must have, should have, could have, would have - aaaaargh

The previous generation complaining about the natural and constant evolution of the English language that has been going on literally forever? This must be a first!

Young people do not use exactly the same version of English you do, and it was the same with you and your parents. Deal with it.

(my dad complains about this all the time, and it really irritates me. As if he's still speaking exactly as his father did. Rubbish.)
 
Devrij said:
If I got angry about this then I would have had an aneurism by now. My gf pronounces "I'll" as "are". As in, "Are meet you after work for hot sexy time". Her confusion with commas and full stops also tests my zen. "Of"? This is of no consequence in my Bristolian world of grammatical carnage.
Click to expand...

Whenever your GF has called me and said "Are meet you after work for hot sexy time" it's never bothered me.:p;)
 
Makunouchi said:
The previous generation complaining about the natural and constant evolution of the English language that has been going on literally forever? This must be a first!

Young people do not use exactly the same version of English you do, and it was the same with you and your parents. Deal with it.

(my dad complains about this all the time, and it really irritates me. As if he's still speaking exactly as his father did. Rubbish.)
Click to expand...

It's not evolution, it's simply incorrect.
 
Are come on ere and saw dis thread and thought to mee self, you could have made a more interesting thread what was interesting innit bruv? Ting is, I is cool when I talk like dat. For reeeal.
 
Makunouchi said:
The previous generation complaining about the natural and constant evolution of the English language that has been going on literally forever? This must be a first!

Young people do not use exactly the same version of English you do, and it was the same with you and your parents. Deal with it.

(my dad complains about this all the time, and it really irritates me. As if he's still speaking exactly as his father did. Rubbish.)
Click to expand...

That's a crap excuse. People these days are just lazy, or blame it on dyslexia, etc.

I'd say the declining quality of teaching in English lessons is to blame as well.
 
[FnG]magnolia;18323160 said:
It's not evolution, it's simply incorrect.
Click to expand...

Errr, no. Do you still speak as they did in the 1600's? Or the 1800's? At which time in British history were we speaking 'correct' English? 1345? And when did this golden age end? 1529?

Language changes, this is a fact. However, I'm not saying there's no such thing as poor English, but the example highlighted by dmpoole, in my opinion, is a good example of how our language is simply changing from one generation to the next. We need ways of getting across more information more quickly, I believe this is reflected in the way our language is now changing extremely rapidly. (I would say more rapidly than ever before but I have no reference on that)

G-MAN2004 said:
That's a crap excuse. People these days are just lazy
Click to expand...

Ok, so what's your 'excuse' for not talking and writing as... at random, Henry VI did?
 
Last edited:
Makunouchi said:
Errr, no. Do you still speak as they did in the 1600's? Or the 1800's? At which time in British history were we speaking 'correct' English? 1345? And when did this golden age end? 1529?

Language changes, this is a fact. However, I'm not saying there's no such thing as poor English, but the example highlighted by dmpoole, in my opinion, is a good example of how our language is simply changing from one generation to the next. We need ways of getting across more information more quickly, I believe this is reflected in the way our language is now changing extremely rapidly. (I would say more rapidly than ever before but I have no reference on that)
Click to expand...

I agree that language evolves, usually by outside influences and language assimilation, but really what the OP is referring to is simply laziness, poor education or a mixture of both.
 
Castiel said:
I agree that language evolves, usually by outside influences and language assimilation, but really what the OP is referring to is simply laziness, poor education or a mixture of both.
Click to expand...

I understand what you mean but my point is when looking at a process that is constantly ongoing, how can anyone lay down a definitive right or wrong.

Although dmpoole has chosen to type the word as 'of', I think in reality, as it is spoken, it would be vocalised more closely to 'ov' or 'uv', "I must uv left it at home" for example, when spoken quickly, sounds completely fine. It's simply a way to say more words more quickly, which in my opinion is the way our language is headed as a result of the digital age.

(I just realised while typing this that I assumed dmpoole was talking about spoken English and not reading this sort of thing on forums or what have you. I agree that this does make a difference, but still, written English changes too, but it seems more slowly)
 
Makunouchi said:
I understand what you mean but my point is when looking at a process that is constantly ongoing, how can anyone lay down a definitive right or wrong.

Although dmpoole has chosen to type the word as 'of', I think in reality, as it is spoken, it would be vocalised more closely to 'ov' or 'uv', "I must uv left it at home" for example, when spoken quickly, sounds completely fine. It's simply a way to say more words more quickly, which in my opinion is the way our language is headed as a result of the digital age.

