Who's English is the best here?

[koshergrl]

I did not fully understand the English language until I underwent an intensive six month course in German at the Defense Language Institute. I do not consider myself an expert as English is a living language that grows and changes every day.

Experts cite all sorts of rules. In my 77 (nearly 78) years, I've learned the most important rule - What was yesterday may not be is today.

Languages evolve. Always have. Always will.

What is ironic is that they progress from complex and beautiful to more simplistic and ugly.

Because there is always a group of people who don't like definitions, and create new ones, which make the old ones insufficient. You end up with grunts and curses and symbols.

Like suddenly "life" doesn't mean "life" anymore. When you take a word that has a fundamental, important and accepted meaning, and then suddenly determine it doesn't mean what the majority of people understand it to mean, you have a problem. Communism, primarily. Totalitarianism, certainly.

koshergrl what would be a logical hypothesis to explain how language started out complex to begin with through?

This is one of the things linguists ponder and debate.

It is practically another Proof Of God like Aquinas' other 5 of them.

I agree.

 

[Unkotare]

"Human" is another. If you want to change the meaning of "human" to be less inclusive, there's something wrong with you...and you are tearing at the fabric of your society. Not in a good way.

I say "humankind" when I am talking about people/peoples.

And I use "humans" when I am talking about biological species.

When the rest of my invasion force arrives from Omicron Persei 8, I will use humans as part of my slave army.

 

[Unkotare]

I did not fully understand the English language until I underwent an intensive six month course in German at the Defense Language Institute. I do not consider myself an expert as English is a living language that grows and changes every day.

Experts cite all sorts of rules. In my 77 (nearly 78) years, I've learned the most important rule - What was yesterday may not be is today.

Languages evolve. Always have. Always will.

What is ironic is that they progress from complex and beautiful to more simplistic and ugly.

Because there is always a group of people who don't like definitions, and create new ones, which make the old ones insufficient. You end up with grunts and curses and symbols.

Like suddenly "life" doesn't mean "life" anymore. When you take a word that has a fundamental, important and accepted meaning, and then suddenly determine it doesn't mean what the majority of people understand it to mean, you have a problem. Communism, primarily. Totalitarianism, certainly.

koshergrl what would be a logical hypothesis to explain how language started out complex to begin with through?

This is one of the things linguists ponder and debate.......

Languages originally grew more complex as human social and personal interactions became more complex. On-going and comparative language complexity is a source of vigorous debate among linguists.

 

[Unkotare]

"Human" is another. If you want to change the meaning of "human" to be less inclusive, there's something wrong with you...and you are tearing at the fabric of your society. Not in a good way.

I say "humankind" when I am talking about people/peoples.

And I use "humans" when I am talking about biological species.

No matter which form, if the definition of "human" is in dispute, it's meaningless.

Sometimes though, you gotta wonder...

 

[yiostheoy]

I did not fully understand the English language until I underwent an intensive six month course in German at the Defense Language Institute. I do not consider myself an expert as English is a living language that grows and changes every day.

Experts cite all sorts of rules. In my 77 (nearly 78) years, I've learned the most important rule - What was yesterday may not be is today.

Languages evolve. Always have. Always will.

What is ironic is that they progress from complex and beautiful to more simplistic and ugly.

Because there is always a group of people who don't like definitions, and create new ones, which make the old ones insufficient. You end up with grunts and curses and symbols.

Like suddenly "life" doesn't mean "life" anymore. When you take a word that has a fundamental, important and accepted meaning, and then suddenly determine it doesn't mean what the majority of people understand it to mean, you have a problem. Communism, primarily. Totalitarianism, certainly.

koshergrl what would be a logical hypothesis to explain how language started out complex to begin with through?

This is one of the things linguists ponder and debate.......

Languages originally grew more complex as human social and personal interactions became more complex. On-going and comparative language complexity is a source of vigorous debate among linguists.

You have it the opposite.

 

[Unkotare]

I did not fully understand the English language until I underwent an intensive six month course in German at the Defense Language Institute. I do not consider myself an expert as English is a living language that grows and changes every day.

Experts cite all sorts of rules. In my 77 (nearly 78) years, I've learned the most important rule - What was yesterday may not be is today.

Languages evolve. Always have. Always will.

What is ironic is that they progress from complex and beautiful to more simplistic and ugly.

Because there is always a group of people who don't like definitions, and create new ones, which make the old ones insufficient. You end up with grunts and curses and symbols.

Like suddenly "life" doesn't mean "life" anymore. When you take a word that has a fundamental, important and accepted meaning, and then suddenly determine it doesn't mean what the majority of people understand it to mean, you have a problem. Communism, primarily. Totalitarianism, certainly.

koshergrl what would be a logical hypothesis to explain how language started out complex to begin with through?

This is one of the things linguists ponder and debate.......

Languages originally grew more complex as human social and personal interactions became more complex. On-going and comparative language complexity is a source of vigorous debate among linguists.

You have it the opposite.

Say wha ~?

 

[Comrade Johnson]

OK, I think we have had enough time for the registration. On the weekend I will read it carefully and we'll have the poll. The winner will get 1000 rubles a month for lessons with me. And of, course Pogo promised to do it for free

 

[Unkotare]

...Pogo promised to do it for free

You'd still be getting ripped off at that rate.

 

[Comrade Johnson]

rip off... Good expression.

 

[Pogo]

OK, I think we have had enough time for the registration. On the weekend I will read it carefully and we'll have the poll. The winner will get 1000 rubles a month for lessons with me. And of, course Pogo promised to do it for free

And as a bonus I'll tell you what "unkotare" means. Aside from "attention-whore troll".

 

[Pogo]

rip off... Good expression.

That's one of our many importations of African slang.

 

[Unkotare]

OK, I think we have had enough time for the registration. On the weekend I will read it carefully and we'll have the poll. The winner will get 1000 rubles a month for lessons with me. And of, course Pogo promised to do it for free

And as a bonus I'll tell you what "unkotare" means. .....

You would have to know, and you don't. Like everything else you ever post here, you pretend to know things that you don't. A chronic dilettante.

 

[Comrade Johnson]

Because English grammar is what is is, there is no call for inventing distinct second-person plural personal pronouns

Four is in one sentence is ungrammatical

 

[Comrade Johnson]

So the list is:


Comrade Johnson
AugmentedDog
Billo_Really
boedicca
CrusaderFrank
Darkwind
Hossfly
koshergrl
longknife
Marion Morrison
Meathead
MisterBeale
mudwhistle
norwegen
percysunshine
Pogo
RodISHI
The Sage of Main Street
Uncensored2008
Unkotare
Xelor
xotoxi
yiostheoy

(Only the first name is given in order of importance, all others just in alphabetical order)


Did I forget anybody?

 

[Pogo]

Because English grammar is what is is, there is no call for inventing distinct second-person plural personal pronouns

Four is in one sentence is ungrammatical

That depends on what the use of is is. Whoever originally wrote that apparently committed a typo. A fine catch. You have an eye for detail.

In my childhood we used to chant

"that that is, is; that that is not, is not"

---- which led to the improvisation,

"that that is is is that that that that is not is not".

Follow that? The italics are critical.

 

[Pogo]

Speaking of is, here ... is... a fun tune composed entirely of two-letter words:

​

 

[Comrade Johnson]

The italics are critical.

Ah, I see. I thought it was English, not Italian.

 

[Comrade Johnson]

Whoever may have originally wrote that apparently committed a typo.

No typos are allowed in the thread for the Best English!

 

[Meathead]

What's the point? There is no on one this board who is more articulate than I.

 

[Comrade Johnson]

Well, let me be clear. I suggest you not aim to emulate my English as you see it here. I suggest that not because my English is poor, for it's not. It's that my writing style and colloquial English generally is at a writing level that requires readers to have a very strong command of English. I pretty nearly always here, as when I speak to people in person, write to a 10th-12th grade reading level, which is to say I use all the modes of verb conjugation, and I frequently compose compound and complex sentences. It'd be a Herculean task for a beginning learner to take on mastering all that at once and without formal guidance. The structure of my prose pretty well adheres to standard grammar rules, save for my typos, but the style is colloquial; thus it's not what one should emulate when learning the language.

Yes, but I am not the one.