Pulled from another thread

[EFLImpudence]

You must find that frustrating, and presumably (hopefully) realise that I also am frustrated by the fact that I have been unable to understand the logic/justification underlying what I understand to be your view. I'm therefore going to have yet another go to 'ask the question', by initially splitting it into two parts, each of which can (and should be) answered with Yes/No....

(1)... My understanding is that you regard it as 'wrong'/'unfortunate'/'annoying'/whatever that the failure to correct deviations ('errors'/'incorrect') in use of English from what you were taught has led to perpetuation/spread of those 'errors' such that they have now become part of 'common English usage' (even though you still regard them as 'incorrect'). Is that true (Yes/No)?​

​

(2)... Do you similarly believe that it would have been reasonable for, say, your grandfather to regard it as 'wrong'/'unfortunate'/'annoying'/whatever that the failure to correct deviations ('errors'/'incorrect') in use of English from what he was taught had led to perpetuation/spread of those 'errors' such that they became part of 'common English usage' (even though he still regard them as 'incorrect') (Yes/No)?​

Unless I have totally misunderstood you for years, I imagine that your answer to (1) will be 'Yes'.

If your answer to (2) is also yes, then how do you justify your personal view? If your grandfather regarded the language that he was taught as being the only 'correct' English, which would remain the only correct English for evermore, then why did the 'changed' language (which he still regarded as incorrect) suddenly become 'correct' when you were born and started learning the language?

In terms of a language which (I think) has been around, and constantly 'evolving', for something like 1,500 years, it would seem inappropriate (and, frankly, 'arrogant') to decide that the point in time at which you happened to have been born (and started learning the language) was so 'special' that the evolved state of English at that point in time suddenly became, and was going to remain for evermore, the only 'correct English'.

On the other hand, if your answer to (2) is 'No', then why does your view of what is the only 'correct' English (for evermore) 'trump' your grandfather's view that the language he had been taught would be the only correct English (for evermore), such that he would regard the English you had been taught to be 'incorrect;' ?

I see what you have done there.

You want yes/no answers but include so many qualifiers which require explanation it makes yes/no impossible.

I will just say that I have said many times we cannot alter what has already happened but there is no need to continue having the language decided by the ignorant majority aided by you for some reason.

That you (say you) don't understand why all mistakes should be corrected (just those you think should be) is very strange.

 

[ebee]

I do not like "A minimum of 2 or 3" or "A Maximum of 9 or 10" etc etc what the heck is all that about?

 

[JohnW2]

I see what you have done there. You want yes/no answers but include so many qualifiers which require explanation it makes yes/no impossible.

I have asked you the questions in countless ways over the years, and I think that the fact that you invariably find some excuse for not answering them goes a very long way to telling us what your answers would probably have to be if you were prepared to give them.

I'm not sure what "so many qualifiers" you are talking about, but I haved edited/precised my two questions such that I can personally now see no 'qualifiers' at all in either of them. Do I take it that you are still unable or unprepared to answer? ...

(1)... My understanding is that you regard it as wrong that past failure to correct deviations in use of English from what you were taught has led to perpetuation/spread of those 'errors' such that some have now become part of 'common English usage' (i.e. you regard some 'common usage' as being 'incorrect'). Is that true (Yes/No)?

(2)... Do you similarly believe that it would have been reasonable for your grandfather (in his later years) to regard it as wrong that past failure to correct deviations in use of English from what he was taught had led to perpetuation/spread of those 'errors' such that they had become part of 'common English usage' (i.e. in his later years, he regarded some 'common usage' as being 'incorrect') (Yes/No)?​

I will just say that I have said many times we cannot alter what has already happened but there is no need to continue having the language decided by the ignorant majority aided by you for some reason.

That doesn't alter the fact that your whole position seems to be that the only 'correct' language is (and always will be) that which you were taught fairly soon after you were born. Should not a person born, say, 40 or 50 years after you be allowed to say the same, with their view of what was 'correct' (learned soon after their birth) including some things which, by then, were 'incorrect' as far as you were concerned? ... and what about the person born 40 or 50 years before you (maybe even your grandfather!) ?

Let's put it this way ... you appear to believe that the only 'correct' English (and the only English that will be 'correct' for evermore) is that which was 'in common usage', and was therefore being taught, at an essentially arbitrary past point in time - even though what was regarded as 'correct' (and for evermore) could/would be different from that if the arbitrary time point was earlier or later than yours.

That you (say you) don't understand why all mistakes should be corrected (just those you think should be) is very strange.

Even though I (like you) find some 'evolution of language' irritating, I do not think it appropriate for me to try to stop it happening, so I don't believe in 'correcting' any errors in the 'use of language', per se, so long as the meaning of language being used is clear and unambiguous. If there are doubts about intended meaning then I would question (and, if appropriate, 'correct'/'educate').

As for "those [mistakes which I] think should be corrected", they are not issues of 'the use of language', per se, but, rather, are clear errors in relation to officially-defined things. You obviously (I hope!) would agree that someone must be corrected if they started using "yard" to mean 2 feet, or "a gallon" to mean three pints" or if they started talking about "metres" as being a unit of electrical current - but I also would hope that you would also understand and accept that such mistakes are a totally different kettle of fish from mere changes in 'use of English' (changes which did not impair communication) in comparison with some essentially arbitrary past point in time?

 

[JohnW2]

I do not like "A minimum of 2 or 3" or "A Maximum of 9 or 10" etc etc what the heck is all that about?

Yes, that will almost always be silly.

I suppose the one situation in which it might make some sense is if it were possible that, sometimes "2" (or "9") might be 'impossible' in the data concerned - but that would be an incredibly rare situation!

 

[JohnW2]

As to worst, worster, and worstest. That takes the biscuit. Oh, and of course bestest.

In general, I definitely agree.

However, I have seen situations in which it could perhaps be argued that "worster" or "worstest" is semi-legitimate - namely if one is talking about the 'overall worst' over two or more "worsts"....

Imagine that a number of utility providers had been scored (0-10) in relation to cost, reliability and customer service, with the worst (over all the providers) being 4/10, 3/10 and 6/10 respectively. Some people would probably then argue that it was acceptable to say that, 'overall', the "worstest" was the 3/10 for reliability !

However, I'm in no way supporting such a view, really just acting as a Devil's Advocate