you aren't the only person to jump on the bash-Bush bandwagon without first checking to see if it had any wheels.

Just to clear up a few things.

I am never insulted if you notice I can't spell or type... it's not news to me... and to be honest my one rule of message boards like this is &quot;don't take it personally&quot;, I don't know you, you don't know me and &quot;knowing&quot; folks via a limited medium like this is pretty impossible.

However, I did look at the last thread and there were several posts on there that were just plain &quot;see how dumb other posters are&quot; While 99.9% of the posters on here are willing to help... there are always those that don't actually want to provide any useful info, but to &quot;show off&quot; thier &quot;superior&quot; knowledge. (For example, someone posts for the first time ever and is immediately scolded for &quot;not searching&quot; or for a typo.) Sorry if I don't appreciate thier &quot;superior intellect&quot;

Well, in fact you can't make someone &quot;feel badly.&quot; You can make them feel bad, though.

Doesn't it show how far down the anti-intellectual path we've gone when not condoning poor grammar is considered showing off?

&gt;...you can't make someone &quot;feel badly.&quot; You can make them feel bad, though. &lt;

Ummmm. Am I wrong here? I thought that &quot;to feel&quot; is a verb and takes an adverb, &quot;badly&quot;, as a modifier - not an adjective, &quot;bad&quot;.

((I))