Conference thebay::joyoflex

>    And we all know the original of his classic, don't we?


I know I'm slow, but what is the original??

Jerry

    Re .0 (Nick):
    
    >"Well, frankly, the problem as I see it
    >At this moment in time is whether I
    > ...
    
    I find that hard to relate to the opening of the original.
    You don't start on the second sentence.

    Re .1 (Jerry):
    
    I'll tell you offline.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.    
    

Potential spoiler below.



Hamlet ? 
"To be or not be" and all that stuff ?

    The original is, of course, Hamlet's famous soliloquy that begins, "To
    be, or not to be..."
    
    It's coincidental that this should come up. I am reading _The Story of
    English_, and in it the authors comment that every age has its
    "language conservatives," those who see English as "being corrupted by
    slang and sloven usage."
    
    It's not a new outlook, by any means. Jonathan Swift, the famous author
    of _Gulliver's Travels_, constantly bemoaned the state of the language
    in his century, the eighteenth. And it was in that century that
    produced Johnson's dictionary, a reaction to the state of the English
    language; and an attempt to bring some order to the written word in
    English. So the battle rages on to this day!
    
    I agree with Prince Charles to an extent - like him, I am a
    conservative when it comes to the English language; however, I do
    believe that the very power of any language resides in its having at its
    disposal as many nuances of meaning as possible for its speakers, even
    if some of these nuances don't always seem in good taste. After all,
    Twain elevated American regional speech and idioms to literary genius
    in his Mississippi novels, didn't he?
    
    Today, though, I can't help but think that anyone who loves the 
    English language is almost certainly bored with most writing and 
    speaking in English. Where are our great poets? Who are the great 
    speakers today of the English language? I would say that Charles 
    himself is a very good speaker, but where are the T.S. Eliots 
    and the H.L. Menckens of our day? Where are the people who live for
    languages and _belles lettres_?  

    
    Who was it who produced 'The Skinhead's Hamlet' -- it's in the _Faber
    Book of Parodies_.  A modern classic, considerably condensing the 
    original and owing much to the 'f' word. 
    
    Richard.

Re a couple back:


	Where are the people who live for languages and _belles lettres_?  


Why, reading JOY_OF_LEX, of course.


Larry 

    RE: .6
    
    Someone should tell the prince about us.
    
    :-)

    When creating the .0 entry I did wonder about asking our Moderator
    if he could arrange Conference membership for HRH.
                     
    Dave, any chance?

    :-)

	Not sure if this really wants a serious reply or not, but did
	HRH consider that language works in context?  Yes, Hamlet in
	modern colloquial speech sounds pretty silly.  But then again,
	if Charles walked around talking in poetic Elizabethan, some
	people might think it rather strange.  Kind of reminds me of HRH's 
	famous ancestor, George III, who, at one point in his life, 
	insisted on ending all his sentences with the word "peacock."
	His advisors got him to give it up by convincing him that 
	"peacock" was a special royal word that George shouldn't use 
	around just anybody.  

	All in all, stick to architecture, Charlie.

		-- Cliff	

    Re: .9
    
    You miss the point.  Charles is not offering Elizabethan English as an
    alternative to today's cliche-riddled speech; he is dramatizing the
    absurdity of the latter by offering a parody of one of the most
    familiar and masterful examples from English literature.
    
    His parody is all the more relevant when one considers that it isn't
    even a slight exaggeration.  This morning on National Public Radio's
    program _Morning Edition_, a new film was discussed and an actress who
    appeared in it was interviewed.  She described the film as "so
    massively huge."  That was her _only_ description.
    
    The point is that today's speech is not only incomprehensible, but we
    are faced with having to attempt to communicate with more and more
    people who cannot express even their most elementary thoughts in clear,
    simple English.
    
    Bernie

    HRH made his parody of the Hamlet speech as an illustration and
    the main point of his anguish seemed to be directed towards the
    modern trend to 'popularise' religious writing.
    
    He claimed that Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer was so wonderful
    that it should not be tampered with. He was speaking at a prize
    giving ceremony and 1989 commemorates the 500th anniversary of
    Cranmer's birth. He also said that the elevated language of this
    and similar works should remain as it is because God _is_ Elevated.
                                                             
    Bucko...

    G'day,
    
    As one who passed his school "Certificate in the Use of English" (is
    that still around?) I have tried to maintain a "good" level of English
    grammar and language usage in both oral and written work. I have tried
    to inculcate this habit into my children too - but with perhaps only
    marginal success. True, they both _know_ how to 'speak proper, like
    what I does', but the younger certainly chooses not to. For example, in
    describing the Superb Blue wren, a minute and attractive bird found
    locally, he used the expression "look at that little small bird". Now,
    when I was at school, the use of little and small were mutually
    exclusive and no amount of persuasion could induce my son to use an
    alternative to one or the other such as 'very small' or somesuch. He
    maintains that the bird was both little and small and that's how it is.
    
    And yet, why do I have the rule in my mind that these adjectives are
    mutually exclusive? is it _really_ wrong to use both? Or should my son
    widen his vocabulary?
    
    derek 

	Food for thought:

	o  This is a good point, but couldn't it be used to justify 
	   almost *any* existing social institution?	Doesn't it
	   really just say "Conform to what exists and you'll be okay"?
           Doesn't it really just says that something exists, not that 
	   it's right?

	o  You seem to make elite dialects sound very inclusive.  In the 
	   history of language, however, these are typically exclusive -- 
	   even oppressive.

	o  Why can't our languages standards change to reflect a changing,
	   more pluralistic society?  Why do speakers have to conform to
	   rigid standards, instead of the standards conforming to actual
	   speakers?

>     It is my impression that the mission of our public school system is
>     to educate our children to the degreee that they may make their way 
>     in a normalized society.  If certain individuals or groups choose to
>     restrict themselves to a linguistic subculture they have the freedom to 
>     do so, but I think they should at least be exposed to the fact that the 
>     "outside world" does exist and that a prerequisite to successful
>     achievement in the greater society is largely dependent upon good 
>     communication skills. 

	o  Why do you equate "good communication" with knowing a 
	   prestige dialect?  Are non-prestige dialects full of 
	   inconsistencies, irrationalities, missing pieces, etc. that 
	   frustrate their users in basic speech acts?  Descriptive
	   linguists have not found this to be the case.

>     The fact that our language continues to grow with the addition of
>     new words and terms of expression should not be confused with the
>     attempts to give legitimacy to less than acceptable use of the language 
>     through ignorance, laziness or peer influence.

	o  "Less acceptable" in what terms?  Can you show how dialects 
	   are formed through "ignorance" or "laziness"?  Also, it seems 
	   to me that "peer influence" is a natural vehicle for language 
	   change.  What are your alternatives?  Why do you bring up the
	   issue of "legitimacy"?  What constitutes "legitimate" language 
	   for you?  Sounds like we're getting into some pretty evaluative
	   areas here.

	o  Also, sounds like this is a good point to bring up some
	   real examples.  "Abominations," "incomprehensibility," etc. 
	   are always easy to talk about when you're not talking about
	   anything specific.
	
	Cheers,

		-- Cliff

    Re: .11
    
    >> The point is that today's speech is not only incomprehensible,
    >> but we are faced with having to attempt to communicate with
    >> more and more people who cannot express even their most elementary
    >> thoughts in clear, simple English.
    
    > I cannot believe that you really mean this, in the way that I
    > interpreted it.  Firstly, it is a gross generalization that is
    > as true or untrue as at any other point in the history of the
    > English language.
    
    What I said was no generalization at all.  I see evidence daily of the
    inability of more and more people to express their thoughts clearly and
    comprehensibly.  It is a sad fact, not a generalization.  It is true
    that such people have always been with us.  It is not true, however,
    that they have been graduates of secondary schools and universities;
    nor is it the case that so many of them have been so prominent and
    influential, as is the case today - thanks to the mass media.
    
    
    > Practicing prescripive grammar in the way Prince Charles seems to
    > advocate is nothing short of linguisitc bigotry.
    
    Prince Charles is making a plea for the clear expression of thoughts in
    plain English and for improvement of English skills.  It is not bigotry
    to wish to understand what people say.  Nor is it bigotry to encourage the
    ignorant to acquire understanding or the incompetent to acquire the
    skills they lack.
    
    
    > The fact that particular idiolects, social groups, or media choose
    > to express themselves in a particular manner is part of the
    > linguistic makeup of any population.
    
    Charles is not addressing the manner in which people _choose_ to
    express themselves, but, sadly, the only manner in which they are
    capable of expressing themselves.  Anyone may express himself in any
    manner he chooses; that is not at issue.  What is at issue is the fact
    that they do not express themselves effectively, fail miserably to
    communicate, and (as this incompetent and ignorant population
    increases) degrade the standards of grammar and expression.
    
    > Language evolves, diversifies, and enriches itself through the 
    > experiences of its speakers.  To see one form of self-expression
    > through language as being in some way 'superior' to another is
    > naive and, in my opinion, bigoted.
    
    Some forms of what you call "self-expression through language" are
    indeed superior to others.  Nothing could be more obvious.  Those who
    can express their thoughts clearly are certainly superior in this
    respect to those who cannot.  It is not bigoted to recognize the fact
    that some people are better at expressing themselves than others and
    some forms of expression are more effective than others.
    
    
    > Not every individual has the same pool of linguistic knowledge from
    > which to draw upon when they speak or write.
    
    Indeed not; but we all have the ability to improve.  And improvement
    seems to me a much better solution than interpreting poor English and
    incomprehensible speech to be just as good as proper English and clear
    speech.  And encouraging people to improve their abilities in English
    is a much better approach than labeling criticism of incomprehensible
    speech as bigoted.
    
    Bernie
    

    > And encouraging people to improve their abilities in English
    > is a much better approach than labeling criticism of incomprehensible
    > speech as bigoted.
    
    1)  Just because some people find others' speech to be incomprehensible
    doesn't mean those others are not expressing themselves clearly.  I
    would have a hard time comprehending speakers of what linguists refer
    to as Black English Vernacular, but that doesn't mean those speakers
    are employing a dialect any less comprehensible, expressive, or logical
    than "standard" English.
    
    2)  What makes you think people who can't express themselves clearly in
    English just aren't trying hard enough or lack sufficient knowledge of
    "proper" English?  Maybe they just have a hard time with language
    itself through no fault of their own.  We all have varying degrees of
    ability; not everybody was destined to be clear and lucid in speech and
    writing.
    
    - David
    

    	Language is just a type of tool for communication. Other types
    include gestures, and drawing cartoon pictures. A tool can be
    
    1) Unsuited to the job (Berber for discussing computers, English for
    discussing camel breeding).
    
    2) A badly made tool. I will not try to give an example here since I am
    sure it will cause dissension.
    
    3) Incompetently used. This is what Prince Charles was talking about.
    
