Support NeoGAF

[Timeaisis]

"Lie across my big brass, bed sounds" wrong, though.

 

[Kuro Madoushi]

Great explanation! I hope to see more of these.

This might be a bit too much for some here. Personally, I'd just be happy if people AT LEAST got your/you're correct. Jesus, it's the simplest thing in the world to tell the difference and I've met a lot of adults who've finished university that use it wrong. I don't like seeing they're/there/their wrong either, but your/you're...FUCK'S SAKE, PEOPLE! >:0

 

[terrisus]

I'm with this guy. Let's okay y'all while we're at it. Otherwise English lacks a way to distinguish between singular and plural second person pronouns.

I'm strongly in favor of a word which functions as "you (pl)"

I'm also strongly in favor of a word to refer to a person or people which is not gender specific (I generally use "one" in this case - e.g. "One would have to have really bad taste to not like Chrono Trigger"), but that's not really ideal/commonly accepted either.

Lie across my big brass, bed

 

[Ayumi]

A more serious offense is reading something like the following, which has infested GAF like a disease:

"I could of been a contender."
"I had to of driven after I sobered up."
"They should of given Neo more Matrix powers."

It makes me rage inside

Ok now this thread makes me angry. Bye.

 

[Mistake]

"Lay" happens to be the past tense conjugation of the verb "lie".

However, "lay" is a completely different verb when used in the present tense.

So when people say, "I need to lay down," your response should be, "Lay what down?"

But if people say, "I lay down yesterday" to indicate they were resting yesterday, it's correct.

I think part of the problem is that "lay" is interchangeable, and also doesn't feel like past tense when used in the last example because there is a feeling of continuity. Growing up, I always thought it was "layed", even though the word doesn't exist.

 

[Replicant]

Need to go ly dow.

 

[Dead Man]

I'm all for simplifying the fucking stupid mess that is English verbs.

Lie
Lay
Laid

Fuck off English, you know what I mean, stop being such a stupid fucking language.

 

[beyond_death]

Should of
Could of
Would of

NEEDS TO STOP

A more serious offense is reading something like the following, which has infested GAF like a disease:

This. Very much this. A little disturbing how many people use those on the internet these days. Really not just Gaf though, I see it fucking everywhere.

 

[CornBurrito]

This. Very much this. A little disturbing how many people use those on the internet these days.

I don't see a problem with language change. Deal with it.

 

[yogloo]

I'm going to lie the smack down on op.

 

[beyond_death]

I don't see a problem with language change. Deal with it.

Is it really language change though? People using words incorrectly? Like if you wrote that on an essay or something your teacher wouldn't correct it?

Edit: I might sound abit standofish but I actually don't know, I left high school several years ago so those terms could very well be accepted nowadays. Hell, with the frequency of use I see on the internet, they could very well be :s

 

[Dice]

I'm pretty sure "lie with me" in that song is in reference to telling lies, as in lying to ourselves to make up a context where being with each other is the right thing so we can have some comfort for the time being. With that in mind, to say "if I just lie here" would either make it redundant or too subtle of a shift to pick up on.

Go learn poetry you grammatico-roboto.

 

[FUME5]

I won't lie to you, I could use a good lay.

 

[Five]

I'm going to lay my body down to sleep.
I'm going to lay ... down to sleep.

Ergo, lay is correct. Q.E.D.

 

[Dead Man]

This. Very much this. A little disturbing how many people use those on the internet these days. Really not just Gaf though, I see it fucking everywhere.

A little disturbing? That is one low threshold for disturbing.

Is it really language change though? People using words incorrectly? Like if you wrote that on an essay or something your teacher wouldn't correct it?

Yes, that is exactly what it is. How do you think languages change? Whether it would be corrected on a paper is not the point.

I am reconciled to fucking words changing in much larger ways (literally, which drove me batshit since it now means it's antonym) the shit you are worrying about has no room for confusion at all. It is very clear what is meant in each case.

 

[Dice]

TBH you know what I have trouble with?

Ones own?
One's own?
Ones' own?

I added "own" just to give a better context. I feel like what is before and after it in a sentence is important, but I can't figure out how. It seems different from "its" and "it's" even though that can be tricky depending on context (the "it is" rule to determine doesn't always apply) as well. I've been too lazy to look it up for years, which is uncharacteristic of me. I most often feel like "one's" is correct, but I can't figure out what the full version of what it is contracting would be, so it also seems wrong.

 

[HallucinatingElvis]

My Grammy used to say

"Only hens lay eggs"

 

[Red]

I don't see a problem with language change. Deal with it.

I maintain there is a difference between language change and using words incorrectly. A lot of people saying things wrong is not enough to make the wrong thing right.

"Should of" is a meaningless statement, and unless the definition and function of "of" changes, it will never mean the same thing as "should have." It doesn't matter if intended meaning is understood. Similarly, a malapropism is clearly a mistake, but meaning can still be maintained with context.

 

[CornBurrito]

Is it really language change though? People using words incorrectly? Like if you wrote that on an essay or something your teacher wouldn't correct it?

