[TrashMan]

Why is it that languages are so needlesly complicated?

English is spelled one way, written another and read in a third. It sucks. For comparison, in my language, what you write is what you read. If you can write it, you can speak it, and vice-versa.

But, my language has more complex grammar.
every language has SOME point of stumbling..be it grammar, spelling , writing, or something else.

[Herra Tohtori]

Snuffleupagus.

Being a native Finnish speaker, I am naturally receptive to compound words, so I see nothing wrong with that developement when the words phonetically sound like they belong together. Having one and two "correct" versions (can not, can't) doesn't mean a third one (cannot) would be inferior. Usage of each would depend on the style of writing you have selected. Using the long, separated forms tends to sound, I don't know, maybe more official or serious.

Examples of evolution of English language:

-disappearance of thou/thee as the singular second person pronoun.
-disappearance of ye/you as the plural second person pronoun (and, later, formal second person pronoun)

These two were eventually replaced with "you" which originally evolved to be used as the objective form of "ye", and "thee" was objective form of nominative "thou".

As the language evolved, the pronouns became simplified, although the use of "you" could be considered as a form of continuous T-V distinction; when it's capitalized it actually means the exact same thing as German "Sie" as a respecting way to address someone.

"We are honoured to inform You..."

Would you like to know more?

Another example of simplification:

-hither -> here
-thither -> there
-whither -> where

Noticing a pattern yet?

[Androgeos Exeunt]

I'm not voting because...

1) 'It's "can" and "not", not "cannot", this is why there's "can't".' is not how I feel;
2) 'It was my birthday yesterday, everyday, and everymonth.' is wrong, because 'everymonth' is not a word, and I see no reason to observe my own birthday;
3) 'Foreign language words in scrabble is cheating.' is wrong, because 'scrabble' does not have a capital S and, hence, using foreign languages while scratching/groping for items is not a crime;
4) 'Shudup!' is not a word;
5) 'LOL is a word and should be spoken out loud.' is not how I feel;
6) 'i DO'NT Need NO gRAMMARZ OR, NO SPELLIGNS?' is garbage; and
7) 'today, i helped my uncle jack off a horse.' is ambiguous and wrong, because 'today' does not have a capital T, I do not have an uncle called Jack, I am unable to help my uncle jack off a horse, and the whole excuse of a sentence is not how I feel.

Suck it.

[Bob-san]

Snuffleupagus.

Being a native Finnish speaker, I am naturally receptive to compound words, so I see nothing wrong with that developement when the words phonetically sound like they belong together. Having one and two "correct" versions (can not, can't) doesn't mean a third one (cannot) would be inferior. Usage of each would depend on the style of writing you have selected. Using the long, separated forms tends to sound, I don't know, maybe more official or serious.

Examples of evolution of English language:

-disappearance of thou/thee as the singular second person pronoun.
-disappearance of ye/you as the plural second person pronoun (and, later, formal second person pronoun)

These two were eventually replaced with "you" which originally evolved to be used as the objective form of "ye", and "thee" was objective form of nominative "thou".

As the language evolved, the pronouns became simplified, although the use of "you" could be considered as a form of continuous T-V distinction; when it's capitalized it actually means the exact same thing as German "Sie" as a respecting way to address someone.

"We are honoured to inform You..."

Would you like to know more?

Another example of simplification:

-hither -> here
-thither -> there
-whither -> where

Noticing a pattern yet?

Yes; Germanic languages are usually spelled phonetically. Latin languages are usually pronounced phonetically. God bless anyone who insists on pronouncing a German word as it is on paper.

[Wobble73]

Well i know some of this stuff has beenaround for centuries. My understanding of cannot is that it's two words, not one. What'sthe logic behind cannot when you have the same thing by placing a space between can and not.

What'sup with combining two words as one? In the end you end up with some words that you aren't sure is even normally a two word combination. Theway i see it, is combination words like into is actually in and to.

I picked up the scrabble cheating thing the other day. My mom plays a lot of multiplayer scrabble over the internet daily. One dude from some part of the world beat her by using a yiddish word. It made methink of how ridiculous scrabble is with the scrabble dictionary. Scrabble has elevated beyond the status of requiring a dictionary for allowed words since basically now all words are from i guessyou could say all languages sincethe scrabble dictionary keeps expanding at a retarded rate. Whyuse it any more?

It's just time to deal withthis. NAACP is a word, and cannot is just one word and not actually two in usage and understanding.

