Gram mar

[nesterdude]

To ensure that our message is carried over.

Nice example.

LOL
Well done Tim
No one, certainly not me, is perfect. However, I do know what I'm talking about.

[Johnny Rockets]

Communication is the desired result. As long as you’re getting results, then "proper English" is a matter of perspective.

(It's also an oxymoron)

Since every language evolves, (and not as slowly as you think) then anyone holding onto the concept of "proper English" is pretty much a cultural dinosaur.


Johnny Rocks

[nesterdude]

Communication is the desired result. As long as you’re getting results, then "proper English" is a matter of perspective.

(It's also an oxymoron)

Since every language evolves, (and not as slowly as you think) then anyone holding onto the concept of "proper English" is pretty much a cultural dinosaur.


Johnny Rocks

Just because you string two words together, doesn't mean it works.

Communication is not a desired result. Communication is an agreement among a community that x means x and y means y. The syntax, structure, semantics are all arbitrary. But once the community agrees then we give it meaning.

Anyway, that brings us to rules. Rules are there to make communication easier and more succinct for an already ambiguous language.

Proper English is real. You can claim you don't believe in it, but you've said nothing to discount it. And even more you've only shown that you don't have a clear understanding of how languages work and why we've developed the structures in which we have.

Tell me, at which point do you say the rules are meaningless?

For if they're all meaningless, then "anyone holding onto the concept of "proper English" is pretty much a cultural dinosaur." would mean the same as "concept onto holding 'anyone' the engliSh proper pretty dinosaur cultural much a is."

[Johnny Rockets]

Meaningless:
How benevolent is holding on to a set of rules on a language that's in a constant evolving flux? (The same rules that are being ignored by a larger percentage of the population every year.)

Do you understand what I'm getting at?

Understand you, what I'm getting at?

What I'm getting at, understand?

The three above statements made the same point ...and hey!! ... You got all three of them!

Was that succinct enough for ya?

But when you try to communicate:
"Anyone holding onto the concept of "proper English" is pretty much a cultural dinosaur."
By saying this:
"concept onto holding 'anyone' the engliSh proper pretty dinosaur cultural much a is."

Then it's not a question of if you broke a few rules, it's more likely proof you've had a cocaine induced stroke.

You stated:
Communication is not a desired result

No, "Dude" It's all about communication.

You then stated:
Rules are there to make communication easier and more succinct for an already ambiguous language.

For who?
And is this universal declaration agreed to by every English speaking person alive today?


If I say it, and you get it, then Fo' shizzle it's on! So say the masses, so it is done.
The one rule with the English language that is not debatable is that if enough of the population subscribes to the change, then the change is the rule. So if enough of us ignore the structures y'all have developed, then your structures no longer have meaning.

Holding onto such structures thus entitle you to a dinosaur label, and a free tar pit.


If in fact I’ve shown:
"that you don't have a clear understanding of how languages work and why we've developed the structures in which we have."
keep in mind I don't have a clear understanding of how to operate an Airbus A380. But wonder of wonders, I can still fly to Norway.

To you these regards I send,

Johnny Rockets

[King Doctor]

Just because you string two words together, doesn't mean it works.

Well, except when it does work.