|
Alternatively: books about those things are for nerds and English is dead.
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:21 |
|
|
JackKnight posted:I need to exercise my brain. I used to use big words all the time and was generally smarter and wittier, but now I am like every other blue collar moron out there. As a truck driver, I don't often have the occasion to actually use my brain for anything, so it's slowly turning into jelly from lack of use. So now I am thinking about how to educate myself again in proper and educated English. One of my observations over the years is the general devolution of the English language in general. I read something somewhere that said our early presidents made speeches you needed to be educated to understand properly. Now our president makes speeches a 4th grader can understand. It's one of my peeves that we as Americans do not maintain our standards in language usage and comprehension, and I am even more peeved that I am sliding down right along with the majority of other people. This is a bad idea. First off, Hamlet is Shakespeare's longest play, so memorizing it would be really hard. Secondly, if you base your grammatical style off of it, you'll be speaking Elizabethan English, which as far as I know only exists in remnants in the backwoods of Appalachia (I grew up in West Virginia and my dad was an appliance repair guy. He told me once that he fixed a family's refrigerator and the people there spoke in King James Bible styled English—as in they didn't say you, they said thee and thou, and their vocabulary was wonky). If you truly want to do this, even if it isn't necessary (your vocabulary will improve by reading things with words you don't understand; you'll pick them up through osmosis), try listening to every one of either Umberto Eco or Thomas Pynchon's novels.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but this doesn't actually happen. I'm pretty sure it's been shown that mass media exposure to different dialects doesn't actually cause any particular spread of those dialects. Vocabulary, sure, but that's different. I think I probably worded this poorly. I was under the impression that TV is a 'great' way of making the regional more like the standard and normative. What I had in mind is the gradual disappearance of Sicilian dialects for a northernised Italian. Not really that important in the context of this conversation though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
J_RBG posted:I was under the impression that TV is a 'great' way of making the regional more like the standard and normative. What I had in mind is the gradual disappearance of Sicilian dialects for a northernised Italian. Not really that important in the context of this conversation though. Yeah I think that does happen but it's not really anything to do with TV specifically it's just infrastructure and media in general. Like there's nothing in the nature of TV itself that makes this effect much different from radio or the internet or print (which is less direct but is certainly relevant in the case you bring up since Sicilian is also a written dialect/language). I'd say the standardization of education systems, often with political intent, has done a lot more to flatten dialects though. Especially in areas that have undergone nationalist movements and their resultant policies. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Oct 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Trained actors who play Hamlet have tremendous difficulty memorizing their own lines. It's just not a feasible concept, and it'll discourage you when you fail. Also, you sound like you're conflating classism with your desire to broaden your horizons. If you try talking with a post-graduate level vocabulary when you're just hanging out with friends, you'll come off like an irl SuperMechaGodzilla.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:I must add that it is no coincidence that the poster who was only just now lamenting the "devolution" of the English language and talking about "blue collar morons" was only a few posts earlier indicating that they read pretty much nothing other than scifi and fantasy and derive little enjoyment from books focusing on such issues as the human psyche, moral grey areas, or human susceptibilities. This is what happens. Perhaps I should have clarified more. The degeneration of language is certainly debatable, and there are good points for both sides. I should probably have made the point that less and less people are using English to its full potential. Sure more and more people are literate, but literacy is just a metric for basic reading comprehension. Also I currently read scifi and fantasy, but I have read thousands of books in my life, lol. I never did enjoy those introspective types of books, but I didn't shy away from them either. I used to read extremely voraciously and indiscriminately. I even got a lot of the way through an encyclopedia. :-D Doesn't change the fact that the brain falls into a lazy state with disuse. :-(
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
JackKnight posted:I should probably have made the point that less and less people are using English to its full potential. That's a daft loving point too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
JackKnight posted:I should probably have made the point that less and less people are using English to its full potential. What exactly do you mean by this? You seem to be the sort of person who thinks "bigger words = smarter than" but even with that mentality, I would still bet there is currently a far larger percentage of American society using said "big words" than there was during the early days of the nation. The formally educated portion of the population, during that period, was quite small compared to today and limited to a very narrow segment of the population. Let alone the fact that your idea of the "full potential" of English is rather suspect. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Oct 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
People have literally been complaining about the supposed degeneration of the English language since English first was a language. It's like old people complaining about "kids these days". David Crystal recently put out a book that examined the history of the English language, its use, how spelling conventions have transformed throughout the years, and how society might move towards a better way of teaching. It's a fantastic read if you have even the tiniest bit of interest in the history of the language: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spell-It-Out-Singular-Spelling/dp/1846685672 Here's a video of him speaking about the language. He's a great speaker, but the acoustics of the place he's in kinda suck. Still a decent watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gco5whWZWkI Sally fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Oct 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
JackKnight posted:literacy is just a metric for basic reading comprehension. False. Literacy as a concept entails more than just basic reading comprehension. It also means having the skill to know where and how to seek out further knowledge and understanding. For example, which reading strategy that would be most helpful to you when reading a novel before bedtime versus seeking out key information from a long scientific journal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
And anyone who uses a language to it's fullest potential are the ones who uses it in a way to make their message unambigiously clear to the reciever. Just throwing around archaic words and obscure synonyms for no good reason just make you look like a twit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
The last good English language literature was Beowulf.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
CestMoi posted:The last good English language literature was Beowulf. This except Book of Exeter
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
ulvir posted:False. Literacy as a concept entails more than just basic reading comprehension. It also means having the skill to know where and how to seek out further knowledge and understanding. For example, which reading strategy that would be most helpful to you when reading a novel before bedtime versus seeking out key information from a long scientific journal. ulvir posted:And anyone who uses a language to it's fullest potential are the ones who uses it in a way to make their message unambigiously clear to the reciever. Just throwing around archaic words and obscure synonyms for no good reason just make you look like a twit. Some language truth bombs just got dropped. Aw, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
JackKnight posted:Perhaps I should have clarified more. The degeneration of language is certainly debatable, and there are good points for both sides. I should probably have made the point that less and less people are using English to its full potential. Sure more and more people are literate, but literacy is just a metric for basic reading comprehension. You seem to have this weird thing where you think that memorising Hamlet or reading an encyclopaedia make you smart but they reallly don't. Reading broadly and thinking critically about what you read will improve your thinking probably, not rote learning crap or reading something that won't engage you and you almost certainly won't take in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
I'm going to have to go against the grain here and recommend that JackKnight does memorize Hamlet and then start using words and phrases from it in everyday speech. In fact in the context of the latter especially I encourage you to document this process on video and share the results.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:I'm going to have to go against the grain here and recommend that JackKnight does memorize Hamlet and then start using words and phrases from it in everyday speech. In fact in the context of the latter especially I encourage you to document this process on video and share the results. I would never unleash those slings and arrows of outrageous fortune upon them
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:I would never unleash those slings and arrows of outrageous fortune upon them It would be an infinite jest though if he memorized all those words, words, words.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
I was saying Boo-urns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:What exactly do you mean by this? I did not make any assumptions about the relative IQ between a person speaking simply and a person speaking in sesquipedalian sentences. A person's facility of diction taken by itself has naught to do with his cleverness, though relatively speaking one could make the reasonable inference that a person using such language could be a clever person, because clever people often need a more concise vocabulary to express their concepts and ideas in a manner that precisely represents their thoughts to their satisfaction. The full knowledge of the English language involves the complete understanding of the rules that govern it, the words that comprise it, and the art by which it is represented. The full potential is something different, and involves the study and practice of different writing forms (i.e. poetry, books, etc) in addition to knowing it. In my experience most people don't know even a small percentage of these things, hence my original statement. Of course I am biased by my surroundings, upbringing, job, etc, so what I say may not ring as true to you as much as it does to me, but then if that is the case, you need to control for your own surroundings. Someone said Hamlet probably wasn't a good pick to memorize completely, so I think I shall take their suggestion and find some of the good soliloquies and memorize those. My original intent by memorizing something like this was to have a foundation for quotes like the one I heard a long time ago, but can't recall from whence it originated or its original wording. The gist of it is as follows: "Pain fills whatever void exists inside oneself regardless of its intensity relative to another person's pain. Therefore each person's suffering is utter and complete." This quote is quite powerful and can relate to many instances in life where my nature would tend to be judgmental of other people (I am INTJ personality).
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
JackKnight posted:A person's facility of diction taken by itself has naught to do with his cleverness, though relatively speaking one could make the reasonable inference that a person using such language could be a clever person, because clever people often need a more concise vocabulary to express their concepts and ideas in a manner that precisely represents their thoughts to their satisfaction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Speaking of concise vocabularies..... I still don't get why you want to memorize stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
JackKnight posted:I did not make any assumptions about the relative IQ between a person speaking simply and a person speaking in sesquipedalian sentences. A person's facility of diction taken by itself has naught to do with his cleverness, though relatively speaking one could make the reasonable inference that a person using such language could be a clever person, because clever people often need a more concise vocabulary to express their concepts and ideas in a manner that precisely represents their thoughts to their satisfaction. I will endeavor handily to express myself in the most concise manner, eschewing rodomontade and the blusterous braggadocio of a twiddler or twaddler: Communication isn't about vocabulary, it's about making sure the other person understands what you're saying. Speak to an audience that exists and not your imaginary scholars tut-tutting from their learned thrones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
drat we just got trolled
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Memorize Zizek
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
JackKnight posted:I did not make any assumptions about the relative IQ between a person speaking simply and a person speaking in sesquipedalian sentences. But surely you can forgive one for assuming you think them connected given statements such as "I used to use big words all the time and was generally smarter and wittier, but now I am like every other blue collar moron out there." quote:The full potential is something different, and involves the study and practice of different writing forms (i.e. poetry, books, etc) in addition to knowing it. In my experience most people don't know even a small percentage of these things, hence my original statement. And so by saying you think that "less and less people" know these things, you are then claiming that there was some point in US history when more people studied literature and different writing forms than there are studying them today? When exactly do you think this period was? quote:Of course I am biased by my surroundings, upbringing, job, etc, so what I say may not ring as true to you as much as it does to me, but then if that is the case, you need to control for your own surroundings. But your original claim wasn't about your surroundings, or mine. You were talking about the entire country. To back up your assertion you cited presidential speeches, while completely missing the historical context that explains the decreasing complexity of language in those speeches (which, again, has nothing to do with any "devolution" of the language). You have yet to present any kind of evidence that language on a national level has "devolved" or declined in any sense. For reference, here is where this particular chain started: quote:It's one of my peeves that we as Americans do not maintain our standards in language usage and comprehension, and I am even more peeved that I am sliding down right along with the majority of other people. There's simply no indication that the standards of language usage or comprehension for a majority of Americans has declined. In fact, since the days of our early presidents who's speeches you cited, it has improved dramatically, because there is a far larger number of people who are literate and who are educated. Perhaps instead of spending time memorizing books with complex words in them for no real reason, you could actually improve yourself by reading some history of the country you live in and the language you speak? Earwicker fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Oct 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
I am in what ultimately amounts to a hardcore sales position and pretty sure no matter what you think we are actually the ones currently using English to its full potential on a regular basis. HTH. EDIT: also entirely separate from that I support people reading actual literature. Just FYI.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:There's simply no indication that the standards of language usage or comprehension for a majority of Americans has declined. There is if youre really comfortably white.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:But surely you can forgive one for assuming you think them connected given statements such as "I used to use big words all the time and was generally smarter and wittier, but now I am like every other blue collar moron out there." I didn't used to be a blue collar moron. I used to live on a homestead and I was homeschooled. ;-) Earwicker posted:And so by saying you think that "less and less people" know these things, you are then claiming that there was some point in US history when more people studied literature and different writing forms than there are studying them today? When exactly do you think this period was? I think perhaps you are correct here on one point. My original thoughts were on the times of Shakespeare (around the 1500s on up) wherever they hailed from, and not necessarily American English as it was during the time of colonization, since as I understand it the early settlers were mostly commoners without a good deal of education. In US history you are correct, but my intent was to represent English as a language. I typed "American" but I meant "English". Earwicker posted:But your original claim wasn't about your surroundings, or mine. You were talking about the entire country. To back up your assertion you cited presidential speeches, while completely missing the historical context that explains the decreasing complexity of language in those speeches (which, again, has nothing to do with any "devolution" of the language). You have yet to present any kind of evidence that language on a national level has "devolved" or declined in any sense. Just because our dictionaries still maintain esoteric lists of words and their definitions, does NOT mean people are using them. Richard Larson posted:"Regrettably, our language seems to be devolving much like our social mores have been. In our increasingly morally relativistic culture, our language is morphing, adapting, and redefining each day, with fewer and fewer absolutes, and increasing laxity and less and less conviction." Gore Vidal posted:“As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too.” George Orwell 1984 posted:“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by eactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. . . . The process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for commiting thought-crime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need even for that. . . . Has it ever occcured to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?” Presidents speak at a 4th grade level now because they know their listeners have ADHD, are extremely prejudiced in all areas, and think people who talk with big words are trying to hide things from them. Which is probably true. :-)
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
JackKnight posted:Most blue collars are morons. Its ridic cool when really smart people like you know about history and books enough to know that all the pleb sheep are stupider than ever, and that everythings been dumbed down since the halcyon days of segregation, men beating the poo poo out of their wives and kids, and no labor laws, plus also add to that unmitigated resource depletion. BAck when people were smart like you, cuz the teachers literally beat them if they misusing a gerund.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Bundt Cake posted:Its ridic cool when really smart people like you know about history and books enough to know that all the pleb sheep are stupider than ever, and that everythings been dumbed down since the halcyon days of segregation, men beating the poo poo out of their wives and kids, and no labor laws, plus also add to that unmitigated resource depletion. BAck when people were smart like you, cuz the teachers literally beat them if they misusing a gerund. I'm sorry I can't read what you have written.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
JackKnight posted:I'm sorry I can't read what you have written. Your post is missing a period or a that. Clearly this is a sign of the decline of western civilization.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Edit: Never mind, I tire of this discourse. I will find another topic to amuse myself.
