Colloquialisms are a part of the language too, registers shift. "****" from a proto-Germanic root is much more acceptable in the Scandinavian languages, particularly Norwegian and would have been to our Saxon forebears too. Would you say that in polite conversation? Likewise "****" (the c-word if the filter cuts it) is perfectly fine (more or less) in Chaucer's time and indeed earlier would have been polite conversation. Well...to what extent lady-bits make polite conversation anyway!
Many words we use casually, even in semi-formal situations, originally had their roots in slang and vice versa.
I do agree that some words are horrid, but that's hardly the point. I mean I find "fart" a horrible word it has some of the best pedigree in the English language, besides such innocent words as "Father" and "Mother" etc.
Also I don't think I've ever heard either "Mandem" or "Dench".
meh, most civilised people wouldn't use **** in a formal setting. I have often had to bear witness to teachers being "arksed" questions and called "wastegash". Therefore I am forced to draw conclusions about the intelligence of people that use this incorrect form of language.
haha. evidently you havent been immersed in inner city life long enough to understand that the people that talk like this are the ones you warn your granny about. lol.
It's bad enough hardly hearing an English word on a trip through parts of your home city (London), or, when you do hear it, it's spoken in "this language which is wholly false, which is this jamaican patois that's been intruded in England. This is why so many of us have this sense of literally a foreign country" (Starkey, 2011). Hearing it start to 'intrude' on the BBC is, for me, still more disquieting..
Here is a letter of complaint I've just sent to them:
Having once been a bastion for proper English it seems that the BBC is now so keen to demonstrate diversity that it actually risks contributing to the decline in standards in spoken English in the 21st century.
I was watching the BBC Weekend News, the national news mind, and was disappointed to hear the reporter, Naomi Grimley, pronouncing several words as one might expect a slang-speaking South London schoolgirl to:
The words: “Independent” and “effect” end in a ‘T’, “Labour” is not pronounced ‘LAYBA’, and “ever” is not pronounced ‘EVA’.
This sort of thing is not congruent with the rich and exemplary tradition of the BBC in this domain, and I think that (news) program producers need to take a view on this. Positive discrimination/equal opportunity are all well and good, but the number one priority must surely be high standards and a high quality of service?
Does anyone else agree that this sort of thing is a shame/concerning, or is this fundamentally unimportant in modern Britain?
Where do we draw the line between comedy RP newsreader accents of the early 20th century and having people who wouldn't sound out of place in Kidulthood reading the news?
(would be handy to state your own standard of English/cultural background in posting, for context e.g. my spoken English is decent and I'm from a white, middle class/suburban North London background)
Language is an organic entity which is constantly changing as it evolves through time.
There is no "standard".
You are claiming that Jamaican patois (a different language) and certain dialects are not conforming to your standards, your preconceived notions, of what the English language has to/ used to be.
However there is no 'standard'. There are thousands of variations of dialects, vocabulary, slang and colloquialisms which are used in spoken English around the world. You're pretending that there's just one standard.
Whether English conforms to a "standard" is irrelevant. Language only exists for the purpose of communicating meaning. If the meaning is there and can be interpreted, the 'standard' of the English does not matter.
I'm sure you would be the first criticise Shakespeare as not being proper "English" any more, since Shakespeare's English is not exactly "standard" English. Except that he came before you. And others will come after us.
Do you mean, OP, received pronunciation or BBC English? Also known as 'posh English'? Regional accents have been on the decline for decades, why aren't we mourning their decline?
yeh mayne. da peepz in da inna city have a vocab ov about 10 words innit. dey iz not cleva enuf to vocalise their thoughts in an erudite and concise manner.
Language is an organic entity which is constantly changing as it evolves through time.
There is no "standard".
You are claiming that Jamaican patois (a different language) and certain dialects are not conforming to your standards, your preconceived notions, of what the English language has to/ used to be.
However there is no 'standard'. There are thousands of variations of dialects, vocabulary, slang and colloquialisms which are used in spoken English around the world. You're pretending that there's just one standard.
Whether English conforms to a "standard" is irrelevant. Language only exists for the purpose of communicating meaning. If the meaning is there and can be interpreted, the 'standard' of the English does not matter.
