Personal info on a post

130 posts / 0 new
Last post
petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Feb 16 2007 19:10
madashell wrote:
Depends on the context, obviously

painted as graffiti, but next to a supermarket

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Feb 16 2007 19:11
newyawka wrote:
painted as graffiti, but next to a supermarket

Then I'd just assume it was a nerd trying to be funny tongue

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Feb 16 2007 19:11
madashell wrote:
people who get really pedantic about it just get on my wick.

than stay away from me, MAN

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Feb 16 2007 19:12
madashell wrote:
newyawka wrote:
painted as graffiti, but next to a supermarket

Then I'd just assume it was a nerd trying to be funny tongue

thereby perhaps missing the weekly special 12 grapefruit for 50p

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Feb 16 2007 19:14
newyawka wrote:
thereby perhaps missing the weekly special 12 grapefruit for 50p

Meh, grapefruits are minging anyway.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Feb 16 2007 19:15

you're nuts.
people who capitalize, though, what anal fucks

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Feb 16 2007 19:16
Grace wrote:
Hence why I started the post with "personally I don't think" rather than launching straight into "there is no real excuse". It's just my opinion, innit. Although, if I may be so bold as to say so, basic communication skills are most likely more relevant to life in general than whether I happen to be a dumb hippy or not.

Even you are undoing your own bourgeois trash with your grammatically incorrect colloquialisms. Ironic that you should talk about difficulties non-standard forms cause WRT comprehension when you know full well that only 10% of Britain uses Standard English. You're right to point to the sometimes exclusive nature of discourse communities, yet you're somehow ommiting to identify the (now minimal) body of linguists who would reify language as a discourse community in itself.

Moreover, you're not factoring in the innate ability of any old dumb cunt to codeswitch (ie modify their speech) according to their environment. And that's not even getting us started on the false dichotomy you're presenting between "written" and "spoken" language (MSN/the internet as a whole being a perfect example of its fallacious nature).

They aren't "bloody modern linguists", they're just people who aren't elitist academic assholes and actually wanna study language as a whole as opposed to forming a de facto Bloomsbury group of people as pompous as them. I'm really shocked to hear a self-proclaimed communist talk such shite really.

BTW I'm not saying you're pompous or a wanker, just your linguistics lecturers would seem to be.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Feb 16 2007 19:29

fave linguae, cane

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Feb 16 2007 19:31
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
codeswitch (ie modify their speech)

thank you for defining that! we ignoros need educated wankers to explain.
EDIT: tongue

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Feb 16 2007 19:51

that sounds like a fancy exculpation for your incomprehensibly typed posts grin

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Feb 16 2007 19:56
newyawka wrote:
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
codeswitch (ie modify their speech)

thank you for defining that! we ignoros need educated wankers to explain.
EDIT: tongue

Actually, I defined it so that people outside of the linguistics discourse community could understand it. Wouldn't wanna be accused of using jargon would I? wink

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Feb 16 2007 20:11
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
Grace wrote:
Hence why I started the post with "personally I don't think" rather than launching straight into "there is no real excuse". It's just my opinion, innit. Although, if I may be so bold as to say so, basic communication skills are most likely more relevant to life in general than whether I happen to be a dumb hippy or not.

Even you are undoing your own bourgeois trash with your grammatically incorrect colloquialisms. Ironic that you should talk about difficulties non-standard forms cause WRT comprehension when you know full well that only 10% of Britain uses Standard English. You're right to point to the sometimes exclusive nature of discourse communities, yet you're somehow omitting to identify the (now minimal) body of linguists who would reify language as a discourse community in itself.

I wondered which idiot would be the first to latch onto that. Brilliant roll eyes

Besides, not using 'standard English' in a day to day colloquial context doesn't negate the fact that basically every English speaker understands standard English constructions and vocabulary, it's a far more universal form of the language than any dialect, which is my point.

Quote:
Moreover, you're not factoring in the innate ability of any old dumb cunt to codeswitch (i.e. modify their speech) according to their environment. And that's not even getting us started on the false dichotomy you're presenting between "written" and "spoken" language (MSN/the internet as a whole being a perfect example of its fallacious nature).

