Between You and I the English Language is Going to the Dogs

[@casiandsouza7031]

At my Cambridge overseas oral English exam it took me some time to understand that the examiner was not interested in my answers but my ability to answer.

[@thisinenglish]

As was I, when I was a language trainer. Proficiency and form was were my/our focus even if and when the substance was intriguing. And this I would clearly state, to the student.

[@thisinenglish]

As was I, when I was a language trainer. Proficiency and form was were my/our focus even if and when the substance was intriguing. And this I would clearly state, to the student.

[@thisinenglish]

As was I, when I was a language trainer. Proficiency and form was were my/our focus even if and when the substance was intriguing. And this I would clearly state, to the student.

[@thisinenglish]

As was I, when I was a language trainer. Proficiency and form was were my/our focus even if and when the substance was intriguing. And this I would clearly state, to the student.

[@thisinenglish]

As was I, when I was a language trainer. Proficiency and form was were my/our focus even if and when the substance was intriguing. And this I would clearly state, to the student.

[@cb2ndjml]

From a blog entry by Adam Gopnik: The war against euphemism and cliché matters not because we can guarantee that eliminating them will help us speak nothing but the truth but, rather, because eliminating them from our language is an act of courage that helps us get just a little closer to the truth. Clear speech takes courage. Every time we tell the truth about a subject that attracts a lot of lies, we advance the sanity of the nation. Plain speech matters because when we speak clearly we are more likely to speak truth than when we retreat into slogan and euphemism; avoiding euphemism takes courage because it almost always points plainly to responsibility. To say ‘torture’ instead of ‘enhanced interrogation’ is hard, because it means that someone we placed in power was a torturer. That’s a hard truth and a brutal responsibility to accept. But it’s so. [If I recall correctly, Gopnik was commenting on the American detention center in Guantanamo Bay, but I think the point about language and responsibility is relevant. ]

[@tigran56]

Thanks for that

[@tigran56]

Thanks for that! Brilliant thought.

[@joannageorge7305]

Spot on. Euphemism are the language of insecure people. While acting morally superior.

[@kopeinokai5370]

The distinction between "speak" and "talk" seems to have been lost on the panel as is the distinction between a living and a dying language. A living language builds vocabulary . A dying language is ultimately reduced to grunts.

[@preteristlab-endtimes5683]

Its interesting that they did not mention the distinction between formal and informal language use. The 'getting it right' is about the definite and exact use of formal language. In teaching we need to learn the formal rules so that we have an option. Only knowing the informal colloquial use leaves a person open to the criticism of being 'uneducated;' but I must say it was a pleasure listening to such wonderful speakers of English. Thank you one and all.

[@armandoc.3150]

I think they are indirectly arguing that because that's pretty much the same as when they said they agree on the basics. It's just the complexities of the language they argue and if we should care if someone does it correctly.

[@jeremysmith8035]

All languages change all the time.17th century english would be unintelligable to the average britain in the 20th century

[@gto433]

The against side were going after some sticklers that didn't exist in the debate. The problem is a basic level of standard grammar should be taught to all, but which is not being done today in schools. I'm guilty of it too.

[@madeinengland1212]

You don’t need to teach language; you read and have a sense of aesthetic. Actors, speakers, announcers should be exemplars to help everyone improve. Just listening to Anton Lessor on an audio book is a free education.

[@thisinenglish]

No, many aspects of language do in fact need to be taught.

[@reginaldmolethrasher437]

59:40 Mary Beard suggests that we haven't 'given up' on making differences in language such as that between 'uninterested' and 'disinterested', but that we've found other ways of expressing that difference. Once again, she speaks for the educated, who might well understand what that difference is between the two and are able to express it in other language. No such luxury for those who don't understand the difference, because they've never been taught one or the other. The Kamm/Beard side of the argument constantly depicts itself as the liberator of the uneducated; it's not - and its arguments again and again depend on the acquisition of knowledge, from which truly liberated language can then flow. It consistently supports the argument that teaching and learning of the rules is, in fact, necessary.

[@quartytypo]

Don't forget the poop scooper and the bag

[@kiwitrainguy]

Just to throw a spanner in to the works (I love doing this): I never use either term (uninterested or disinterested), in such a situation I would use the term "not interested".

[@Dragonthreek]

English language is beautiful in many ways; in many dialects and accents. This does need to be taken into the account. Yet here on KZbin we all meet and speak the language, that we all understand. I love to polish my English. I'm Polish.

[@phonicwheel933]

Wonderful debate: it is telling that all the presenters use standard English.

[@luckydave328]

Erica has a mixed accent and could be said to be speaking her own distinct idiolect so not really 'standard English'.

[@simonsimon2888]

Yes! Academic English language and its non-academic one which most non-English people make a very good effort to converse and communicate. After all, it is not 'an ORAL ENGLISH TEST' as long as the main ideas brought across may not be grammatically CORRECT!

[@luckydave328]

@@simonsimon2888 What is your country of origin ?

[@simonsimon2888]

My parents were from Fujian and my China's mother sent me to an British English school. In those days, there were four different types of school. When the British returned back to Singapore in 1945, two years later i was borned in 1947 as 'a British subject' stated in my birth certificate THE COLONY OF SINGAPORE. Now, 74 years having three National Anthems namely, 'God Save The Queen', Malaysia's 'Negaraku' and finally Singapore's 'Majulah Singapura' just simply incredible but honestly true!

[@luckydave328]

@@simonsimon2888 I love Singapore and have visited many times ! I wanted to come there now for an operation but the lockdown has excluded me. I asked where you were from because your written English is not clear. (Sorry). If I ever manage to come to Sing again I can give you some English lessons. 😊 I am a retired English teacher. Best wishes.

[@ManForToday]

The opposition forget that, at least in my experience, the word 'disinterest' is not just a casual word, it is also a concept famously expressed by Kant. Disinterestedness is not the same as being interested or uninterested. Disinterest for Kant represented a kind of distance and impartiality in the face of works of art, paintings, a play etc. Looking at something openly and without any personal considerations, but to just observe, think, reflect for its own sake.

[@iamanomas]

To the students for whom English is the second language, it is the exception to the rule in grammar that always confounds.

[@headbuttsforphaticcommunio3731]

Does the debate's effect change when you realise that the one arguing most strongly against standards is jewish?

[@thisinenglish]

Only if you pay too much attention to it.

[@leonorerochlitz]

Confusion: John and Simon seem to say that we need to embrace change but rules are important, and Oliver and Mary are saying that rules are important but we need to embrace change. Who do I vote for??

[@Thindorama]

Leonore Rochlitz It’s “For whom do I vote?”

[@mediolanumhibernicus3353]

Joe Biden

[@zohebalikhan7404]

This actually turned out to be a great debate. Both sides had solid points, I'm not sure which way to vote.

[@philaypeephilippotter6532]

@Andrew Szemeredy Well, that saves me having to watch it!

[@__-cd9ug]

@Andrew Szemeredy it feels like intellectual masturbation - I guess the format of this event does.

[@DMWayne-ke7fl]

Go back to India.

[@lynseydrewitt3344]

I could easily assume, of myself, that I am sitting on the fence as both pro and against used examples that I agree with to highlight their side of the motion. I see that the limits of your language are the limits of your world (Wittgenstein) but also appreciate the journey that language makes of time and find the entomology of such utterly interesting. When the written word can lack the 'context' conveyed only with the spoken word those little marks can make such a difference to whether or not the complete message, as intended, was understood. Words are spoken so come with the context as intended, so perhaps if the debate had drawn the distinction between the written or spoken word it would have been easier to pick a side of that fence on which to come down on. (Just saying xx)

[@lynseydrewitt3344]

Also the addition or alteration of a word can add to the language, whereas with newspeak, the complete removal of an way of expressing a condition, feeling or otherwise by removing a word or comparatives, removes that expression ceasing it from being. Can Slavery exist without a word to represent it. I think this is why expressions like gaslighting have become recently so commonplace when its origins are unlike many words, that can claim Greek, Latin Saxon, French roots amongst others, was coined from a theatrical production from where Gaslighting was the title and the content lending a new meaning to a word that was previously only encountered in a very different circumstance. The word decadence now used to express something very different from its dictionary definition and words such as Ecstasy not recognisable from its original Shakespearian usages.

[@williamarthurfenton1496]

Both make good points. There is certainly an issue with people - at least people living near me - who struggle to communicate because of their lack of education. There's a difference between evolving language, and people that are so lazy that they can't even express themselves clearly in their own current tongue. Words are becoming terribly homogenised. How many words do we need for 'good'? Incredible doesn't mean good, it means incredible. We are losing vocabulary to an extent which robs us of the ability to actually describe what we mean sufficiently.

[@cliffordhatton4444]

AWESOME comment!

[@MauriatOttolink]

William Fenton The snag is that these anomalies creep in, under our guard. The first speaker referred to "problems" which no longer exists, having become "issues", a perfectly good word but not meaning "problem" and here it sneaks in under YOUR guard . The issue er sorry problem is that if we hear something often enough, our subconcious is battered with it and it simply "sounds right." Humpty Dumpty said "Words mean exactly what I want them to mean!"

[@bennalexanderleyland9088]

The irony being that your punctuation is off. Also, most people understand the nuance in meaning between analagous words.

[@insanemadcat9]

Learning German and being frustrated at how it is difficult, I still love the language all the more. The precise feelings and situations that one can describe, the range between formal and informal terms, it's just something to behold. I wish I'd learnt English when it was just so grand and full of culture and content.

[@soros250]

Having taught ESL for years, students want to know the "proper" ways of communicating. Their futures depend on it. The reason that many minorities don't get good jobs is often because they can't express more than the most simple of ideas. Semi-literacy is a strong stigma. People who don't learn to communicate according to standards don't get far in the economy -- unless they're in the entertainment industry.

[@idstice]

or a politician

[@irenemax3574]

Soros Oria Oh, semi-literacy is most irritating, for example, the use of the construction: “the reason ... is because ...”

[@bmniac]

@@irenemax3574 I quite agree.

[@Gaiacarra]

Was there even any disagreement here? I feel like there wasn't any concrete point on which the two sides disagreed. All the people on the "against" side conceded that of course some degree of keeping to the rules of grammar is necessary if people are to understand each other, and all the people on the "for" side admitted that the development of new words, and shifts in meaning and grammatical rules are all good things and there's no reason to try and hold them back.

[@elghunk]

+Gaiacarra It seemed to me that one side was arguing that the glass was half full while the other side argued that on the contrary the glass was half empty. I agree with you. Not sure what they actually disagreed about.

[@jenslyn87]

Just started the debate, but I imagine an important point will be this: People write/talk in different ways in different contexts. The fact that we have instant-messaging today, which invites a very informal and 'chatty' tone, does not mean that the language in general is in decline. It's merely the advent of a new genre, in my view

[@TomaszWota]

jenslyn87 I agree, to an extent. And yet - I completely despise this new genre. I text, sure. And you know what? It doesn't push me to shorten my words to sm wrd abbrvs tht dnt mak snse. Or rather, they do make some sense - but they are attacking my sense of aesthetics. :P

[@TomaszWota]

FichDichInDemArsch I actually was joking, but still - let me put it in the most polite way I can pull off after a long day of hard work... Fuck you. ;)

[@ata5855]

Go teach in an inner-city school, and witness the inability of the students to write a complete sentence. Language, and consequently thinking/logic, is absolutely in decline. Better yet, watch some old debates or interviews here on KZbin, and you'll be amazed how far we've fallen.

[@BirdTurdMemes]

@@ata5855 Go back to the 1920s, teach in a poor area and those children would probably write garbage as well.

[@Roedygr]

I think split infinitives should be valid. The adverb between to...verb is clearest place to specify which verb it modifies. They get rid of ambiguity, not make it worse. If anything they should be mandatory. Most other grammatical errors increase ambiguity. That is why they are to be avoided.

[@goosevillage]

Get back to teaching GRAMMAR in schools. Example: Which is correct..1. I see seven girl's in the bus OR I see seven girls in the bus.

[@rameshhansaravendra]

'Is our children learning?'- George W Bush

[@mediolanumhibernicus3353]

Ramesh Hansa Ravendra And yet George Bush resembles Oliver Kamm in comparison to the current incumbent.

[@MauriatOttolink]

25:25 Rivers don't flow through tributaries. Tributaries flow INTO rivers, ie they contribute.

[@yoganathan001]

Oliver said, "It flows through many tributaries ; hence one main river at inception !

[@fritzpendleton1476]

"Haha, your silly rules don't apply to me, pedants!"

[@MauriatOttolink]

@@fritzpendleton1476 That is an indicator of your education level. However pedantic you feel that somebody may be...THEY are still right and YOU are still wrong. Methinks that may be the story of your miserable, shallow existence. Gee..I nearly said "life". but as a pedant, I really have to get it right! There is no room for doubt! If your brains were dynamite, they wouldn't blow off a paper hat. Slither back under the stone whence you came!

[@fritzpendleton1476]

@@MauriatOttolink If you had bothered to read my comment a bit more closely, you'd realize that I was being sarcastic. This is the kind of argument that he would make to cover poor usage.

[@MauriatOttolink]

@@fritzpendleton1476 Your unfounded confidence in yourself is displayed by your blind assumption that I did not read your comment a bit more closely..Nine bloody words? NINE? Can we suggest that your powers of sarcasm are just a trifle questionable? When it comes to sarcasm, I could bite off your bollocks and then eat a full English breakfast with extra fried bread,

[@CLARlCEsotl]

I think it is safe to say that what the majority of people consider to be a good grasp of the English language is a comprehensive knowledge of the framework and rules and the ability to play with those rules. What we do not do today is teach those rules. It is like asking a child to write music and be creative before teaching them how to play an instrument.

[@martinledermann1862]

+clarry kitten Exactly! Once you know the rules, you can start playing and fooling around with them but without any basic common standard we might just end up failing to understand anyone except for the people from the same region or whichever variant becomes the most popular simply due to the sheer size of the community using it (so in case of the UK it might be some combination of Arabic and English and in the US a mixture of Spanish and English).

[@asthmen]

+Barney Laurance I think the analogy holds if you give the child one of those metal xylophones when she's very young and let her grow up with it. (Under these assumptions, she is for some inexplicable reason fascinated with the instrument throughout her entire childhood). The analogy holds but you must make allowances.

[@prettypeggy5292]

Miss Beard is such an engaging speaker. She does miss the point though. You can't flaunt the rules creatively if you have no knowledge of or respect for said rules.

[@matthewjohnson3764]

+pretty peggy I very much agree, although I don't have the belief that the rules must be known explicitly.

[@asthmen]

'Flaunt the rules creatively . . .' So we're talking about unconventional pedants, now ? Sorry, I had to. (flaunt = ~display ; flout = ~blur)

[@seinundzeiten]

Flout the stubborn trout*

[@anthonyat2401]

@stephen noonan Exactly - and all the credentials to be a favourite of the BBC.

[@dixonpinfold2582]

A rule is _flouted_ , not flaunted. But I agree with your point.

[@zenith808]

Any language starts with building blocks (words). Next comes putting the words together to make sense (Grammar). Later comes colloquial language. Grammar is absolutely necessary!

[@ai_marsbar4325]

Min 20:14 is fun

[@saintlybeginnings]

24:57 - bringing in new vocabulary words from other languages is not the same as removing the meaning of the words we have.

[@erpthompsonqueen9130]

Would very much like to see an update of this debate for our current time.

[@kkdesignservices183]

There is a more fundamental question here. Do the distinctions between "conservative" and "liberal" mean anything any longer?

[@MauriatOttolink]

KK Design Services EXACTLY!!!!!!

[@KutWrite]

It's still a difference in the rhetoric used to woo voters. It's not a difference in a politician's actions, once elected.

[@yengsabio5315]

May someone please help me understand, "the English language is going to the dogs." What exactly does "going to the dogs" mean especially if figuratively in context of the proposition. English is not my first language. Thank you in advance!

[@yengsabio5315]

@H Walsh Thank you very much for responding! 😊

[@Roedygr]

Every dialect has its rules. There might not be a book explaining them all, but there are clearly sentences that are correct and incorrect in that dialect that a native speaker would recognise. Read Pinker The Language Instinct. You have to be aware of what dialect you are speaking . If you say sentences from some other dialect, chances are they will be WRONG. Oliver seems to disagree.

[@Roedygr]

Muddling disinterested and uninterested does not make the language more expressive, or free, just confusing. In modern English, both uninterested and disinterested mean uninterested. The concept of disinterested has dropped from the language. This is not a good thing.

[@TheDavephillips]

+Roedy Green Hear hear!

[@TheKategolden]

+Roedy Green The subject or topic , I found uninteresting. I am disinterested in attending that lecture because of the topic.

[@Ian-dn6ld]

+Roedy Green Actually no... Modern English is a sham brought along in order to help teachers teach English in schools. This lady don't even give any credit to the Englishes of the Appalachian.... She had the fricken stage-light and didn't do nothing (a'nything) about it.

[@TheDavephillips]

Hear, hear mate.

[@insanemadcat9]

This is true

[@crustyoldfart]

At the risk of seeming to be facetious I'd just like to point out that all four panelists agreed that English IS going to the dogs - the difference between them is that one side deplores it while the other side thinks it a good thing.

[@diderichlangmannen]

The same with the german language! But one small detail I want to make clear: Communication and language are not the same.

[@adoremus4014]

The last time I checked, German was spelled with a capital G.

[@diderichlangmannen]

@@adoremus4014 Well ... if you prefer we can communicate in German!

[@adoremus4014]

@@diderichlangmannen I would prefer Sanskrit as it's less corrupt than German.

[@diderichlangmannen]

Adoremus Let‘s be fair! Han-Chinese?

[@adoremus4014]

@@diderichlangmannen Well done for writing Han-Chinese with capitals H and C. English lesson complete, passed with honours!

[@maheshiabeyrathna5079]

I'm not a native English person but I believe thoroughly that the grammatical or syntactical accuracy of English language should be preserved.

[@bennalexanderleyland9088]

A weird position to hold granted your glaring omission of necessary punctuation and tautological use of the word "syntactical."

[@Vesnicie]

"We should take an aesthetic pride in using the precision tool of our language properly". Bravo! To extend the metaphor a bit more, I think he hit the nail right on the head with that sentiment. (32:43)

[@Sionnach1601]

I have just come from listening to Sir Oswald Mosley (a 1975 interview) to this; and if this is, as it should be, the best example of spoken English by native English people, then yes - English is going to the dogs. I say that with the greatest respect and tributes to what was a very articulate panel, but I firmly believe that English has declined due to cultural influences. If we listen to just about ANY BBC program or interview before possibly the mid '80s, we will find it obvious and striking how very much superior the quality of the language was. Even the accents were different, and to me, an Irishman, such accents even sounded like they were more capably suited to faster and more precise communication. Regarding our panel, I found the flow which Oliver spoke approvingly of, was rather poorly exhibited by himself, and best exhibited by Simon Heffer., though still, as proficient as Simon undoubtedly is, his articulation was nowhere nearly as masterful as Sir Oswald. I am not an English academic by any means, but in the comparing of this panel, I suspect that Simon's better ease with which to 'flow', was because of his better overall knowledge of the language and its mechanisms (than the others), as when spoken at its absolute, English is grandly satisfying in its precision and is breathtakingly beautiful and intriguing. I don't think we will see the likes of Mosley's or even Tolkien's level of English being publicly spoken ad hoc again. It saddens me. I will go back and listen to more of Sir Oswald!

[@someoneelse.2252]

I agree. I too listened to Oswald and was struck by the shift in a deterioration of English usage especially by today's so called 'interviewers; as well as their guests.

[@TheMakersRage]

Stop making the issue political! The English language, as any other language, is continually evolving. Samuel Johnson recognized this over 200 years ago: as soon as a language stops doing so, it becomes endangered.

[@steroq6699]

It's devolving, actually. (I'd wink but I'm against it)

[@TheMakersRage]

Stefan Roques It's never been richer. You clearly lack the imagination to see its potential.

[@qhsperson]

I suggest you find "Politics and the English Language," by George Orwell, online and read it. Speaking of language use and politics.

[@bouzoukiman5000]

English is filled with spelling and pronunciation conflicts. It needs serious organization.

[@devourerofbabies]

DarKool81 It's a political issue whether you like it or not.

[@Suite_annamite]

@6:57: The word "sick" used in that way (to mean something like "amazing" or "unbelievable") has actually been around since the late-19th century, but disappeared after WWI until it suddenly came back. You can hear it uttered in period movies like "The illusionist" (2006), with Edward Norton, Jessica Biel, and Paul Giamatti.

[@Pete-z6e]

Le Huy-Anh ,Period......2006.....what?

[@susanfriend9924]

Right off the bat you added to the problem: It's between you and me, not I.

[@SarevokRegor]

Ye knowe eek that in forme of speche is chaunge With-inne a thousand yeer, and wordes tho That hadden prys, now wonder nyce and straunge Us thinketh hem, and yet thei spake hem so.

[@s0rge500]

chaucer?

[@billrhoasts5456]

Yeah, Chewbacca Yoda Obi Wan Jar Jar.

[@jazura2]

Perfect grammar.

[@someoneelse.2252]

Sarago Gotye: Justin Trudeau...?

[@philliphayden2727]

@stephen noonan That may be how you think Chaucer is pronounced in the US...we have hundreds, if not thousands, of regional accents. I have never heard Chaucer pronounced that way, but I've only been to 44 of the 50 states.

[@namelastname8569]

What a swell blend of information, debating and entertainment.

[@lenanona-p1x]

It’s “between you and me” by the way. Just a small point when you’re bashing the English language...

[@Hun_Uinaq]

Quite so. The preposition between would have been in the ablative or locative case in another language. When this sort of thing happens in English, it necessitates the use of an object pronoun

[@winmine0327]

woosh

[@sarelito9202]

I thought it was done on purpose. Hope so!

[@normanmazlin6741]

'Twas but a jest you twit

[@philaypeephilippotter6532]

@@normanmazlin6741 'Twixt thee and me th'art right.

[@jackcornelius8021]

Simon Heffer at 1:06. This is the whole argument. We teach to prepare our children.

[@susanchalkley9480]

My new favo>u

[@josephmore6361]

I grew up bilingual, and in fifth grade I was introduced to English as a foreign language (60 years ago). The panel members all spoke in what might be described as 'announcer's English', and I could comprehend every word. I can't say the same for some of the comments from the audience, and in TV programs that insist on representing authentic local English speech, I have to turn on the subtitles.

[@madeinengland1212]

@Andrew Szemeredy I don’t really believe that. American English is in the process of degenerating with this aweful vocal fry which represents fear and the rising inflection representing uncertainty and the general mumbling representing lack of education. This appears in films more and more as actors don’t even have trained diction any more

[@stevelenores5637]

@@madeinengland1212 Fast forward to today. You need to keep your dictionary in loose leaf binder. I still use the words from 2000 and before no matter what pressure I'm under to change to preferred pronouns.

[@jrhtv1321]

For many years I was active in a highly multilingual social forum that included many highly intelligent people, as well as many who were not so intelligent (at least with language). I sometimes wondered if commonly used grammar in other languages could be as awful as it is in English. Which is to say, if one can't speak one's own language correctly, there is little hope that they can speak another language with understandable accuracy. I need to say now that your English (of course after 60 years) is excellent. And Bravo for CONTINUING to learn and perfect, as many people fail to do. (PS: I often have to turn on the subtitles too, only because diction in America especially is a thoroughly lost cause.)

[@olannahorhut5956]

'They made love in front of the fire' (early 19th century) they flouted the social mores of the time, in full view of the fire! Impudent exposure! Subtlety of description being the point. During that period of history, they might not even have touched. 😊

[@typower9]

When I was a child all the presenters on television spoke BBC English. As an adult I lived and worked abroad and when I came back to England I was shocked at the ungrammatical English being spoken by the presenters. My first thought was how difficult it must make it for the children to know how to speak 'properly'. I also noticed children using American words, including that nauseating 'whatever!'. I have taught English abroad and I also thought how little evidence of the correct English grammar that my students had needed to pass their exams they would hear on English television. I speak several languages and the 'italo-inglese' being used in Italy horrifies me. It is so sad to hear italians misusing an English word, when they have a perfectly good italian word for the purpose! If any of you speak italian I recommend the brilliant Tedx talk ' From Bello to Biutiful'. I noticed recently that Macron is using Franglais on posters.

[@robinearle7225]

I was taught that good English is about communicating accurately. Language changes over the years, so good English also entails paying attention to the world around you.

[@syddlinden8966]

Ultimately, yes, the English language /is/ going to the dogs. And the "for's" were addressing this properly, while the "against's" seemed to be missing the point. It's not about expanding definitions or shifting usage, it's really about that teacher who didn't know the difference between "could've" and "could of." It's about the plethora of people seen using "then" and "than" as if they're interchangeable. It's about the people who don't know which "there" or "which" to use in which case. This /IS/ a problem. And it's ultimately a problem with lax educational systems. As to technology, (excluding the plague that is autocorrect) I'm far more concerned about - at least in the US - the decline of PENMANSHIP, and that schools are no longer teaching cursive writing at all. Lastly, I find it really heart breaking that the globalization of English seems to be expediting the deaths of other languages, or at least their bastardizations. It feels like an unsalvageable loss of cultural variation for the sake of a wider, globalized way of communicating.

[@guytouquet]

The corruption of English is altogether intentional. It's meant to obfuscate. If you don't mean anything, you can never be wrong.

[@adamgillespie3393]

How tf do u think language evolves? Are we all collectively trying to reach a goal with the English language despite the fact that most of us can't even decide whether or not pineapple belongs on pizza. English "went to the dogs" hundreds of years ago if it ever did become downtrodden. We should teach grammar as it is an incredible tool for speech and writing but we cannot protect languages from the convulsions we put through it today

[@orangebetsy]

This is something up with which I shall not put.

[@guytouquet]

@@orangebetsy Can't imagine what you brought that up for.

[@MariaLopez-hc2nm]

@Andrew Szemeredy And- I didn't worked yesterday..-- And your for you are.😐

[@douglasmilton2805]

No girl has ever been impressed by a bass player. OK, maybe Mandy Smith but the point still holds.

[@nishantintouch]

I found Mr. Oliver's arguments on solid founding and very well put. I think he argued for different dialects and styles but without breaking the immortal rules of the language.

[@nkenchington6575]

Mr. Kamm's

[@bryanwalker6125]

"Between you and me, the language is going to the dogs. You and I must understand this." I do not want to read any more of such incorrectness in the advertising. Do you know what I means?

[@adamgrimsley2900]

Yeah, that's the joke.

[@jamessherburn]

Yo dude, 'Do you know what I means bruv?', i'n' it! : )

[@doug7232]

Once upon a time there was a wonderful collection of 20 sentences under the title "English is crazy" Each sentence had three words that were pronounced identically whilst having radically different spellings and meanings I recall the one in the middle of the Iist could hardly speak out loud English is a creole of German. French, Latin and god knows what else Explain the spellings of enough and stuff to someone trying to learn English

[@doug7232]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/kInEaZaFbtKLfM0

[@doug7232]

Apparently one must be a raving lunatic to comprehend English

[@hannalaragunnarsdottir7448]

It saddens me that the only panelist being rude is that woman. (On top of being wrong and irritating). Otherwise; interesting discussion)

[@KJ-xc6qs]

The precise use of language is essential for understandable communication.

[@frenstcht]

If you have the time, spend some time in your local planning or zoning department and watch as people try to figure out whether they can put up a garden shed. Or watch them try to write or approve an ordinance. I've seen region-changing development projects hang in the balance because someone in the '70s didn't know how to use an Oxford comma or know how to set a clause as restrictive or not. "Essential" is an understatement. Thumbs-up.

[@SimsulatedId]

'Essential'? Ovbiiusly not the csae While major cokc-ups may occur due misplaced commas or missing, prepositions, unconventional script is more often (deeply, murderously) irritating rather than substansted.

[@frenstcht]

@@SimsulatedId kzbin.info/www/bejne/h2LWaotnqsdledE

[@michaeljohnangel6359]

Oliver Kann is speaking critically about much higher concerns than are most of us who are trying to defend the ability to communicate. My students (in an art academy) have never been shown how "we drove on to the beach" is basically different from "we drove onto the beach." Or, citing a more famous example, the difference between "eats shoots and leaves" and "eats, shoots and leaves." Yet another example of the importance of linguistic structure is the difference between "I learned from God, my parents and Ayn Rande" and "I learned everything from my parents, Ayn Rande and God."

[@egparis18]

At 46:41 both speakers against the motion have used personal insults 'grumpy old men', 'pedant', 'stickler'. Both of them have made uncalled-for speculations about the other side's private life. Neither of the speakers for the motion has done any such thing. That's enough on it's own to have made me vote for the motion had I been there.

[@rolleicanon]

its, not it's.

[@egparis18]

Ken Davies Well spotted. I typed too quickly and didn't read it over.

[@alen7480]

egparis18 Pedant and stickler are personal insults? I use these words to describe myself and the men for the motion would likely use the same words (they used synonyms of both those words in their own presentations). Debates are to be voted on by arguments for and against, not because of perceived (and non existent) slights. I don't mind what part of the motion you vote on, but your reason seems puerile.

[@egparis18]

Alen Combs Well just imagine the squawk if someone had called Mary Beard an untidy old frump. 'Pedant' and stickler' are certainly not compliments, and you can call yourself whatever you like, but I'm not going to call you anything, nor debate with you.

[@alen7480]

egparis18 Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of pedant and stickler. Pedant is "a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning." and stickler is "a person who insists on a certain quality or type of behavior." Straight from the dictionary. As you see, I am both a pedants and stickler. I might even call myself jokingly "a grumpy old man". Considering how later in the debate they happily acknowledge these terms, and obviously display a sense of humour about the whole thing, I hardly think that is reason to be so upset. In fact, it goes against the precision and anti-political correctness the "for the motion" side argued for. By the way, I don't mean to have hard feelings between us, and it is hard to portray irony or humour in text, but rest assured I was half joking when I was being pedantic (although I really am like that in real life). I really don't mind your opinion one way or another, and I hope you have a wonderful day.

[@a7-117]

I don't really think either side essentially contradicted each other. The speakers for the motion seemed to articulate a view of language bound by rules and principles, yet they didn't necessarily state that anything outside that language was inherently wrong. Even John Humhreys at the end said he admired how the youth missed language, which resonated with Oliver Kamm's argument that people can use different registers in different situations. All the opposition argued was that there are conventions, not rules, and that these are changeable. (Although the distinction between "law" and "convention" is ambiguous since no grammatical rule is actually enforced by law, so the words "law" and "convention" have less meaning here.) The opposition accepted that some linguistic conventions are cemented; they didn't advocate a free-for-all. I think the dispute really boils down to semantics - what are rules and conventions?

[@grumpyoldman8661]

What complacency Mary Beard displays, and we now have youngsters unable to spell, speak incoherently, and possess a seriously depleted vocabulary, that's where it leads. Some TV announcers, and commentators now, sound infantile in their pronunciation.

[@standalby6949]

It’s been happening up north for decades

[@zachariahpoltergeist4516]

Pssht, whatever. Y'all fools be trippin up in this mofo.

[@bennalexanderleyland9088]

Terrible use of punctuation.

[@willhovell9019]

What an old reactionary Humphries - he was'nt sacked early enough by the BBC . He is a bore , humourless and overagressive fool. He misquoted Orwell and Redhead.

[@Yemeth9]

Your English writing is dreadful too. “Unable to spell, speak incoherently” is stating that they’re unable to speak incoherently, meaning they’re… coherent.

[@KamilKartal]

My next question: How can I access to the last, most recent one of this event? I will appreciate if any of you can share a link to it. 2023? 2022? The last or preferably the whole series of these events. Thank you.

[@mysticmouse7261]

As a novelist and poet I disagree that the primary purpose of language is to communicate. It is the fabric the material of thought.

[@Janemas]

Chomsky said that too.

[@joeessig3550]

I'd make a distinction---i think there's a difference between "naming something" (i.e. coming up with a word/sound/symbol, abstracting and compartmentalizing an object or action for personal edification and empowerment) and language. The former would be "the fabric, the material of thought", and language is what springs forth from that. But language itself is always collective and communicative, it implies speaking or gesturing for others, and even if you're talking to yourself, that's a different experience than thinking inside yourself. I'd agree with your and Mr. Chomsky's depiction of language, but only if I was discussing language in terms of the individual, in a vacuum.

[@ehsfb20011]

I hate a moderator who clearly favors one side as she does when she gives the original vote.

[@richarddavis1163]

Two of my pet peeves are "Quote, unquote' and, "I could care less". Neither use makes a bit of sense.

[@elizabethblackwell6242]

Hold down the fort.

[@sonjak8265]

Two of mine are: "go-getter" and "from the get-go."

[@enigmag9538]

I think it's quote, end quote.

[@enigmag9538]

Also it is " I could NOT care less" b/c i already don't care as little as is possible.

[@alanyates5088]

I think that 'I could care less' is simply the facetious opposite of 'I couldn't care less' . One needs to know what is right before attempting to decide what is wrong.

[@svendbosanvovski4241]

I reviewed a three paragraph, handwritten letter this week with no less than eight simple spelling errors. The person who drafted it was a second year university student.

[@aaronwalderslade]

The tension between tradition and novelty in language is exactly the mirror of the tension between social conformity and revolution.

[@Tom-rg2ex]

@Andrew Szemeredy If you google "grammar and the constitution" you will find that the U.S.'s founding documents are riddled with typographical errors. Not that means much, Shakespeare would laugh at your correlation of intelligence with adhering to syntactical rules, since he made up so much of the language itself. (If you're interested, look up linguist Noam Chomsky's talking points about how the grammar of standardized modern English is completely arbitrary and inorganic).

[@anialiandr]

Try send a paper for publication in bad English. Each of the speakers had impeccable English and prof beard was very pompous while arguing against the cause. She clearly no longer edits her students’ texts: gave up exasperated and puts a good face to a bad game

[@Tom-rg2ex]

@Andrew Szemeredy I'm not saying that grammar isn't important, I'm just saying that equating grammar directly with intelligence is elitist nonsense.

[@wanjektube]

I would agree with the third speaker. Knowledge of language usage is a measure of your knowledge in general. I don't want my young daughter to be immersed in a culture where people ignorant of contemporary usage dominate the conversation, because that, in short, compromises her ability to excel in this "stodgy old world" of academia and business where the ability to express yourself well is still prized.

[@yoganathan001]

I could listen to Oliver all day long !

[@cliffordhatton4444]

As a supply teacher, I was given a class of Year 6 juniors for a week. On introducing myself I noticed three or four well-known advertising slogans their usual teacher had written on the blackboard; one of them was "Should of gone to Spec-Savers". Oh, dear.....

[@edcarson3113]

@andrewszemeredy4458have

[@72Yonatan]

All the speakers made excellent points.

[@jhhwanghwang888]

72Yonatan .

[@matchingsox]

Except for the first speaker who contended that one has to learn grammar in order to learn a language, when every person on earth learns their language without it.

[@kimberlyperrotis8962]

All children are language geniuses, it’s incredible how much and how fast they learn languages. If only we could bottle that ability for adults for learning new languages! Talking to, singing to and reading to children magnifies their incredible language learning ability.

[@nkenchington6575]

Here are two interesting aspects of that rapid development phase: they don't have other serious commitments, and they have a tremendous tolerance for repetition. I watched my daughter vacuum up both Thai and Isaan, and it is indeed remarkable, but there are reasons as to why it occurs.

[@litjunkie3808]

This is one of the most wonderful videos I have ever watched.Intelligence squared should organise more language debates.All the speakers were brilliantly eloquent in presenting their arguments though I really believe that english language is going to the dogs.Thoroughly enjoyed the video,nevertheless.

[@stephencyang6628]

As a native Chinese speaker, I sincerely believe that Chinese is a superior language. Every english speaker should try to learn Chinese. Afterall, there are more manderin speakers in the world. Chinese language does not require course in grammar. I was not taught Chinese grammar in my ten years' schooling in Taiwan.

[@391jamie]

What do you mean by a "superior language"?

[@elainehiggins713]

Stephen C Yang Mandarin.

[@JosephVirtus21]

Sounds like the humble schoolteacher righted the entire debate! Good for her! Excellent debate.

[@carlmons]

I clicked on this because of the glaring error in the title- glad to see it was intentional. I have a good friend who continually makes the same error - rather than "xyz happened to she and me", he says "her and I". After a few times correcting him, and explaining how to remember the correct usage, I finally gave up. We're still friends, but I still notice.

[@childearth4039]

The English language is centred around a few words now like hot,cool and expressions centred around a certain part of the human anatomy.Perfectly straightforward words have taken on an entirely different meaning so one can not use them because of the double meanings that they now have.

[@bennalexanderleyland9088]

- Overuse of "centred." - Cannot* - Conclusion that makes no sense. Yep-sounds like your average language prescriptivist.

[@TejasM14]

Here's a speculation. The number of English speakers in the world has simply exploded due to historical factors such as colonialism, globalization, mass migration, improvements in telecommunication and effect of mass media. Given that a majority of these individuals are not native speakers of the language, they are starting on a weaker footing. So yes, the effect may seem like a dilution of the quality of the English language given that many of these individuals are educated through the medium of English. But this is simply a new phenomenon. Just like how most people read user created content through screens and not literature per say. It certainly has an effect on the usage of the language. But I don't think it is altogether a cause for dismay, despite the many lamentations of those who may have attended grammar schools. Who should worry? It is the speakers of non English languages, given that english is simply eating every other language alive.

[@tomgreene6579]

The pound has plunged!...media proclaimed...it had fallen around 1%.

[@garyjohnson1466]

Great discussion/debate, as a American, I actually prefer the English way of speaking, expressing things, but appreciate the various forms of speaking, even those whose English is not their native language, when I use to travel, those I encountered alway apologized for their English, to which I replied, your English is better than me trying to speak your language, but I must agree, one must lean how to speak English correctly (not sure exactly what that mean) before adapting to all the various form of speaking, however growing up English was my second worst subject, math was my worst, I’m dyslexic and left handed, anyways, you all killed this subject, also great comments and questions by those in the audience, I thoroughly enjoyed this, thank you, IQ2 puts on the most interesting programs, even though many of these accrued years ago, again thank you, this discussion is as relevant today as it was then..

[@samwalters8734]

One of the first things you'll learn in English Language theory is that language is in a 'constant state of flux', continuously adapting and evolving to meet the contextual and environmental needs of its users. Language is not empirical, so there is no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong' language. We have many different registers; we are capable of writing an essay, talking to your grandmother, chatting to friends at a party, or being interviewed by an employer, using different language choices for each. Neither of these choices are inherently better than the other, they are just different examples of language at work. You could have zoned out when Heffer was introduced as a writer for the daily mail, but anyway, I found it very ironic that he used the term 'beef' in his opening monologue. When surely that's the colloquial, 'improper' use of language that he's a self knighted crusader against. The phrase 'going to the dogs' in the title is another example of this. To be prescriptivist and think that language was somehow better back in your day is a trick of nostalgia and arrogance.

[@insanemadcat9]

You can talk a good game on the streets and understand what the other dude says, but are you able to properly express yourself when you're aiming for precise and clear language?

[@stevenbuthelezi6319]

well said!

[@stellayates4227]

Language within contracts and the law has to be right and you will find yourself in grave trouble for the misuse of it. Even the wrong punctuation can alter the meaning of a term and have it applied differently.

[@MauriatOttolink]

Sam Walters. Well it needs to be right if you want to extract or pass on a precise meaning. Consider the following for any ambiguity which you might find.. "Mother had to help Uncle jack off his horse!" I leave it with you!

[@timothyfreeseha4056]

Your first speaker speaks to me. Language influences. Wonderful topic and debate.

[@Roedygr]

If you use words incorrectly, pronounce words eccentrically, and mangle your grammar, the older people who decide if you should be hired or promoted will evaluate you as an idiot, ditto if you have verbal tics, such as upspeak, frying or talking like a drag performer, randomly elongating and emphasising syllables. Nearly all young people, especially female, show some signs of these tics. Get rid of your "um" filler words such as and, and stuff, as it will, at the end of the day, basically, big in size, eh, cruel in nature, honestly, I mean, if you will, like, literally, lot of, move forward, perfect storm, red in colour, step up to the plate, to be honest, to tell the truth, yeah, yes, you know, you know what I mean, you know what I’m saying, uh, um, very.

[@TheKategolden]

+Roedy Green Olivier called the applicant " The Boy" . I would not work for Olivier nor any other employer if they called me a Girl. I am not a child at 38 years of age.

[@notexactlyrocketscience]

+Roedy Green We need maps

[@richarddavis1163]

Good grief. Your question begs a response, and I do not know how to start. "Do you want to be hired..."? Affirmative.

[@mayhampson4896]

I was not one of the privilege few to go to university.I have bettered my self with trying to learn anything that I could,education wise. I do love to hear what we call our Queen’s spoken language . Nowadays I really do not like slang .John , I really do agree with him . I grew up during the Second World War and got no education at all . But I am fortunate to be what people call bright, and have lots of common sense . I can comprehend and see through people and problems . And BBC has really lowered its standard . And let’ our country and people , down against other nations .Let us have better spoken teachers , instead of badly spoken sloven uneducated ones in English .Lets have correct English .ones to teach our children and stand proud in our spoken word .Lets have class,it goes a long way .

[@jaredprince4772]

"You and I" correlates to "we." "You and me" correlates to "us." We say, "between us" not "between we." Therefore the title should be "Between You and me, the English Language is Going to the Dogs."

[@jaredprince4772]

Alternatively, italics (or quotation marks, perhaps) could be added to the title as follows: 'Between You and I' the English Language is Going to the Dogs.

[@yengsabio5315]

May someone please help me understand, "the English language is going to the dogs." What exactly does "going to the dogs" mean especially if figuratively in context of the proposition. English is not my first language. Thank you in advance!

[@jaredprince4772]

@@yengsabio5315 There are at least two potential origins of the phrase. The two that I am aware of are very different from each other but have the same ultimate meaning. One is of ancient Chinese origin in which dogs lived outside the city walls and received scraps of food being thrown out implying the lower quality or unacceptable food is what went to the dogs. A more recent source is from the 1700s in which people that gambled money on dog races may have suffered financially and some became destitute implying their financial resources were weakened if not obliterated. Hence, "going to the dogs" implies a less desirable situation or one from which it is more difficult to recover.

[@yengsabio5315]

@@jaredprince4772 Thank you very much! At least, it's clear to me now. Cheers & mabuhay to you from tropical Philippines!

[@luchydiaz9128]

Yeng Sabio “going to the dogs” is very similar to “going down the toilet” o “going down the drain”, it means it’s being destroyed.

[@rosario508]

The thing I HATE the most is double negatives! Like “I didn’t see nothing!”

[@Ana_crusis]

The thing I hate the most is the mangling of our language by Americans, especially the destruction of the third conditional. It's not " If I would have seen her..." it's " if I had seen her..."

[@michaellicchi4771]

John Humphry’s won the debate in one line...when he pointed out that his opponents spoke such beautiful and articulate English...so even they know it’s important. 😂

[@jameskennedy7093]

I'm American, and I didn't realize the moderator was American. I thought she was Irish or Welsh or something. It was clear she spoke differently than the debaters, but it didn't sound American. So how about that for an answer to the question? The reality is that often people who we think "have gone to the dogs" may have quite strongly adapted to their surroundings. Everyone puts their pants on one leg at a time, as my mom would say. (Or your trousers, I guess. But that makes me feel like I'm in a Wallace and Gromit film when I say that. . . ).

[@stevenfielden8955]

So nice to see John H. doing something different and more lite-'arted..

[@carbonc6065]

This was a real treat to watch!

[@MelissaThompson432]

Was that irony or did they not know that the pronoun is objective (you and *_me_* )?

[@ho7026]

6:27 - i was wondering the same, but they've got it circled on the slide, so i'd say it was intentional

[@lunaridge4510]

One cannot possibly say "You and I" in place of an object in other Indo-European languages, definitely not in Russian (if one is sober). English is like a hard wooden board as far as inflecting the Object in a sentence to comply with the Subject and the action of the verb is concerned. Plus, no one reads to the kids anymore.

[@corydorastube]

@@lunaridge4510 I read to mine, in English and in French.

[@dianedevery3711]

@@lunaridge4510 I do

[@jamesponza]

dear god such breathtaking cheekiness and cleverness on every side. I'm so entranced. such shining lights

[@skyriderize]

Speakers, Commenters. Evolution's the rhythm of the moment!

[@zenith808]

When did the BBC news anchors start saying "iss-yous" as opposed to "ish-yous"?. Which one is right?

[@smyffmawzz]

Your ..You're and Their ..There ...There are times i could scream !

[@ecwadorlife667]

Agreed! Others that trigger me: everyday when every day is meant; alot instead of a lot; it’s instead of its (and vice versa); insure when ensure is meant; compliment versus complement, etc., etc., etc. People like to blame their phones or spellcheck, but I find that to be a weak excuse for not paying attention to one’s writing. And don’t get me started on would of, could of, should of!

[@philaypeephilippotter6532]

Cleave the one in twain; Then cleave them together again

[@ecwadorlife667]

@ladywharton Yeah, I get that quite a bit too. Some people are nice and grateful for the correction but they are few and far between.

[@keithdavies150]

I quite often do!

[@hansstraub475]

What about the overused "multiple," as in "There are multiple cars on the bridge"? Have you ever seen a multiple car? Whatever happened to "many"? Has it been sent into exile?

[@reginaldmolethrasher437]

57:15 Kamm: "People know from the context what the difference is between 'uninterested' and 'disinterested' ". Do they? I'd say yes, sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. Context might reduce the possibility of misunderstanding, but it doesn't eliminate it - which 'correct' usage does. Kamm is arguing for partial chaos rather than total chaos - that's all.

[@qorilla]

*Every* language has this "debate". In Hungary we have the exact same kind of debate about Hungarian. Do you think it's possible that now all languages are going to the dogs? The whole humanity is in decline and rot away? This is a constant bullcrap thoughout history.

[@jdstep97]

I didn't look at this video yet, but the title *Between You and I the English Language is Going to the Dogs* got my attention. It says English is going to the dogs, but the title itself is incorrect English grammar. I wonder if that was done intentionally. Take for example: "This is between we". A native speaker would not say that, but s/he would say, "this is between us". So in the case here, "between you and I" is incorrect. It should be "between you and me". For some reason, most English-speaking people use "I" incorrectly in this manner. It reminds me of "I am going to lay down" That is wrong. But almost everybody says it! The correct way to say that, though, is "I am going to *lie* down".

