Who's English is the best here?

[usmbguest5318]

Who's English is the best here?

That's a very difficult question to answer, for so much of the discussion on USMB depends as much upon (1) one's awareness of the topic one opts to discuss, (2) the clarity and coherence of one's thinking about the topic, (3) one's willingness to fully express one's thoughts, and (4) one's command of English in expressing one's ideas. One's command of English can appear inept as a result of gaps and flaws related to the former three factors. In light of all four factors, though it's possible to discern when a writer has specific lapses in their command of standard English grammar, syntax and usage, it's not nearly as easy to reliably gauge whose English is the best.

More importantly, however, what is the point of determining/discussing whose English is best? There is no competition for that "title." The person who "owns" that superlative won't care because they already know their English is excellent. The people who have subpar English skills won't care because they likely aren't soliciting lessons, and were they, the conventions of "perfect" English composition and usage are there for the taking on myriad Internet sites.

Thus, even if we were to arrive at a consensus on who among us does have the best English, then what? What is there to do with that knowledge/agreement? Indeed, I'm amazed this thread topic has garnered some 125+ posts that are presumably on-topic.

The key word being "presumably" !!!

Yes, I suspect it is....My awareness that few members are able to stay on topic is what spurred me to include that word in my final sentence. LOL I am not going to read all those friggin' posts to find out.

 

[Pogo]

Who's English is the best here?

That's a very difficult question to answer, for so much of the discussion on USMB depends as much upon (1) one's awareness of the topic one opts to discuss, (2) the clarity and coherence of one's thinking about the topic, (3) one's willingness to fully express one's thoughts, and (4) one's command of English in expressing one's ideas. One's command of English can appear inept as a result of gaps and flaws related to the former three factors. In light of all four factors, though it's possible to discern when a writer has specific lapses in their command of standard English grammar, syntax and usage, it's not nearly as easy to reliably gauge whose English is the best.

More importantly, however, what is the point of determining/discussing whose English is best? There is no competition for that "title." The person who "owns" that superlative won't care because they already know their English is excellent. The people who have subpar English skills won't care because they likely aren't soliciting lessons, and were they, the conventions of "perfect" English composition and usage are there for the taking on myriad Internet sites.

Thus, even if we were to arrive at a consensus on who among us does have the best English, then what? What is there to do with that knowledge/agreement? Indeed, I'm amazed this thread topic has garnered some 125+ posts that are presumably on-topic.

They're not on topic though --- just a trove of Chips Ahoy trolling.

Point well taken though. Posters don't come here to express writing skills but to make and counter argumentative points. That's going to involve vernacular rather than formal English. The OP poses the question because he's (admirably) seeking to perfect his own ESL.

 

[yiostheoy]

Ultimately everyone here will need to chime-in with a vote.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I'll second that nomination, since this is not a pure parliamentarian Robert's Rules Of Order process.

Xelor is giving you a hard run for your money though.

He too follows the Oxford comma.

I use the Oxford comma when it adds clarity. When it doesn't, as it does not in simple sequences, I don't use it.

 

[yiostheoy]

Who's English is the best here?

That's a very difficult question to answer, for so much of the discussion on USMB depends as much upon (1) one's awareness of the topic one opts to discuss, (2) the clarity and coherence of one's thinking about the topic, (3) one's willingness to fully express one's thoughts, and (4) one's command of English in expressing one's ideas. One's command of English can appear inept as a result of gaps and flaws related to the former three factors. In light of all four factors, though it's possible to discern when a writer has specific lapses in their command of standard English grammar, syntax and usage, it's not nearly as easy to reliably gauge whose English is the best.

More importantly, however, what is the point of determining/discussing whose English is best? There is no competition for that "title." The person who "owns" that superlative won't care because they already know their English is excellent. The people who have subpar English skills won't care because they likely aren't soliciting lessons, and were they, the conventions of "perfect" English composition and usage are there for the taking on myriad Internet sites.

Thus, even if we were to arrive at a consensus on who among us does have the best English, then what? What is there to do with that knowledge/agreement? Indeed, I'm amazed this thread topic has garnered some 125+ posts that are presumably on-topic.

They're not on topic though --- just a trove of Chips Ahoy trolling.

Point well taken though. Posters don't come here to express writing skills but to make and counter argumentative points. That's going to involve vernacular rather than formal English. The OP poses the question because he's (admirably) seeking to perfect his own ESL.