Except you know that this is not what I meant. Of course I know that instant messaging and so on is an extension of colloquial language use, you've just chosen to ignore nuances which should be perfectly obvious to any idiot. There is a dichotomy between writing and being colloquial, to deny that is ridiculous. I suppose you'd write in your essays that such-and-such a theory is really weighty roll eyes

Quote:
They aren't "bloody modern linguists", they're just people who aren't elitist academic assholes and actually want to study language as a whole as opposed to forming a de facto Bloomsbury group of people as pompous as them. I'm really shocked to hear a self-proclaimed communist talk such shite really.

BTW I'm not saying you're pompous or a wanker, just your linguistics lecturers would seem to be.

Except I am an elitist academic asshole cool

Besides, I don't have linguistics lecturers that say anything about English grammar, oddly enough. You know this and you might as well accuse me personally if you're going to say anything about pompousness.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Feb 16 2007 20:25
newyawka wrote:
that sounds like a fancy exculpation for your incomprehensibly typed posts grin

I, and most other people I would imagine, actually find Belfast's grammar and punctuation easier to understand than the constant references to crap obscure theorists and relentless usage of acronyms, as if I should have an encyclopaedic knowledge of every vaguely left-leaning group to have existed in the last 100 years. If you wanna talk about elitist jargon, then why would you choose something as obscure and dubious as linguistic form?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Feb 16 2007 20:26
revol68s wrote:
what appears grammarically incorrect to you actual makes perfect sense within a given culture, for example "who dat" would be corrected to "whose that" but in given context it works fine.

"who's that" you absolute spanner.

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Feb 16 2007 20:34
revol68 wrote:
Quote:
There is a dichotomy between writing and being colloquial, to deny that is ridiculous. I suppose you'd write in your essays that such-and-such a theory is really weighty.

except people say shit like that all the time just in words that are more acceptable within academia, for example "such and such is a very dense theory".

'Weighty' is Alan-and-co slang for 'good'. Thanks for proving my point.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Feb 16 2007 20:36
Grace wrote:
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
Grace wrote:
Hence why I started the post with "personally I don't think" rather than launching straight into "there is no real excuse". It's just my opinion, innit. Although, if I may be so bold as to say so, basic communication skills are most likely more relevant to life in general than whether I happen to be a dumb hippy or not.

Even you are undoing your own bourgeois trash with your grammatically incorrect colloquialisms. Ironic that you should talk about difficulties non-standard forms cause WRT comprehension when you know full well that only 10% of Britain uses Standard English. You're right to point to the sometimes exclusive nature of discourse communities, yet you're somehow omitting to identify the (now minimal) body of linguists who would reify language as a discourse community in itself.

I wondered which idiot would be the first to latch onto that. Brilliant roll eyes

I'm the best "idiot" of them all.

Quote:
Besides, not using 'standard English' in a day to day colloquial context doesn't negate the fact that basically every English speaker understands standard English constructions and vocabulary, it's a far more universal form of the language than any dialect, which is my point.

Can you back that up with any statistics? I'd like to know what percentage of the population speaks Estuarian English, for instance. Of course, the authorities of Standard English are aware of the wide reach of various dialects, hence why they allow certain terms and constructions into the dictionary approximately 20 years after they've been born.

Quote:
Quote:
Moreover, you're not factoring in the innate ability of any old dumb cunt to codeswitch (i.e. modify their speech) according to their environment. And that's not even getting us started on the false dichotomy you're presenting between "written" and "spoken" language (MSN/the internet as a whole being a perfect example of its fallacious nature).

Except you know that this is not what I meant. Of course I know that instant messaging and so on is an extension of colloquial language use, you've just chosen to ignore nuances which should be perfectly obvious to any idiot. There is a dichotomy between writing and being colloquial, to deny that is ridiculous. I suppose you'd write in your essays that such-and-such a theory is really weighty roll eyes

Grace, do you not understand what I mean when I say "codeswitch" then, despite Newyawka's (tongue in cheek) chastising of me for defining it?

Besides, as MSN and the internet proves, the dichotomy is not between written and spoken/colloquial, since you can write colloquially (and, obviously, speak non-colloquially). The dichotomy is between colloquial and non-colloquial.

Quote:
Except I am an elitist academic asshole cool

No Grace that isn't cool. For someone who prides herself on differentiating from the rest of her student body, you might wanna examine the level to which Oxford ideology has affected you. It's really honestly not something to be proud of.