Were these spelling mistakes intentional?

As for using foreign words in Scrabble, that all depends if that word has fallen into everyday usage in english, i.e. bidet. and words of that ilk.


P.S. I also notice you used aren't instead of are not.  

[Herra Tohtori]

In stead of concentrating on afore mentioned words that have morphed in to single words due to their close assocation to each other, why do we not try and find as many of these examples as we can?

Be sides, there are words that have different meaning when separated in to their parts or glued to gether. It is merely a demonstration of con venience affecting the evolution of the language. To day, I have not been able think of any reason why this should be a bad thing.

Oh, and English language should be capitalized (re: thread title)

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Nor have I, but I'd like to remind you, Herra, that as a stickler for English and self-proclaimed Grammar Nazi, deliberately putting spaces in between established conjoined words like "instead", "aforementioned", "into", "besides", "together", "convenience" and "today" doesn't quite cut it. I can spot every mistake made, if I have that kind of energy to spend on something like that, or if I desperately want to annoy everyone. To date, I've already annoyed one Mexican.

[Herra Tohtori]

Just pointing out that there's nothing separating "cannot" from the established conjoined words besides time it has been in use.

We use conjoined words all the time, and I see no reason to protest about new conjoined words being introduced as viable spelling forms.

I am more annoyed by the lack of interest, even blatant disregard to correct spelling and grammar that many native English speaker seem to be plagued with, and I suspect it's closely related to the reading habits of the majority of people. Reading books is the best way to achieve good vocabulary and spelling skills, and best of all it happens by itself especially if you read a lot while growing up... Frankly, I don't understand why so many people seem to dislike reading books.


Besides, separating "instead" into "in" and "stead" is used all the time. Most often when something goes between them, as in "in your stead" et cetera.

[Nuke]

7) 'today, i helped my uncle jack off a horse.' is ambiguous and wrong, because 'today' does not have a capital T, I do not have an uncle called Jack, I am unable to help my uncle jack off a horse, and the whole excuse of a sentence is not how I feel.

'today, i helped my uncle jack off a horse.' is an example of why failing to capitalize things correctly can lead to epic fail. makes me glad i lack both an uncle named jack and a horse. since im shift key lazy.

Snuffleupagus.

Being a native Finnish speaker, I am naturally receptive to compound words, so I see nothing wrong with that developement when the words phonetically sound like they belong together. Having one and two "correct" versions (can not, can't) doesn't mean a third one (cannot) would be inferior. Usage of each would depend on the style of writing you have selected. Using the long, separated forms tends to sound, I don't know, maybe more official or serious.

kinda intresting you mention that, if you noticed the number of my posts that ive editid you can blame this ****er here:



while a majority of english dialects consider compounding the words a and lot to be evil. in some dialects of american english (uncapitalized oxymoron?)  it is quire acceptable. in every one of my english classes it was 100% acceptable to compound those two words. mr happy up there seems to me to be a total insult to speakers of those dialects.

[Herra Tohtori]

I can write alot if I want to. However, I actually do prefer writing them separately, since it's a case of indefinite article in front of a word rather than two words conjoined.

[Snail]

NEWSPEAK DOUBLEPLUSGOOD RECOMMEND FULLWISE RECTIFY OLDSPEAK



(yeah yeah okay I'm terrible at it but who gives a crap)

[Bob-san]

7) 'today, i helped my uncle jack off a horse.' is ambiguous and wrong, because 'today' does not have a capital T, I do not have an uncle called Jack, I am unable to help my uncle jack off a horse, and the whole excuse of a sentence is not how I feel.

'today, i helped my uncle jack off a horse.' is an example of why failing to capitalize things correctly can lead to epic fail. makes me glad i lack both an uncle named jack and a horse. since im shift key lazy.

Snuffleupagus.

Being a native Finnish speaker, I am naturally receptive to compound words, so I see nothing wrong with that developement when the words phonetically sound like they belong together. Having one and two "correct" versions (can not, can't) doesn't mean a third one (cannot) would be inferior. Usage of each would depend on the style of writing you have selected. Using the long, separated forms tends to sound, I don't know, maybe more official or serious.

kinda intresting you mention that, if you noticed the number of my posts that ive editid you can blame this ****er here:



while a majority of english dialects consider compounding the words a and lot to be evil. in some dialects of american english (uncapitalized oxymoron?)  it is quire acceptable. in every one of my english classes it was 100% acceptable to compound those two words. mr happy up there seems to me to be a total insult to speakers of those dialects.

