Chris_Hansen said
Regardless, my point stands. vargari is just arguing elitist standpoints, and obviously refuses to challenge his preconceptions, hence why he hates postmodern theories (even though he clearly, based on his third wave feminism comment, has no idea what they even are).
I’ve been around the block a few times. I’ve listened to these reductionist arguments for decades now. I’m not moved. They all depend on some notion of rejecting objective reality.
When it comes to language — pronunciation, spelling, grammar — it is helpful and socially cohesive to have an orthodox standard, because it encourages communication and reduces miscommunication. When words can be spelled or pronounced in any random way, without regard to a standard, and can be organized grammatically in any way, without regard to a standard, the ability for people to communicate is utterly undermined and becomes near impossible; it effectively bifurcates language; it creates a sort of social caste system; it creates suspicion and makes resolving problems far, far, far more difficult.
The vast majority of wars are fought between peoples who speak different languages. It’s in the nature of humanity: the more dissimilar a population appears to your own, the more suspicious and distrusting populations become. The United States has gone to war about ten times in the last 150 years — against Spain, in the Philippines, against the Central Powers, against the Nazis and Japanese, in Korea, in Vietnam, in Afghanistan and twice in Iraq — and in none of those cases did the United States go to war against another country that spoke English; but the US has repeatedly fought side-by-side with other English-speaking countries: the UK, Canada, Australia; just look of the influence of the English-speaking foreign head of state Bibi Netanyahu has had on U.S. foreign policy.
Now, you want to call me racist and elitist. But, oddly, I am only the third generation in my family to speak the English language. For dozens upon dozens of generations before me, my ancestors spoke one of the Latin languages, not English. I cannot understand why it’s acceptable to call me racist for adopting the orthodox rules of the most common language of the country in which I was born.
On top of that, I was born into a small town where the overwhelming majority of the population spoke in a dialect which occasionally diverts from orthodox American English; nonetheless, I expect the people of that town to use orthodox American English in certain settings; and they likewise expect of themselves.
vergari said
Chris_Hansen said
Regardless, my point stands. vargari is just arguing elitist standpoints, and obviously refuses to challenge his preconceptions, hence why he hates postmodern theories (even though he clearly, based on his third wave feminism comment, has no idea what they even are).
I’ve been around the block a few times. I’ve listened to these reductionist arguments for decades now. I’m not moved. They all depend on some notion of rejecting objective reality.
When it comes to language — pronunciation, spelling, grammar — it is helpful and socially cohesive to have an orthodox standard, because it encourages communication and reduces miscommunication. When words can be spelled or pronounced in any random way, without regard to a standard, and can be organized grammatically in any way, without regard to a standard, the ability for people to communicate is utterly undermined and becomes near impossible; it effectively bifurcates language; it creates a sort of social caste system; it creates suspicion and makes resolving problems far, far, far more difficult.
The vast majority of wars are fought between peoples who speak different languages. It’s in the nature of humanity: the more dissimilar a population appears to your own, the more suspicious and distrusting populations become. The United States has gone to war about ten times in the last 150 years — against Spain, in the Philippines, against the Central Powers, against the Nazis and Japanese, in Korea, in Vietnam, in Afghanistan and twice in Iraq — and in none of those cases did the United States go to war against another country that spoke English; but the US has repeatedly fought side-by-side with other English-speaking countries: the UK, Canada, Australia; just look of the influence of the English-speaking foreign head of state Bibi Netanyahu has had on U.S. foreign policy.
Now, you want to call me racist and elitist. But, oddly, I am only the third generation in my family to speak the English language. For dozens upon dozens of generations before me, my ancestors spoke one of the Latin languages, not English. I cannot understand why it’s acceptable to call me racist for adopting the orthodox rules of the most common language of the country in which I was born.
On top of that, I was born into a small town where the overwhelming majority of the population spoke in a dialect which occasionally diverts from orthodox American English; nonetheless, I expect the people of that town to use orthodox American English in certain settings; and they likewise expect of themselves.