Quote:
Besides, I don't have linguistics lecturers that say anything about English grammar, oddly enough.

So you're claiming that your study of Latin philology doesn't influence your approach towards English linguistics? Cos that's just not really possible.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Feb 16 2007 20:36
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
newyawka wrote:
that sounds like a fancy exculpation for your incomprehensibly typed posts grin

I, and most other people I would imagine, actually find Belfast's grammar and punctuation easier to understand than the constant references to crap obscure theorists and relentless usage of acronyms, as if I should have an encyclopaedic knowledge of every vaguely left-leaning group to have existed in the last 100 years. If you wanna talk about elitist jargon, then why would you choose something as obscure and dubious as linguistic form?

hey, i kid.
besides, i share your attitude about alphabet-soup leftism, and about theorizing about which i've had a row or two on this board, as recently as yesterday.

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Feb 16 2007 20:47
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
Quote:
Except I am an elitist academic asshole cool

No Grace that isn't cool. For someone who prides herself on differentiating from the rest of her student body, you might wanna examine the level to which Oxford ideology has affected you. It's really honestly not something to be proud of.

That's stupidly low, Alan. I was correcting my playgroup leaders' grammar at the age of 4, I hardly think you can try and pin the old "Oxford this, Oxford that" nonsense on me.

Also, I thought that cool was the thingy you had to do to make the sunglasses face come up. Should have checked through the post really.

Quote:
Quote:
Besides, I don't have linguistics lecturers that say anything about English grammar, oddly enough.

So you're claiming that your study of Latin philology doesn't influence your approach towards English linguistics? Cos that's just not really possible.

No, I'm not. I'm stating that I don't have lectures in English linguistics, because I don't. Latin philology has little to nothing to do with my approach to English grammar or linguistics. Latin grammar, however, has most likely had an influence, so I guess you could reasonably claim that if you wanted.

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Feb 16 2007 20:49
revol68 wrote:
Grace wrote:
revol68 wrote:
Quote:
There is a dichotomy between writing and being colloquial, to deny that is ridiculous. I suppose you'd write in your essays that such-and-such a theory is really weighty.

except people say shit like that all the time just in words that are more acceptable within academia, for example "such and such is a very dense theory".

'Weighty' is Alan-and-co slang for 'good'. Thanks for proving my point.

How does it prove your point? Any more than me using dense as meaning thick changes the validity of using "dense" to describe a set of theories in an essay?

It proves my point in that the sense of saying a theory is dense is not (necessarily) the same as saying it is good. It's a case in which using colloquial forms in the wrong context can lead to misunderstandings.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Feb 16 2007 21:02

this is a tiny bit funny, listening to some UKers going on about each others' elitism, like watching PBS

Caiman del Barrio wrote:
Grace wrote:
Besides, I don't have linguistics lecturers that say anything about English grammar, oddly enough.

So you're claiming that your study of Latin philology doesn't influence your approach towards English linguistics? Cos that's just not really possible.

yes, it is. people who do L&G are fully aware that the rhythms of latin diction, or the layers of meaning that are communicated by the tension between latin inflection and latin word order, ee.gg., cannot be transferred to english speech, or only clumsily so. and, that latin grammatical categories are not identical with english ones. my english prose and my latin prose bear little influence on each other. (that's right, my latin prose.)

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Feb 16 2007 21:17
newyawka wrote:
this is a tiny bit funny, listening to some UKers going on about each others' elitism, like watching PBS

Caiman del Barrio wrote:
Grace wrote:
Besides, I don't have linguistics lecturers that say anything about English grammar, oddly enough.

So you're claiming that your study of Latin philology doesn't influence your approach towards English linguistics? Cos that's just not really possible.

yes, it is. people who do L&G are fully aware that the rhythms of latin diction, or the layers of meaning that are communicated by the tension between latin inflection and latin word order, ee.gg., cannot be transferred to english speech, or only clumsily so. and, that latin grammatical categories are not identical with english ones. my english prose and my latin prose bear little influence on each other. (that's right, my latin prose.)