(I just realised while typing this that I assumed dmpoole was talking about spoken English and not reading this sort of thing on forums or what have you. I agree that this does make a difference, but still, written English changes too, but it seems more slowly)
Click to expand...


I think he is referring to written English rather than spoken. At least that is how I took it.

I agree with you on spoken language, but pronunciation in speech rarely translates into common usage on the page, so to speak.
 
Last edited:
Makunouchi said:
Errr, no. Do you still speak as they did in the 1600's? Or the 1800's? At which time in British history were we speaking 'correct' English? 1345? And when did this golden age end? 1529?

Language changes, this is a fact. However, I'm not saying there's no such thing as poor English, but the example highlighted by dmpoole, in my opinion, is a good example of how our language is simply changing from one generation to the next. We need ways of getting across more information more quickly, I believe this is reflected in the way our language is now changing extremely rapidly. (I would say more rapidly than ever before but I have no reference on that)



Ok, so what's your 'excuse' for not talking and writing as... at random, Henry VI did?
Click to expand...

The OP is talking about the uneducated and those who are ignorant of the correct usage of 'of' and 'have'. This is not evolution; we, as a populace, are not accepting this and moving away from one usage and adopting another.

He's referring to people who know no better.
 
Castiel said:
I think he is referring to written English rather than spoken. At least that is how I took it.

I agree with you on spoken language.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, it's seems we have unexpectedly ended up agreeing with each other :o

Hopefully dmpoole will come back and clarify the situation.

[FnG]magnolia;18323373 said:
The OP is talking about the uneducated
Click to expand...

Is he :confused: that seems like a huge leap when you look at what he originally posted. Using your own conjectures just because you disagree with me seems a bit cheap.
 
Last edited:
Vernacular and colloquialism are all well and good with spoken english. But the beauty of english (to me at least) is its expressiveness and ability to be clear, concise and descriptive, and imaginative.

If you carry over 'slang' into the written word you loose all sense of context and meaning. It is not evolution, but degeneration. Nothing is added as a benefit to the whole of the language in general terms, but much is lost or taken away through ignorance or plain laziness. :eek:

Evolution of language, such as the online verbiage as we see here every day, would be such things as 'lol' or 'omg' 'wtf' - less a way of talking and more a means of relaying more complex information and common phrasing without the need to write it out long hand... it's called an acronym. But these are subjective to common (regular) users of the internet and not incorporated into the language at large. Informal speech and writing.

Dissolution of language to the extent that meaning, and therefore understanding, is lost is not a good thing - replacing descriptive words with those simpler and less versatile, because of slack teaching, is part of the reason why we now have a good proportion of our youth who have no grasp of communication above the most basic, vulgar, grunting.

I have a reasonable grasp of spoken and written english, and while I find it slightly annoying when grammar and comprehension are ignored on forums etc (more for the fact that I have to then guess at the meaning, than any real hatred), what is most unfortunate is having to say something again in a simpler, more pedestrian way, when the person I am speaking to does not understand due to their lack of education. Depending on the individual I either get a blank look, or they seem to think I am taking the ****; the suspicion being that "usin' big letters innit" is deliberate to obfuscate their understanding. It is not. It's just the way I was taught at school and by my parents.
Sadly, the lowest common denominator appears to be the standard of teaching these days.
I am guilty of assuming that a lack of correct language (written or spoken), sometimes implies a lack of intelligence or education, often both, when applied to some younger people. :o How you speak and write can be deemed illustrative of how you think.
 
I hate it when my girlfriend says "free" instead of "three" and suchlike.

"What do you fink?"

And to make it worse - she's on school placement as a trainee teacher, and admits to saying it like that in class.
 
Was speaking to a French tutor who taught English to French students many years ago and they were taught to spell and say the way they heard things said.

The one I remember was 'often'. Because they heard it as 'offen', that was the way they were taught to spell and say it.
 
Makunouchi said:
Fair enough, it's seems we have unexpectedly ended up agreeing with each other :o

Hopefully dmpoole will come back and clarify the situation.



Is he :confused: that seems like a huge leap when you look at what he originally posted. Using your own conjectures just because you disagree with me seems a bit cheap.
Click to expand...

I don't even know what you're arguing about now? The OP is implying that certain people use words incorrectly. You said it was evolution of language (which is real but doesn't apply here). I said it was not, it was uneducated people using words incorrectly; maybe 'those ignorant of the correct usage' is better than 'uneducated' but whatever.

I wasn't being cheap and you seem alarmingly quick to jump on the defence. What exactly is the issue?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom