@pp0u20e8, on Apr 21 2006, 09:30 PM, said in Guess What, Folks!:
Only if the individual digits are taken to represent individual integers, which, while perfectly acceptible, would never actually be used due to its all round confusingness (that word is constructivated).
You should be able to understand it.
@mrxak, on Apr 22 2006, 01:11 AM, said in Guess What, Folks!:
I wasn't talking about your post.
Yes you were.
@cippy, on Apr 21 2006, 06:18 PM, said in Guess What, Folks!:
On a related note, I love how people still insist on making this the Nova board.
WE WILL TAKE OVER THE WORLD. WE WILL TRIUMPH OVER ALL. WE WILL DESTROY YOU, NO MATTER WHAT THE COST. WE ARE NOVA, AND WE ARE COMMING.
@nerd, on Apr 23 2006, 02:41 AM, said in Guess What, Folks!:
WE WILL TAKE OVER THE WORLD. WE WILL TRIUMPH OVER ALL. WE WILL DESTROY YOU, NO MATTER WHAT THE COST. WE ARE NOVA, AND WE ARE COMMING.
COMMING?
As in communicating? Like when you press Y in game?
@pp0u20e8, on Apr 22 2006, 05:43 PM, said in Guess What, Folks!:
COMMING?
As in communicating? Like when you press Y in game?
YOU HEARD ME.
His old subtitle was "Resident Grammar Nazi." It seems he hasn't lost it completely.
@pp0u20e8, on Apr 23 2006, 09:44 AM, said in Guess What, Folks!:
The world needs policing.
Yeah, but Nazi....ing.... is a little too extreme.
Not for pp0 it's not!
On a side note, where can I find the Auroran string?
In the Nova board, where it belongs.
:rolleyes: It was a joke, dude.
@nerd, on Apr 23 2006, 07:19 PM, said in Guess What, Folks!:
Yeah, but Nazi....ing.... is a little too extreme.
Nothing is too extreme when it comes to preserving the English language.
@darth_vader, on Apr 23 2006, 10:06 PM, said in Guess What, Folks!:
Not for pp0 it's not!
On a side note, where can I find the Auroran string?
bows
The English language, like all languages, must evolve and grow over time. Living languages, at least. Once you start being so anal about "preserving" the English language so as to keep it static, you will be signing its death warrant. Without new words, changing definitions, and a healthy dose of realism in how people actually talk, the culture is doomed to die. Look at the French language. They are extremely against "Americanizing", to the point of inventing words that are more "French", even if those words are clumsy and inadequate. This, my friends, does not bode well for their poetry.
The primary objective of language is to communicate ideas. Efficiency and diversity within a language promotes a more efficient and creative culture. Think of all the ways in which you can express the same idea. Think of all the ways in which you can add detail to a description. These are gifts of your language. Do not abuse it, but do not strive to keep it the same forever.
@mrxak, on Apr 25 2006, 12:27 AM, said in Guess What, Folks!:
<Some stuff about preserving English>
Jeez, guys... relax! It was a typo! :laugh: I can't believe you're all making such a big fuss about it. Calm down. :rolleyes:
I get why you want to "preserve the English language", but shouldn't you be yelling at Kirzlammy about this?
@nerd, on Apr 25 2006, 09:52 AM, said in Guess What, Folks!:
Jeez, guys... relax! It was a typo! :laugh: I can't believe you're all making such a big fuss about it. Calm down. :rolleyes:
I get why you want to "preserve the English language", but shouldn't you be yelling at Kirzlammy about this?
To be honest with you, I don't even know what typo you're talking about. My response is to pp0u20e8, who feels that "Nothing is too extreme when it comes to preserving the English language". He is wrong, and against artistic freedom. I felt the need to publicly reject that notion.
@mrxak, on Apr 25 2006, 09:27 AM, said in Guess What, Folks!:
Do not abuse it , but do not strive to keep it the same forever.
That is my point. It is the abuse of the language which annoys me. People using single letters rather than words just because they are too lazy to spell them correctly annoys me. When people use incorrect grammar it annoys me. It doesn't annoy me when they do it accidentally, but when people intentionally omit punctuation because it's too much effort to use the outside keys, it does.
Yes, language should be allowed to adapt and evolve, but without certain rules, language collapses.
@pp0u20e8, on Apr 25 2006, 03:32 PM, said in Guess What, Folks!:
That is my point. It is the abuse of the language which annoys me. People using single letters rather than words just because they are too lazy to spell them correctly annoys me. When people use incorrect grammar it annoys me. It doesn't annoy me when they do it accidentally, but when people intentionally omit punctuation because it's too much effort to use the outside keys, it does.
Yes, language should be allowed to adapt and evolve, but without certain rules, language collapses.
I understand what you're saying pp0, and I agree with you- to a point. But concentrating all one's focus on the rules belies the main idea, that being:
@mrxak, on Apr 25 2006, 12:27 AM, said in Guess What, Folks!:
The primary objective of language is to communicate ideas.
Unless you can honestly say that you couldn't understand that idea that was being put forth within the context of what was being said, then focusing attention on the spelling and grammar simply distracts from the idea that was being communicated.
@pp0u20e8, on Apr 25 2006, 06:32 PM, said in Guess What, Folks!:
That is my point. It is the abuse of the language which annoys me. People using single letters rather than words just because they are too lazy to spell them correctly annoys me. When people use incorrect grammar it annoys me. It doesn't annoy me when they do it accidentally, but when people intentionally omit punctuation because it's too much effort to use the outside keys, it does.
Yes, language should be allowed to adapt and evolve, but without certain rules, language collapses.
No doubt laziness should be discouraged, to a certain extent, but ultimately some people are going to be lazy, and there's nothing you can do about it. And there are situations where certain shortenings is advantageous to communication. It's a two-way street, after all.
The less rules the better, as long as the golden rule of language is obeyed.
@flyboy, on Apr 25 2006, 11:18 PM, said in Guess What, Folks!:
Unless you can honestly say that you couldn't understand that idea that was being put forth within the context of what was being said, then focusing attention on the spelling and grammar simply distracts from the idea that was being communicated.
A few spelling errors or grammar mistakes are acceptable. Nobody is perfect, and mistakes happen. And some stuff like the singular "their", while not technically valid, is in widespread use. In a hundred years (unless the English teachers and grammar nazis have their way) it will become quite valid.
@flyboy, on Apr 26 2006, 05:18 AM, said in Guess What, Folks!:
I understand what you're saying pp0, and I agree with you- to a point. But concentrating all one's focus on the rules belies the main idea, that being:
Unless you can honestly say that you couldn't understand that idea that was being put forth within the context of what was being said, then focusing attention on the spelling and grammar simply distracts from the idea that was being communicated.
True, good point.