That something is “helpful” does not make it any less arbitrary and non-reflective of reality. If you want to argue pragmatic usage for a “standard” version of English, that is not the same as saying there is a “proper” or “orthodox” form. Also, it only creates a social “caste system” when people like you decide to treat other dialects and languages as inferior for not being “standard” which you have done. Suspicion and confusion come from not teaching those dialects, and from treating them like they are “wrong” or “bad” or “inferior.” And usually, it always is divided along racial lines.
Also, have you tallied up all the wars ever fought? Because I think you’d have a pretty damn hard time proving that conclusion true. Maybe most “modern” wars. But also, most modern wars are fought over capitalistic and racist endeavors. Furthermore, language is rarely a motivator for war, and when it is, it is usually to exterminate an entire linguistic group as being “inferior”, which your entire last two pages of arguments rhetorically aids.
Also, in the last 150 someodd years, America went to war with itself with a bunch of southern English speakers, which was (I might add) the war with the largest number of casualties of any American war ever fought. So, you are actually just factually incorrect. Furthermore, the USA invaded the following countries speaking English: Grenada, the Dominican Republic (where all schools teach children English as a requirement), almost every European country we invaded had people commonly speaking English as a second language, when we invaded Guam most of them were English speakers, the Marshall Islands (which spoke English), need I continue? We invaded English speaking lands consistently in our history.
As a side note, your whole Netanyahu comment stinks of antisemitic conspiracy theory… but I’ll just dismiss it for now.
And I am not calling you racist for adopting the common language system. I am calling you racist and elitist for saying anyone who does not conform to that system, which has no reflection in spoken language realities (or even most written realities, as numerous studies have shown), is wrong and incorrect. The fact you “expect” anything from anyone about their language, shows that you do not respect them.
And for dozens upon dozens of generations before me, my family spoke Danish, German, Swiss, and Scottish Gaelic. I grew up in an area where Germanisms were common, and I was heavily antagonized as a child after I moved away and still spoke like that. Additionally, people lose their jobs, opportunities, and are forced into seclusion based purely on the way they speak. The fact that you “expect” them to speak a certain way, is exactly the reason why this happens. Your “expectation” is a part of the problem of why minorities suffer. That is why I call you elitist and racist. Because your expectation is racist and it is elitist. It would not even exist if it were not for white people creating aritifical rules that, in reality, no one even follows when speaking, even in professional arenas (for example, everyone ends sentences in prepositions, even in academic and professional settings. It is an artificial rule with no basis in reality, the same as double negatives, and the same as spelling standards).
I never once denied that standard language forms are not pragmatic. I said that if you think they are “correct” or “proper” that you are elitist and racist. They are most certainly useful. I think they should be taught as a second language, and should not be used to “correct” anyone. People who go around saying “your grammar is wrong” are people who perpetuate elitism and insecurity. “Standard English” is useful. But it is not any more “correct” than any other form of English.
No language form is more “correct” than another. No dialect is more “correct” than another dialect. Their dialects are grammatical, they function by the rules of their dialect, and they are completely systematic. Denying this is denying reality.
Judgments of more “correct” or “proper” are statements of value and are inherently relativistic. Those who state that “standard English” is more “correct” than the dialects of other people, are doing so on the basis of a history of imperialism and colonialism, where people invented new rules (which did not exist, like “don’t end sentences in prepositions” or “no double negatives” none of which existed in the language prior) and used their new arbitrary conception of English as a manner to oppress other forms. And people who continue to say “you are wrong for saying “aks”” are perpetuating this oppressive force, and are denying people their heritage, personhood, and individuality, and furthermore are incidentally promoting linguistic genocide, trying to coerce other people into conforming and assimilating.
None of this is denying the pragmatic use of “standard English.” None of this is saying you are racist or elitist for merely using it. As leading feminist scholar bell hooks noted, the use of standard English is the use of a language of the oppressor, but it can be used for resistance and transformation. It is saying that if you think it is “correct” or more “proper” than other dialects, then you are racist and elitist.
There is no “correct” form of any language. If there were, then languages never would have evolved in the first place. We would all just be speaking proto-Indo-European. Languages and dialects are all valid. They are all correct. None is more correct than another. The only time when you can say something should or should not be a certain way, is when you are speaking a specific dialect and it does not make sense to the speaker.
For instance, if I am trying to speak High German and I say “Des Jungen die Jacke” this is incorrect in High German. But specifically only there, and it may cause confusion. BUT if I am speaking Bavarian German and I say “Dem Jungen seine Jacke”, then this would be entirely correct. No language or dialect is more correct than another. “Correctness” is entirely relative to the dialect or language in question, and therefore no language or dialect is more correct than another.
Chris_Hansen said
No language form is more “correct” than another. No dialect is more “correct” than another dialect. Their dialects are grammatical, they function by the rules of their dialect, and they are completely systematic. Denying this is denying reality.Judgments of more “correct” or “proper” are statements of value and are inherently relativistic. Those who state that “standard English” is more “correct” than the dialects of other people, are doing so on the basis of a history of imperialism and colonialism, where people invented new rules (which did not exist, like “don’t end sentences in prepositions” or “no double negatives” none of which existed in the language prior) and used their new arbitrary conception of English as a manner to oppress other forms. And people who continue to say “you are wrong for saying “aks”” are perpetuating this oppressive force, and are denying people their heritage, personhood, and individuality, and furthermore are incidentally promoting linguistic genocide, trying to coerce other people into conforming and assimilating.
None of this is denying the pragmatic use of “standard English.” None of this is saying you are racist or elitist for merely using it. As leading feminist scholar bell hooks noted, the use of standard English is the use of a language of the oppressor, but it can be used for resistance and transformation. It is saying that if you think it is “correct” or more “proper” than other dialects, then you are racist and elitist.
There is no “correct” form of any language. If there were, then languages never would have evolved in the first place. We would all just be speaking proto-Indo-European. Languages and dialects are all valid. They are all correct. None is more correct than another. The only time when you can say something should or should not be a certain way, is when you are speaking a specific dialect and it does not make sense to the speaker.
For instance, if I am trying to speak High German and I say “Des Jungen die Jacke” this is incorrect in High German. But specifically only there, and it may cause confusion. BUT if I am speaking Bavarian German and I say “Dem Jungen seine Jacke”, then this would be entirely correct. No language or dialect is more correct than another. “Correctness” is entirely relative to the dialect or language in question, and therefore no language or dialect is more correct than another.
If every variance in pronunciation and spelling of every word is just as correct or valid or proper (pick your term) as any other, then we don’t have words.
If every grammatical variation is just as correct or valid or proper as any other, then we don’t have composition.
If we have neither words nor composition, then we don’t have a structured system of communication. In other words, we don’t have a language.
vergari said
Chris_Hansen said
No language form is more “correct” than another. No dialect is more “correct” than another dialect. Their dialects are grammatical, they function by the rules of their dialect, and they are completely systematic. Denying this is denying reality.
Judgments of more “correct” or “proper” are statements of value and are inherently relativistic. Those who state that “standard English” is more “correct” than the dialects of other people, are doing so on the basis of a history of imperialism and colonialism, where people invented new rules (which did not exist, like “don’t end sentences in prepositions” or “no double negatives” none of which existed in the language prior) and used their new arbitrary conception of English as a manner to oppress other forms. And people who continue to say “you are wrong for saying “aks”” are perpetuating this oppressive force, and are denying people their heritage, personhood, and individuality, and furthermore are incidentally promoting linguistic genocide, trying to coerce other people into conforming and assimilating.
