First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
The English Academy-
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 6/10/10 , edited 6/10/10

orangeflute wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


blancer wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


Hawker wrote:

What would be the point?

English is already the dominant language in the world and is the lingua franca of trade and business.


To create propiety in the language. If we let the language go as it is, unhindered by regulations provided by a central linguistic authority, then the language will be degraded.


Isn't that the role of British Council? Although now, they are more focused on culture then language. And, what is more precise answer to your question, people who make Oxford dictionary are taking care of that stuff (language). As for the grammar there are more then few old and modern editions, but there is a central body (I don't know which ministry, though), tasked with reading and approving those grammars. And there are also tons of societies tasked with that specific cause. Am I off the subject here?


There is no official body to say: 'Thus is proper' or 'Thus is improper'. The Oxfordian only record English as it is at the present stage, and add in words or lingos that are oft-used by the times, whereas an official body could say 'Thus isn't proper, and should not be accepted to any standard dictionary' or 'Thus shall be a word' like the French Academy.


So whats wrong with that ?


With no established authority there is no rules, and no rules mean that there is anarchy and disorder in both written and conversational language.


English has done just fine for centuries without it.

Besides even if some body says "this is proper" and "this is improper", doesn't really mean anything, cause nobody is going to follow it anyway.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 6/11/10

Allhailodin wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


blancer wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


Hawker wrote:

What would be the point?

English is already the dominant language in the world and is the lingua franca of trade and business.


To create propiety in the language. If we let the language go as it is, unhindered by regulations provided by a central linguistic authority, then the language will be degraded.


Isn't that the role of British Council? Although now, they are more focused on culture then language. And, what is more precise answer to your question, people who make Oxford dictionary are taking care of that stuff (language). As for the grammar there are more then few old and modern editions, but there is a central body (I don't know which ministry, though), tasked with reading and approving those grammars. And there are also tons of societies tasked with that specific cause. Am I off the subject here?


There is no official body to say: 'Thus is proper' or 'Thus is improper'. The Oxfordian only record English as it is at the present stage, and add in words or lingos that are oft-used by the times, whereas an official body could say 'Thus isn't proper, and should not be accepted to any standard dictionary' or 'Thus shall be a word' like the French Academy.


So whats wrong with that ?


With no established authority there is no rules, and no rules mean that there is anarchy and disorder in both written and conversational language.


English has done just fine for centuries without it.

Besides even if some body says "this is proper" and "this is improper", doesn't really mean anything, cause nobody is going to follow it anyway.


Have you read 'Twilight'? Our language is swiftly going to the dogs unless it is halted by a central authority.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 6/12/10

orangeflute wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


blancer wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


Hawker wrote:

What would be the point?

English is already the dominant language in the world and is the lingua franca of trade and business.


To create propiety in the language. If we let the language go as it is, unhindered by regulations provided by a central linguistic authority, then the language will be degraded.


Isn't that the role of British Council? Although now, they are more focused on culture then language. And, what is more precise answer to your question, people who make Oxford dictionary are taking care of that stuff (language). As for the grammar there are more then few old and modern editions, but there is a central body (I don't know which ministry, though), tasked with reading and approving those grammars. And there are also tons of societies tasked with that specific cause. Am I off the subject here?


There is no official body to say: 'Thus is proper' or 'Thus is improper'. The Oxfordian only record English as it is at the present stage, and add in words or lingos that are oft-used by the times, whereas an official body could say 'Thus isn't proper, and should not be accepted to any standard dictionary' or 'Thus shall be a word' like the French Academy.


So whats wrong with that ?


With no established authority there is no rules, and no rules mean that there is anarchy and disorder in both written and conversational language.


English has done just fine for centuries without it.

Besides even if some body says "this is proper" and "this is improper", doesn't really mean anything, cause nobody is going to follow it anyway.


Have you read 'Twilight'? Our language is swiftly going to the dogs unless it is halted by a central authority.


A central authority wouldn't halt it, it would still go to the dogs anyway, Nobody cares if what they say is proper or not. They'll still say it anyway, the way they want to say it.
75430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 6/16/10
I live in a country with two official languages. The opinion of most of the Quebec French speakers I know on the subject of 'International French' or the French Academy is:

"Who cares about that Parisian shit? My car runs on 'tires' not 'pneu'"

I imagine most Americans would react the same to the idea that their 'American' language is known properly as "the Queen's English" and that a British Authority is going to tell them how to speak/write it.

Conversely I find it annoying that most online spell checkers keep telling me that I am spelling "honour". "colour", and "armour" wrong or that I have to but a 'z' in words like Legalisation.

But it would be nice if people could post in a manner that didn't make my eyes hurt.
299 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Samsara
Offline
Posted 6/22/10

orangeflute wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


blancer wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


Hawker wrote:

What would be the point?

English is already the dominant language in the world and is the lingua franca of trade and business.


To create propiety in the language. If we let the language go as it is, unhindered by regulations provided by a central linguistic authority, then the language will be degraded.


