I must lament that I am shocked and appalled at the incessant, inane, and taboo misuse of words I see daily. To "butcher" is to kill an animal in order to render it fit for consumption. The word has absolutely nothing to do with word usage. Really, some of you need to acquire a dictionary and get someone to teach you how to use it!
The Butchering of the English Language.
by Low-Key Lysmith 68 Replies latest social current
-
-
Leolaia
I do believe and agree that languages are fluid and change over time.
As such, they are an excellent analogy for explaining the process of biological change (aka evolution).
-
snowbird
I must lament that I am shocked and appalled at the incessant, inane, and taboo misuse of words I see daily. To "butcher" is to kill an animal in order to render it fit for consumption. The word has absolutely nothing to do with word usage. Really, some of you need to acquire a dictionary and get someone to teach you how to use it!
John Doe,
Last November, I promised solemnly to lay off your Northern Arkansas bummy, but I beg respectfully to differ with your above assertion.
Methinks you've either killed or consumed too many animals and this has colored your vision.
Please see below from the American Heritage Dictionary
Butcher: To botch; bungle: butcher a project; butchered the language.
Sylvia
-
Leolaia
Actually, this topic is a little up my alley since I taught a class on English dialects at the university level a few years ago. So I've got lots of good examples of the diversity in the English language. For good reason, one makes reference to Englishes in the plural, as there is not any single variety; even what is considered Standard English varies from country to country.
Here is one of my favorite examples is the conjugation of the verb "to be". In Old English, there were three separate conjugations of three different verbs meaning "to be" in the present indicative, that of sindon, bêon, and wesan. So originally you would have:
sindon "to be": ic eom "I am", thû eart "thou art", hê/hêo is "he is", wê sind/earon "we are", gê sind/earon "you are", hîe sind/earon "they are".
bêon "to be": ic bêo "I am", thû bist "you are", hê/hêo bith "he is", wê bêoth "we are", gê bêoth "you are", hîe bêoth "they are".
wesan "to be": ic wese "I am", thû wesst "you are", hê/hêo wes(t), wê wesath "we are", gê wesath "you are", hîe wesath "they are".The present forms of wesan were rarely used and were dialectal even in Old English and this verb was mainly used for the past tense, e.g. hê waes "he was", wê waeron "we were", etc. And bêon was also used to express the future, which is how it is used today. Other dialectal differences in Old English manifest themselves in such differences as bêoth as the main plural in West Saxon and earon as the main plural in Anglican.
Well, what then happened in English is that sindon and bêon merged into one conjugation paradigm, with the process reaching completion in the early 13th century. This process happened locally in different dialect areas, so the result was that in 20th-century Britain, the conjugation of "to be" varied widely in the vernacular from one locality to the next.
Yorkshire: I is "I am", you is "thou art", he is "he is", we are "we are", you are "you are", they are "they are".
Kent: I are "I am", you are "thou art", he is "he is", we are "we are", you are "you are", they are "they are".
Somerset: I be "I am", you be, thee bist "thou art", he is, he be "he is", we be "we are", you be, thee art "you are", they be "they are".
Northumberland: I is "I am", you are "thou art", he is "he is", we are "we are", you are "you are", they are "they are".
Sussex: I be "I am", you be "thou art", he be "he is", we be "we are", you be "you are", they be "they are".
Suffolk/East Midland/Standard: I am "I am", you are "thou art", he is "he is", we are "we are", you are "you are", they are "they are".
Derbyshire: I am "I am", thou art "thou art", he is "he is", we are "we are", you are "you are", they are "they are".
Dorset: I be "I am", thou art "thou art", he is "he is", we be "we are", you be "you are", they be "they are".
Berkshire: I be "I am", thee bist "thou art", he be "he is", we/us be "we are", thee be "you are", they be, them is "they are"There is no good reason why the Suffolk/East Midland conjugation ended up being the Standard one, other than historical and social circumstanes; it is not inherently better or superior to the other paradigms (Derbyshire has more grammatical contrasts, while Sussex has the greatest simplicity). It was a rather arbitrary process that negotiated the conflation of the two verbal conjugations. So Berkshire, Somerset, etc. (setting aside variant forms deriving from sindon) may draw only from the bêon paradigm in the present indicative, whereas Yorkshire, Kent, Suffolk, etc. draw only from the sindon paradigm in the present indicative, whereas others like Dorset may draw from both.
-
snowbird
John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
The above is from the King James Bible. As per this thread, can anyone spot an error?
Sylvia
-
caliber
The rule/s for linking/intrusive "r"
What are other vowels that (in any given word that ends with a vowel) (apart from the schwa) precede the following word that begins with a vowel, for linking/intrusive "r" to occur. Example... Canada R is a very large country. It's a British thing !
Caliber
-
Hortensia
I'll add my little bit - I become annoyed by unnecessary apostrophes as in "why do you American's..." There's sloppy speech and there's evolving speech. Some of the rules of grammar are changing; that's natural over a period of time. But there are a lot of people who are just lazy and never bothered to learn the rules in the first place.
-
Junction-Guy
Well if everyone talked the same it would be boring, I say embrace the diversity.
Flyinghighnow, you are right about the english accents in Appalachia. In some places there is a slight elizabethan accent that still lingers.
Alot of people in Eastern Kentucky add a "y" to the end of words. There is a town in Kentucky called Sitka, but the locals call it "Sitky"
Some people also pronounce Berea Kentucky like "Breer" -
White Dove
I haven't read the other posts but I do agree with you that people are getting lazy with words and with their pants. They can't be bothered to finish the ends of words or to pull up their pants.
Oh, and what's Canada R? Does it have a last name initial?
"If any man hear..." OK, where's the 's'? It could be said that if any man does hear...but it doesn't have that "does" in it, which is where the 's' comes from for the ending of hears. I noticed this in 9th grade.
What is happening here is unatural. It's coming from laziness from locals, not from foreigners.
This can't be justified as anyone who wants a job with lots of 000's in their paychecks and friends who respect them should not mess with the established, formal way of speaking. Money follows good grammar. Just try passing a college class with a good grade while speaking like you quit school in the third grade. It won't fly.
-
White Dove
Just try making money with that kind of grammar. Ain't? Isn't that a combination of 'are' and 'not'? Are not= ain't. That could work if you conjugate it properly. Proper English is just easier to read and listen to. See? I ended a sentence in 'to,' which is not proper but at least it doesn't sound like fingernails on a chalkboard.