<3

Doing Latin does tend to make you more bothered about things being 'correct' though, or at least it has done me.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Feb 16 2007 21:52
revol68 wrote:
John. wrote:
revol68s wrote:
what appears grammarically incorrect to you actual makes perfect sense within a given culture, for example "who dat" would be corrected to "whose that" but in given context it works fine.

"who's that" you absolute spanner.

way to prove a point you silly fuck. "Who dat" is ghetto for "Who's that".

I know. "Who's that", not "whose that" which is what you put in your original post. I put it in bold if you've forgotten.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Feb 16 2007 22:06
Grace wrote:
Also, I thought that cool was the thingy you had to do to make the sunglasses face come up. Should have checked through the post really.

It does make the sunglasses icon come up, which indicates "coolness". OK you were probably being tongue in cheek and self-aware and Belfast about it, but it demonstrates an unapologetic adherence to "elitist academia". Which isn't cool.

What exactly is it that you're arguing here? How will you link occasionally misplacing or misusing an apostrophe (or, in your case, not ending a sentence with a preposition) back to difficulties in comprehension? You're not even approaching this debate with an ounce of nuance (oooh baby, say that aloud...I sound like an MC). If you wanted to argue that a standardised form of written English seems logical, or that Libcom posters should steer away from regionalised dialect, then let's take it from there. Agreeing to some form of Standard English is not the same as correcting apostrophes or verb construction in spoken English. You've utterly failed to really address the term I keep using: codeswitching, which I think is really key to this discussion.

Where do you see the role of Standard English in, say, a post-revolutionary society?

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Feb 16 2007 22:24
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
Where do you see the role of Standard English in, say, a post-revolutionary society?

eek

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Feb 16 2007 23:04
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
Grace wrote:
Also, I thought that cool was the thingy you had to do to make the sunglasses face come up. Should have checked through the post really.

It does make the sunglasses icon come up, which indicates "coolness". OK you were probably being tongue in cheek and self-aware and Belfast about it, but it demonstrates an unapologetic adherence to "elitist academia". Which isn't cool.

But I like my elitist academia sad

Quote:
What exactly is it that you're arguing here? How will you link occasionally misplacing or misusing an apostrophe (or, in your case, not ending a sentence with a preposition) back to difficulties in comprehension? You're not even approaching this debate with an ounce of nuance (oooh baby, say that aloud...I sound like an MC).

I never pointed to misplaced apostrophes in particular, although they do piss me off but usually it's just me being fussy rather than any real problem; I spoke of bad grammar in general, which can cause actual problems, or difficulties at the very least. I'm not sure where nuance comes into it, forgive me if I'm being too stupid for you roll eyes Also I'm not hugely bothered about preposition positioning, that's more of an American thing and not strictly important. I'm pretty sure that when I corrected myself on the phone (I assume this is what you're referring to) I'd used a wrong case-form or word order.

Quote:
If you wanted to argue that a standardised form of written English seems logical, or that Libcom posters should steer away from regionalised dialect, then let's take it from there. Agreeing to some form of Standard English is not the same as correcting apostrophes or verb construction in spoken English. You've utterly failed to really address the term I keep using: codeswitching, which I think is really key to this discussion.

How exactly do I need to address codeswitching? From what I can tell, codeswitching is precisely what I'm advocating (and not necessarily in the context of Libcom posters, I'm not entirely sure where you got that idea from since I've already acknowledged that some things on the internet are extensions of colloquial speech) since I wouldn't want to enforce standardised English in colloquial use. My personal pedantry when it comes to my speaking isn't something I'd necessarily want to apply to everybody.

Quote:
Where do you see the role of Standard English in, say, a post-revolutionary society?

How much crack have you smoked today?

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Feb 17 2007 12:09
Jack wrote:
Alan and revol are so blindingly obviously right.

I mean, if we were talking about a leaflet or an article, then they may have a point, if only in aid of those who don't speak English as a first language. But other than that, so long as your grammar is readable, then it's no problem. And the level of readability is far, far below anyone on libcom. Apart from futuretech68.