What ever happened to the canon cannon? IIRC, here, it used to substitute a similey (like the a lot ) one) to insult the poster.

[Wobble73]

Probably because FS2 being a military type game, some people will type cannon and mean cannon and not canon, something which the site can not differentiate between.

[Mongoose]

Yeah, seeing "beam I-can't-spell-canon" would get old really fast.

[Mika]

I am more annoyed by the lack of interest, even blatant disregard to correct spelling and grammar that many native English speaker seem to be plagued with, and I suspect it's closely related to the reading habits of the majority of people. Reading books is the best way to achieve good vocabulary and spelling skills, and best of all it happens by itself especially if you read a lot while growing up... Frankly, I don't understand why so many people seem to dislike reading books.

Precisely. Separated or compound words are not problems if there is a much more blatant and atrocious disregard for grammar and spelling. I have always been wondering why it is "some day" instead of "someday", but then again my native is Finnish. I also don't see a reason why evolution in language would be a bad thing. Of course the immediate discredit to my argument is that Finnish is known for being a refrigerator language that preserves thousands of years old words that have already evolved to something else in original languages. 

Besides, Herra brings a good point: why words starting with "con-" or any similar word in English shouldn't/couldn't be separated as in Germany? And continue that line of thought why you couldn't combine words like "some" and "day" or "every" and "one", or "any" and "one". "A a planatic lens" would be quite funny to hear instead of "an aplanatic lens", the first "a" being the indefinite article and the second "a" being a negation. And come to think about "an anastigmat" - and yes, "anastigmat" is actually a proper English word. Even though the spell checker (<- why this must be separated?) obviously doesn't think so.

As this is slightly related to topic, does anyone know where I can get to know where does the meaning/context of some English words or phrases come from? Like "cool as a cucumber". How is a cucumber cool? It's a frigging vegetable! Or who was the idiot who said "as surely as there will be a sun rise tomorrow" when reality so obviously contradicts it! I have one case ready, where does the word "spline" come from? I know it is originally a draftman's (<- and yet again spell checker complains, I mean why draftsman's?) tool, but is there a reason why that tool is called "spline"?

Likely coming to London in about a month, by the way. PM me if you want to see.

[Mongoose]

The "cool" in "cool as a cucumber" doesn't refer to being "awesome," but instead to temperature.  Cucumbers tend to stay cool inside, even in relatively warm weather.  So if you're as cool as a cucumber, you generally stay calm, even when under pressure.

And I'm not really sure what you mean by reality contradicting the sun rising every day.

[IceFire]

Wait until texting becomes standard.  There are already classes in schools where students are allowed to write using it. 

I think will fall out of popular use soon.  The reason for that was the constraining input of a old school cellphone where you didn't have a keyboard or a touch screen. Also the constrained size of the messages that you were allowed to send. Both the "full" keyboard and touch screen make input easier and thus some of the laziness will go away.  It's hard to read...even for someone who can understand it easily.

Take away some of the constraints and make it easier to use more full messages.

Not to say that they will suddenly develop perfect grammatical form. I don't even have that.

[Solatar]

Compound words are a hallmark of most Germanic languages.  Since Norman French started heavily influencing English in the High Middle Ages, people have been trying to make English into Latin.  For example, there's no good reason why you can't start a sentence with "however" or why you can't end one with a preposition except that both aren't allowed in Latin.

Regional variation and what I like to call 'Standardization Snootiness" is a product of the printing press and late Middle English.  Before it was 'decided' that the East Midland Dialect of Middle English would evolve into Standard English, alternate spellings based on pronunciations were commonplace.  Hell, in Old English þu bist - you are, was just as acceptable as þu eart.  Since the printing press was developed, English has been standardized.  Just because something is "right" now doesn't mean it will be forever. 

English is one of the most etymologically diverse languages on the planet, of course its complicated!

ghost and ghastly should be spelled gost and gastly but for a printing error of an English text in Denmark. . .

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Besides the smiley, there are a few others on HLP. I've seen them before.

[Nuke]

such as and

in fact is another one that some us schools teach as a correct alternative, but i prefer the two word convention anyway. teaching english in the way that they teach math is stupid. given the dynamics of language it seems like a bad idea to set strict boundaries of whats correct and whats wrong. the gray area of acceptable usage should be wide enough to allow some flexibility (but not so wide that it causes absolute confusion). otherwise the use of language becomes less like an art and more like engineering.