atw: Re: Change of collective noun use and other changes - why? Just because [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- From: Peter.Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:29:01 +1100
Michelle:
You may not like the idea that laziness is a factor, but human progress
has been hugely based on laziness.... otherwise known as the pursuit
of leisure...
It took a lazy nomad to realise if you stayed in one place and planted
special grasses in large numbers there, you could save yourself the effort
of having to wander over the countryside to find something to eat.
That person's lazy descendent later found that if you harnessed up oxen or
a horse you could save yourself the effort of having to push a plough...
And of course, earlier ancestors had found you could save yourself the
effort of carrying fire around with you everywhere by striking a flint...
laziness again.
Our civilisation arose from, and survives on the basis, of laziness. Don't
be afraid of it. You wouldn't be where you are without it.
And a few other pursuits. ..
Peter M
From: Michelle Hallett <michelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 19/03/2012 12:55 PM
Subject: atw: Re: Change of collective noun use and other changes -
why? Just because [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Sent by: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Michael,
I think this is an interesting explanation and may well explain why people
are using 'below' as an adjective rather than an adverb (after all, there
is no verb in the sentence). But it doesn't explain the wholesale
confusion between possessive and plural by well educated professional
native English speakers. I don't mind the language changing. Additions
like WTF and ROFL amuse me. But I don't like the idea that language might
be changing because people are lazy in its use
Michelle
On 19/03/2012, at 11:13 AM, Michael Lewis <michael.lewis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Frequently, yes - but "most frequently"? Hardly - unless by "don't know"
you mean "don't know it the way I do". Generations ago, well educated
people used expressions like "methinks he is a dastard knave" and "it
meseems that the apocalypse is nigh". The vocabulary and the grammar have
changed, but not because of non-native speakers.
There's an underlying point that is valid, though. Native speakers are
like non-native speakers in that they over-regularise. That's why most
nouns finish up taking the normal -s (or -es) in the plural, instead of
the earlier forms like "sistren" (though we still retain "brethren" in
special contexts, and "children" is still more common than "childs").
We can see this happening with young children. They use the correct form
"men" at first, then learn the rule about adding "-s" and change to "mans"
for a while, then they re-learn "men" as an exception to the general rule.
Much language change is simply the fading away of exceptions, especially
the rare ones - the verb "be" retains its odd inflexions because we all
use it too often to get a chance to forget the specifics, but "leaped" has
superseded "leapt" in most cases.
- Michael
On 19 March 2012 10:26, <Peter.Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Michelle:
Language is most frequently changed by those who don't know the language
rather than those "who really care about it".
--
This message contains privileged and confidential information only
for use by the intended recipient. If you are not the intended
recipient of this message, you must not disseminate, copy or use
it in any manner. If you have received this message in error,
please advise the sender by reply e-mail. Please ensure all
e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or
using.
Other related posts:
