Wow...and they say English/American is a hard language to learn!!!

[JayBrown80]

Originally Posted by G Grasshopper

I have no objection to slang, (how awful that would be - to get bent out of shape when anyone uses slang) but I actually had never heard of "prolly" before your post. I'm sure I use as much slang as anyone else when talking, but I use much less when writing. But that's just me. There are no laws against writing with slang. And I didn't say that the country was illiterate, but was trying to say that, by degrees, we seem to be less and less able to use the language. Read how beautifully people wrote many years ago, and you can see it. In addition, people seem to be reading at a lower grade level than they used to. But people still communicate, and that is the purpose of language. It is a conundrum for lovers of language; on the one hand, it seems petty and stuck in the past to always be correcting people, but on the other hand, it does seem that the English language is something that should be protected, somehow.

In one of the other threads, you asserted that "I pool is meant to be swam in" is correct. I agree that it is hard to find a reference on this usage. When I looked it up, I could find all the perfect forms, but not that one. But I still think it is an error. If you put that sentance into a Word document and do a spell and grammar check, it will say that "swum" is the right form. But I couldn't find a deffinitive source. So I guess we will have to call it a draw.

And without realizing it, here, at this moment, you and I have discovered the reason that the English language is slowly devolving. There is no definitive source and we couldn't find it if there was.

I love language too. I think etymology is a fascinating subject. I don't think it needs to be protected though.

I mean, look at the word "help". 500 years ago, the past tense of the word "help" was "halp". As in, "Yesterday I halp my brother milk yonder cow." It was a mouthful though, so people began to say "helped" for the past tense, because other words use -ed to indicate past tense. This was considered to be very common slang, certainly not something royalty would use. And yet, give it some time, and now the "slang" term is correct, and no one has even heard of the word "halp". In another 500 years, the plural for cactus will be "cactuses" and people will look at you funny if you say "cacti".

I don't think this is a bad thing though. Although it seems like we are getting "stupider" about our language when we look at it changing from decade to decade, in reality, it's just chugging along right with us. And since we determine the rules, whose to say we are wrong?

Oh! And people right beautifully now! Read any of Sarah Vowel's books. Remember, one of the biggest criticisms Mark Twain faced in his life was that he used the "base vernacular" when writing his books. Gotta love that slang talk!

[kiacook]

The one that bothers me the most is the use of "less" in the place of "fewer". "Less" should be used with a singular (less milk), and "fewer" with a plural (fewer eggs).

This drives me crazy also. It's such a lovely distinction between the meanings of the two kinds of words.

When I use the term "fewer" with calories or eggs or cars I think about each individual item. When I use "less" with water or anger I think about the mass of liquid and emotion. It paints a picture in my mind.

[G Grasshopper]

Originally Posted by kiacook

When I use the term "fewer" with calories or eggs or cars I think about each individual item. When I use "less" with water or anger I think about the mass of liquid and emotion. It paints a picture in my mind.

A good way to think about it. Thanks.

Years ago, I actually took the time to write to companies using "less calories" in their advertising. A lot of good that did! I mostly try to ignore it, rather than "tilting at windmills."