[@weirdunclebob]

It was deliberate. About six seconds into the video you will see the title written on the wall behind the guest speakers in large letters. The 'I' at the end is circled in red (as a lecturer/ teacher would do to point out an error). The good folk at IQ² wouldn't be that careless, surely! (Would they?! :) )

[@iliashigin]

This conversation is pointless.

[@weirdunclebob]

Maybe not to you but to others it does. Some people care about the language. If you can't see that this has enormous value, I can only guess that the language doesn't mean much to you in which case, why are you even here?! :)

[@tenartists]

i was hoping it was irony - yikes. it's so embarrassing!

[@weirdunclebob]

Yes, it's irony. Not as obviously ironic as I thought it was, though! It would be embarrassing if it wasn't, that's for sure.

[@dlwatib]

One thought that failed to get expressed in this debate is that standard English is important for a very practical reason: it is the common ground that defines our shared expectations of pronunciation and spelling and punctuation and grammar. If you speak a dialect with a thick accent you limit those you can communicate with to only others who share your own dialect. If, on the other hand, you are fluent in standard English, pretty much anybody who claims to be fluent in any dialect of English is going to be able to understand you. A Scotsman and a Cockney have very different accents that are well-nigh unintelligible to outsiders. If they want to make themselves understood to the English world at large, they have to move toward standard English. The rules of standard English may be as arbitrary as that of any other dialect, but it's the dialect you have to use if you want to reach the widest audience. Similarly, if your spelling and punctuation deviate significantly from standard English without good reason, you limit your audience and impose an increased burden of communication on the audience you can attract. It matters not that the spelling and punctuation rules of standard English are needlessly arcane. I do sympathize with the position of the "against" argument, that there is no right and wrong, just dialects, but within the dialect of standard English, as with all other dialects, there are clearly rules that you will be judged on. That makes them, for better or worse, right or wrong in a practical sense. One more thing: the descriptivists who insist that there is no right and wrong and that the real grammar rules are *instinctive* and therefore don't need to be taught are fighting a losing battle. The whole reason prescriptivists are in the fight in the first place is that they see an unfamiliar construction and they *instinctively* know that it isn't right. As practiced speakers of the language they would never do that and furthermore, after only a moment's reflection they can articulate why and what they would say instead. That's far different than mistakenly applying the rules of Latin grammar to English or some other such nonsense. It's also quite different from seeing an unfamiliar construction and *instinctively* reacting in the opposite way, that it is a novel and admirable addition or change to the language which they would proudly emulate.

[@Bajro97]

The side against the motion is unjustifiably satisfied. If you note, they repeat the few simple points they have over and over again. Yes, we understand language is an evolving, live thing. But it is also a valuable human possession that we should obviously take care of. "Speak as you will" cannot exist as advice on how to treat or use language. That is an already existing inclination, we needn't promote it further. The lack of humour on the opposition side is also notable, especially as regards the lady - who thinks, incidentally, she is both witty and righteous.

[@bullmanlion4302]

You'd do well to read Oliver Kamm's _Accidence Will Happen: The non-pedantic guide to English usage._

[@MauriatOttolink]

Bajro -Nuhanovic. Wow...English doesn't give YOU any problems. What would you charge as an hourly rate for lessons? I'm not serious, just very impressed as your name clearly isn't Anglo Saxon. I love, figuratively speaking of course, someone with your articulacy. On KZbin it stands out like a deer's antlers on a cat! My best to you!

[@mariamalhotra8228]

@@MauriatOttolink How condescending!

[@MauriatOttolink]

@@mariamalhotra8228 I'm sure that it was if I encountered utter rubbish but I can't find what it was and you didn't help!

[@Snwman_]

So it's acceptable now to spell incorrectly and write "your" for the shortened "you are", etc. etc. One could pass an English exam using such??? Just curious.

[@Aethelbeorn]

If that's true... you might as well use 'ur' since you're getting it phonetically across as correct...

[@Snwman_]

@@Aethelbeorn Yep, you're right. That would be the next step (down). The thing is I know people who write like this and they really don't know that it's wrong. For me that's terrible, they've all been through school here in the UK. What next? maths? 2+2 =5 - yeah, that'll do. Don't worry about it....

[@marblegrimes7010]

Decimate, but is that a Latin word? Used by the Romans, a punishment for a legion failing, isn't that a strange word to be holding up on a discussion on English?

[@LionelMessi-pq8ck]

Marble Grimes Yes , I am romanian It is a word which represents something such as destroyed or demolished .....

[@marblegrimes7010]

Yes but the original term was to kill every tenth man in the legion

[@maryleahy1634]

Marble Grimes y

[@danielspeight408]

Not really, English is full of loan words. Most of our vocabulary stems from the Germanic languages, French and Latin. The original Latin is 'decimus', meaning tenth, which evolved to 'decimat-' ('taken as a tenth') which became 'decimate' in late Middle English having, more or less, the same connotations as when we use it today. Decimation emerged in Late Middle English around the same time. In short- it's about as English as any word can be!:)

[@TheJoergenDK]

Isn't "dissinterested a passive form, like dissappointed, as if your interest was there but has been removed, whereas "uninterested" describes something that has never existed, because you didn't ever care? Or wouldn't it at least be a practial and convenient use of both words?

[@psandbergnz]

Knud, No! Consult a dictionary. "Disinterested" has a completely different meaning from "uninterested".

[@element4element4]

English is my fifth language, not second (standard problem of being a stateless kurdish refugee) but I feel that I speak it at a reasonable level. Especially since I have lived in Scandinavia since I was 10 years old and furthermore since I am working on my PhD degree in Canada & the US. I certainly don't think that the english language is going to the dogs. The language might change due to the large amount of second-language speakers, but english itself is already a crossbreed of germanic, latin, old norse, norman french and other languages. I think it will survive just fine, even be quite robust against many influences. However, many other languages are going to the dogs due to the overwhelming influence of the english language and (mostly american) culture. My generation in Denmark make use of more english vocabulary and expressions than the previous generation. During my last visit back to Denmark to see my family, I noticed that the younger generation is doing much worse. Sitting in the train and listening to 16-20 year olds converse, it was hard for me to find a single sentence without an english word like: ridiculous, game, awkward, amazing, etc. I have observed the same trend in many other languages as well. Interestingly, most of the loan words are adjectives but some nouns are loaned too. I can only imagine that this influence will keep reducing the linguistic diversity in our world. The biggest problem is the smaller languages that do not have a body to keep them safe. Many of these will most likely go extinct and english will contribute by dramatically accelerating this process.

[@ggamos9831]

I loved this presentation and am a huge fan of beautifully spoken English. But this host doesn't sound like any American I know and I'm from there. I thought she might be Canadian at first, then I thought Irish.. strange. Her accent seems a little put on to me. Still, a great debate.