    	Again, the intent is communication, and the speaker has to consider
    his intended audience. If I want to talk about camel breeding to the
    world in general, then I had better learn Berber since a substantial
    proportion of the interested audience can understand that. This
    conference has several examples of differences between English and
    American; if I know my audience is mainly American I might use the
    American idiom to ensure easier communication, I might use the English
    idiom from sheer ignorance, I might use the English idiom to emphasise
    "I'm English and you're not".
    
    	Whatever the language used, if the speaker is making deliberate
    choices in his expression, and in knowlege of his audience, then he is
    conveying more information than if he is too ignorant to be able to
    make any choice.

    Another aspect of the Prince's condemnation of modern English
    concerned the quality or extent of the teaching.
    
    There seems to be an over-emphasis in some teaching circles in the UK to
    encourage the use of 'expressive language' at the expense of accuracy
    of spelling, grammar and punctuation.
    
    One of the consequences is that the impact the author is striving
    for is lost.  The reader or listener is distracted by having to
    struggle to unravel the meaning from the mis-spellings, bad
    constructions and misplaced or missing punctuation.

    FWIW I think that without complete teaching and proper use of these
    aspects of a language, creative thought will be stifled and the
    nations affected will decline.
    
    Nick

    Re: .19
    
    > Just because some people find others' speech to be incomprehensible
    > doesn't mean those others are not expressing themselves clearly.
    
    It does in the case under discussion.  We have not been discussing
    people who speak a limited ghetto or rural dialect, who are attempting
    to communicate to other people who have no experience of the dialect. 
    We have been discussing ordinary people like you and me: shop clerks,
    dentists, engineers, and insurance agents.  Too many of these people,
    as Prince Charles correctly pointed out, haven't the command of their
    own language even to the extent that they can formulate the simplest of
    sentences to communicate their most elementary thoughts.  Their common
    speech consists almost entirely of the most banal cliches and tiresome,
    repetitive fillers - and the rest of us are left to wonder what the
    hell they are trying to say.
    
    
    > What makes you think people who can't express themselves clearly in
    > English just aren't trying hard enough or lack sufficient knowledge
    > of "proper" English.
    
    Direct experience.  I have worked with some truly unfortunate people
    who are mentally retarded.  Even they, with some hard work, are capable
    of learning to effectively express their thoughts and feelings in clear,
    simple, plain English.
    
    
    > Maybe they just have a hard time with English through no fault of
    > their own.
    
    Just having "a hard time with English through no fault of [one's] own"
    sounds like a modern teen-age wail: "I just can't learn English (or
    math, or chemistry); I'm just not good at it.  It's not my fault." 
    What nonsense!  The shop clerks, dentists, and engineers are all
    capable of learning to communicate their thoughts clearly in plain,
    standard English with a bit of study and work.  If they do not learn to
    do so and continue to fail to communicate, it is their fault and no one
    else's.
    
    Bernie
    

re: .22
    
    >    We have been discussing ordinary people like you and me: shop clerks,
>    dentists, engineers, and insurance agents.  Too many of these people,
>    as Prince Charles correctly pointed out, haven't the command of their
>    own language even to the extent that they can formulate the simplest of
>    sentences to communicate their most elementary thoughts. 

    What makes you think that the average shopkeeper, apothecary,
    engineer, or insurance agent standing in the pits at the Globe
    theater making lewd jokes about Ophelia had any better command of
    his or her own language?  The few recorded snippets of common
    speech from the Elizabethan age indicate that daily speech was
    just as cliched and slangy as ours is.

    And if you want to see something painfully incomprehensible, you
    should look at transcripts of theives' cant from Victorian
    England.  

    As for the great writers and speakers of today -- here are some I
    read in just the past couple of weeks:
    
    Carl Sagan
    Lewis Thomas
    Mike Royko
    William F. Buckley
    Tom Wolfe
    Rita Mae Brown
    
    Now, these are not all elegant writers.  But they are all clear,
    concise, precise, and interesting, and they all care deeply about
    the language and about their subjects.  
    
    --bonnie

    Re: .23
    
    Who has been talking about Elizabethan Enland?  What has it to do with
    this discussion?  If what you say is true about the engineers, etc. of
    Shakespear's time, then they too could have used a Prince Charles to
    goad them into improvement.
    
    If Elizabethan Englishmen could not express their ideas in the clear
    English of their day, that fact does not justify the abominable speech
    of our day.
    
    I agree that the writers you cite manage to communicate well on paper;
    and I am sure that many can also formulate clear sentences verbally. 
    What has that to do with this discussion?
    
    Bernie

re. a couple back.

>....Too many of these people, as Prince Charles correctly pointed out,
haven't the command of their own language even to the extent that they can
formulate the simplest of sentences to communicate their most elementary
thoughts.... 
    
Let's play with this one for a while.  Are you saying that formulating a
simple sentence such as "I am hungry" which communicates a very elementary
thought (I will explain what the thought is for you some other time, if you
can't figure it out for yourself) is beyond the capability of your dentists,
shop clerks, et al?  How simple must the sentence be and how elementary the 
thought?

Sheesh!

Larry

re: .24

    Prince Charles was talking about Elizabethan England.  He was
    parodying Shakespeare, who was an Elizabethan actor and
    businessman who wrote plays so his stage company would have some
    good plays to present.  Prince Charles said that the English
    language had become a wasteland, implying that it was once better,
    and several other notes have agreed with him.
    
    My point is that English usage is, on the whole, no worse than it
    ever was.  There are still people using it well, majestically,
    elegantly, humorously, concisely, sarcastically, insightfully,
    with repsect and love for the words and the ideas.  Maybe we have
    trouble seeing them sometimes through the cloud of the more
    obvious junk, but they're there.  They always will be. 
    
    And there have always been and always will be people using the
    language carelessly, in a cliche-ridden way that reflects
    cliche-ridden thought.  It hasn't killed the language in 500 years
    and I doubt that it's going to kill it today.
    
    It's easy to look back at the literary greats of an age and think
    that everyone of that time was as erudite as those who have found
    immortality.  But Shakespeare was exceptional in his time (and, on
    a totally irrelevant note, a lousy speller) just as Dickens was in
    his.  
    
    True, *style* has changed since the days when the King James Bible
    and the Book of Common Prayer, whose purity Prince Charles wishes
    to uphold, were seen as examples of plain and simple prose. Today
    we prefer a plainer, more direct way of speaking and less
    elaborate structures in written pieces.  But those are issues of
    design, not of quality.
    
    And I'll repeat again that you cannot compare written language,
    such as a Shakespearean play, a newspaper column, or a speech
    composed ahead of time, to spoken language such as street
    conversation or press conference replies.  You have time to
    reread, edit, and change anything you write.  When you're
    speaking, if you've made a gaffe, that's it, it's too late, it's
    already out.   And Charles, by using spoken English to parody a
    piece of written language, implied that our everyday speech should
    sound like a Shakespearean play.  
    
    --bonnie    

    
    > We have not been discussing people who speak a limited ghetto or rural 
    > dialect, who are attempting to communicate to other people who have no 
    > experience of the dialect.
    
    "Ghetto" or "rural" dialects are no more "limited" than any other
    dialect.  They are as fully developed, logical, and expressive as
    whatever dialect you speak.

    > I have worked with some truly unfortunate people
    > who are mentally retarded.  Even they, with some hard work, are capable
    > of learning to effectively express their thoughts and feelings in clear,
    > simple, plain English.
    
    Yes, and some mentally retarded people can express themselves with
    musical instruments and paintbrushes in ways I could never dream of
    doing.  Does that mean I'm just not trying hard enough - that I, too,
    should be able to acquire these abilities if I work hard enough?
    
    > Just having "a hard time with English through no fault of [one's] own"
    > sounds like a modern teen-age wail: "I just can't learn English (or
    > math, or chemistry); I'm just not good at it.  It's not my fault." 
    > What nonsense!  The shop clerks, dentists, and engineers are all
    > capable of learning to communicate their thoughts clearly in plain,
    > standard English with a bit of study and work.  If they do not learn to
    > do so and continue to fail to communicate, it is their fault and no one
    > else's.
    
    There are undoubtedly people whose inability to communicate stems from
    a lack of effort.  However, to say that all members of your selected
    group (shop clerks, engineers, dentists) are capable of acquiring a
    specific ability and are entirely at fault if they don't is utter
    elitist nonsense.  Would you care to offer evidence why the acquisition
    of linguistic (or mathematical or chemical) ability is so different from
    other abilities that anyone who doesn't acquire such an ability is
    somehow "deficient" or "lazy"?
    
    - snopes
    
    
    
    
    

    Re: .26
    
    Perhaps we are splitting hairs here.  Prince Charles was not talking
    about Elizabethan England - he was using an example from Shakespeare to
    illustrate a point about today's English.  By his parody he was not
    commenting on Shakespeare; he was commenting on today's speech.  He
    wasn't implying tha the spoken language of today should emulate
    Shakespearean drama; his comment (quoted by Nick in .0) was directed
    at today's speech: "...impoverished, sloppy and limited, a dismal
    wasteland of banality, cliche and casual obscenity."  Surely you are
    not saying that he was referring to Shakespearean or Elizabethan English.
    
    I agree that some speakers today do quite well.  That is not at issue. 
    The mass of us do not do at all well.  And the proportion of us who are
    incompetent (which today includes the victims of modern education) is
    greater than ever before.  In addition, the incompetent and the
    ignorant are influential today (thanks to the mass media) as they have
    never been in the past.
    
    As long as we promote the fact that mediocrity and ignorance have
    always been with us and represents, therefore, no threat to the
    language, we may as well promote the decline.  By the same logic one
    could argue that murder has always been with us and, therefore,
    represents no threat to society.  It ignores the fact that murder is
    now out of control and we are no longer safe in parks or city streets.
    
    Instead of attacking the problem of English compentency, we declare it
    not to be a problem at all.  We declare that the speech and grammar of
    the mediocre, the incompetent, and the ignorant are "as good as" that
    of the literate.  I believe that the problem has not only gotten worse,
    but that it is at a crisis stage and we are in real danger of doing severe
    damage to the language.
    
    
    Although I am a bit out of my depth here, I believe it is absurd to
    criticize Shakespeare as a poor speller.  English spelling was not yet
    standardized.
    
    Bernie

    Re: .27
    
    > "Ghetto" or "rural" dialects are no more "limited" than any other
    > dialect.  They are as fully developed, logical, and expressive as
    > whatever dialect you speak.
    
    I disagree.  Ghetto and rural dialects are severely limited when
    compared with, say Scottish or New England dialects.  The latter speak
    standard English with a burr or a twang.  The former speak a
    specialized subset that meets only the needs of their immediate
    environment.
    
    
    > ...some mentally retarded people can express themselves with musical
    > instruments and paintbrushes in ways I could never dream of doing.
    > Does that mean I'm just not trying hard enough - that I, too, should
    > be able to acquire these abilities if I work hard enough?
    
    That's exactly what it means.  As long as you convince yourself that
    you are incapable of learning and acquiring basic skills, you will
    probably remain so.  You are as capable as anyone else of acquiring
    basic skills in anything you attempt.
    
    
    > There are undoubtedly people whose inability to communicate stems
    > from lack of effort.  However, to say that all members of your
    > selected group (shop clerks, engineers, dentists) are capable of
    > acquiring specific ability and are entirely at fault if they don't
    > is utter elitist nonsense.
    
    It is exactly the opposite of what you call "elitist nonsense."  It is
    an affirmation that anyone with effort can acquire basic skills.  It is
    true elitist nonsense to suggest, as you have done, that there are some
    people who are incapable no matter how hard they try.
    
    Bernie

    
    > Although I am a bit out of my depth here, I believe it is absurd to
    > criticize Shakespeare as a poor speller.  English spelling was not yet
    > standardized.
    
    Since no manuscripts in Shakespeare's hand exist, nobody could possibly
    know what kind of speller he was.
    
    - snopes
    
    

    
    > I disagree.  Ghetto and rural dialects are severely limited when
    > compared with, say Scottish or New England dialects.  The latter speak
    > standard English with a burr or a twang.  The former speak a
    > specialized subset that meets only the needs of their immediate
    > environment.
    
    Completely wrong.  Again: *every* human language/dialect is as complex
    and as capable of expressing any thought or idea as any other human
    language/dialect.  To assert otherwise is to display an ignorance of
    linguistics.  
    
    > As long as you convince yourself that
    > you are incapable of learning and acquiring basic skills, you will
    > probably remain so.  You are as capable as anyone else of acquiring
    > basic skills in anything you attempt.
    
    There are many people who are hindered in acquiring skills by the
    belief that they will fail, yes.  To suggest that one is capable of
    acquiring basic skills in anything attempted, however, is ludicrous.
    
    Again: where is your proof?  Would you care to show some evidence to
    support your opinion?  I need only present one person on this entire
    planet (of reasonable intelligence) who has made a diligent effort to 
    acquire a basic skill in something and failed in order to disprove your 
    assertion.  I like my odds.
    
    > It is exactly the opposite of what you call "elitist nonsense."  It is
    > an affirmation that anyone with effort can acquire basic skills.  It is
    > true elitist nonsense to suggest, as you have done, that there are some
    > people who are incapable no matter how hard they try.
    
    This is the same kind of junk I read in SOAPBOX.  Where in the heck did
    you get the notion that language acquisition and usage (especially on
    the level you advocate) is a "basic skill"?  Human language is one of
    the most complex systems ever devised by mankind.  That so many people
    are already reasonably proficient in language use is what is astonishing.
    
    - snopes
    

.29> Shakespearean drama; his comment (quoted by Nick in .0) was directed
.29> at today's speech: "...impoverished, sloppy and limited, a dismal
.29> wasteland of banality, cliche and casual obscenity."  Surely you are
.29> not saying that he was referring to Shakespearean or Elizabethan English.
   
	Are you talking about the English that Shakespeare and Elizabeth
	I spoke?  If so, no.  If you're talking about the language that
	the ordinary Englishmen spoke, the point that the other noters
	were trying to make was that it is just as impoverished, sloppy,
	banal, obscene ... as English is today -- and that HRH would
	probably have said the exact same thing if he had been alive 
	back then.
 
.29> language, we may as well promote the decline.  By the same logic one
.29> could argue that murder has always been with us and, therefore,
.29> represents no threat to society.  It ignores the fact that murder is
.29> now out of control and we are no longer safe in parks or city streets.
    
	I'm sorry, but I don't see murder and ending sentences with
	prepositions as having much in common.  You have already assumed 
	that English is "in decline."  Once again, how about some
	examples, so we may share that assumption? -- especially of the 
	deadly serious, culture-threatening, civilization-ending things 
	you talk about.  Lack of examples and evaluative language do not 
	make for good debate.

		Convenient mythologies require neither evidence nor
		logic ... ideologically useful accusation will stand
		merely on the basis of endless repetition.

			-- Noam Chomsky, _Manufacturing Consent_

.30> I disagree.  Ghetto and rural dialects are severely limited when
.30> compared with, say Scottish or New England dialects.  The latter speak
.30> standard English with a burr or a twang.  The former speak a
.30> specialized subset that meets only the needs of their immediate
.30> environment.

.30> That's exactly what it means.  As long as you convince yourself that
.30> you are incapable of learning and acquiring basic skills, you will
.30> probably remain so.  You are as capable as anyone else of acquiring
.30> basic skills in anything you attempt.
    
	Point 1: Okay, standard English is now, not only clear communi-
	cation, but "basic skills."  Other people's cultures are "their 
	immediate environments"; the dominant culture is "the outside
	world" (that's from another noter).  Do you realize how
	biased this is?  Do you realize the social implications of
	this?  

	Point 2: Okay, fine, it's nice to know that I *can* do this.  Now,
	tell me why I should.  Yes, Standard English is the dialect of the
	people in power, and if I want to get ahead in this society, I
	need to know that dialect.  I have no problem with that -- it's
	just an example of using the appropriate dialect for the context.
	But, can you tell me why that dialect is somehow superior? why I
	am incomprehensible when I use my own? why I am ignorant? illiterate?
	banal? sloppy? obscene?

	Thanks,

		-- Cliff

	P.S.  For those of you who are interested, this is an even hotter 
	      topic in JOKUR::GRAMMAR.

    
>    I agree that some speakers today do quite well.  That is not at issue. 
>    The mass of us do not do at all well.  And the proportion of us who are
>    incompetent (which today includes the victims of modern education) is
>    greater than ever before.  
 
Care to cite some statistics or other documentation to back up this
fantastic assertion?  I always thought that a higher literacy rate
meant people were becoming more linguistically competent, not less.
   
>    As long as we promote the fact that mediocrity and ignorance have
>    always been with us and represents, therefore, no threat to the
>    language, we may as well promote the decline.  

>    I believe that the problem has not only gotten worse, but that it is at a 
>    crisis stage and we are in real danger of doing severe damage to the 
>    language.

"There seems to have been in every period in the past, as there is now,
a distinct apprehension in the minds of very many worthy persons that the 
English tongue is always in the condition approaching collapse and that
arduous efforts must be put forth persistently to save it from destruction."

- Thomas R. Lounsbury, Grammarian: 1908

We don't seem to have irrevocably "damaged" English yet.  Why is the present
any different than Lounsbury's time or any other period in our history?

- snopes

    
>    I disagree.  Ghetto and rural dialects are severely limited when
>    compared with, say Scottish or New England dialects.  The latter speak
>    standard English with a burr or a twang.  The former speak a
>    specialized subset that meets only the needs of their immediate
>    environment.
 
"The term *dialect*, particularly when it is used in reference to regional
variation, should not be confused with the term *accent*.   Standard English,
for example, is spoken with a variety of accents: there are accents associated
with North America, Liverpool, Tyneside, Boston, New York, and so on, but
many people who live in such places show a remarkable uniformity to one another
in their grammar and vocabulary . . ."

Ronald Wardaugh - "An Introduction to Sociolinguistics" 

"A standard dialect may have social functions -- to bind people together
or to provide a common written form for multidialectal speakers.  It is,
however, neither more expressive, more logical, more complex, nor more
regular than any other dialect.  Any judgments, therefore, as to the
superiority or inferiority of a particular dialect are social judgments, not 
linguistic or scientific ones."

Victoria Fromkin & Robert Rodman - "An Introduction to Language"

>> ...some mentally retarded people can express themselves with musical
>> instruments and paintbrushes in ways I could never dream of doing.
>> Does that mean I'm just not trying hard enough - that I, too, should
>> be able to acquire these abilities if I work hard enough?
    
>  That's exactly what it means.  As long as you convince yourself that
>  you are incapable of learning and acquiring basic skills, you will
>  probably remain so.  You are as capable as anyone else of acquiring
>  basic skills in anything you attempt.
 
>  It is exactly the opposite of what you call "elitist nonsense."  It is
>  an affirmation that anyone with effort can acquire basic skills.  It is
>  true elitist nonsense to suggest, as you have done, that there are some
>  people who are incapable no matter how hard they try.
 
Ah, a typical ploy: when you lose the argument, change the topic.  I said
nothing about "basic skills" in reference to the way mentally retarded people
can express themselves.  I possess "basic" musical skills, but I cannot 
instantly reproduce any song I hear on the piano, nor can I play just about
anything written by Franz Liszt.  However, some mentally retarded people can
do these things.  Why not me?  I'm not trying hard enough?  Ridiculous.
These are *advanced* musical skills, something I will never acquire as long
as I live, and not through lack of trying.  Please explain why linguistic skill
is so radically different that this concept does not apply to it.

- snopes

    Re: .32 - .35
    
    Okay boys; let's form a single line.  I'll take you on one at a time. 
    It is important that I do so, since you are in dire need of
    enlightenment on this topic.  Be patient.  I'll respond to each of your
    uninformed ramblings as time permits.  Don't despair; help is on the
    way.
    
    Bernie

    Can I get in line too, even though I'm a girl?  
    
    And can you start by defining exactly what level of ability you're
    talking about?   At first you seemed to be saying that you thought
    everyone should be able to learn to use the tool of written
    language as elegantly and beautifully as Shakespeare, who would be
    exceptional in any age.  We can't all learn to write like
    Shakespeare any more than I could become a concert pianist or an
    Olympic gymnast.  No amount of work would raise me above the level
    of competent hack -- if that.  Other times you refer to "speech,"
    which isn't necessarily  the same thing.  You can speak a language
    extremely well and not be able to read a word of it.  "Basic
    skills," a term you use in another note, would seem to mean
    "functional literacy," the ability to use language at a certain
    minimum level of competence.   I'll assume the latter. 
    
    >Perhaps we are splitting hairs here.  Prince Charles was not
    >talking about Elizabethan England - he was using an example from
    >Shakespeare to illustrate a point about today's English.  By his
    >parody he was not commenting on Shakespeare; he was commenting on
    >today's speech.   
    
    You, and he, by the choice of example and by your insistence
    that English is decaying, imply that the language itself was
    better in the past and that it was used better by the majority of
    the people in the past.  In fact, you say as much in the next few
    paragraphs.
    
    If Elizabethan England isn't the point in the past when English
    was better and more speakers were competent in it, then what is? 
    Victorian England?  Beowulf's time?  Golden ages are always so
    hard to assign a date to . . .
     
>    The mass of us do not do at all well.  
    
    This is probably true.  But most of us do well enough to function
    in our own lives and our own worlds.  Isn't that basic skills?
    
    >And the proportion of us who are incompetent (which today includes
    >the victims of modern education) is greater than ever before.  
    
    I don't think you can support this.  If you're talking about basic
    literacy, the ability to read and write, you're flatly wrong.  The
    vast majority of people in Shakespeare's day weren't able to read
    and write at all.  How educated (knowledgeable) they might have
    been is a matter of debate.  
    