Yes. Language isn't governed by class room usage. How do you think we went from Old English to Middle English to Modern English? Fucking teachers in classrooms not correcting essays?

Standard English that is taught in schools is not the only valid version of English. It never has been and never will be.

I maintain there is a difference between language change and using words incorrectly. A lot of people saying things wrong is not enough to make the wrong thing right.

Yes it is. That is precisely how language works. What makes a specific usage of a word inherently correct or incorrect? Argument from popularity? Argument from tradition?

Are you the sort of person that argues "black" means "white" because the origin of the word "black" is "blanch" which means to whiten?

"Should of" is a meaningless statement, and unless the definition and function of "of" changes, it will never mean the same thing as "should have." It doesn't matter if intended meaning is understood. Similarly, a malapropism is clearly a mistake, but meaning can still be maintained with context.

LOLLLLLLLLL.

"should of is a meaningless statement" even though speakers regularly understand its meaning? I dont think meaningless means what you think it means.

It will have the same meaning as "should have" because speakers understand that is carries that meaning.

 

[OnPoint]

Had a teacher once say it this way:

Getting "laid" requires two people.

I will always remember Lie is singular now.

 

[Red]

Yes. Language isn't governed by class room usage. How do you think we went from Old English to Middle English to Modern English? Fucking teachers in classrooms not correcting essays?

Standard English that is taught in schools is not the only valid version of English. It never has been and never will be.



Yes it is. That is precisely how language works. What makes a specific usage of a word inherently correct or incorrect? Argument from popularity? Argument from tradition?

Are you the sort of person that argues "black" means "white" because the origin of the word "black" is "blanch" which means to whiten?



LOLLLLLLLLL.

"should of is a meaningless statement" even though speakers regularly understand its meaning? I dont think meaningless means what you think it means.

It will have the same meaning as "should have" because speakers understand that is carries that meaning.

Semantic change is not simply the result of people making repeated mistakes.

If I misspeak and say "a broken time is right twice a day," you can understand my intent despite the sentence itself being nonsense. It is possible to find meaning in meaningless statements.

 

[Dead Man]

Semantic change is not simply the result of people making repeated mistakes.

So what do you think semantic change is?

Edit: Re you edit, that would not be a widely repeated mistake, would it? But if it was, the saying may become that over time. Look at 'Could care less' for example.

 

[CornBurrito]

Semantic change is not simply the result of people making repeated mistakes.

Not simply, but that is a part of it.

And what determines a "mistake" exactly? Differing from prescriptivist Standard English?

Native speakers speaking their native language in a way other native speakers can readily understand is not a "mistake" in my mind.

Please explain how we went from Old English to Middle English to Modern English? Why do you believe modern changes are mistakes, but mistakes that took the language to this point in time are not mistakes?

 

[Red]

So what do you think semantic change is?

A cascade of sociocultural influences.

Edit: Re you edit, that would not be a widely repeated mistake, would it? But if it was, the saying may become that over time. Look at 'Could care less' for example.

Could care less is still a mistake. The meaning can be understood but the language is used incorrectly.

I don't mean to evade explaining the causes of semantic change. Information is readily available online. It is a complex and interconnected series of changes. Repeated misuse is rarely the cause of change, and saying so oversimplifies the life of a language.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Should of/could of/would of has a defence force on GAF?

Disgraceful.

 

[Dead Man]

A cascade of sociocultural influences.

Could care less is still a mistake. The meaning can be understood but the language is used incorrectly.

Umm... that's the point. It is a mistake that has propagated. It is now considered a correct variant by many people.

Unless you are claiming to be the one true arbiter of correct English as well?

Edit: Also, you cascade of sociocultural issues is nice and vague, I'm going to call it mistakes unless you want to clarify.

 

[Red]

Umm... that's the point. It is a mistake that has propagated. It is now considered a correct variant by many people.

Unless you are claiming to be the one true arbiter of correct English as well?

Edit: Also, you cascade of sociocultural issues is nice and vague, I'm going to call it mistakes unless you want to clarify.

Let's put it this way: you said above, when I have an example of retained meaning from a malapropism, "is it likely many people would make that mistake?" Well, what makes it likely many people would make any particular mistake? To say that language changes due to a series of mistakes does not explain anything. What causes a large portion of native speakers to make the same mistake? What creates those watersheds?

Saying mistakes are the cause of language change simplifies things to the point of absurdity. It would take you a lifetime or more to get a thorough study on language. It is extremely complex. I don't say that to deflect the issue. All I'm saying here is there is a difference between common mistakes and language change over time. Sometimes mistakes are just mistakes. You can't point at would of should of could of and say that their acceptance in English proper is inevitable.

 

[CornBurrito]

You can't point at would of should of could of and say that their acceptance in English proper is inevitable.

By English proper do you mean Standard English that is taught in schools? Because while having a Standard that is governed by prescriptivist rules is great, that isn't the only valid form of a language, nor the only valid form of English.

