next »

[Yamor]

I dunno... Is 19,400 not called common? I've definitely seen it a few times...

[ljsmall]

Well we've just created 4 more hits!

I absolutely agree with you on the movement of English and the way it grows and mutates. it's been doing so ever since it's existance, the exact point of which is impossible to pinpoint for this very reason. Problem is it was standardised and the way we judge how and when items move from coloquial use into correct use and then on to formal use is still in debate. Is it when most people do it? How can you judge that? Is it when OED says so? If so, why pick OED for such a privelage. Surely that in itself is subscribing to archaic values. Is it when it is largely accepted by the general public? Again, how can you measure this?

Should this whole debate then overlap into spelling. What is the point in insisting, for example, we spell love L-O-V-E and not L-U-V as is becoming so common if we allow vocabulary to move with the times so rapidly?

I believe I lie somewhere in the middle on this debate. I think it's to do with the fact that in speech I am entirely liberal and totally for language variation in the auditory. However, when it comes to the written language in formal situations i'm pretty archaic I'm afraid.

Wow, this has gone seriously

Would love to hear your opinion on this but I suppose we should start another topic in chit chat. I know Laura and Dana will probably have something to say. Neil, as always, will also have to get his two cents worth...

(and I do spell and pronounce definitely wrong too!)

[measdale]

Ignoring Mark (so easy) ...

Not really a structured argument/statement, but some random thoughts:
OED's quite a good reference, if only 'cos (yeah, I put an apostrophe in) it's the most comprehensive work on the English language.
Colloquial into Correct is surely only a measure of appropriateness, and that's dictated by the nature and size of the audience. If the audience is going to be confused, then best not to use it, unless you're specifically referring to that owning colloquial group. A good example might be the plural form of "you" which still exists (y'all, youse) - people use it, but only in either their local context or in a context where it's clear that they're representing appropriate communication (like thee and tha in Summer Wine, but not in the Six o'Clock News).
I'd find it more difficult to comment on "formal" use, since I'm not sure what you would class as a formal context? Are we still so socially elitist, any more, to have retained such a thing? If it's correct, then it's correct everywhere.
Then again, when does "dis" become an acceptable verb for the News, or the Times leader?

[measdale]

That's clearly not the case, and won't be, as long as academia exists. In an academic context 'correct' will always have finite boundaries.

But there's academic and academic ...

The University of Milton Keynes (or whatever) might be sticky about these things, but probably just because of its inferiority complex: surely Oxford, on t'other hand, should be happy with anything which is in the OED?

And it probably varies by discipline: in theory, English departments should be the most cutting edge with their use of vocabulary, grammar and spelling. And other departments should learn from the masters.

[ljsmall]

But there's academic and academic ...

The University of Milton Keynes (or whatever) might be sticky about these things, but probably just because of its inferiority complex: surely Oxford, on t'other hand, should be happy with anything which is in the OED?

And it probably varies by discipline: in theory, English departments should be the most cutting edge with their use of vocabulary, grammar and spelling. And other departments should learn from the masters.

actually English departments become the most strict when it comes to correct use.

[ljsmall]

I think that's possibly a bit to harsh...

[Mark]

As usual you're making me travel sick, measdale