I don't see how effectively saying advocating correct grammar is to be mocked and discouraged and that sloppy grammar is somehow good can be construed as 'blindingly obviously right', actually. To me, it seems quite stupid to say that. I'm not sure where anyone ever said that anybody on Libcom was unreadable, that wasn't part of my point at least. But when people are writing stuff like "What Marx done is..." then that's just fucking bollocks.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Feb 17 2007 18:47

here's the idea: the more grammar, the greater flexibility to express ideas, the greater the range of communication. i like lots of grammar becuase it facilitates communication and the expression of ideas, and this has nothing to do with my study of L&G (in fact it's the other way around - and, btw, latin is a bit deficient in this depatment and must labor to express things that come quite easily in paratactic languages). learning the rules of grammar has exactly the same value as an indicator of intelligence as learning anything else, and is of a different type from having spatial abilities or creative ones. nobody here says differently. there are constipated people who use others' ability to master grammar rules as a proxy for judgement passing, but it's blindingly obvious that grace isn't one of these.

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Feb 17 2007 20:11

Good post Newyawka - as you say grammar IS just one indicator of intelligence, is useful in and of itself and does not have to involve passing judgements which as - you say - is not where Grace is at. At all. Tho it sounds as if revel and co are more concerned at the dogmatic attitude of those who DO use grammar rules to make judgements and effect an air of superiority but this is a weakness in those who do this and is not the "fault" of grammar itself.

Love

LW X

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Feb 18 2007 13:54
Grace wrote:
I don't see how effectively saying advocating correct grammar is to be mocked and discouraged and that sloppy grammar is somehow good can be construed as 'blindingly obviously right', actually. To me, it seems quite stupid to say that.

Why? And why are you conflating Standard English with "good" English? Are you Norman Tebbitt or something? Surely language is only as good as its practical use, which is pretty much decided empirically by its users. And that's all 3 billion odd of them, not just the pricks at OED.

Quote:
But when people are writing stuff like "What Marx done is..." then that's just fucking bollocks.

Why? Once again, you seem to be failing to really engage with the issue. Instead you're presenting some sort of binary wherein you either fully accept every shitty little petty rule of Standard English or you fall into a world of linguistic anarchy. When I say you need nuance I mean that you need to properly analyse Standard English's worth more or less on a case by case basis. What you're basically implying is that the rules are there for a reason (although you haven't really said what), so don't question them.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Feb 18 2007 14:05
Grace wrote:
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
Grace wrote:
Also, I thought that cool was the thingy you had to do to make the sunglasses face come up. Should have checked through the post really.

It does make the sunglasses icon come up, which indicates "coolness". OK you were probably being tongue in cheek and self-aware and Belfast about it, but it demonstrates an unapologetic adherence to "elitist academia". Which isn't cool.

But I like my elitist academia :(

Yeah I can fuckin see that. That's why I mentioned Oxford, and then you got offended.

Quote:
I never pointed to misplaced apostrophes in particular, although they do piss me off but usually it's just me being fussy rather than any real problem; I spoke of bad grammar in general, which can cause actual problems, or difficulties at the very least.

Once again, quit using ideological terms like "bad grammar" if you don't wanna be accused of being a Oxfordite. And you aren't fully explaining yourself. Which variations cause difficulties in comprehension? And how important is this? I mean, do you intend to eliminate all sorts of syntactic regional identity? You do know that Standard English is just an English dialect in itself right (roughly defined as the triangle of London, south east England and Oxford)?

Quote:
How exactly do I need to address codeswitching? From what I can tell, codeswitching is precisely what I'm advocating (and not necessarily in the context of Libcom posters, I'm not entirely sure where you got that idea from since I've already acknowledged that some things on the internet are extensions of colloquial speech) since I wouldn't want to enforce standardised English in colloquial use. My personal pedantry when it comes to my speaking isn't something I'd necessarily want to apply to everybody.

So what exactly are you arguing? You make loads of pejorative claims about "modern linguists" and hate on how The Man On The Street talks, and then when someone calls you up on it, you back back back up making some half-baked claims about comprehension, before finally declaring it was just a personal eccentricity (can't you collect rare stones instead?).

Quote:
Quote:
Where do you see the role of Standard English in, say, a post-revolutionary society?
How much crack have you smoked today?

Yeah I get it, I live in South London in an area full of African immigrants, and I'm at a non-redbrick uni so I'm a crackhead. Man you're such a bigot. wink

What I'm trying to do is illustrate the inherent contradiction between your suckling at the teat of (petty) bourgeois misanthropic self-promotion and your communist ideals (wherever they've got to in this thread).