None of this is denying the pragmatic use of “standard English.” None of this is saying you are racist or elitist for merely using it. As leading feminist scholar bell hooks noted, the use of standard English is the use of a language of the oppressor, but it can be used for resistance and transformation. It is saying that if you think it is “correct” or more “proper” than other dialects, then you are racist and elitist.
There is no “correct” form of any language. If there were, then languages never would have evolved in the first place. We would all just be speaking proto-Indo-European. Languages and dialects are all valid. They are all correct. None is more correct than another. The only time when you can say something should or should not be a certain way, is when you are speaking a specific dialect and it does not make sense to the speaker.
For instance, if I am trying to speak High German and I say “Des Jungen die Jacke” this is incorrect in High German. But specifically only there, and it may cause confusion. BUT if I am speaking Bavarian German and I say “Dem Jungen seine Jacke”, then this would be entirely correct. No language or dialect is more correct than another. “Correctness” is entirely relative to the dialect or language in question, and therefore no language or dialect is more correct than another.
If every variance in pronunciation and spelling of every word is just as correct or valid or proper (pick your term) as any other, then we don’t have words.
If every grammatical variation is just as correct or valid or proper as any other, then we don’t have composition.
If we have neither words nor composition, then we don’t have a structured system of communication. In other words, we don’t have a language.
What? Yes we do. Words don’t stop existing because multiple forms of them are valid.
And yes, we have composition.
Everyone speaks in a structured system. And everyone speaks their own dialect. Every dialect has words, every dialect has grammar, every dialect has composition.
If we have multiple forms of a word, or multiple forms of grammar, it just means we have multiple forms of our language. Not that we don’t have a language. That would be like saying “if we have Judaism and you we Christianity, then we don’t have religion.” Like it is actually just absurd and so illogical that it borders on the incoherent rambling of someone who just really wants to commit genocide on anyone who doesn’t speak the way you want them to.
Did English language not exist until 1800 because before then people spelled “ask” both as aks and ask, or because they used double negatives while others didn’t at the same time? Because that is the kind of nonsense that just seeped through that thing you called a brain.
English doesn’t exist because people speak differently, lmao. We don’t have language or composition, because we speak differently from each other. Like seriously, you are actually an absurdist and you lack even a basic understanding of language, and it is absolutely hilarious. The amount of incompetency that manages to come out of your posts actually may need its own Oxford Dictionary definition to account for.
If every variance in pronunciation and spelling of every word is just as correct or valid or proper (pick your term) as any other, then we don’t have words.
Words don’t exist because it is okay we say them differently lmao.
Like, someone should start an academic Journal of Comedic Linguistic Incompetency, so we can just permanently list these doozies.
Chris_Hansen said
Hey guys, just letting you know that according to Vergari’s logic, German language doesn’t exist because different dialects have different ways of forming the grammatical genitive form, lmao.
I can understand why you’re getting so defensive and now doing multiple responsive posts.
You expressly posted that “h2@nd[yn” is just as proper, correct, valid, whathaveyou a spelling for the word “color” as “color,” “colour,” or any other imaginable spelling. Yes, the German language has many different dialects; but the language and those dialects do not permit for infinite spellings of the same word, infinite pronunciations of the same word, and/or infinite grammatical variation for the same composition.
vergari said
Chris_Hansen said
Hey guys, just letting you know that according to Vergari’s logic, German language doesn’t exist because different dialects have different ways of forming the grammatical genitive form, lmao.
I can understand why you’re getting so defensive and now doing multiple responsive posts.
You expressly posted that “h2@nd[yn” is just as proper, correct, valid, whathaveyou a spelling for the word “color” as “color,” “colour,” or any other imaginable spelling. Yes, the German language has many different dialects; but the language and those dialects do not permit for infinite spellings of the same word, infinite pronunciations of the same word, and/or infinite grammatical variation for the same composition.
I said if there was a dialect who used ** you do not have permission to see this link ** it would be just as correct, because that dialect finds it correct.