    Because the only past writings most of us read were those that
    have withstood the test of time (there's a cliche for you) and
    proven to have some universal value to the English if not to the
    whole human race, we form the false impression that most people
    writing at the time were powerful, elegant, enduring writers.  But
    if you read other plays being written in Shakespeare's day, you'll
    find a lot of stuff that makes "Lethal Weapon II" look
    intellectually stimulating and "Hustler" seem tame.  And these are
    the plays that were considered good enough to print.  One wonders
    what the bad ones were like!
    
    >In addition, the incompetent and the ignorant are influential
    >today (thanks to the mass media) as they have never been in the
    >past.
    
    I don't think this is true, either.  Read King James' Blue Paper
    on corruption in the court system for evidence. 
    
>    As long as we promote the fact that mediocrity and ignorance have
>    always been with us and represents, therefore, no threat to the
>    language, we may as well promote the decline.  By the same logic one
>    could argue that murder has always been with us and, therefore,
>    represents no threat to society.  It ignores the fact that murder is
>    now out of control and we are no longer safe in parks or city streets.
    
    No longer?  The murder rate in Elizabethan London was about twice
    what it was in Detroit, Michigan, in 1987 -- probably not a
    meaningful comparison, but certainly an indication that
    civilization is not as fragile as you seem to think it is.
        
>    Although I am a bit out of my depth here, I believe it is absurd to
>    criticize Shakespeare as a poor speller.  English spelling was not yet
>    standardized.
    
    True.  It might have been his typesetter.  Still, the fact remains
    that the erratic spelling in the plays doesn't detract from their
    power.  
    
    --bonnie

    Consider youself in the queue.  While you're waiting, why don't you
    show me where I said anything that implies that "everyone should be able to
    learn to use the tool of written language as elegantly and beautifully
    as Shakespeare."  I have have quickly re-read my former replies and see
    nothing that should warrant that conclusion.  The phrases I have used
    in this context are "basic skills" and "elementary thoughts."
    
    Bernie

    RE: .23 Bonnie 
    
    (side note)
    
    I don't disagree with you that Sagan, Buckley, and Wolfe are capable
    writers. 
    
    None of them, however, are proponents of belles lettres and 
    languages to the extent that say, a T.S. Eliot (who moved through 
    the literatures of several languages to create his unique
    poetry and essays on criticism) was, or a James Joyce was.  
    
    I certainly wouldn't accuse Sagan of "caring deeply about the language"!  

    re: .40
    
    OK, how about Joyce Carol Oates and John Updike? 
    
    I'm not sure exactly what your standards are for being considered
    "devoted to belles lettres," though, especially as related to
    Eliot, a poet, and Mencken, a journalist.  (I don't happen to care
    for Mencken myself -- I find him pompous and overly negative --
    but those are stylistic traits, not faults of his love of
    language.)  Is it a matter of profession?  I find myself rereading
    old columns of Buckley's just to enjoy the way he phrased things,
    even though I don't like his ideas and politics.
    
    --bonnie
    

    Re: .32
    
    > Again: *every* human language/dialect is as complex and as capable of
    > expressing any thought or idea as any other human language/dialect.  To
    > assert otherwise is to display an ignorance of linguistics.
    
    You may assert that yet again if you wish, be my guest.  Merely
    asserting it, however, does not make it true.  One may also say that to
    assert the impossibility of turning base metal into gold is to display
    an ignorance of alchemy.  Just because linguists say something,
    doesn't make their statements true either.  Or, to paraphrase the immortal
    Mr Bumble: if that's what linguistics says, then linguistics is a ass.
    
    The statement seems obviously false with respect to language (i.e.,
    every language is as complex as any other language).  Certainly the
    absurdity of that statement is apparent.  German grammar is more
    complex that English grammar, for example, with respect to the definite
    article.  In English the definite article is always 'the'; in German it
    varies depending on case, number, and gender: it may be der, die, das,
    des, dem, or den.  That's six possibilities as opposed to one - much
    more complex.
    
    You deal with the definition of 'dialect' in .35, so to avoid
    repetition, I'll reserve my comments as to the supposed invariability
    of complexity in dialects for my response to .35.
    
    
    > There are many people who are hindered in acquiring skills by the
    > belief that they will fail, yes.  To suggest that one is capable of
    > acquiring basic skills in anything attempted, however, is ludicrous.
    
    Nonsense.  I have seen it with my own eyes.  I have worked with the
    least capable and they have acquired basic language skills.  What is it
    that makes this fact so astonishing to you?
    
    
    > Where is your proof?  Would you care to show some evidence to support
    > your opinion?
    
    Gladly.  It is, first of all, not my opinion.  It is fact.  As I said
    before, I have worked with the least capable people of all, the
    mentally retarded.  With time, patience, hard work, and compassion they
    acquired skills sufficient to function well outside of institutions. 
    They could do useful work, communicate with coworkers and merchants,
    write checks, gripe about poor service, and fret about inflation.  If
    they can do it, you can do it too.
    
    As to your comments in .35 about instantly reproducing any song on the
    piano, I'll deal with that in my response to .35.
    
    
    > I need only present one person on this entire planet (of reasonable
    > intelligence) who has made a diligent effort to acquire a basic skill
    > in something and failed in order to disprove your assertion.  I like my
    > odds.
    
    I am delighted that you like your odds.  Now produce the person.  But
    be careful, if you can produce only one person, you have indeed
    demonstrated that not 100% are so capable, but you have also
    demonstrated that 99.99% are.
    
    
    >> It is an affirmation that anyone with effort can acquire basic skills. 
    >> It is true elitist nonsense to suggest, as you have done, that there
    >> are some people who are incapable no matter how hard they try.
    
    > This is the same junk I read in SOAPBOX.  Where in heck did you get the
    > notion that language acquisition and usage (especially on the level you
    > advocate) is a "basic skill"?
    
    If reading SOAPBOX causes you so much stress, why don't you simply stop
    reading it?  It is not "junk" to believe in the capacity of people to
    acquire basic skills; as I said, I have seen even the least capable
    people do it.
    
    
    > Human language is one of the most complex systems ever devised by
    > mankind.  That so many people are already reasonably proficient in
    > language use is what is astonishing.
    
    I do believe that language acquisition and usage is indeed a basic
    skill, no matter how complex a "system" language may be.  I suppose we
    should not be surprised that you find it astonishing that so many
    people become proficient, for you seem to have little regard for the
    capacity of people to learn even basic skills.  It is not at all
    astonishing to me; after all, even the mentally retarded and very young
    children acquire basic skills.
    
    Let me shock you further.  I also believe that an understanding of
    simple arithmetic is a basic skill, even though mathematics is
    enormously complex.  Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? 
    Perhaps you're not trying hard enough.
    
    Bernie
                           

    
>    You may assert that yet again if you wish, be my guest.  Merely
>    asserting it, however, does not make it true.  One may also say that to
>    assert the impossibility of turning base metal into gold is to display
>    an ignorance of alchemy.  Just because linguists say something,
>    doesn't make their statements true either.  Or, to paraphrase the immortal
>    Mr Bumble: if that's what linguistics says, then linguistics is a ass.
 
Oh, but your asserting the converse makes your view true?  I tend to give
more credence to distinguished professionals than the ramblings of one who
obviously knows precious little about linguistics.  Why don't you provide
some references to respected scholars who support *your* point of view?
Other than the esteemed Mr. Bumble, of course.
   
>    The statement seems obviously false with respect to language (i.e.,
>    every language is as complex as any other language).  Certainly the
>    absurdity of that statement is apparent.  German grammar is more
>    complex that English grammar, for example, with respect to the definite
>    article.  In English the definite article is always 'the'; in German it
>    varies depending on case, number, and gender: it may be der, die, das,
>    des, dem, or den.  That's six possibilities as opposed to one - much
>    more complex.

What I find absurd is that you are so willing to constantly display your 
complete ignorance of linguistics.  Of course, I'm more than happy to point 
out your failings to a mass audience.  The "complexity" of a language refers to
the range of thoughts and ideas that can be expressed by that language, not 
the number of lexical items or syntactic rules.  The fact that German
grammar has six different forms of the definite article makes it no more
"complex" than English, because all six words express the same concept: "the".
    
>    Nonsense.  I have seen it with my own eyes.  I have worked with the
>    least capable and they have acquired basic language skills.  What is it
>    that makes this fact so astonishing to you?
 
I didn't say it was astonishing -- it's quite ordinary.  What's astonishing
is that you feel you can use a few isolated cases to claim that *all* people 
are capable of acquiring *any* skill with a little effort.   
    
>    Gladly.  It is, first of all, not my opinion.  It is fact.  As I said
>    before, I have worked with the least capable people of all, the
>    mentally retarded.  With time, patience, hard work, and compassion they
>    acquired skills sufficient to function well outside of institutions. 
 
Until you prove it, it's your opinion.  You claim that *anybody* is capable 
of acquiring *any* (basic) skill.  A few touching examples are nice, but 
they're hardly proof.  Again: mentally retarded people can do many things *I*
can't do, and not from lack of trying.  Claiming universality from a few
examples is folly.
    
>    I am delighted that you like your odds.  Now produce the person.  But
>    be careful, if you can produce only one person, you have indeed
>    demonstrated that not 100% are so capable, but you have also
>    demonstrated that 99.99% are.
 
Ho ho ho.  If I prove that 3, 7, and 11 are prime numbers, that means *all*
other numbers aren't?  I guess you can cross logic off your list of "basic"
skills.

You claimed *everybody* was capable of acquiring (basic) skills.  I need only 
produce one person to refute your fantastic claim.  If you want to claim
that 99.99% *are* capable, it's up to you to demonstrate that.
    
>    If reading SOAPBOX causes you so much stress, why don't you simply stop
>    reading it?  It is not "junk" to believe in the capacity of people to
>    acquire basic skills; as I said, I have seen even the least capable
>    people do it.
 
I guess you can also cross paraphrasing off your list of "basic" skills.
I never said it was "junk" to believe in people's capacities -- I said it
was "junk" to call the level of linguistic competence you advocate (a level
that seems to shift with every note) a "basic" skill.

I've seen the least capable people become extraordinary pianists and sculptors.
That doesn't mean their skills are "basic".  Mozart could write and play
music practically from the day he was born.  His skill must have been pretty
basic, huh?  After all, how capable could a three year old child be?
    
>    I do believe that language acquisition and usage is indeed a basic
>    skill, no matter how complex a "system" language may be.  I suppose we
>    should not be surprised that you find it astonishing that so many
>    people become proficient, for you seem to have little regard for the
>    capacity of people to learn even basic skills.  It is not at all
>    astonishing to me; after all, even the mentally retarded and very young
>    children acquire basic skills.

Ooh, let's try and denigrate Snopes and make him look like he thinks all
people are incompetent clods.  I guess you can cross accuracy off your list of 
"basic" skills.  I have a high regard for the learning capacity of humans --
I never said otherwise.

>    Let me shock you further.  I also believe that an understanding of
>    simple arithmetic is a basic skill, even though mathematics is
>    enormously complex.  Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? 
>    Perhaps you're not trying hard enough.
 
Yes, and being able to form simple sentences or understand a McGuffy's reader 
is a basic skill, even though linguistics is enormously complex.  Thank you 
for demonstrating my point.
                     
- snopes
      

.42> You may assert that yet again if you wish, be my guest.  Merely
.42> asserting it, however, does not make it true.  One may also say that to
.42> assert the impossibility of turning base metal into gold is to display
.42> an ignorance of alchemy.  Just because linguists say something,
.42> doesn't make their statements true either.  Or, to paraphrase the immortal
.42> Mr Bumble: if that's what linguistics says, then linguistics is a ass.

    I, myself, rather like linguistics as the parameters of our discussion. 
    Linguistics is, after all, the *science* of language.  As such, it is
    empirical and objective, and uses all those neat scientific method-y kinds
    of things like theories, hypotheses, testing, replicable results ... 
    Further, it also encourages an open forum for dissenting views.  If you
    care to differ with its tenents, all you have to do is a little research,
    educate yourself a little (have you ever even heard, for example, of the
    concepts of linguistic performance and linguistic competence?), point out
    the inconsistencies, and revise the existing theory you disagree with or
    come up with one on your own.  Make sure, however, that your results are
    replicable, that your evidence is complete, that your theory follows from
    your evidence, that your logic is sound, etc.  If you would be willing to
    do this, I know some excellent journals that would be more than willing to
    publish your revolutionary and paradigm-shattering ideas.

.42> The statement seems obviously false with respect to language (i.e.,
.42> every language is as complex as any other language).  Certainly the
.42> absurdity of that statement is apparent.  German grammar is more
.42> complex that English grammar, for example, with respect to the definite
.42> article.  In English the definite article is always 'the'; in German it
.42> varies depending on case, number, and gender: it may be der, die, das,
.42> des, dem, or den.  That's six possibilities as opposed to one - much
.42> more complex.

    This does not address the issue of *functional* complexity -- i.e., any
    additional complexity that makes a dialect or language more expressive and
    powerful and hence superior to a "less complex" dialect or language.  I
    thought this was the original point you were trying to make.  Do you see,
    though, that English has case, number, and gender; that you can convey the
    exact same meaning that the German articles convey just as well in English;
    that English uses an alternative basic structure (word order) than German
    (inflection), but that that structure is just as complex, capable, and
    expressive?

    Further, do you see that the exact same comparisons can be made between
    dialects like BEV and Standard English?  For example, BEV uses an
    uninflected form of the verb "to be" ("I be going," "We be in the house,"
    etc.).  However, users of BEV have no trouble deciphering this usage, use
    it consistently, and -- within a linguistic context at least -- it goes
    unremarked.  Now, it so happens that SE uses inflected forms ("I am going,"
    "We are in the house").  This *is* more complex.  In what respect, however,
    is it more expressive, more communicative, more powerful?  

.42> I do believe that language acquisition and usage is indeed a basic
.42> skill, no matter how complex a "system" language may be.  I suppose we
.42> should not be surprised that you find it astonishing that so many
.42> people become proficient, for you seem to have little regard for the
.42> capacity of people to learn even basic skills.  It is not at all
.42> astonishing to me; after all, even the mentally retarded and very young
.42> children acquire basic skills.
    
    I really don't want to get into the SOAPBOX stuff, but do you see that you
    have still not defined what those basic skills are yet?  In your first
    notes, they seemed to be Shakespearean couplets.  They evolved from there
    to Standard English, clear communication, and basic skills.  Now, they seem
    to be "language acquisition and usage."  If you really mean this last one,
    you will get no argument whatsoever from us linguists -- that's the point
    we were trying to make all along.  (What that phrase means to you, though,
    is another question.)

    It so happens that acquiring and using the incredibly complex system that
    is human language merely requires one to be a normal human being
    interacting with other normal human beings.  We are born to it; our brains
    are built for it; it may be what makes us uniquely human.  Try exposing
    yourself to a little psycholinguistics, a little developmental linguistics,
    a little transformational-generative theory.  It will give you a little
    insight into what incredible, mind-boggling, and truly unfathomable skills
    your sales clerks, teenagers, etc. have.  If it doesn't produce a little
    wonder in you, perhaps it will at least produce a little humility.

    	-- Cliff

    P.S.  Snopes: this is where Bernie starts crying "ad hominem!"  His next
    step is to take his ball and go home.  Take it from one with a lot of
    experience in this area.

    
    >Okay boys; let's form a single line.  I'll take you on one at a time. 
    >It is important that I do so, since you are in dire need of
    >enlightenment on this topic.  Be patient.  I'll respond to each of your
    >uninformed ramblings as time permits.  Don't despair; help is on the
    >way.
    
    I certainly hope the help you summoned reaches you in time.  Take your
    time, by all means.  It must not be easy coming up with so much drivel
    by deadline.
    
    - snopes
    

    It never occured to me when I started this topic that it would
    generate so much debate, I hope though that you're enjoying it.
    
    In the meantime I've noticed that every day the UK newspapers are
    carrying major front page adverts, i.e. about 16 column inches each,
    offering training courses in public speaking, conversation skills,
    or writing skills.
    
    And these are adverts in the 'quality' press...
    
    Nick

    
    >In the meantime I've noticed that every day the UK newspapers are
    >carrying major front page adverts, i.e. about 16 column inches each,
    >offering training courses in public speaking, conversation skills,
    >or writing skills.
    
    >And these are adverts in the 'quality' press...
    
    Where else would you expect to find these ads?  Comic books?  
    Tabloids?  Matchbooks?  Bus stops?  
    
    - snopes
    
    
    
    

    Re: .45
    
    > I must not be easy coming up with so much drivel by deadline.
    
    Ah, the voice of experience!  What takes time is dealing with the
    overwhelming ignorance.  But, be patient; I assure you that I shall
    enlighten you on _every_ point.  I'll try to answer at least one reply
    per day.
    
    Bernie

    Re: .44
    
    > P.S.  Snopes: this is where Bernie starts crying "ad hominem!"  his
    > next step is to take his ball and go home.  Take it from one with a
    > lot of experience in this area.
    
    Up to your old tricks, I see.  While you're waiting your turn in the
    queue, why don't you justify this serious charge.  Provide us with one
    instance where I have not responded to you - just one.  It is true that
    I have accused you often of _ad hominem_ attacks, but that is because
    you make them so often (as witness the above).  I realize that you
    would like me to stop; is that you shaking in your boots?  Sorry,
    Cliff; but your .33 is next.  I'll try to enter it before I leave this
    evening.  But in the meantime, don't you think the readers of this
    discussion deserve more than the gratuitous brick you tossed at me?
    
    Bernie

>    Up to your old tricks, I see.  While you're waiting your turn in the
>    queue, why don't you justify this serious charge.  Provide us with one
>    instance where I have not responded to you - just one.  It is true that
	
	Just see any extended discussion in JOKUR::GRAMMAR.  If we had
	been noting here instead of GRAMMAR, I could do the same exact 
	thing for JOYOFLEX.  Also, while you're doing .33, also try .17 
	and .44.  That's another strategy isn't it -- make everybody else
	the defendant?  

>    I have accused you often of _ad hominem_ attacks, but that is because
>    you make them so often (as witness the above).  I realize that you

	Kind of proves my point, doesn't it?  Also, that's another 
	strategy of yours -- use the most evaluative language you can, 
	write in the most pompous satirical prose possible, imply all
	sorts of things to other noters, and then when somebody calls 
	your bluff, say "who me?"  Bernie: I think you are intelligent 
	enough to have some idea of how much implication you load your 
	replies with -- I only your question your honesty.

>    would like me to stop; is that you shaking in your boots?  Sorry,
>    Cliff; but your .33 is next.  I'll try to enter it before I leave this

	Tremble, tremble.  No, actually, that was the sound of a huge
	unstifled yawn.  Actually, Bernie, I think your natural style 
	is really the _ad nauseum_ one.  Care to respond to the Noam 
	Chomsky quote while you're at it?
	
>    evening.  But in the meantime, don't you think the readers of this
>    discussion deserve more than the gratuitous brick you tossed at me?
    
	Ah, you deserve all the bricks you get.  Maybe one will knock
	some sense into you.  Also, do you have a real job or do you just
	defend yourself in notes conferences all the time?

		-- Cliff

    Re: .33
    
    You really must make an effort to read previous replies more carefully;
    it is downright tiresome to have to repeat points just for you.
    
    > If you're talking about the language that the ordinary Englishmen
    > spoke, the point that the other noters were trying to make was that it is
    > [sic] just as impoverished, sloppy, banal, obscene... as English is
    > today -- and that HRH would probably have said the exact same thing if
    > he had been alive back then.
    
    And, as I said before, he would have been right to do so.  It is not so
    simple to compare Elizabethan England to modern England or America. 
    Whereas the ordinary Englishmen may have spoken an equally poor version
    of the language, that was certainly not the case with educated men and
    women.  A significant difference today is that more and more of the
    products of public schools and colleges are not competent in the
    language.  And this is a recent development.  Consider, for example
    (since you seem so fond of scholarly quotes), a passage from Jacques
    Barzun's preface to Bernstein's book _Watch Your Language_:
    
    	The language is unquestionably in a precarious state.  you have
    	only to look in these pages and see the errors that professional
    	writers commit; you have only to read your favorite authors and the
    	letters to your friends, to listen to public speakers or to your own
    	voice.  Something has happened since the days when only the
    	half-literate social climbers bought a dictionary as they now buy a
    	book of etiquette: educated people knew how to speak and write, and
    	their usage was or became the language.  Today, it is the educated who
    	lead the way in destruction, it is they who in the name of freedom deny
    	any social obligation to use decently that valuable common property,
    	the mother tongue.  No circle or profession is privileged: our lax
    	democratic manners tolerate everything, while literature of every grade
    	uses by preference the language of the gutter, and belles-lettres and
    	scholarship multiply pseudo-jargons as if to run away from responsible
    	assertion.
    
    
    > I'm sorry, but I don't see murder and ending sentences with
    > prepositions as having much in common.
    
    They have nothing in common as far as I can see.  And that is exactly
    the point.  When one argues from analogy, he is not claiming the topics
    are the same, but that the _logic_ is.  One shows the invalidity of an
    argument by recasting it with a different subject matter.  If you wish
    to refute an argument from analogy, you must show how the logic in the
    two interpretations is not the same.
    
    
    > You have already assumed that English is "in decline."
    
    When did I assume that?  In fact, I have assumed nothing.  I have
    _concluded_ that competence in English usage has declined.  I have
    drawn that conclusion from study and direct observation.
    
    
    > Once again, how about some examples, so we may share that assumption?
    > -- especially of the deadly serious, culture-threatening,
    > civilization-ending things you talk about.
    
    It really would help if you would take the time to read what I have
    written before you comment on it.  I have used none of those terms nor
    have I implied that anything is "culture-threatening" or
    "civilization-ending."  Would you care to prove your assertion with an
    example from my replies?
    
    In .29 I wrote: "I believe that the problem has not only gotten worse,
    but that it is at a crisis stage and we are in real danger of doing
    severe damage to the language."  Notice that I didn't even say that
    damage had yet been done.  You have set up a straw man and knocked him
    over.  That is very easy to do, but it does not withstand scrutiny and
    such false attributions do very little to enhance your integrity.
    
    Now, as to the issue of examples, let me say how pleased I am to see
    you asking for them.  In this file and in GRAMMAR I have asked you
    repeatedly for examples and you made an attempt only once (you failed,
    of course, but at least you tried).  Now, wonder of wonders, you are
    asking for examples.  I regard that as a victory - and I look forward
    now to something other than silence when you are asked to provide them.
    
    If you will kindly re-read .10, you will see that I provided an example
    of an educated person failing to communicate thoughts she no doubt had
    on a subject that was obviously very important to her.
    
    
    > Okay, standard English is now, not only clear communication, but "basic
    > skills."  Other people's cultures are "their immediate environments"...
    
    You have again set up a straw man and have done a really great job of
    knocking him over.  I realize how thrilling that must be for you, but
    it is really tiresome for me.  What makes this most astonishing is the
    fact that you made this statement after quoting a passage from my .30
    where I made none of the statements you attribute to me.  Your
    occasional forays into false attribution are now becoming almost a way
    of life for you.  Show me where I identify either basic skills or clear
    communication with standard English.  Now there's a direct request;
    let's see you answer it.
    
    One may fail, of course, fail to communicate clearly in standard English. 
    Its mere use does not obviate the possibility of writing or speaking in
    an inconsistent, confusing, or needlessly complex manner; or, as you
    demonstrate ad nauseam, it does not prevent false attribution.
    
    
    > Okay, fine it's nice to know that I can do this.  Now, tell me why
    > I should.
    
    You want to know why you should acquire basic skills in English?  Don't
    you think you have them already?  Or are you asking the even more
    absurd question why anyone should bother to acquire them?  If that's
    what you're asking, then the answer should be obvious: to communicate
    with other people; to ensure that you accurately transmit your thoughts
    to others.
    
    
    > Can you tell me why that dialect [I assume you mean standard English]
    > is somehow superior?
    
    Of course.  It is the dialect spoken and written by the literate.  It is
    the dialect of textbooks, magazines, newspapers, phone books,
    historians, philosophers, noters, engineers, black jack dealers,
    teachers of linguistics, and virtually everyone else engaged in normal
    commerce.
    
    
    > [Can you tell me] why I am incomprehensible when I use my own?
    
    Sure.  But first you have to give me an example of your own dialect, or
    describe to me how it differs from standard English.
    
    Bernie (eagerly awaiting answers to the questions I have asked here) 

    Re: .50
    
    I'll take this one out of order since it deserves special treatment.  I
    apologize to those in the queue, but since Cliff has decided to exceed
    his usual vituperation and intensify his level of personal attack, I
    really feel the need to respond forthwith.
    
    In .44 you made a serious charge against me.  In .49 I challenged you
    to prove it, to give us one example of the accuracy of your charge. 
    In .50 you failed to do so.  I'm still waiting.  Let's see you prove
    your vicious charge.  Or do you intend to abandon it as you have done
    so often?
    
    I do intend to answer .44 (I can do only one at a time).  I don't know
    what .17 is; I think you were responding to someone else and I had no
    interest in addressing it.  I'll re-read it and, if I have any
    interest, I'll give you the benefit of my views.
    
    
    >> I have accused you often of _ad hominem_ attacks, but that is
    >> because you make them so often (as witness the above). 
    
    > Kind of proves my point doesn't it.
    
    All it proves is that when you attack me personally, I respond to you
    and point out that you have done so.  What do you expect me to do; if
    you can't take it, stop throwing the bricks.
    
    You said that I cry _ad hominem_ and then take my ball and go home. 
    But I have never done that so I challenged you to prove your
    accusation.  You have not done so, of course, but then you never have
    been able to prove any of your charges and you _always_ ignore requests
    for proof.  Once again, let's see you prove your charge.
    
    I assure you that I shall point out your _ad hominem_ remarks whenever
    I wish, and hold them up to the ridicule they deserve.
    
    
    > That's another strategy of yours -- use the most evaluative language 
    > you can,...
    
    Oh, I can do much better than what you've seen so far.  I have no
    strategies; it only seems so to you because your arguments are so
    inept.  I use whatever language I feel is appropriate to make my point. 
    My purpose is to learn, and to teach, and to exchange ideas.  Your
    purpose, on the other hand is to throw a brick and then run and hide
    (refuse to answer the challenges put to you).  If you have a problem
    with my language or my style, then respond with a solid argument for a
    change.
    
    Your responses thus far have consisted of personal attacks on me that
    have nothing to do with the issue at hand, and false arguments that
    attribute to me statements I haven't made (as I demonstrated in my
    previous response).  Do you think the readers of this discussion (if we
    can still call it that) don't know what you're doing?
    
    
    > ...write in the most pompous satirical prose possible, [if you're so
    > offended by evaluative language, why do you engage in it?] imply all
    > sorts of things to other noters, and then when somebody calls your
    > bluff, say "who me?"
    
    Guess what's coming Cliff?  Yup, you guessed it; another request for
    you to prove your outlandish statements.  Show me how anything I have
    written qualifies as "the most pompous satirical prose possible." 
    That's not saying "who me?"; that's simply saying "prove it!", which,
    incidentally, you have never done.  If you're going to make these
    charges, you shouldn't be surprised that I challenge you to prove them
    or to demonstrate at least a thimblefull of truth.  I have _never_ seen
    you rise to such a challenge; you just throw a brick; and then when
    they're thrown back at you, you run away and hide.  Poor Cliff.
    
    And why are you so concerned about what other noters think?  Just
    provide an argument for a change (instead of personal attack) and I am
    sure the other noters will think better of you.
    
    > Care to respond to the Noam Chomsky quote while you're at it?
    
    I have already responded to your .33 where it appears and I saw no need
    to address it.  But, since you are so interested in my response, I'll
    do it as soon as I can get to it.  You see, Cliff, every time you
    request an answer or an example from me, I provide one.  But you do not
    do the same; you respond with personal insults (and silence, of course,
    to the requests for proof).
    
    
    > You deserve all the bricks you get.  Maybe one will knock some sense
    > into you.
    
    My God; you actually admit to _ad hominem_ attacks!  And you acutally
    operate under the delusion that they will be effective in changing my
    mind.  Poor Cliff!  That isn't the way to convince me of anything.  Why
    don't you try something completely different and support at least one
    of your statements with some reasons.
    
    
    > Do you have a real job or do you just defend yourself in notes
    > conferences all the time?
    
    Now that you have admitted your _ad hominem_ attacks, you seem to
    feel no shame at all.  But, I've answered everything else you've
    asked, so I'll answer this one too.  Once again, if you will only take
    the time to actually read previous responses you will see that I
    explained that I would have to deal with each response in turn as my time
    is limited (you seem to place no such restrictions on yourself).
    
    It only seems to you as if I put a great deal of time into my responses
    because they are so well thought out and tightly argued.  I find the
    time to write notes (and rebuke your vicious personal attacks) at noon while
    eating lunch at my desk and in the evenings after work.  As I write
    this, for example, I am in my studio in my home about, 1200 feet uphill
    from Colorado Springs, in a beautiful forest of ponderosa pine.  It is
    peaceful and relaxing and I assure you that none of Digital's work is
    going undone in your honor.  This is my time and I am devoting it just
    to you, Cliff.
    
    As to my job, I have been the software supervisor for an intelligent mass
    storage controller for exactly four years.  The controller is now in
    field test and is so successful that we have made FRS early because one
    of our external sites was so impressed with the device that they bought
    it out of field test.
    
    What do you do besides make false attributions, refuse to answer
    requests for proof, and make personal insults?
    
    Bernie        

    Cliff and Bernie .....
    
    To be honest, not so gentle men, your brandishing swords on this topic
    started out as an interesting commentary on the subject, but as the
    topic has progressed, all you have achieved is to prove that you both
    have a good grasp of the use of English and that you chose to disagree
    so that you can brandish swords.  It would seem to me that you would
    both do better by meeting face to face somewhere, debate the topics of
    your chice until you are blue in the face, and then return and give us
    a precis of the discussion.
    
    Bernie talks about straw men; I presume that these are the same
    structure as straw dogs and straw horses, which all seem to get knocked
    over, blow away or set fire to.  In terms of the topic in discussion
    this term represents precisely the kind of problem of cliched language:
    what is this straw structure ?  I presume it is based on the Straw man
    from the Wizard of Oz, who has no heart and therefore feels he has no
    substance.  The analogy would therefore be that it is a weak premise, 
    and if it is that WHY NOT SAY SO ?  
    
    Now, would you guys mind taking your "ad hominem" attacks elsewhere ?
    
    Stuart
    
    
    
    

    Re: .53 and .54
    
    I agree.  For many of us the joy has gone out of lex in this topic.
    Fortunately, there is the N U command.

    The problem with this note is that there simply is no right or wrong
    answer.  The answer to "is the language in a state of decline?" depends
    upon personal definitions and opinions.  It is one thing to share your
    opinion, it is entirely something else to demand that you are right
    until proven wrong.
    
    If the participants would agree to something along these lines and
    leave the personal attacks out, there might be an interesting exchange
    of thought.  (I believe that Bernie normally operates under these
    guidelines until he is irritated by inappropriate comments.)
    
    Now, having written this last paragraph, I fear that I have opened a
    can of worms.  I thought about deleting it, and then deleting my entire
    reply.  I didn't though, because I hope we can avoid confrontations
    such as this in future notes.                               
                                 
    Eric 

    Instead of asking "Is the language in a state of decline?", could
    we get more productive discussion from asking, "Is it better to
    have only a few highly educated people, with the rest of the
    population illiterate and uneducated, or to have everyone educated
    to a certain minimal level?"
    
    How about, "Are we approaching a post-literate age, in which 
    the ability to read and write will no longer be a necessary part
    of a good education?"
    
    --bonnie

	Sorry about .50 -- it was written in the heat of flabber-
	gastion.  Though I do still *feel* that way a lot, I also
	realize that expressing those feelings doesn't accomplish much.
	
	Eric: I wasn't the only one who was flabbergasted by the
	grammarians in this note (nor was this the first time that
	happened -- sorry for all the leftover garbage from other notes
	and notes conferences).  I think anyone with some linguistic 
	exposure gets all their buttons pushed by someone like Bernie.

	If nothing else, maybe that's the point I'd like to make in 
	this note: expose yourself to some linguistics.  Talking
	about language outside the context of linguistics, the lack
	of experience the average person has in this field, the basic
	concepts that are completely missed, the hegemony that the
	10th Grade English approach has, etc. truly amaze me.  For me,
	discussing language with a grammarian is like talking about 
	modern medicine with a medieval herbalist.  It's really
	bizarre.  (If I come on too strong sometimes, it's probably
	because I just want to expose people a bit, shake people up.
	I mean, everybody had Ms. Thistlebottom in high school, but 
	how many had Professor Chomsky?)

	I realize this admission is very unsatisfying, will be very
	easy to attack, will get all you grammarians seeing red, 
	sounds arrogant, etc.  I really don't know what else to say 
	though.  Perhaps there's someone out there who's willing to 
	take the time, who can see things through the grammarian's eyes, 
	has some patience, etc. and can keep on plugging away (snopes?).  
	Constitutionlly speaking, though, that's not me.  So, though
	I *don't* see, Eric, that there are two schools with equally 
	valid philosophies, I do see that the two camps basically speak 
	two very different languages.  I'll keep that in mind from now
	on.

	Thanks, sorry, and so long ...

		-- Cliff

    G'day,
    
    Messrs Moderators,
    
     Perhaps there should be two new notes..
    
     The rise and fall of the English language - by Grammarians 
    
    and
    
     The rise and fall of the English language - by Linguisticians   ?-} 
    
    Then each may express their opinions without fear or favour, and
    perhaps we all may read with avidity and , if not become wiser, at
    least become better informed?
    
    
    
    derek
    

    
    >How about, "Are we approaching a post-literate age, in which 
    >the ability to read and write will no longer be a necessary part
    >of a good education?"
    
    
    More to the point just what is a "good" education these days ?  If
    the definition of a good education is one which includes college and
    say 30% of children enter college today compared with 10% some 30 years
    ago (I'm pulling numbers out of the hat here, but I do believe the
    numbers have increased over the years), there are three possibilities ...
    
    1) children are better educated today
    
    2) the standards for college entrance are lower
    
    3) both of the above
    
    This then begs the question, if the standards for entrance are lower,
    are the graduation standards lower ?  After all, how far can one get
    on a first degree only today ...  There are more people with first
    degrees, for sure, therefore devaluing them.  Does a first degree
    holder today know as much as one from 20 or 30 years ago ?
    
    Now to try and pull all this together ...
    
    I think that as a society we are better educated on the whole today,
    but with that comes more people who fit into the historical definition
    of a "good" education.  As a result we are going to get a broader cross
    section of people with different talents, some in engineering, some
    in pure science, some in mathematics and some in language, who can and
    will be classified as having a "good" education.
    
    Remember too, that until not so many years ago, Latin was considered
    essential for University entrance.  It was considered to be something
    that makes for a "well rounded" student.  Today's educational
    requirement (late and post-secondary) is NOT for the well-rounded
    student.  Today's requirement is for specialization.  A side effect
    of specialization is that we are going to get brilliant people like
    engineers and so on who have trouble expressing themselves whether we
    like it or not.
    
    Formal education is not the way to get people to express themselves
    clearly.  You can teach people the mechanisms to do so, but as long
    as they can express themselves as simply as possible and have people
    who are willing to translate for them, they'll continue to grunt.
    Look at babies ... the first in the family usually expresses themselves
    the most or least fluently because the parents work long and hard with
    them or pander to their every wish, respectively.  With subsequent
    children the parents learn what typical baby grunts are, so the child
    barely has to wail and out comes the bottle or food or whatever.
    
    What we as people need to do is learn to reject poor expression.  Ask
    the person to try again because you cannot translate what they are
    trying to say.  To be honest, this is one of the things that scares
    me about children spending hours in from of televisions and home
    computers ... they are not practising communications and the use of
    language.
    
    I do believe we are seeing a relative decline in the quality of the
    use of language but, I believe what we are looking at is a cyclical
    phenomenon resulting from the fads and fashions of education, where
    the emphasis keeps changing between the technical, the artistic and
    the expressive aspects of language.  We are also seeing a lot of
    change in our languages.  The French have control over their language
    with L'Academie Francais but they still bemoan the decline of their
    language with terms such as "Le week-end" which is in common use.
    
    I think what we have to be aware of is to separate the aspects of the
    change in language with new words and ideas (like the straw man ...)
    form decline in language ... it is easy to be afraid of change and
    attack it as decline.
    
    Stuart

   > A significant difference today is that more and more of the
   > products of public schools and colleges are not competent in the
   > language.  

I have yet to see any definition of linguistic "competence" here other
than "those whom Bernie Goldstein does not comprehend".  What criteria
are we using here?  Surely these people didn't get through college without
being comprehended by *someone*.  Maybe instead of a "better" form of English
being eroded from the outside, a more popular form of English is being spread
to the schools and universities.

> Consider, for example (since you seem so fond of scholarly quotes), a 
> passage from Jacques Barzun's preface to Bernstein's book _Watch Your 
> Language_:
    
   > 	The language is unquestionably in a precarious state.  you have
   > 	only to look in these pages and see the errors that professional
   > 	writers commit; you have only to read your favorite authors and the
   > 	letters to your friends, to listen to public speakers or to your own
   > 	voice.  

"You have only to look and see" -- now there's a tried-and-true scientific
method for you.  You also need only look and see to know that the Earth is flat,
or that the sun revolves around the Earth.  As I have already pointed out, 
people have held views such as Barzun's for centuries.  I have yet to see
any evidence that the people who have held these views have been any more 
accurate than those who believed that the Earth was flat.
    
 >   One may fail, of course, fail to communicate clearly in standard English. 
 >   Its mere use does not obviate the possibility of writing or speaking in
 >   an inconsistent, confusing, or needlessly complex manner
  
Well then, I say better to let people communicate using a form in which
they are not inconsistent, confusing, or needlessly complex, rather than
force-feeding them something "better".
    
A rather infamous example springs to mind:

A film showing the corrective program developed by a team of educational
psychologists for children alleged to have language deficiencies was
screened for linguists at the 1973 Linguistic Institute in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
It contained the following sequence:

Earnest white teacher, leaning forward, holding a coffee cup: 'This-is-not-a-
spoon.'

Little black girl, softly: 'Dis not no 'poon.'

White teacher, leaning further forward, raising her voice: 'No, This-is-not-a-
spoon.'

Black child, softly: 'Dis not a 'poon.'

White teacher, frustrated: 'This-is-not-a-spoon.'

Child, exasperated: 'Well, dass a cup!'

>    You want to know why you should acquire basic skills in English?  Don't
>    you think you have them already?  Or are you asking the even more
>    absurd question why anyone should bother to acquire them?  If that's
>    what you're asking, then the answer should be obvious: to communicate
>    with other people; to ensure that you accurately transmit your thoughts
>    to others.

I can speak plain, standard, everyday, basic, clear English, and there are 
a great many speakers of English who will barely understand a word I say.
Am I therefore linguistically incompetent?  Are they?  Are we going to have
a world-wide election to determine whose form of English to use?  Should
we re-educate everybody whom Bernie Goldstein does not comprehend?
    
>> Can you tell me why that dialect [I assume you mean standard English]
>> is somehow superior?
    
  >  Of course.  It is the dialect spoken and written by the literate.  It is
  >  the dialect of textbooks, magazines, newspapers, phone books,
  >  historians, philosophers, noters, engineers, black jack dealers,
  >  teachers of linguistics, and virtually everyone else engaged in normal
  >  commerce.
   
Ah, yes; that mythical circular beast -- the "superior" dialect -- once again
rears its ugly head.  What do literate people speak?  Standard English.  What's
the definition of Standard English?  Why, it's what the literate people speak.

Did you know that there are textbooks written in Black English Vernacular, 
not to mention numerous magazines and newspapers?  You have just subsumed BEV 
under the banner of Standard (or "superior") English.  Perhaps you'd like to 
recast your statement with some judicious insertions of the word "some".
    
- snopes

    re: .59
    
    	I was certainly considering the future of this note. The art of
    sophisticated insult deserves a topic of its own, and rather than
    separating the contestants I was thinking of a base note that insults
    them all, and leave them to carry on from there.
    
    	For the moment, and until I or someone else provides such a *base*
    note I suggest that contributors consider carefuly whether they adding
    any value to the topic of this string.

    
    >	I was certainly considering the future of this note. The art of
    >   sophisticated insult deserves a topic of its own, and rather than
    >   separating the contestants I was thinking of a base note that insults
    >   them all, and leave them to carry on from there.
    
    Do you mean a single base note that insults me, Cliff, and Bernie; a
    topic in which other noters can insult us; or a topic for the three of
    us to use to insult each other?  ;-)
    
    Point taken.  It got a little out of hand, and I think we can tone it
    down.
    
    - snopes
    
    
    
    

>    A significant difference today is that more and more of the
>    products of public schools and colleges are not competent in the
>    language.  And this is a recent development.  Consider, for example
>    (since you seem so fond of scholarly quotes), a passage from Jacques
>    Barzun's preface to Bernstein's book _Watch Your Language_:
    
 >   	The language is unquestionably in a precarious state.  you have
 >   	only to look in these pages and see the errors that professional
 >   	writers commit

Boy, if these are the kind of "scholarly" linguistic soldiers being mustered
in, I can send my troops home without a battle.

a)  What is Barzun's definition of "error"?  Typos?  Spelling errors?
    Mis-used punctuation?  "Bad" grammar?  Poor word selection?  An
    overabundance of repetition?  Factual inaccuracies?  Overuse of
    cliches?  Bad taste?  If Barzun doesn't like someone's writing style, 
    is that an "error"?

b)  Most "professional" writers rarely publish anything without its going
    through several proofreaders/editors first.  Did Barzun make detailed
    examinations of hundreds of original manuscripts to determine that the
    "errors" were the fault of the writers?

c)  Even if there were more "errors" in today's professional writings, it
    could have something to do with the writing/editing/publishing professions
    being relatively much more low-paying now than in the past, causing many
    of the truly talented/competent writers to apply their skills in other
    fields where they can earn more money.  On the other hand, why bother
    looking beyond your nose if it conflicts with the conclusions you want?

    - snopes

    Re: .62 and some previous replies.
    
    I agree completely about the destructive nature of _ad hominem_
    comments and I would like to see them eliminated from this conference. 
    I do not think it is difficult to do so.  After some thought, I believe
    the best way is for the moderator to set unseen any note that he
    regards as containing such a comment.  The moderator should inform the
    conference that he has set the note unseen for inappropriate remarks. 
    He should then send a note via VAX mail to the offender explaining that
    such comments are not acceptable in this conference and invite him or
    her to re-enter the note, concentrating on the issues alone.
    
    And I think that any participant in the conference should feel free to
    help by pointing out any statements they regard as _ad hominem_.  In
    this way I think we will police ourselves, exercise appropriate
    restraint, and, of course, concentrate on issue that should be
    interesting and enjoyable to discuss.
    
    Thanks, Eric, for recognizing the fact that I abstain from any
    inappropriate comments until I become the victim of them.  It is always
    a difficult position to be in.  Does one ignore them and thus run the
    risk of inviting the perpetrator to continue making such remarks (and
    draw attention away from one's argument), or does one call attention to
    them and attempt to embarrass the offender into desisting?  Neither
    course is entirely satisfactory; indeed, the latter seems also to
    encourage the offender to further attack and abandonment of the
    original discussion - but at least it affords the victim the
    opportunity to defend himself.
    
    
    I propose that we continue this discussion on two independent lines. 
    The first should be the original topic: whether the language is today
    in a state worse than it has been in the past.  Whether there are fewer
    people competent in basic language skills today - or no more today than
    in the past.
    
    The other should be devoted to the secondary topic that developed in
    the course of our discussion of the first; viz, whether there are
    people who lack basic language skills through no fault of their own -
    or whether anyone, with a bit of work, is capable of acquiring basic
    skills in English (or anything else for that matter).  If there is
    sufficient interest remaining in the topic, I will volunteer to write
    the base note.  Since it is not purely a linguistic issue, however, I
    have no objection if the other participants or the moderator would like
    to declare it of no interest in this conference, which is devoted to
    the language, and abandon it.
    
    In the meantime, I shall devote my replies to the first topic and
    attempt to convince the readers that we are today in a position unique
    in the history of the language and that there are indeed more ignorant
    and incompetent users than ever before, and, to make matters worse, the
    ignorant and incompetent are more influential than they have ever been.
    Stay tuned.
    
    Bernie
            

>    attempt to convince the readers that we are today in a position unique
>    in the history of the language and that there are indeed more ignorant
>    and incompetent users than ever before, and, to make matters worse, the
>    ignorant and incompetent are more influential than they have ever been.

A few points ... I think there are more users of _more_ of the language today.
In other words, there are more people with a broader vocabulary than ever
before and better educated than ever before.  After all the number of
illiterate people is dropping every year.  In the past, the illiterate used
a very restricted subset of the language, to the point that described them
as illiterate.  Today we have more people educated to a higher standard,
some of whom in the past would have been illiterate, however, their use of
English, while not good, is sufficiently bad to be noticeable.  Combine this
with population growth and we have far more users than ever before, some of
them being incompetent.

I think we also communicate with far more people today than ever before ...
so have far more opportunity to see poor language first hand.

I would not call them ignorant, for that is making a character judgement and
insulting people who have no opportunity to defend themselves.  One "ad
hominem" attack.

There is also a degree of relativity to this.  I am sure that Shakespeare would
have bemoaned the quality of the language spoken by the masses.  How many
people of Elizabethan times were educated to the standard of Shakespeare in
use of English ?  What proportion of people were well educated then compared
with the current day ?

I have a horrible feeling that we are looking at a topic here like the eternal
moan of parents for generations and generations ...

       "Our children are so lazy, how will they ever survive. ?"



Stuart

    	I think  .66 is confusing literacy with competent use of the
    current language. Since Homer is reputed to have been blind, and lived
    before Braille and typewriters were invented, he was almost certainly
    illiterate.
    
    	Machines can frequently correct spelling errors and can sometimes
    transcribe speech, but are far from choosing modes of expression,
    appropriate similes, etc..  Modern education has increased the
    percentage of the population that is literate in a technical sense (I
    don't want to argue this) but Prince Charles was objecting to a decline
    in ability to use the language effectively rather than ability to read
    comic strips or newspaper advertisements.
    
    	A *larger* vocabulary I might be prepared to concede, but I would
    need some convincing that it is broader. An industrial chemist might
    talk to me about isomers while I might talk to him about bytes, but
    these are almost dialects belonging to a sub-group of the population.

>    appropriate similes, etc..  Modern education has increased the
>    percentage of the population that is literate in a technical sense (I
>    don't want to argue this) but Prince Charles was objecting to a decline
>    in ability to use the language effectively rather than ability to read
>    comic strips or newspaper advertisements.

That is precisely the point I was trying to make.  We have more people in
society who are literate in the mechanical sense, so can read newspapers
(like the Sun!), who in bygone years might not have even been able to do
that.  So, we run across far more of these people in our daily lives, whose
mastery of English is limited, giving the impression of a decline in
language.

>There is also a degree of relativity to this.  I am sure that Shakespeare would
>have bemoaned the quality of the language spoken by the masses.  How many
>people of Elizabethan times were educated to the standard of Shakespeare in
>use of English ?  What proportion of people were well educated then compared
>with the current day ?

    The illusion of numbers Stuart is pointing out is also exacerbated
    by the pedestals on which we place the great writers of earlier
    periods.  We assume that because Shakespeare's plays have survived
    the proverbial test of time, his contemporaries must have regarded
    him just as highly as we do.
    
    Shakespeare was a great writer with a fine sense of drama and
    insight into the human character, but he was not an educated man. 
    His use of the language stems almost entirely from natural talent,
    from a deep love of and understanding of the beauty of English. 
    He went to school for only a few years, and most of his plays are
    taken straight from a popular history book that was known even at
    the time to be very inaccurate.  He wrote his plays with the
    intention of appealing to a popular audience; the comic portions
    of the other plays, especially the history plays, were added
    simply to keep the attention of the people in the pits. 
    
    Christopher Marlowe (Dr. Faustus, Tamburlaine) was an educated
    man, a university man.  Marlowe thought Shakespeare was a vulgar
    actor who didn't understand the poetry of the classical tradition
    and mangled iambic pentameter with mispronunciations and careless
    usage, who let his poetry sprawl and didn't try to imitate Latin
    syntax. 
    
    It is not known what Shakespeare thought of Marlowe.
    
    And as far as I'm concerned, all this proves is that there is no
    connection between formal education and the ability to
    communicate.
    
    --bonnie

Actually there is much debate on whether or not Shakespeare actually wrote
the works of Shakespeare, given that he had such a poor formal education.

    Re .69
    
    Bonnie
    
    I must take issue with you on your comment about education and the
    ability to communicate.
    
    There is growing concern here in the UK about the increasing number of
    people leaving school who are classified as illiterate.  (Minimum age
    for leaving school is 16).  The number is now 4,000,000 adults who are
    defined as illiterate, that's at least 8% of the adult population.
    
    The concern is that these people are unable to communicate, except
    with the spoken word, thus denying them a significant amount of
    information.
    
    As many of these people are neither stupid nor unintelligent there is
    a major effort to remedy the situation with education programmes
    to teach them to read and write.  Sadly it seems that there have
    been 4,000,000 failures in our school system which allowed these
    people to reach the age of 16 unable to read and/or write.
    
    Nick

    re: .71
    
    Nick, I think you misunderstood my point, which was that a formal
    education does not guarantee one will acquire an ability to write
    well any more than lack of a formal education automatically
    precludes one from acquiring such skills.  
    
    Certainly a person who does not receive any formal education is at
    disadvantage, as is a person who went to a school where social
    conditions or poor teachers prevented acquisition of skills, or a
    person who refused to learn.  But a formal school program is not
    the only place one can acquire these or any other skills.  
    
    But the issue of whether the school system is adequately teaching
    the language (or anything else) is not the same issue as whether
    the language itself is declining.  The former may be true; I doubt
    that the latter is.
    
    re: .70, Stuart -- When I was finishing my MA in Renaissance drama
    (12 years ago already?!), the scholarly concensus was that while
    Shakespeare lacked formal education, his informal education
    through reading was at least average.  In addition, while his
    writing is superb, he does not write the way an educated man of
    his time generally wrote -- his sentence structures, for example,
    are English rather than the Latinate popular with the elite.  And
    very few of the elite writers of the time (Bacon, Surrey, Marlowe,
    for example) had the vulgar exhuberance Shakespeare often
    exhibits.  
    
    --bonnie

Carrying on down this side-track a bit ...

This sounds a bit like chains of hearsay I must admit, but anyway, a close
friend of my in-laws has made it one of her life's goals to research some
of the claims regarding Shakespeare.  There are a multitude of possibilities,
but one of the more noteable pieces of research was that Shakespeare was
accredited with writing his works, but were in fact written by another writer
with a far greater education than Shakespeare.  There are apparently indirect
references in many of the works to some of the secret societies prevelant in
Europe at the time. The contention is that Shakespeare could not have had
knowledge of these societies, but that a more elitist playwright could, and
the change of use to English language structure was just a shield.

To my normally inquiring mind ... far-fetched ... but nonetheless interesting.
Certainly the plays are filled with double entendre and capable of being
undertood at two different levels, which would indicate more education than he
was credited with ... which starts to lend credence to such ideas.  I wish
I remembered more about this ... the last time we talked about it with this
friend was about 6 years ago, and the last time I did any drama studies was
15 years ago!   My aging brain is showing the effects!


Back closer the origianl track ...

On the matter of literacy ... I also wonder if our standards of functional
literacy have increased ?  On the other hand, I have seen some of what Nick
was talking about (being an ex-patriate Brit), and I can point directly to
a school system which does not normally use the scholastic results to determine
progression through the system, but mainly age.  That is to say, you can't
fail a year in school in England as such and be held back to repeat.  They
just let children plow on and on, getting further behind, and more and more
disenchanted with school, being thoroughly ready to leave school at age 16.

The system is great for the bright child, just satisfactory for the average 
child, but God help the slow child.  The truly learning disabled child fares
better than the slow child with ESN (Educationally sub-normal) schools.  I
have seen it first hand with a brother classed originally as slow, and later
diagnosed as dyslexic ... not that they could do anything then ... but the
teachers were a bit more understanding.  The school system let him down.


Stuart

    Re .73 and dyslexia....
    
    Your brother was lucky to be recognised by the school as dyslexic.
    In Bedfordshire the education authority don't generally recognise it
    as an affliction or problem at all.
    
    They argue that as it only affects children of middle and upper
    class parents it must be a social affectation, rather than a
    disability.
    
    As a school governor in Bedfordshire for about seven years, my mind
    still hasn't come to terms with their reasoning!
    
    Nick

    And that "popular history book" Bonnie refers to in .69 was by Plutarch,
    I believe. Was it "The Histories"?

    That's for the Roman plays.  I meant the one that was the source for
    the English history plays, and I think for several of the Italian
    comedies and Romeo and Juliet as well. 
    
    In a disaster of major proportions, I wasn't able to find any of
    my Shakespeare texts or critical works last night!  They appear to
    have been in the box of books that disappeared when we moved the
    last time.  Oh, boo, hoo.  What am I to do? 
    
    --bonnie

>    
>    In a disaster of major proportions, I wasn't able to find any of
>    my Shakespeare texts or critical works last night!  They appear to
>    have been in the box of books that disappeared when we moved the
>    last time.  Oh, boo, hoo.  What am I to do? 
>    
Alas poor Shakespeare, I knew him well ....

That is a disaster ...  My "complete works" is on the verge of becoming
an incomplete works if many more pages fall out! But then I had them since
about 1964 ... good Grief, that's 25 years ago!

    Holinshed's _Chronicles_ seems to have been Shakespeare's source for
    the English history plays.

    Thank you.  I knew somebody had to remember.  
    
    I hope this isn't a sign of senility starting to set in . . .
    
    --bonnie