Old stuff I still know
Our Ginger Fuhrer says that he could still code up a simple game idea in Amstrad Basic, while I'm your man if you ever need to rebuild the suspension on an Austin Allegro (1750 Equipe version). This stuff doesn't leave your mind - tell us about obsolete talents you still have.
( , Thu 30 Jun 2011, 17:04)
Our Ginger Fuhrer says that he could still code up a simple game idea in Amstrad Basic, while I'm your man if you ever need to rebuild the suspension on an Austin Allegro (1750 Equipe version). This stuff doesn't leave your mind - tell us about obsolete talents you still have.
( , Thu 30 Jun 2011, 17:04)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
not just outmoded...
have you noticed that there's an idea, doing the rounds on internet forums and becoming pretty common, that insisting on proper spelling and grammar is somehow holding back the evolution of language?
That argument pisses me off more than any grammar nazi ever will. Partly because it's a gross misunderstanding of what language permissivists actually argue, but mostly because it's such a flawed and incoherent idea that I can't believe people actually support it so uncritically.
( , Mon 4 Jul 2011, 11:14, 1 reply)
have you noticed that there's an idea, doing the rounds on internet forums and becoming pretty common, that insisting on proper spelling and grammar is somehow holding back the evolution of language?
That argument pisses me off more than any grammar nazi ever will. Partly because it's a gross misunderstanding of what language permissivists actually argue, but mostly because it's such a flawed and incoherent idea that I can't believe people actually support it so uncritically.
( , Mon 4 Jul 2011, 11:14, 1 reply)
I'm no propa linguist, like, innit, but
in my unscholarly view, the purpose of language is to communicate ideas. As ideas evolve, so does the language. If one's use of the language and its constructs is so poor that it impairs the communication of an idea then it must perforce be incorrect. It's not snobbery (well, not completely) but practicality. abrv8ng lng dsnt chng idears so its not evltion
( , Mon 4 Jul 2011, 11:29, closed)
in my unscholarly view, the purpose of language is to communicate ideas. As ideas evolve, so does the language. If one's use of the language and its constructs is so poor that it impairs the communication of an idea then it must perforce be incorrect. It's not snobbery (well, not completely) but practicality. abrv8ng lng dsnt chng idears so its not evltion
( , Mon 4 Jul 2011, 11:29, closed)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread