• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Language difficulty rankings (Europe) for an English speaker[W:165]

Fledermaus said:
You asked. I answered with a logical answer.

No wonder you are flustered.
Click to expand...

I'm not flustered by you being out of your depth. It's a common occurrence for you.
 
Johnson said:
Do you really, and I mean REALLY think that when i hear a double negative I actually think they mean a positive? Of course not! Doesn't change the fact that it's improper despite your...whatever it is you're doing here.
Click to expand...

What he's doing is offering vainglorious pretensions of grammatical erudition--in other words, cheap grammar smack.
 
nota bene said:
What he's doing is offering vainglorious pretensions of grammatical erudition--in other words, cheap grammar smack.
Click to expand...

It did seem somewhat disingenuous that he was accusing me of mistaking a double negative for an actual positive. I mean, I suppose if being cleverly pedantic gets your rocks off, then sure.
 
Johnson said:
It did seem somewhat disingenuous that he was accusing me of mistaking a double negative for an actual positive. I mean, I suppose if being cleverly pedantic gets your rocks off, then sure.
Click to expand...

Well, my minimal expectation if one is going to be pedantic is that he get it right. Then he's only insufferable rather than insufferable and wrong. ;)
 
nota bene said:
What he's doing is offering vainglorious pretensions of grammatical erudition--in other words, cheap grammar smack.
Click to expand...

And you say this without a shred of proof. Seemingly trying to suggest that there is something wrong with double negation, again, without a shred of evidence.
 
Last edited:
Johnson said:
It did seem somewhat disingenuous that he was accusing me of mistaking a double negative for an actual positive. I mean, I suppose if being cleverly pedantic gets your rocks off, then sure.
Click to expand...

I specifically told you that I didn't say that was your take on it, and you dropped it. Now you pick up on it as if it has any validity. I said that many [that obviously does not have to include you] use that poor description, [double negative makes a positive, and actually invoking mathematics as their proof] as a way to justify their goofy prescription.

You haven't provided any logical reason for you holding it up to be anything but a perfectly natural native speaker idiomatic usage. Which it is, right?
 
camlok said:
I specifically told you that I didn't say that was your take on it, and you dropped it. Now you pick up on it as if it has any validity. I said that many [that obviously does not have to include you] use that poor description, [double negative makes a positive, and actually invoking mathematics as their proof] as a way to justify their goofy prescription.

You haven't provided any logical reason for you holding it up to be anything but a perfectly natural native speaker idiomatic usage. Which it is, right?
Click to expand...

It is, but it doesn't make it correct. The fact that it's so commonly used that it's generally overlooked doesn't change the fact that it's incorrect.
 
Johnson said:
It is, but it doesn't make it correct. The fact that it's so commonly used that it's generally overlooked doesn't change the fact that it's incorrect.
Click to expand...

No proof, no logical argument to illustrate your mistaken belief. These are called prescriptions and that's all there ever is, "it's incorrect". Well, how do you know? "My granny told me/my 2nd grade teacher told me".

You have some curiosity. That is good!
 
Johnson said:
It is, but it doesn't make it correct. The fact that it's so commonly used that it's generally overlooked doesn't change the fact that it's incorrect.
Click to expand...

There is no other way to determine language correctness than by how native speakers use their language. Now don't get all excited thinking that I am saying that everything of English is alright in all registers of English. There ARE different registers in language and some things simply don't work in all registers.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Why? There are likely even more regional dialects, accents and vernaculars in Britain than there are anywhere else in Europe.
Click to expand...

Flanders would be a contender. In the UK they never need to use subtitles on TV if somebody from say the north of England is on national TV ? Here in Flanders if somebody form Ostende or the Limburg is being interviewed the need to use subtitles. I Live near Antwerp, I've been here for 40 years, I speak the Antwerp dialect like a native. When I go to Ypres in West Flanders I don't understand a word and I need an interpreter.
 
camlok said:
Those are two examples of super anal. Double negatives are exceedingly common in casual English. The idiocy comes from those who try to tell us that a double negative equals a positive.

When Mick Jagger sings that he can't get no satisfaction, he isn't stating that he does get satisfaction.

That is anal and incredibly stupid. Every English speaker, even the anal ones trying to pass off such nonsense knows that a double negative almost never means a positive.

In English speech, in situations like "I seen that", the have/'ve is often virtually unvoiced. It doesn't mean that people don't understand the use of "have-has/'ve-'s + PP, it's simply that as speech speed increases more phonemes get flattened/unvoiced.
Click to expand...

All I hear is bad English when someone talks like that.
 
Mach said:
Reminded me of this:
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
Click to expand...


In the UK it is badger badgers badger badgers badger badger badger badgers.
 
Welsh is hard to learn. You can't look up words in a dictionary until you have mastered the mutations.
 
holbritter said:
All I hear is bad English when someone talks like that.
Click to expand...

That simply illustrates that you are operating from a position of ignorance about language and how it works.
 
zyzygy said:
Yes, that Pink Floyd song "we don't need no educayshun" Obviously they did.
Click to expand...

That song is about making people into the brainless gorms like the USGOCT Zero Evidence Club. It has nothing to do with the English language, which schools are totally dismal at teaching.
 
camlok said:
That song is about making people into the brainless gorms like the USGOCT Zero Evidence Club. It has nothing to do with the English language, which schools are totally dismal at teaching.
Click to expand...

I could have sworn it was written in the English language by Roger Waters, he is a curmudgeon and a misanthrope. Do you have to bring your 911 fantasies into a thread about language?
 
zyzygy said:
I could have sworn it was written in the English language by Roger Waters, he is a curmudgeon and a misanthrope. Do you have to bring your 911 fantasies into a thread about language?
Click to expand...

Wow, how did you determine it was in English, zyzygy? You are much brighter than you seem at first glance.

My comments were all about language and your misreading of the lyrics. The example was dead on.

It simply shows that "all in all you're [plural] just another brick in the wall".
 
camlok said:
Wow, how did you determine it was in English, zyzygy? You are much brighter than you seem at first glance.

My comments were all about language and your misreading of the lyrics. The example was dead on.

It simply shows that "all in all you're [plural] just another brick in the wall".
Click to expand...

No, we are all individuals. Waters has a diseased view of mankind. We don't need no education? How could that be misread? You said that it had nothing to do with English and it was written in English. It should be you are all another brick in the wall. Although that would imply that they are all the same brick.
 
Last edited:
zyzygy said:
No, we are all individuals. Waters has a diseased view of mankind. We don't need no education? How could that be misread? You said that it had nothing to do with English and it was written in English.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with teaching the English language. It has to do with making students the brainless gorms that accept whatever lies their governments tell them.

It could be translated to any number of languages but that doesn't mean the song has anything to do with teaching the English language.
 
camlok said:
It has nothing to do with teaching the English language. It has to do with making students the brainless gorms that accept whatever lies their governments tell them.

It could be translated to any number of languages but that doesn't mean the song has anything to do with teaching the English language.
Click to expand...

Must you bring your fantasies into a thread about language? Please keep them for the conspiracy forum. I didn't say that the song was about teaching the English language, I was commenting on the bad grammar.
 
When I said that the children in the song needed educating I was being facetious but that appears to have gone right over somebody's head.
 
zyzygy said:
Must you bring your fantasies into a thread about language? Please keep them for the conspiracy forum. I didn't say that the song was about teaching the English language, I was commenting on the bad grammar.
Click to expand...

It's you that keeps talking about conspiracies, zyzygy. You don't know bad grammar from a load of manure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom