I'm old enough now that my thinking could be discounted based on my age, but I prefer schools teach proper grammar and demand its use by students. Language will still change and evolve over time, which is fine and perhaps even necessary as languages merge and the way we live changes with the times and technology. Further, I support freedom of speech over mandating any form of language (doesn't the French government regulate their language? I wouldn't want that). However, if no one tries to teach or protect language as it is, the rate of change becomes destructive.
This leads not just to communication problems between living generations, it also renders older titles unreadable sooner than necessary -- try reading books written just a few hundred years ago in middle or old English -- a tragic and unnecessary end for a book absent translation (and only the most popular titles get that treatment, at least so far, maybe more in the future with improving AI and computer-based translation). Now imagine that rate of change occurring in decades rather than centuries. This would make it more difficult to follow one's own history, which forces us into a version of the old line: "Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."
Yeah, not there yet. :-) However, for work I often get emails from people in languages I can't read. Microsoft's translation layer seems to be pretty good (hard to know, because I never compare it with a pro human translation). I respond in English and based on their follow-up responses, I think I've addressed whatever they were emailing me about in their language. I think we're getting closer.
While late Georgian architecture became passé in the fashionable, coastal towns, the architects and builders working the trades up the Connecticut River plied those designs for a few more decades. The house from which I write this is an example: a colonial brick built during the federal period.
Similarly, Chuck Sherman shows a good example of a stranded style when asking whether neologging (btw, this is how it’s done) the verb “to guilt” should be accepted.
I think of this sometimes when arguing over phrasing and grammar with my wife. She’s of a similar mind, preferring the older style guides. Strunk & White is 107 years old. The Cornell professor who started it is probably even older.
Coming from a newspaper background of sorts, I’ve always preferred the AP Stylebook, which is less a specific book nowadays, and more of an evolving online resource.
The fundamental principle of the AP guide is that you want the language to most easily get the concepts into the heads of the readers by employing the then-current and proper usages. It’s reader-focused. It’s quite “newspaper.”
The scoundrels and reprobates that make magazines have the luxury of preaching flapper punctuation and usage from the title cards placed between silent moving picture scenes. Their readers believe that if they’re stretching to understand something, it must contain profundity. Different market.
I once argued with a young'un that "sex" and "gender" mean two different things; the former referred to living beings, like people and animals, and the latter referred to inanimate things, such as words in other languages (the table = la mesa, feminine.) I also said that nowadays people use the two interchangeably, and the two words were likely losing their distinction. Also of note: An acquaintance was showing me pictures of his children. "They're really into sports," he said, "And they're quite talented." I saw only one person, a girl, in the photos. "Are they twins?" I asked. "Oh, no, they're non-binary," was the answer. I hope someone comes up with a singular pronoun they can use so I can understand "they" the moment it's uttered.
"metaphornication" -- love it.
I'm old enough now that my thinking could be discounted based on my age, but I prefer schools teach proper grammar and demand its use by students. Language will still change and evolve over time, which is fine and perhaps even necessary as languages merge and the way we live changes with the times and technology. Further, I support freedom of speech over mandating any form of language (doesn't the French government regulate their language? I wouldn't want that). However, if no one tries to teach or protect language as it is, the rate of change becomes destructive.
This leads not just to communication problems between living generations, it also renders older titles unreadable sooner than necessary -- try reading books written just a few hundred years ago in middle or old English -- a tragic and unnecessary end for a book absent translation (and only the most popular titles get that treatment, at least so far, maybe more in the future with improving AI and computer-based translation). Now imagine that rate of change occurring in decades rather than centuries. This would make it more difficult to follow one's own history, which forces us into a version of the old line: "Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."
God help us if AI starts translating books. Have you read any of their "translations" on Facebook? Hilariously wrong.
Yeah, not there yet. :-) However, for work I often get emails from people in languages I can't read. Microsoft's translation layer seems to be pretty good (hard to know, because I never compare it with a pro human translation). I respond in English and based on their follow-up responses, I think I've addressed whatever they were emailing me about in their language. I think we're getting closer.
While late Georgian architecture became passé in the fashionable, coastal towns, the architects and builders working the trades up the Connecticut River plied those designs for a few more decades. The house from which I write this is an example: a colonial brick built during the federal period.
Similarly, Chuck Sherman shows a good example of a stranded style when asking whether neologging (btw, this is how it’s done) the verb “to guilt” should be accepted.
I think of this sometimes when arguing over phrasing and grammar with my wife. She’s of a similar mind, preferring the older style guides. Strunk & White is 107 years old. The Cornell professor who started it is probably even older.
Coming from a newspaper background of sorts, I’ve always preferred the AP Stylebook, which is less a specific book nowadays, and more of an evolving online resource.
The fundamental principle of the AP guide is that you want the language to most easily get the concepts into the heads of the readers by employing the then-current and proper usages. It’s reader-focused. It’s quite “newspaper.”
The scoundrels and reprobates that make magazines have the luxury of preaching flapper punctuation and usage from the title cards placed between silent moving picture scenes. Their readers believe that if they’re stretching to understand something, it must contain profundity. Different market.
Another petty grievance: I cringe whenever I hear someone say "democrat" when they mean "democratic," as in, "He belongs to the Democrat party." Ugh.
I once argued with a young'un that "sex" and "gender" mean two different things; the former referred to living beings, like people and animals, and the latter referred to inanimate things, such as words in other languages (the table = la mesa, feminine.) I also said that nowadays people use the two interchangeably, and the two words were likely losing their distinction. Also of note: An acquaintance was showing me pictures of his children. "They're really into sports," he said, "And they're quite talented." I saw only one person, a girl, in the photos. "Are they twins?" I asked. "Oh, no, they're non-binary," was the answer. I hope someone comes up with a singular pronoun they can use so I can understand "they" the moment it's uttered.