And German has different dialects that are almost unintelligible to other dialects. They are all still German language. Here is a good example, using German words for “Good day/night”:
Swiss German: Guete Daag, Guet Nacht
High German: Guten Tag, Gute Nacht
Bavarian German: Guadn dåg, Guad nåhd
Luxembourghish: Gutt Dag, Gutt Nuecht
Penn. Dutch: Gude(r) Daag, Gude(r) nacht
In fact, I can tell you my Penn. Dutch (which is a form of German) friends say that they don’t do well with High German. Likewise, I do Bavarian and High German, and I cannot understand Swiss German or Luxembourghish. And they are all dialects of German. And they are all valid.
How about words for Christmas? In Luxembourghish they say “Chrëschtdag” while in Germany (depending on region) it is “Weihnachten”.
Also, basically, as long as the dialect systematically works, a new combination is possible at some point. Hence, High German dialect says “Des Jungen die Jacke” and Bavarian dialect says “Dem Jungen seine Jacke”. In case you didn’t notice, those formations are the complete opposite and radically different.
High German uses definite articles always, and writes them differently. S =/= m. Furthermore, the owner is placed second position. Bavarian Germans place the owner in first position, and use possessive articles, instead of always using definite articles. The differences are intensely staggering.
It would be like in English how we usually write “the boy’s chair” and instead writing “chair the boy’s”. And that is completely sensical in that dialect, and is therefore just as correct.
Also, there was *no* standard spelling before the invention of the printing press. None. And there was no standard dialect either. And there was no standard grammar rule system. So, by your logic, they didn’t have an English language until the printing press. As you said:
If every variance in pronunciation and spelling of every word is just as correct or valid or proper (pick your term) as any other, then we don’t have words.
If every grammatical variation is just as correct or valid or proper as any other, then we don’t have composition.
If we have neither words nor composition, then we don’t have a structured system of communication. In other words, we don’t have a language.
Therefore, language did not exist until the printing press did, because words could be spelled in practically any fashion, could have radically different grammatical variations, and therefore they “didn’t have words” and “didn’t have composition” and therefore “don’t have a language.”
English didn’t exist until we standardized it boys. Let’s just pack up shop now, and tell all LGBTQ+, Black people, Spanish people, Creole speakers, and more that they don’t have a language and are completely incorrect for existing without the tongue of old crotchety white kids. Vergari says they don’t have language because how dare variety exist and be valid.
Also, all writing standards are arbitrary. We have proven this. Solidified written standards in European languages did not exist until basically the last 300 years, and even then they varied. In fact, even the invention of the printing press did not create a standard of spelling in German, since dialectical tendencies can still be observed (especially in heroic poetry) as far as the 19th century. Furthermore, we constantly change written standards. For example, in 1996 German orthography was drastically changed in many respects on a completely arbitrary basis. We did similar in English, and continue to do so.
Funnily enough, there was not even a set standard on how to spell “Christian” in Greek and Latin inscriptions and writings. We even have a Phrygian inscription where the author spells it both as Chrestian and as Christian. We have ancient writings that were used by kings, where the same word can be spelled five to ten different ways. And apparently it didn’t make anyone have a fuss. So I wonder why you do? Oh yeah, because you have bought into colonialist and imperialist ideas that the “queen’s English” is superior to everyone else’s.
Language is fluid my dude. Language evolves, drastically changes, and is rich and diverse. And all the diversity therein is valid.
Case in point, “whathaveyou” is not a word when compiled in one singular bit. You just did that. “What have you” is how it is “properly” spelled in the queen’s English. So, you basically created a new word form, and it did not seem to bother or harm you at all, nor did it hinder me. It is valid, and it is fine. Here are several occasions where you violated standard grammar rules, and no one’s understanding was affected, proving the rules are basically arbitrary and lack any usefulness in your mind and dialect:
or just the Western European languages?
Racist, sexist and homophobic, or no?
Neither of these are “complete sentences.” Also, you failed to start the first one with a capital letter.
When confronted with arguments that the gospel writers clearly had a rather familiar knowledge of early First Century Judea and Galilee
Here you arbitrarily capitalized “First Century”, which is unneeded. In “standard English”, one does not capitalize centuries.
I actually think extreme skeptical approaches, like we have seen during the post modernism
The term “post modernism” is actually just one word, not two.
And I am not taking about, nor have I (or would I) suggest, any type of oversight body dictating what Bart’s views or teachings are. I’m advocating an approach which is entirely at Bart’s discretion.
You have an improper conjugation of “suggest” and improper placement of your parenthetical. It should be “nor have I suggested (nor would I), any type […].”
This is the type of wind-up and question someone asks if they’ve never heard of post-modernism before Jordan Peterson.
Now you have spelled postmodernism two different ways.
Obviously, neo-Marxism and third wave feminism are very different than post-modernism, and I have never once referred or alluded to feminism or neo-Marxism in this forum.
Misspelled “third-wave feminism” in your sentence.
Obviously, not.
This is not a complete sentence (this was you on page 2).
It’s almost like your entire understanding of biblical scholarship is based on watching a 3 minute youtube clip of a Richard Carrier speech.
YouTube should be capitalized, and also in “the queen’s English” numbers usually under ten should be spelled out.
Just from living in the modern world, with films and universal access to the Internet, you already know far, far, far more about Mahatma Gandhi than an average person living in antiquity would know about any person (with the possible exception of the Emperor) living thousands of miles away.
Random capitalization of “Internet” even though this is a common noun.
You completely side-stepped my challenge
The word “side-stepped” is spelled “sidestepped.”
fictionalized history of Gadhi was preposterous.
Please tell me about this teacher named “Gadhi” you speak of so fondly.
Jerusalem was cultural center for Jews was done by AD 70.
This is just absurdly problematic. “Jerusalem was the cultural center for Jews, and was done by 70 AD.” Of course, I could also critique you on the fact that AD is no longer standard nomenclature in academia, we use “CE” now.
So any attempting late dating for Mark and, frankly, for the Matthew, Luke and John
I guess Matthew met “The Dude” from the Big Lebowski and now refers to himself as “the Matthew.”
Just total and complete ahistorical garbage.
This is an incomplete sentence.
————-
Need I go on? At this point, I can prove right now with these examples that you do not even use “proper English” and yet you have the audacity to be telling anyone that their dialect is “wrong” for not saying “ask” instead of “aks”?
Just looking at your posts not only proves that spelling, language, and language rules are fluid, but that you don’t even believe what you preach.
Chris_Hansen said
Also, all writing standards are arbitrary. We have proven this. Solidified written standards in European languages did not exist until basically the last 300 years, and even then they varied. In fact, even the invention of the printing press did not create a standard of spelling in German, since dialectical tendencies can still be observed (especially in heroic poetry) as far as the 19th century. Furthermore, we constantly change written standards. For example, in 1996 German orthography was drastically changed in many respects on a completely arbitrary basis. We did similar in English, and continue to do so.Funnily enough, there was not even a set standard on how to spell “Christian” in Greek and Latin inscriptions and writings. We even have a Phrygian inscription where the author spells it both as Chrestian and as Christian. We have ancient writings that were used by kings, where the same word can be spelled five to ten different ways. And apparently it didn’t make anyone have a fuss. So I wonder why you do? Oh yeah, because you have bought into colonialist and imperialist ideas that the “queen’s English” is superior to everyone else’s.
Language is fluid my dude. Language evolves, drastically changes, and is rich and diverse. And all the diversity therein is valid.
Case in point, “whathaveyou” is not a word when compiled in one singular bit. You just did that. “What have you” is how it is “properly” spelled in the queen’s English. So, you basically created a new word form, and it did not seem to bother or harm you at all, nor did it hinder me. It is valid, and it is fine. Here are several occasions where you violated standard grammar rules, and no one’s understanding was affected, proving the rules are basically arbitrary and lack any usefulness in your mind and dialect:
or just the Western European languages?
Racist, sexist and homophobic, or no?
Neither of these are “complete sentences.” Also, you failed to start the first one with a capital letter.
When confronted with arguments that the gospel writers clearly had a rather familiar knowledge of early First Century Judea and Galilee
Here you arbitrarily capitalized “First Century”, which is unneeded. In “standard English”, one does not capitalize centuries.
I actually think extreme skeptical approaches, like we have seen during the post modernism
The term “post modernism” is actually just one word, not two.
And I am not taking about, nor have I (or would I) suggest, any type of oversight body dictating what Bart’s views or teachings are. I’m advocating an approach which is entirely at Bart’s discretion.
You have an improper conjugation of “suggest” and improper placement of your parenthetical. It should be “nor have I suggested (nor would I), any type […].”
This is the type of wind-up and question someone asks if they’ve never heard of post-modernism before Jordan Peterson.
Now you have spelled postmodernism two different ways.
Obviously, neo-Marxism and third wave feminism are very different than post-modernism, and I have never once referred or alluded to feminism or neo-Marxism in this forum.
Misspelled “third-wave feminism” in your sentence.
Obviously, not.
This is not a complete sentence (this was you on page 2).
It’s almost like your entire understanding of biblical scholarship is based on watching a 3 minute youtube clip of a Richard Carrier speech.
YouTube should be capitalized, and also in “the queen’s English” numbers usually under ten should be spelled out.
Just from living in the modern world, with films and universal access to the Internet, you already know far, far, far more about Mahatma Gandhi than an average person living in antiquity would know about any person (with the possible exception of the Emperor) living thousands of miles away.
Random capitalization of “Internet” even though this is a common noun.
You completely side-stepped my challenge
The word “side-stepped” is spelled “sidestepped.”
fictionalized history of Gadhi was preposterous.
Please tell me about this teacher named “Gadhi” you speak of so fondly.
Jerusalem was cultural center for Jews was done by AD 70.
This is just absurdly problematic. “Jerusalem was the cultural center for Jews, and was done by 70 AD.” Of course, I could also critique you on the fact that AD is no longer standard nomenclature in academia, we use “CE” now.
So any attempting late dating for Mark and, frankly, for the Matthew, Luke and John
I guess Matthew met “The Dude” from the Big Lebowski and now refers to himself as “the Matthew.”
Just total and complete ahistorical garbage.
This is an incomplete sentence.
————-
Need I go on? At this point, I can prove right now with these examples that you do not even use “proper English” and yet you have the audacity to be telling anyone that their dialect is “wrong” for not saying “ask” instead of “aks”?
Just looking at your posts not only proves that spelling, language, and language rules are fluid, but that you don’t even believe what you preach.
When did I ever claim to write in perfect English?
I never said you did. I said you admonished people for being different (you did) and defended the notion of “proper English” (you did) which thereby makes you a hypocrite for not practicing what you preach as ideal.
Every “mistake” you made just proves how completely nonsense the entire idea of “proper English” is, when the very people who defend it, can’t even practice it. It does not exist. And with that note I’m done. I am not debating with someone who (A) is an elitist, (B) is a hypocrite, and (C) is an ignoramus of the highest order. You had the audacity to say certain spellings are “wrong” but in reality you have no business saying a single thing.
And then on top of this nonsense, you were so completely and totally incompetent that your arguments boiled down to “because people say things different and spell things different, language doesn’t exist.” You are dishonest and a waste of energy. You can’t be reached because you don’t want to learn. You don’t want to hear anything that doesn’t validate your bigotry.
If you don’t write “perfect English” then you have no business defending its existence and telling others they are wrong for not using it, unless you just care to admit your ideology is nothing but dishonesty and hypocrisy. Btw, the exact point I just made was made in peer reviewed literature (** you do not have permission to see this link **) by a leading grammarian. If you make the errors, you have no business calling them out.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)