Tuesday, July 26, 2005

This is why I like reading Relevant Magazine online

After a fairly stale and unoriginal - though not without merit nor humorless - take on the death of the English language and its main culprit - the internet - several readers responded thanking the author of "The Impotence of Literacy," and a few tried to be witty.

But this is my favorite line of the week:

'it's also time the american people starting putting the u back into words like "colour"

language is constantly changing....'

Being mildly fascinated (paradox, I know) in linguistic history as well as an English teacher, I can attest that the responder is correct in that language is never static (For instance, double negatives were common in the English language - even in Shakespeare's time among the intelligentsia - until one brilliant man pointed out that double negatives in math equal positive equations, so therefore it should not work in language.) and, further, that there is no such thing as a correct English - besides what we confer as to being correct. But there is a huge difference between 'constantly' and 'radically' changing language.

The responder cannot, at will, change the meaning of word
s, basic punctuation, nor the function of syntax. There is no verb in that first sentence. Idiot.


  1. Whoo hoo, go u!

    I'm so pro-u usage.

    It's my favourite thing to to in the neighbourhood, whilst colouring on random things-u.

    u u u u u!!!! Whoooooou!

    'starting putting'...?


  2. ha-ha. u r soo koul.

    did i write "correct Englis -,"

    well, you won't find out.

    starting putting.

    starting putting.

    starting putting.


Be kind. Rewind.