atw: Re: it's etc (was Re: US/Aus English) [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

I understand that the Polish language was organised many years ago.  The
organisers thought that it would be a good idea to structure it like Latin.

Therefore - according to a Polish lady I worked with - it took on a very
strict grammar and that then became the spoken language.
She spoke very good English, but got caught out with the use of 'a' and
'the' and when to use neither, because they are not used and not needed in
Polish or Latin.
_____________
Bob Trussler




                                                                           
             "Peter Martin"                                                
             <peter.martin@pro                                             
             xima-tech.com>                                             To 
             Sent by:                       austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx    
             austechwriter-bou                                          cc 
             nce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx                                             
                                                                   Subject 
                                            atw: Re: it's etc (was Re:     
             26/10/2005 10:33               US/Aus English)                
             AM                                            Protective Mark 
                                                                           
                                                                           
             Please respond to                                             
             austechwriter@fre                                             
                elists.org                                                 
                                                                           
                                                                           



Brian:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:02:35 +1000,  you wrote:
> You warped on:
>
> Written language was devised as a means of recording
> spoken language
>
>

I'm not sure, but you appear to challenge this.

Do I take it you know of a literate culture society that
wrote before it spoke ?

The point is simply that the two forms of language are
irrevocably entwined, and shouldn't be treated as
exclusive. Should they ?


> Sorry Peter,
>
> Written down words have quite different purposes from
> oral pronouncements. Ask any government official,
> medical practitioner or any 'servant' of the Court
> systems in this and other countries. Some of these
> purposes are: *Political defence *Official
> mystification and obfuscation *Outright elitism Ask
> Don about 'weasel words'.

Nothing to do with whether they are written down or not.
Very bad example.   Thus:

Politicians et al are perfectly capable of obfuscating
in both speech and text, or even Morse bloody code.
Check Parliament broadcasts, read the press releases.
Where's the difference in "purpose" between the two
media ?


But yes, of course there are often different purposes
for written and spoken language.  But arbitrary rules
of language that overlook the  possibility of using
comprehensible, unambiguous,  commonly used, well-
understood, grammatically correct terms on the grounds
that they use abbreviations or elisions or apostrophes
or whatever are just that:  arbitrary.    And I would
add, worse than pointless.

There are times when I am happy to include in a written
statement something like:  "Do not do that."

And there are times when I would do that in spoken
language, too.

And then, there are times when I would write just:
"Don't", and other times when I would speak that way.

Both forms have their places, and can be used for different
forms of emphasis, written or spoken.

An arbitrary rule cuts down these options is cutting
down on ease of understanding, not increasing it.

Banning their use in formal documents is one such
arbitrary rule.

>
> Your claim reminds me of the statement I found in a
> nursing text - that the word 'nurse' comes from the
> verb 'nourish' and so that's what nurses do. Hooey!
>

Weird analogy.   Don't see why you get reminded of these
things.   See note at head.

> Another example of this 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'
> reasoning is the alarming growth in the use of
> acronyms - when you ask people why they do it, they
> say "It saves time" - what they carefully omit to say
> is that it only saves writing time - it usually
> increases reading time.
>

We're not talking (or writing) about acronyms.
They are frequently ambiguous and often only used
within certain limited circles.

They  are not all comprehensible, commonly-used,
well-understood, grammatically correct terms like :
"it's, won't, don't, isn't"  and the like.

And I challenge any suggestion, if it is intended by the
analogy, to suggest using the latter terms increases
reading time for written documents. In fact, I'd assert
quite the contrary.

We recognize these terms because  many of them are some of
the earliest words we ever learn, and all of them are words
we would normally use every day and even every hour of the
day, without thinking twice about it.  Why would we
suddenly
find them difficult to recognise in writing ?


> In other words, just because you can find some
> apparently historical excuse for the existence of
> something, does not mean that is its purpose, or even
> that we should keep doing it that way.

Never thought I'd see you propose this.

So I take it you have no truck with dictionaries and
various "apparently historical" spelling guides and
grammars ?  If so, I can understand it, but do you really
mean that ?


--Peter M



**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject field.

To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field.

To search the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter

To contact the list administrator, send a message to
 austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 **************************************************

**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to 
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to 
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject field.

To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field.

To search the austechwriter archives, go to 
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter

To contact the list administrator, send a message to 
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************

Other related posts: