Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums
Sign in to follow this  
LarryUK

Grrrrrrrrrr!

Recommended Posts

no, we really don't

 

 

Faktor. C can be replaced by k or s

 

q can be replaced kw

 

x can be replaced by z or ks

 

Why replace one letter with two. I can see your point about c (just about but the other two are not valid)

And even then, there are nuances that require the letters we have. Part of the problem is that we actually do not have all the letters we need in our alphabet. There exist several variations of alphabet in Europe that have additional letters to satisfy unique sounds in certain languages that would otherwise require the use of two (or more) letters to adequately express.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another nice thing about the various letters and pronunciations of them is that it helps us determine to an extent whence came various words into our language. That also can be an aid to nuance of meaning.

 

m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flood...

 

Deutsch ist nicht schwer. Just memorize the prepositions and meanings - and realize they are close, but not perfect cognates. I still recall that from my own high school years. I pronounced them out loud to get a rhythm and just plain memorized them. I can still bounce them out easier than I can lyrics from 50 years ago or much from my Latin. <grin>

 

Oh... and a joke that works in both languages... Ist das Maedchen einfach schoen? Oder einfach und schoen?

 

If you don't quite get it ("und" makes the difference) and the joke, holler at me backchannel. <grin> I didn't do the umlauts, but added the letter "e" instead because I wasn't sure of available type options on here.

 

m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is happening to language? 'Allot'? This isn't a word. It's 'A lot'. What is it with this joining letters to words at the moment?

The schools are failing dismally. Lets have 'awalk', 'ahouse' 'acar'. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Sorry to be pedantic. Allot is a word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, allot is a word, but it is a verb meaning to apportion. The meaning is more than dissimilar compared to "a lot" which is used as a modifier that means "much" or "many:" "He has a lot of Gibsons." That latter is more along the lines of an idiomatic usage, however, as opposed to the noun "lot" which has several stand-alone definitions.

 

Seriously, I think a bit of discussion of grammar and definitions is not at all untoward as a guitar forum topic because anyone involved in writing lyrics might benefit from it.

 

m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

English is a terrible language anyways. I mean, why do we have the letters c, x, and q anyway?

 

 

I was in school in the 50's and we learned English and we learned to love and respect it. All this current denigration of English bugs me a lot. I'm not against creative use but not pure laziness. Or ignorance. It's our Mother Tongue, respect it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grampa...

 

As one older guy to another one a bit younger - sheesh, sometimes it seems everybody on here is younger than I am - I mostly agree with you.

 

I think the "kids" nowadays are taught "literature" with current politically correct and "relevant" material that lacks the artistry of much found in earlier authors and translations. OTOH, gee, I hated having to read Jane Austen in high school. I loved T.S. Eliot and Kipling... etc.

 

The concept nowadays seems to be toward simplification of an incredibly rich language tradition with a huge vocabulary - and, as in politics, emphasis that English is only one of many languages and that some others are better than ours for certain things. One might note for example that Shakespeare is almost ignored in our public high schools. What a change from when even a television western series had Shakespeare-quoting gunfighter as the hero.

 

<sigh>

 

Grammar? Whazzat unless it's your spouse? <chortle>

 

m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To wit: "He was allotted a lot of Gibsons."

 

[biggrin]

 

As an eighteen year old fresh out of high school, I do have to agree on some of what's been said regarding my generation's denigration and cheapening of the English language, and in the neglect paid to English education by public schools. I had always found it bizarre how contemporary public schools don't teach grammar or diction in English classes, but only literature (and usually taught in terms of content, usually as an exploration of "culturally significant" contemporary works as opposed to linguistically significant classical works--although my high school's curriculum was more inclusive than average, including classical literature beginning with Homer and Sophocles.) After all, it would be bizarre if foreign language courses dealt in foreign literature as opposed to grammar in, and usage of, a foreign language (i.e. reading Dostoyevsky in the original Russian without an understanding of how the language worked.) I think, as a rule, students should be instructed in how a language can be used before being shown how a language has been used. Then again, I'm just a kid, so what do I know?

 

The issue of today's youth misusing the English language has come up time and again on this forum, but to be honest I see just as many people of my father's generation taking to laziness in writing as I do my contemporaries. If I may be blunt, I think the frequency of discussions of this nature is likely more attributable to (good ol') moral panic and hypocritical self-righteousness than it is to any real change in the development of written English--I can't say for sure as I haven't read any of my father's old homework assignments from when he was in high school, but I would venture to guess that his command of the English language wasn't perfect, either (although, perhaps, imperfect in a different way.)

 

EDIT: Milo--can't agree more on Eliot and Kipling, likewise on Austen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Kid Left Behind Program and the World Wide Web, these are the culprits!

 

No Kid Left Behind Program: Most schools in North America run with this program now since the school systems are so crowded and overwhelmed teachers do not have the time to help an entire class of 30+ students so unfortunately some get looked over and do not end up learning what they need to. Subsequently they end up failing the course possibly for multiple terms and instead of holding them back or making the student repeat the course they just pass them through. Trust me I failed Grade 9 English three times in a row because I refused to do anything in the class, the teacher was also the schools arts and crafts teacher and every project consisted of some kind of crafts crap, I never had to repeat the course; however I also excelled beyond 90% of English students right through my senior year, I was even overly complimented by my grade 12 English teachers, Professor who was working with her on her English Masters, in regards to a mind map I made for a senior project.

 

World Wide Web: The use of Ebonics and slang in chat rooms, IM, Facebook, and almost every on the internet is the biggest culprit as kids spend a lot of time on the web they are subjected to all this slang and crap they just pick it up and start using it like its commonplace.

 

Solution: Shock Collars that give you a friendly 30,000 volt shock when you use improper English. Can be set for other languages as well making it good for the global market!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Solution: Shock Collars that give you a friendly 30,000 volt shock when you use improper English. Can be set for other languages as well making it good for the global market!

 

Cruel, but likely highly effective. [biggrin] I like the way you think.

 

I would think, though, that perhaps this method is somewhat too broad in application. After all, there are different, well-accepted degrees of appropriateness in language use that developed prior to this supposed modern dearth in linguistic skills. For instance, would someone be punished for using regional slang in conversational speech? I don't think anyone would find it fair to punish either a rural Midwesterner or a Northeastern urbanite for using for using "ain't" or "dang" in everyday conversation. How would one even monitor improperly-written English? Would someone be shocked for something as simple as an ordinary typographical error that we are all prone to making occasionally? I've made several while writing this that I've had to go back and correct, and I know I wouldn't want an electric shock for a slipped finger or for neglecting to "cross a t" or "dot an i."

 

...All in jest, of course. [biggrin]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cruel, but likely highly effective. [biggrin] I like the way you think.

 

I would think, though, that perhaps this method is somewhat too broad in application. After all, there are different, well-accepted degrees of appropriateness in language use that developed prior to this supposed modern dearth in linguistic skills. For instance, would someone be punished for using regional slang in conversational speech? I don't think anyone would find it fair to punish either a rural Midwesterner or a Northeastern urbanite for using for using "ain't" or "dang" in everyday conversation. How would one even monitor improperly-written English? Would someone be shocked for something as simple as an ordinary typographical error that we are all prone to making occasionally? I've made several while writing this that I've had to go back and correct, and I know I wouldn't want an electric shock for a slipped finger or for neglecting to "cross a t" or "dot an i."

 

...All in jest, of course. [biggrin]

 

It will be as judgmental as Rosetta Stone turned onto Perfect Speech! We would all be screwed, I have been learning German through it and well I had it set on the medium level and it was very unforgiving. It took me like 30 some odd attempts to get past Gutten Tag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kimba...

 

I think part of the problem isn't so much today's younger generation per se, but rather a combination of the impact of technology that encourages a splatter-speak in 140 words or less and a school system that has taken on the duty of teaching a certain sort of politics.

 

Yes, that's not terribly new. The Marxists long have hollered that math has been taught the past two and a half centuries with a bow to capitalism.

 

Actually "literature," the written language in general, has always been taught with a degree of emphasis on concurrent readings, grammar and composition. When I was a kid, my schools through high school probably did quite well at that combination for most students through high school.

 

I really began to see some major changes in the 1970s when political factors began to change the language and enforce certain curriculum changes in our schools. There have been some modifications, but the bottom line is that it became verboten to "teach" anything that somebody might have considered "racist," "promoting religion in any manner, shape or form," or otherwise praising a non-socialist or non unisex society.

 

Suddenly the older ideal of educating children to be responsible citizens in a republic where government was to be a benign arbitrator of a free economic system was gone. The free economic system, in fact, was to be taught very much as it had been taught in the former Soviet Union except without the relatively nationalist trappings the USSR gave to Marxism.

 

I dunno.

 

Education as I've said before comes from the Latin meaning "to lead out from." I remember kids arguing mightily against one high school government teacher who was an admitted "socialist" (really pretty much a Marxist), and yet getting high grades if they argued well with good documentation.

 

Now? I question that the teachers themselves have been taught with sufficient integrity that they recognize "leading out from" as their purpose. I had begun to see that in the 1960s as politics increasingly intruded into all aspects of the university experience and that trickled down from "experts" into primary and secondary education.

 

Your background appears to be rather unusual. Sophocles? Yeah, I also read the Oedipus trilogy and Homer, both the idiot and the oddity, <grin> in high school. The problem is that when one reads such, one must consider what universal meaning they might have. Oedipus at Colonus is almost certainly as difficult truly to identify with as Shakespeare's King Lear, but is less personal and in Sophocles' way, more of a personal and political analysis of one's responsibilities to oneself and one's culture.

 

Hmmmmm... That latter might be taken in a number of ways, both with and without overt political training intended, as might also Homerian terms such as "the godlike Achilles."

 

<grin> Life is ... interesting, eh?

 

m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know but I spell it incorrectly on purpose, this is how I got this ID. There was a guitarist already but not the incorrect spelled one on yahoo email in 99, so I went with guitarest at Yahoo and it stuck for all the forums.

 

I figured that it was intentional, hence the " [biggrin] "

 

We're all good here, yo. [thumbup]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schools are always failing, hell i think the kids right now are more smarter then they were 20 years ago. But noooooooooooooo, all kids are stupid and im old and cranky. Someone change my diaper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is sent to me from Ed Boyle, who owns Fret Doctor.

 

What it took to get an 8th grade education in 1895...

 

Remember when grandparents and great-grandparents stated that they only had an 8th grade education? Well, check this out. Could any of us have passed the 8th grade in 1895? This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 in Salina , Kansas ,USA .. It was taken from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley Genealogical Society and Library in Salina, and reprinted by the Salina Journal.

 

 

8th Grade Final Exam: Salina , KS - 1895

 

Grammar (Time, one hour)

1. Give nine rules for the use of capital letters

2. Name the parts of speech and define those that have no modifications.

3. Define verse, stanza and paragraph

4. What are the principal parts of a verb? Give principal parts of 'lie,''play,' and 'run'

5. Define case; illustrate each case.

6. What is punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of punctuation.

7 - 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.

 

Arithmetic (Time, 1 hour 15 minutes)

1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.

2. A wagon box is 2 ft. Deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. Wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?

3. If a load of wheat weighs 3,942 lbs., what is it worth at 50cts/bushel, deducting 1,050 lbs. For tare?

4. District No 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?

5. Find the cost of 6,720 lbs. Coal at $6.00 per ton.

6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.

7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft.. Long at $20 per metre?

8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.

9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance of which is 640 rods?

10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt

 

U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)

1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided

2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus

3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.

4. Show the territorial growth of the United States

5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas

6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.

7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton , Bell , Lincoln , Penn, and Howe?

8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, 1865.

 

Orthography (Time, one hour)

[Do we even know what this is??]

1. What is meant by the following: alphabet, phonetic, orthography, etymology, syllabication

2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?

3. What are the following, and give examples of each: trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals

4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u.' (HUH?)

5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e.' Name two exceptions under each rule.

6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.

7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: bi, dis-mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup.

8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.

9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, site, sight, fane, fain, feign, vane , vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.

10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks

And by syllabication.

 

Geography (Time, one hour)

1 What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?

2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?

3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?

4. Describe the mountains of North America

5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver, Manitoba, Hecla, Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco

6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S. Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each.

8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?

9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers.

10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of the earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I try my best to use proper English around you guys, and I'm sorry I called English "stupid" I had no clue it had feelings. (I kid! I kid!)

But I really don't get why people who aren't as grammatically educated get so much flack. This is not a formal forum. But I do get using l33t on a formal paper is unacceptable. But I truly think in today's world, the bastardization of the English language is the least of our worries.

 

Just my .02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Demoon...

 

I don't think it's a matter of kids today having more or less intelligence, it's rather a point of what they are taught and why, and that they're in a population twice what it was when I was a teen.

 

The old concept of the classical education, the trivium and quadrivium, still had a remnant when I was in school. Now it's lost to various bits of political correctness designed to meet federal concepts of a national system that won't insult anybody and promotes a certain general political perspective. The old school was to teach a foundation philosophically as well as technically that then gave the student tools to be a creative person regardless what politics or religious perspectives he might choose to follow later in life.

 

A problem with the current national testing system is that, as is admitted, various tests better suit some folks' cultural experience than others. So in an effort to cover that perceived inequality, the national tests have been turned as much as possible into a-cultural exercises that to me are of questionable value.

 

Meanwhile our teachers, even the best, are left scrambling to meet standards as measured by various tests while a generation or two of perfectly average kids - some incredibly brilliant and some incredibly dull - are not necessarily learning much.

 

An example: Math currently is in a "results based" teaching cycle. The idea is to have kids work together to come up with methods to solve various problems. Oddly classical literature has a number of questions and solutions in terms of considering knowledge, government and general morality that we now ignore in favor of... one hardly knows.

 

How many high school kids today have even heard the terms "epistemology" or "ontology" and considered what value such study might offer them for their next 60 to 70 years?

 

No, the criticism is not against the potential of "kids" your age, but rather the system many people feel short changes especially the brightest of the generation while seeking to dumb them down to fit better with the "average" while coaching the below average as much as possible to look average. That system that cannot meet the test of time.

 

I think we could and should do better with education everywhere. But then too, why do we so seldom teach kids metaphor and allegory? I dunno. Why not make music mandatory in schools given that it's proven to improve student performance in classroom subjects across the board? I dunno. Why instead do we insist on classes that emphasize cultural and personal sensitivity rather than just mandate personal courtesy in and outside the classroom?

 

Some teenagers today are jerks. Probably the same percentage were jerks when I was a kid and when Plato was a kid in ancient Greece. But ditto some adults who are jerks. I don't worry about "jerkdom" because it ain't goin' away.

 

I do worry about giving kids both better tools and perspectives for decisions they will make during their lifetime from young adult ethics to choices they must make in another 50-60 years as their parents drift into the frailties of illness and age.

 

m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do we do then Milod? What can we do to make education better? I just dont understand how the people can fix something so big and the goverment cant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kimba...

 

The problem is that grammar is like mathematics. Literally it is like mathematics.

 

Forming an equation with incorrect terms will bring error. Ditto language.

 

Informal language is fun, and it can be very emotionally expressive.

 

But consider just the simplest of song lyrics. It has no real meaning without understanding metaphor and allusion formed under a sensible grammatical construction, and words that have precise meanings and overtones.

 

Don't get me wrong, informal grammar that has lasted, has done so because it is perceived as a functioning mathematical construct. "He ain't here" may or may not be considered "proper" English, but I'll wager that few native Anglophones have difficulty with the meaning.

 

So... yeah, it matters. Style depends on the gravity of what you wish to convey and the audience to which it is directed. Whether formal or informal grammar, it must be precise in meeting conventions that will transfer the meaning you wish to be transferred.

 

Poetry, lyrics, sometimes push the limits of grammar - but one might note that they become classics not by being inadequate, but by taking a leap over the rules that emphasizes deeper meanings.

 

John Lee Hooker was almost proudly illiterate. His language was informal and crude - but he knew the rules of communication. It ain't formally grammatical, but it follows the rules.

 

One bourbon, one scotch, and one beer

One bourbon, one scotch, and one beer

Hey mister bartender come here

I want another drink and I want it now

 

My baby she gone, she been gone two night

I ain't seen my baby since night before last

One bourbon, one scotch, and one beer

 

m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kimba...

 

Well, few would question that we've quite lost the vocative; although we have wordings that indicate means, we've no ablative. The subjunctive has become virtually an underground and arcane usage. English lost sensitivity through losses of word endings that defined their use. But those were replaced by yet another set of rules.

 

Again, the styles may change, words come in and out of vogue, but the rules remain that require a certain sort of well-considered mathematical precision if one is to have the ability to speak on multiple levels of formality. That is especially true if one wishes to speak lyrically with multiple layers of meaning.

 

m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I blame the both the modern day education system and my generation equally for the following reasons:

 

1. The education system in America today is completely worthless. I spend most of my school days literally sitting at my desk doing nothing. In the modern day high school you can do half the work and still pass with a B average. I'm a perfect example of this. This past school year I rarely ever even attempted to do my homework, never studied for tests, and still manage to get all A's and B's. Why work hard when there's no motivation to do so?

 

2. Most of my generation really just doesn't give a $hit. Education just isn't important anymore. No one cares about proper grammar. As long as the person they're talking to understands what they're saying grammar doesn't matter. All they care about is what object they're gonna get next. We literally do whatever it takes to get what we want. Assuming whatever it takes is easy of course. They don't call us the generation of instant gratification for nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a documentary on the english language once. It was quite a revelation to understand where words came from and how we pronounce things differently. The presenter who has a PHD in English literature made one comment that stuck with me.

 

The English language is the most evolving language in the world, this is because it is the most bastardized language. The Scots added their bit the Irish and the Welsh the Romans the Vikings and mainly the Normans adding French to the Language. For instance before the Normans in 1066 if you were a king or queen you were described as kingly or queenly with the Normans the title became "Royal".

 

The words ate and eaten used to be Et, my mum is from Liverpool and she still says et as in have you et your dinner. but in old English she's right.

 

In Australia there is a difference between how things are pronounced from state to state as it is with the USA depending on the people who settled there.

 

For instance how one pronounces the word "Schedule"

The American version of it is Sked-dual English true Queens English pronounce it as Shed-dual most English people in s survey are now pronouncing the word as the Americans do.

We say Plant as Plaant Americans and East coast Australians pronounce it as pl-ant like one would say the word ANT

 

Even most Americans say Aunt as Ant where as In Australia and the UK its pronounced Arnt. there is no right or wrong its the evolution of a global language.

 

My only frustration with America was their description of toilets. "do you know where the toilet is?" its in the bathroom was one response I got. Bathroom,restroom, powder room even lavatory and latrine. man it was lucky I didnt have a weak bladder. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...