JackKnight fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Oct 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
This is a quote from a book called the brain that changes itself. Somewhat relevant.quote:The irony of this new discovery is that for hundreds of years educators did seem to sense that children’s brains had to be built up through exercises of increasing difficulty that strengthened brain functions. Up through the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a classical education often included rote memorization of long poems in foreign languages, which strengthened the auditory memory (hence thinking in language) and an almost fanatical attention to handwriting, which probably helped strengthen motor capacities and thus not only helped handwriting but added speed and fluency to reading and speaking. Often a great deal of attention was paid to exact elocution and to perfecting the pronunciation of words. Then in the 1960s, educators dropped such traditional exercises from the curriculum, because they were too rigid, boring, and ‘not relevant’.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
JackKnight posted:Most blue collars are morons. Keep that sentence in the back of your head the next time you need an electrician, plumber or carpenter for whatever reason because something in your house broke and you don't know how to fix it. Unfounded arrogance is really cool, keep it up, you'll be the superstar of the SA forums eventually
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
JackKnight posted:I did not make any assumptions about the relative IQ between a person speaking simply and a person speaking in sesquipedalian sentences. A person's facility of diction taken by itself has naught to do with his cleverness, though relatively speaking one could make the reasonable inference that a person using such language could be a clever person, because clever people often need a more concise vocabulary to express their concepts and ideas in a manner that precisely represents their thoughts to their satisfaction. loving lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
ulvir posted:Keep that sentence in the back of your head the next time you need an electrician, plumber or carpenter for whatever reason because something in your house broke and you don't know how to fix it. I know how to fix anything to do with a house. It is not hard. The only reason I would hire someone is if I didn't feel like bothering with it myself, and if I did so I would be the one telling them what to do, not the other way around. ulvir posted:loving lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 10:39
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:drat we just got trolled Made for an interesting couple of pages, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 10:43
|
|
|
JackKnight posted:I know how to fix anything to do with a house. It is not hard. The only reason I would hire someone is if I didn't feel like bothering with it myself, and if I did so I would be the one telling them what to do, not the other way around. Good for you, but they're still not morons, so stop acting like you're above them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 10:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:21 |
|
|
East Lake posted:This is a quote from a book called the brain that changes itself. Somewhat relevant. East Lake posted:The irony of this new discovery is that for hundreds of years educators did seem to sense that children’s brains had to be built up through exercises of increasing difficulty that strengthened brain functions. Up through the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a classical education often included rote memorization of long poems in foreign languages, which strengthened the auditory memory (hence thinking in language) and an almost fanatical attention to handwriting, which probably helped strengthen motor capacities and thus not only helped handwriting but added speed and fluency to reading and speaking. Often a great deal of attention was paid to exact elocution and to perfecting the pronunciation of words. Then in the 1960s, educators dropped such traditional exercises from the curriculum, because they were too rigid, boring, and ‘not relevant’. Aye this is a good example of both why I intend to memorize things and also describes one way our current education system is failing us. Better education indeed. My mother has two masters degrees, one in languages and one in education. She would agree that the usage of the English language is devolving, and that people are generally not as smart as in the past. Fellwenner posted:Made for an interesting couple of pages, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 11:01
|
|