 

[SecretMoblin]

The weekly grammar thread is always a treat to read <3

 

[phisheep]

"Now I lay me down to sleep ..." is, I think, about 18th century.

It seems a perfectly normal development in language to miss out an assumed word.

"Now I lay [me] down to sleep"

So I really can't get excited about the rights or wrongs between lie down and lay down.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

Lol "verb-fucking"

 

[Hypron]

The thing that really annoys me about "could/should of" is that if you actually stop and think about it for just a second you would realise it doesn't make any sense. I know I make a lot of other mistakes when I write but it still blows my mind that so many native speakers make mistakes like "should of".

 

[yogloo]

Sleeping dogs lay.

 

[WickedCobra03]

I am going to lye down on this limestone...



Seriously though, yes, this kind of stuff does kind of get to me in that this should be properly taught in primary school. I know English as language, especially Americanized, but let's stay consistent at least.

There/their/they're is the one that really gets to me as well. I just don't understand how this could still be messed up as an adult?

 

[neorej]

Lie to me

 

[terrisus]

TBH you know what I have trouble with?

Ones own?
One's own?
Ones' own?

I added "own" just to give a better context. I feel like what is before and after it in a sentence is important, but I can't figure out how. It seems different from "its" and "it's" even though that can be tricky depending on context (the "it is" rule to determine doesn't always apply) as well. I've been too lazy to look it up for years, which is uncharacteristic of me. I most often feel like "one's" is correct, but I can't figure out what the full version of what it is contracting would be, so it also seems wrong.

One's own.

It's not a contraction - it's showing possession.
"One" in this case means a person.
So it's like saying "John's own."
It belongs to John.

 

[Red]

By English proper do you mean Standard English that is taught in schools? Because while having a Standard that is governed by prescriptivist rules is great, that isn't the only valid form of a language, nor the only valid form of English.

"English" is the umbrella that subcategories fall under. New Yorkian, Londonian, Floridan, whatever you want to call these things doesn't matter. English is the larger community of dialects with shared understanding. It doesn't matter what is valid in the sense that it is understood. Language is not anarchy. Mistakes exist. Language can be used incorrectly. Understanding is not tied up completely with proper use. We are not computers. Even people who habitually make the same mistakes are aware, when they think about the construction of what they are saying, that the words used are technically incorrect. Language has not changed until that is no longer the case. If you want to distinguish between regional dialects and non standard forms of English, you can allow any distortion. New "languages" in that case would blip into and out of existence all the time, and every high shook clique would be speaking a different variant.

I'd like to say at this point I don't agree about the rules surrounding lay and lie, and the confusion is a process of language fixing itself.

Think of language as a gift box with meaning inside. You make a mistake, that's like messing up the wrapping paper or the ribbon. As long as you haven' cmpletely butchere'd the, pakage it will still be recognizable and the thing inside will remain intact. If enough people make the same mistake over time, that new technique will become the default for proximal groups. Despite this, there is a proper way to wrap a gift in the larger community.

I don't say this to be snobby. Rules are in place for a reason and regardless of the micro-changes that occur all around us, not every mispronunciation or grammatical error becomes a permanent part of a given language.

 

[terrisus]

If you want to distinguish between regional dialects and non standard forms of English, you can allow any distortion. New "languages" in that case would blip into and out of existence all the time, and every high shook clique would be speaking a different variant.

Wicked pissah.

 

[Herr K]

go ly down

 

[TheContact]

Alias taught me this difference. People lie.

 

[Mr_Appleby]

A couple of malagafisms I've noticed:

"That peaked my interest." The word is piqued.

and using queue instead of cue, eg "right on queue." or "queue the lights."

arg.

 

[Red]

A couple of malagafisms I've noticed:

"That peaked my interest." The word is piqued.

and using queue instead of cue, eg "right on queue." or "queue the lights."

arg.

"Peaked my interest" still makes sense. I think it's likely to stick.

 

[Ashes]

I know it's the fashion to use grammar incorrectly until the day it becomes correct, because some men just want to watch the world burn..

What on earth are you on about?

 

[Ashes]

A couple of malagafisms I've noticed:

What is a 'malagafism'?

 

[Red]

What is a 'malagafism'?

Probably a GAF-specific malapropism.

 

[Skux]

American English ruins another word.

You lay eggs. You don't lay down.

 

[Ashes]

Probably a GAF-specific malapropism.

It's the perks of being unfunny. Don't get jokes so readily.

Yeah, I've seen a few dogberrys on gaf. I don't really care all that much.

 

[Zizbuka]

Lie your head on my shoulder?

 

[neorej]

American English ruins another word.

You lay eggs. You don't lay down.

I have never laid eggs, actually.

 

[Mr_Appleby]

"Peaked my interest" still makes sense. I think it's likely to stick.

I agree it still makes sense but it's not quite the same sense, peaked would imply you had some interest to begin with and now it's much greater, where the original phrase is more along the lines of "aroused my curiosity". I also think it's like to stick but I won't deny that makes me a little sad. I like piqued , it's a good word.