Isn't that the role of British Council? Although now, they are more focused on culture then language. And, what is more precise answer to your question, people who make Oxford dictionary are taking care of that stuff (language). As for the grammar there are more then few old and modern editions, but there is a central body (I don't know which ministry, though), tasked with reading and approving those grammars. And there are also tons of societies tasked with that specific cause. Am I off the subject here?


There is no official body to say: 'Thus is proper' or 'Thus is improper'. The Oxfordian only record English as it is at the present stage, and add in words or lingos that are oft-used by the times, whereas an official body could say 'Thus isn't proper, and should not be accepted to any standard dictionary' or 'Thus shall be a word' like the French Academy.


So whats wrong with that ?


With no established authority there is no rules, and no rules mean that there is anarchy and disorder in both written and conversational language.


Ludicrous when there is an authority and rules are set in stone the language ceases to evolve and becomes stagnant, then that's when true decline occurs
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 6/22/10

Hawker wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


blancer wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


Hawker wrote:

What would be the point?

English is already the dominant language in the world and is the lingua franca of trade and business.


To create propiety in the language. If we let the language go as it is, unhindered by regulations provided by a central linguistic authority, then the language will be degraded.


Isn't that the role of British Council? Although now, they are more focused on culture then language. And, what is more precise answer to your question, people who make Oxford dictionary are taking care of that stuff (language). As for the grammar there are more then few old and modern editions, but there is a central body (I don't know which ministry, though), tasked with reading and approving those grammars. And there are also tons of societies tasked with that specific cause. Am I off the subject here?


There is no official body to say: 'Thus is proper' or 'Thus is improper'. The Oxfordian only record English as it is at the present stage, and add in words or lingos that are oft-used by the times, whereas an official body could say 'Thus isn't proper, and should not be accepted to any standard dictionary' or 'Thus shall be a word' like the French Academy.


So whats wrong with that ?


With no established authority there is no rules, and no rules mean that there is anarchy and disorder in both written and conversational language.


Ludicrous when there is an authority and rules are set in stone the language ceases to evolve and becomes stagnant, then that's when true decline occurs


Rules can be set in stone all they want, but that doesn't make people follow them, the language would still evolve like it is now even with some central authority. Nobody cares if "lol" is proper or not, they're still going to type it anyway and nobody cares if "sup" and all that crap isnt proper, people are still going to say it.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 6/22/10

Allhailodin wrote:


Hawker wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


blancer wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


Hawker wrote:

What would be the point?

English is already the dominant language in the world and is the lingua franca of trade and business.


To create propiety in the language. If we let the language go as it is, unhindered by regulations provided by a central linguistic authority, then the language will be degraded.


Isn't that the role of British Council? Although now, they are more focused on culture then language. And, what is more precise answer to your question, people who make Oxford dictionary are taking care of that stuff (language). As for the grammar there are more then few old and modern editions, but there is a central body (I don't know which ministry, though), tasked with reading and approving those grammars. And there are also tons of societies tasked with that specific cause. Am I off the subject here?


There is no official body to say: 'Thus is proper' or 'Thus is improper'. The Oxfordian only record English as it is at the present stage, and add in words or lingos that are oft-used by the times, whereas an official body could say 'Thus isn't proper, and should not be accepted to any standard dictionary' or 'Thus shall be a word' like the French Academy.


So whats wrong with that ?


With no established authority there is no rules, and no rules mean that there is anarchy and disorder in both written and conversational language.


Ludicrous when there is an authority and rules are set in stone the language ceases to evolve and becomes stagnant, then that's when true decline occurs


Rules can be set in stone all they want, but that doesn't make people follow them, the language would still evolve like it is now even with some central authority. Nobody cares if "lol" is proper or not, they're still going to type it anyway and nobody cares if "sup" and all that crap isnt proper, people are still going to say it.


Only the uneducated masses resort to those vulgarities. If there was a governing body, that the educated mass heed, then such vile phrases will, like the slangs of old, die out.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 6/24/10 , edited 6/24/10

orangeflute wrote:

Only the uneducated masses resort to those vulgarities. If there was a governing body, that the educated mass heed, then such vile phrases will, like the slangs of old, die out.


You really think that ? I sure don't. I don't think anyone would heed to a body that governed English. Nobody would give too damns if that body made official statements on what was proper or not. Besides you can't regulate English in America, all those slangs and crap are protected by the first amendment. So if the language goes to the dogs, nothing can be done to stop it.

And what do you mean by vile phrases ?
75430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 6/25/10 , edited 6/25/10
I think we're doing a fine job of speaking clear, reasonably grammatical English on this thread?
Another way to keep english 'pure' or at least intelligible is to make the people who butcher the language repeat themselves when you don't understand them or shun them when they persist in communicating incompetently people do what they can get away with. The might not LIKE getting called on their errors and transgressions but the idea that it might happen shapes them up tremendously.

shame is a powerful social tool.


First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.