You're good at ad hom's Pogo but not very good at anything else.

I have already summarized your academic credentials for you.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

 

[xotoxi]

One cannot master the English language until one has mastered the semicolon.

 

[yiostheoy]

I'll second that nomination, since this is not a pure parliamentarian Robert's Rules Of Order process.

Xelor is giving you a hard run for your money though.

He too follows the Oxford comma.

I use the Oxford comma when it adds clarity. When it doesn't, as it does not in simple sequences, I don't use it.

I do sort of a variation of that.

I normally always use the Oxford comma however when I proofread it again then if it looks/works/communicates better without it then I will remove it.

 

[Pogo]

Y'all thus fills in the gap created by the absence of a separate second-person plural pronoun in standard modern English.

What? English has second-person plural personal pronouns: you, your and yours.

Yes but those are not specifically plural. They can be either. That's why y'all is needed to specify as plural.

 

[xotoxi]

I'll second that nomination, since this is not a pure parliamentarian Robert's Rules Of Order process.

Xelor is giving you a hard run for your money though.

He too follows the Oxford comma.

I use the Oxford comma when it adds clarity. When it doesn't, as it does not in simple sequences, I don't use it.

I use it all the time, since commas are free.

 

[yiostheoy]

One cannot master the English language until one has mastered the semicolon.

The semicolon is primarily reserved for ultra technical writing such as statues of laws.

This is in the high country of legalese lawyer-speak.

In any other type of writing a semicolon detracts from communication not adds to it.

 

[Pogo]

Why would a Germanic language be following Latin rules then, hm?

And why would a Germanic language that's been layered over with French from the Norman daze never show the effects thereof ----- such as pluralizing with -s rather than the old -en --- e.g. y'alls rather than y'allen?

Hm?

I'm sure this is over your head at this point.

German grammar follows Latin grammar which follows Greek grammar.

The Catholic Church probably had the most to do with formulating German grammar during the Holy Roman Empire period, which was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire.

What is your next impertinent question ?!

Same as posted above, focus-challenged one. Why would a Germanic language be following Latin structures? No, German grammar does not "follow Latin grammar" at all. I see your experience with German is right up there with that of Oregon.

Your history really sucks too Pogo .

You are digging yourself into a deeper hole with every breath Pogo .

Note to Comrade Johnson -- you better not trust this Yankee azzhole.

A Yankee for us is what you Comrade Johnson would probably call a Lithuanian.

So you can't answer. Quelle surprise.

Interesting language, Lithuanian. Supposedly it has preserved our parent Indo-European particularly well. I had a Lithuanian girlfriend; she would proudly note that Lithuania was the last culture to fall to Christianist takeover.

I am going to switch over to WV white trash English now so that you understand me better this time Pogo :

You don't read too good do ya' boy?

I already answered your question about how Latin influenced German.

It was due to the Catholic Popes.

Go back and read it again and this time wipe the dog sh!t out of your eyes first.

And I already noted --- you have no answer. "it was due to the Catholic Popes" (which is redundant) is not an answer.

 

[yiostheoy]

Y'all thus fills in the gap created by the absence of a separate second-person plural pronoun in standard modern English.

What? English has second-person plural personal pronouns: you, your and yours.

Yes but those are not specifically plural. They can be either. That's why y'all is needed to specify as plural.

Go back and read what koshergrl wrote you about you/all you-all Fokker.

 

[xotoxi]

Speaking of punctuation, have you ever read Cormac McCarthy?

 

[yiostheoy]

Y'all thus fills in the gap created by the absence of a separate second-person plural pronoun in standard modern English.

What? English has second-person plural personal pronouns: you, your and yours.

Yes but those are not specifically plural. They can be either. That's why y'all is needed to specify as plural.

Go back and read what koshergrl wrote you about you/all you-all Fokker.

I love the way the editor on USMB capitalizes Fokker !!

That's because it is the name of a type of German airplane.

 

[yiostheoy]

Speaking of punctuation, have you ever read Cormac McCarthy?

"You" here having the meaning of whom ??

 

[yiostheoy]

German grammar follows Latin grammar which follows Greek grammar.

The Catholic Church probably had the most to do with formulating German grammar during the Holy Roman Empire period, which was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire.

What is your next impertinent question ?!

Same as posted above, focus-challenged one. Why would a Germanic language be following Latin structures? No, German grammar does not "follow Latin grammar" at all. I see your experience with German is right up there with that of Oregon.

Your history really sucks too Pogo .

You are digging yourself into a deeper hole with every breath Pogo .

Note to Comrade Johnson -- you better not trust this Yankee azzhole.

A Yankee for us is what you Comrade Johnson would probably call a Lithuanian.

So you can't answer. Quelle surprise.

Interesting language, Lithuanian. Supposedly it has preserved our parent Indo-European particularly well. I had a Lithuanian girlfriend; she would proudly note that Lithuania was the last culture to fall to Christianist takeover.

I am going to switch over to WV white trash English now so that you understand me better this time Pogo :

You don't read too good do ya' boy?

I already answered your question about how Latin influenced German.

It was due to the Catholic Popes.

Go back and read it again and this time wipe the dog sh!t out of your eyes first.

And I already noted --- you have no answer. "it was due to the Catholic Popes" (which is redundant) is not an answer.

It is however the fokking answer to your fokking question Fokker.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Who's English is the best here?

That's a very difficult question to answer, for so much of the discussion on USMB depends as much upon (1) one's awareness of the topic one opts to discuss, (2) the clarity and coherence of one's thinking about the topic, (3) one's willingness to fully express one's thoughts, and (4) one's command of English in expressing one's ideas. One's command of English can appear inept as a result of gaps and flaws related to the former three factors. In light of all four factors, though it's possible to discern when a writer has specific lapses in their command of standard English grammar, syntax and usage, it's not nearly as easy to reliably gauge whose English is the best.

More importantly, however, what is the point of determining/discussing whose English is best? There is no competition for that "title." The person who "owns" that superlative won't care because they already know their English is excellent. The people who have subpar English skills won't care because they likely aren't soliciting lessons, and were they, the conventions of "perfect" English composition and usage are there for the taking on myriad Internet sites.

Thus, even if we were to arrive at a consensus on who among us does have the best English, then what? What is there to do with that knowledge/agreement? Indeed, I'm amazed this thread topic has garnered some 125+ posts that are presumably on-topic.

Simplicity is not an easy task for the overly educated tribe.

overly educated

Now there's a fine example of an oxymoron.

I could have said the excessively instead of overly but the later count took up less space to keep the diatribe down.

I could have said the excessively instead of overly

"Overly," "excessively" and "too" are, in the contest of your statement, synonymous; thus doing so would not have altered the oxymoronic nature of the remark.

Perhaps, however, you'd care to share with us just how one can have too much education. Frankly, I can't imagine that's possible. I think it's possible to make a qualitative judgment about how much education one needs or should have in various situations and life circumstances, but the notion that there is such a thing as absolutely being over educated is preposterous.

 

[Pogo]

One cannot master the English language until one has mastered the semicolon.

The semicolon is primarily reserved for ultra technical writing such as statues of laws.

This is in the high country of legalese lawyer-speak.

In any other type of writing a semicolon detracts from communication not adds to it.

"detracts from communication not adds to it" huh..

Do you speak any language coherently at all?

Semicolons are used where needed in any kind of writing at all. What you're posting here is complete bullshit.

 

[yiostheoy]

I'll second that nomination, since this is not a pure parliamentarian Robert's Rules Of Order process.

Xelor is giving you a hard run for your money though.

He too follows the Oxford comma.

I use the Oxford comma when it adds clarity. When it doesn't, as it does not in simple sequences, I don't use it.

Clarity is the prime test of all writing.

Since reading the writing is offset in space and time and the reader cannot ask the writer for further clarification, clarity is therefore the most crucial test of any word, sentence, punctuation, or rule.

The fact that you know that as proven by your mentioning it makes you one of the best and most knowledgeable writers here.

We try to teach this to kids in college but they don't often get it.

 

[yiostheoy]

One cannot master the English language until one has mastered the semicolon.

The semicolon is primarily reserved for ultra technical writing such as statues of laws.

This is in the high country of legalese lawyer-speak.

In any other type of writing a semicolon detracts from communication not adds to it.

"detracts from communication not adds to it" huh..

Do you speak any language coherently at all?

Semicolons are used where needed in any kind of writing at all. What you're posting here is complete bullshit.

Pogo your rants and ad hom's are a useless waste of time and bandwidth so I am putting you onto my iggy list Fokker.