[Bonged.]

(Original post by xXxiKillxXx)
Foo, you are bare moist. Even your name real talk, duss from here asap..

hahaha!

someone get this guy a job presenting bbc news.

The day we see a bbc news presenter calling someone moist is the day we know we are truly vibrant and diverse. lol.

[Bonged.]

(Original post by dgeorge)
There's a difference between promoting a dialect, and promoting the behaviours that are (rightly or wrongly) associated with the dialect.

I'm not really sure your point here.....

Just for the record, most of what is referred to as "jamaican patois" is actually quite different from what you hear in Jamaica. Try speaking that over there and you'll get a WTF look -

what so the jamaicans are laughing at these morons too? epic.

[Fusionary]

[QI Elf]

(Original post by Foo.mp3)
Quite possibly

For the upteenth time this issue does not merely concern speech that is not easily understood

Quote me where I've asserted that?

Yet another person seeking to ridicule/misrepresent the OP rather than deal with the bread and butter of the thread

By claiming that there has been a decline in the standards of language, you suggest that there has been a high point of the language which is now on the wane. You use the term 'proper English'. What exactly is 'proper English'? I know that you really mean the correct pronunciation of words as you see it, but this is
where the argument of the change of language is a valid one. The correct pronunciation in today's society is not necessarily correct in terms of the past. I mentioned in my previous post the 'Great Vowel Shift' during the middle ages, just another change in our language and how it is spoken.

If you try and read Chaucer, its best to understand it by reading it out loud. Its recognisable as 'English' but far removed from what we recognise as English. This is not really any different to 'Evva' instead of 'evER', in my opinion.

(Original post by Foo.mp3)


You do yourself, and those who have invested in your education, a disservice by demonstrating poor quality argumentation by deviating as per the above

I don't believe that I do deviate. Your argument centres around the decline in standards of spoken English, no? By commenting on language change I aim to suggest that 'decline' is the wrong word to use. Language changes and evolves. There cannot be a decline in the langauge is, as a result of this evolution, there has never been a definitive version of our language.

[Mendeleev's Table]

(Original post by The Lyceum)
Dear OP,

Phonological differences occur, deal with. Secondly I'd be much more worried over syntax if I were you.

" Is anyone else disappointed by declining standards in spoken English in Britain?"

Really ought to be declining standard (note singular) of spoken English etc. (note genitive construction).

Your usage of the plural and a locative construction is the kind of colloquialism you apparently detest, no?

You're not a linguist, you're not the arbiter of the English tongue, you're a pretentious brat. Is your life so hollow you have nought else to worry over but how others speak?

Shocking.

I do love how OP avoided this

[Bonged.]

(Original post by QI Elf)
By claiming that there has been a decline in the standards of language, you suggest that there has been a high point of the language which is now on the wane. You use the term 'proper English'. What exactly is 'proper English'? I know that you really mean the correct pronunciation of words as you see it, but this is
where the argument of the change of language is a valid one. The correct pronunciation in today's society is not necessarily correct in terms of the past. I mentioned in my previous post the 'Great Vowel Shift' during the middle ages, just another change in our language and how it is spoken.

If you try and read Chaucer, its best to understand it by reading it out loud. Its recognisable as 'English' but far removed from what we recognise as English. This is not really any different to 'Evva' instead of 'evER', in my opinion.



I don't believe that I do deviate. Your argument centres around the decline in standards of spoken English, no? By commenting on language change I aim to suggest that 'decline' is the wrong word to use. Language changes and evolves. There cannot be a decline in the langauge is, as a result of this evolution, there has never been a definitive version of our language.

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.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Bonged.)
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.

New words = a decline in vocabulary?

wut

[Bonged.]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
New words = a decline in vocabulary?

wut

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.

[The Lyceum]

(Original post by Bonged.)
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.

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".

[Bonged.]

(Original post by The Lyceum)
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.

[Pindar]

(Original post by Foo.mp3)
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:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17720269

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.

[pellejema]

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?

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Bonged.)
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.

Really, Bonged.? This is your position?

Remember this comment you posted on my profile:

"Tiresome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbosity

Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity: Problems with Using Long Words Needlessly.
http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/p...%20writing.pdf "

WTF?

[Bonged.]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
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.

[QI Elf]

(Original post by Bonged.)
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

[Bonged.]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Really, Bonged.? This is your position?

Remember this comment you posted on my profile:

"Tiresome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbosity

Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity: Problems with Using Long Words Needlessly.
http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/p...%20writing.pdf "

WTF?

I fail to see your point. You therefore fail. Man I love threads like these. jokes.

nearly forgot.

[Bonged.]

(Original post by QI Elf)
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.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Bonged.)
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.

[Bonged.]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
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.

Don't get pedantic with semantics boy.

[QI Elf]

(Original post by Bonged.)
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.