Fluoresecent tube lengths

[EFLImpudence]

That's all very fair and reasonable.

I suppose the worst examples are when those who should know better - the media - make mistakes or television continuity announcers use poor speech and exaggerated accents to sound trendy and the ignorant (true meaning) know no different. It could be the other way round.
I suppose acceptable reflection society is dependent on society being acceptable.

I look forward to Prince Charles sounding like Ray Winston at his most cockney.

However, there is a difference between what you have written - evolving meanings which, logically will lead to all words not meaning what they actually do (awful, wicked) and mistakes. There's hope for my giraffe.

The same can't apply to the written word, though, can it? For example "They're" will never be accepted as meaning "Their", spelling is spelling or apostrophes evolving to be correct in the wrong place (they may become extinct, though).
For the written word to evolve, the rules would have to be changed for no real reason.

If enough people shop-lift, will the law be changed to reflect society?

 

[JohnW2]

That's all very fair and reasonable.

I'm glad that you think so.

I suppose the worst examples are when those who should know better - the media - make mistakes or television continuity announcers use poor speech and exaggerated accents to sound trendy and the ignorant (true meaning) know no different.

I'm sure that's partially true, but don't forget that some of it is deliberate, rather than 'mistakes' - the broadcast media seemingly dropped 'BBC English' and 'received pronunciation' essentially because they perceived it as alienating a significant proportion of their viewers/listeners, thereby undermining their role as communication media. Replays of radio/TV announcers, newsreaders etc. from the 50s and 60s today sound very odd - and, to some, 'alienating'!

However, there is a difference between what you have written - evolving meanings which, logically will lead to all words not meaning what they actually do (awful, wicked) and mistakes.

I have already acknowledged that and, I said, if it can be done without causing undue offence or inciting a violent response, true 'mistakes' should be pointed out. One of the problems, of course, is that some of these 'mistakes' (like your "we was") are very prevalent in some communities and sub-populations - and, at least in some cases, in communities whose members I would be fairly nervous about criticising/'correcting'!

The same can't apply to the written word, though, can it? For example "They're" will never be accepted as meaning "Their", spelling is spelling or apostrophes evolving to be correct in the wrong place (they may become extinct, though). For the written word to evolve, the rules would have to be changed for no real reason.

I'm not so sure - and I can think of at least one possible 'reason' for 'disambiguation' in the longer term. As voice recognition (and text-to-voice) technology develops and becomes more prevalent, (the many) homophones (words that are phonetically identical but with different spellings - like there/their/they're, place/plaice etc. etc.) are going to become a problem ... and similarly with heteronyms (words that have different pronunciations but the same spelling - like excuse, wind, use etc. etc.).

If there is no additional contextual information, then, no mater how clever the software, it could not distinguish between spoken versions of, say, "it was a very nice place" and "it was a very nice plaice". More in context, although it would not be impossible, it would take pretty clever software to distinguish (from the rest of the sentence) between "Their knitting ...." and "They're knitting ....".

If enough people shop-lift, will the law be changed to reflect society?

Clearly not. However (although it obviously wouldn't happen) if a substantial majority of members of society came to regard shop-lifting as acceptable (in the same was as they presumably believe the way they speak and write is acceptable), then I suppose there would be a case for changing the law.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Replays of radio/TV announcers, newsreaders etc. from the 50s and 60s today sound very odd - and, to some, 'alienating'!

I'm sure that is because of the accent they had; not the words used.
The use of the correct words is possible no matter what accent one has (I have).

and, at least in some cases, in communities whose members I would be fairly nervous about criticising/'correcting'!

I'm not so sure - and I can think of at least one possible 'reason' for 'disambiguation' in the longer term. As voice recognition (and text-to-voice) technology develops and becomes more prevalent, (the many) homophones (words that are phonetically identical but with different spellings - like there/their/they're, place/plaice etc. etc.) are going to become a problem ... and similarly with heteronyms (words that have different pronunciations but the same spelling - like excuse, wind, use etc. etc.).

Are you saying the software is on a par with Eastenders?

Software would have no trouble distinguishing the written word so it must be ahead of Eastenders.

]Clearly not. However (although it obviously wouldn't happen) if a substantial majority of members of society came to regard shop-lifting as acceptable (in the same was as they presumably believe the way they speak and write is acceptable), then I suppose there would be a case for changing the law.

Oh, I don't think so.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm sure that is because of the accent they had; not the words used.

I would say both.

The use of the correct words is possible no matter what accent one has (I have).

Indeed - but the words and grammar which were 'correct' in the'50s (and, in many cases, are still 'correct') would often sound awkward and different from the way people speak today.

Software would have no trouble distinguishing the written word so it must be ahead of Eastenders.

Voice recognition software has no written word to look at - it is creating written words from spoken ones. If I read out loud something which sounded like "It was a very nice place", how could you (or any software) know whether I was reading "place" or "plaice"?? As for text-to-voice software (which is what you appear to be considering), how would you (or any software) know whether to pronounce "bow" as rhyming with "now", or rhyming with ""no" if the written words you were looking at were "I arranged to meet him near the bow"??

Oh, I don't think so.

I think you're probably saying that because you do not believe (any more than I do) that a substantial proportion of the population would ever think that shop-lifting was 'acceptable', 'right' or OK. When society decided that consensual male homosexual practices were not 'wrong' or 'unacceptable', the law was changed so that they were no longer unlawful.

Kind Regards, John