I'm sure you would be the first criticise Shakespeare as not being proper "English" any more, since Shakespeare's English is not exactly "standard" English. Except that he came before you. And others will come after us.
Please don't equate Shakespeare's English with Jafaican. It's just hurtful.
It's pretty obvious that to allow slang to creep into standardised english is actually a decline. I'd much rather use the vast vocabulary that has been bestowed upon us than "mandem" or "dench". People better not hide behind the black thing either. It's old now.
Whilst I wouldn't use 'mandem' or 'dench' in any situation- I've honestly never heard of them before now- I would still argue that if commonly used, then they form part of 'our' vocabulary. Nobody is taking words away from us, just adding to them. The words we use also change over time. I don't use the word 'wizard' to describe something especially pleasing or 'cool', but my Granny did when she was my age. She in turn hates it when I describe anything as 'cool'. Its a similar situation to 'mandem' or 'dench', I except (I hate to admit, I have no idea what either means).
Todays slang in some cases is tomorrows standard language in some cases, whilst in others in merely is no longer used. In the past 'hi' and 'ok' amongst others were frowned upon by some in society. I doubt the same would largely be said today.
In any case, I still believe that for the vast number of people, how we use language changes depending on who we are talking to
Whilst I wouldn't use 'mandem' or 'dench' in any situation- I've honestly never heard of them before now- I would still argue that if commonly used, then they form part of 'our' vocabulary. Nobody is taking words away from us, just adding to them. The words we use also change over time. I don't use the word 'wizard' to describe something especially pleasing or 'cool', but my Granny did when she was my age. She in turn hates it when I describe anything as 'cool'. Its a similar situation to 'mandem' or 'dench', I except (I hate to admit, I have no idea what either means).
Todays slang in some cases is tomorrows standard language in some cases, whilst in others in merely is no longer used. In the past 'hi' and 'ok' amongst others were frowned upon by some in society. I doubt the same would largely be said today.
In any case, I still believe that for the vast number of people, how we use language changes depending on who we are talking to
Not among the people raised solely on speaking jafaican. It is their only form of speech. Which of course will inspire pearls of laughter when they actually try to get a job besides dealing drugs.
I fail to see your point. You therefore fail. Man I love threads like these. jokes.
It's always amusing to see you act like this when you are unable to respond properly.
You criticised my apparently 'needless' use of 'erudite vernacular' when I could have used simpler language and now you are suggesting people should speak using 'erudite' language despite not needing to do so to convey the information they require. Reconcile these positions.
It's always amusing to see you act like this when you are unable to respond properly.
You criticised my apparently 'needless' use of 'erudite vernacular' when I could have used simpler language and now you are suggesting people should speak using 'erudite' language despite not needing to do so to convey the information they require. Reconcile these positions.
Not among the people raised solely on speaking jafaican. It is their only form of speech. Which of course will inspire pearls of laughter when they actually try to get a job besides dealing drugs.
I hardly suspect they form a large proportion of society.
Whilst I wouldn't use 'mandem' or 'dench' in any situation- I've honestly never heard of them before now- I would still argue that if commonly used, then they form part of 'our' vocabulary. Nobody is taking words away from us, just adding to them. The words we use also change over time. I don't use the word 'wizard' to describe something especially pleasing or 'cool', but my Granny did when she was my age. She in turn hates it when I describe anything as 'cool'. Its a similar situation to 'mandem' or 'dench', I except (I hate to admit, I have no idea what either means).
Todays slang in some cases is tomorrows standard language in some cases, whilst in others in merely is no longer used. In the past 'hi' and 'ok' amongst others were frowned upon by some in society. I doubt the same would largely be said today.
In any case, I still believe that for the vast number of people, how we use language changes depending on who we are talking to
Yes, frequently and I can't say I've once heard 'mandemch' uttered by anyone.
To clear up man dem and dench - man dem comes from Jamaica where they used 'dem' to pluralise and DENCH is something I see on twitter, popularised by Lethal B (rapper) and Emanuel Frimpong (footballer) which I'm yet to fully understand