OT - English 101 - Bias versus biased

[Slattery_20]

Dunno is that post was a joke or not but I'm pretty sure that 'biased' is an adjective not a verb

It can be used as a verb in an electronics setting. But that's pretty specific.

 

[jpdixon]

'Versing' does my head in.

My now 9 yr old has been using it ever since 'his' been interested in footy.
I assumed he was the only one, but then I heard his mates using it. Then I hear all of his teammates using it at the footy club. My gaster was then flabbered when I heard a young afl player use it.

Now my 6 yr old uses it!

Neither of them believe me when I tell them it's wrong.

It'll be in the freakin dictionary soon!!

You probably don't want to know, but that one's been going round at least 20 years, and has been in the Macquarie Dictionary for a while too (marked as a backformation form versus, of course).

I love a good laugh when people mix up words with different meanings (or when they miss the deliberate ones in this thread!), but I reckon we should all show a bit of respect for "youse" - it's a decent, useful, Aussie addition/change to the language!

 

[cobbly]

I think some people in this thread are confusing slang and general mistakes (typos) with people actually not knowing the difference. I have to admit that some do annoy me too, especially the 'bias' one, and the his/he's one, but I have been known to make the odd typo, and sometimes purposely misspell words because it's quicker, and even to use words that aren't "real" words.

For example, you will frequently see me type things like 'u' or 'ur', but that does not mean I don't know how to spell 'you' and 'your'. I might type no instead of know. I will also frequently not put apostrophes in words like don't and also not capitalise 'I'. I may even type color instead of colour. The point is, doing this does not make me stupid, and it does not mean that my school didn't teach me English properly. It just means that I put more effort into the point I am making than trying to appease the grammar cops.

One of my pet hates is when someone dismisses a perfectly good point just because they used their instead of there. That does not make you smart or better than anyone. You just come off as an ass that is too dumb to make a real rebuttal.

The fact is, English is a tool, it is used to communicate, as long as you can understand someone, then who the hell cares if they confuse uninterested with disinterested or spell definitely wrong. The beauty of English is that it is able to evolve, people can actually make a word up and because of context, people will know exactly what they mean, it is a good thing!

Now I'm sure you will all pick out the many grammar and spelling mistakes that I have most likely made and tell yourself that this means I'm an idiot and therefore everything I just said is idiotic.

 

[Dawson]

I think some people in this thread are confusing slang and general mistakes (typos) with people actually not knowing the difference. I have to admit that some do annoy me too, especially the 'bias' one, and the his/he's one, but I have been known to make the odd typo, and sometimes purposely misspell words because it's quicker, and even to use words that aren't "real" words.

For example, you will frequently see me type things like 'u' or 'ur', but that does not mean I don't know how to spell 'you' and 'your'. I might type no instead of know. I will also frequently not put apostrophes in words like don't and also not capitalise 'I'. I may even type color instead of colour. The point is, doing this does not make me stupid, and it does not mean that my school didn't teach me English properly. It just means that I put more effort into the point I am making than trying to appease the grammar cops.

One of my pet hates is when someone dismisses a perfectly good point just because they used their instead of there. That does not make you smart or better than anyone. You just come off as an ass that is too dumb to make a real rebuttal.

The fact is, English is a tool, it is used to communicate, as long as you can understand someone, then who the hell cares if they confuse uninterested with disinterested or spell definitely wrong. The beauty of English is that it is able to evolve, people can actually make a word up and because of context, people will know exactly what they mean, it is a good thing!

Now I'm sure you will all pick out the many grammar and spelling mistakes that I have most likely made and tell yourself that this means I'm an idiot and therefore everything I just said is idiotic.

If you are attempting to make a point in a discussion and you confuse your with you're, it makes me wonder what else you have wrong in relation to your argument.

Additionally, if something as simple as he's/his is screwed up by you, why should I bother to try to work out what point you are trying to make.
It shouldn't be for me to try and decipher what you are attempting to say - if you can't say it succinctly then why should I bother to read it?

 

[cobbly]

If you are attempting to make a point in a discussion and you confuse your with you're, it makes me wonder what else you have wrong in relation to your argument.

Fine. Doubt what I say, look at it with a critical eye, you should be doing that anyway, but don't dismiss it entirely because you noticed a simple typo.

Additionally, if something as simple as he's/his is screwed up by you, why should I bother to try to work out what point you are trying to make.
It shouldn't be for me to try and decipher what you are attempting to say - if you can't say it succinctly then why should I bother to read it?

Because you don't need to "try and decipher" anything, you know exactly what I am saying instinctively, and you choose to ignore it because you have an easy so called comeback.

I cluod tpye lkie tihs and you wluod slitl konw waht I am syanig.

 

[Skids]

Here's one that I didn't even know until a decade ago. That actually doesn't mean really. You often hear some say 'he was actually a good player' when what is meant is that 'he was really a good player'. Actually means currently, not really.

Exempliae gratis:
Essendon were really good in 2000. (True statement. Memories, like a....)
Essendon were actually good in 2000. (Said for emphasis of the previous statement, but nonsensical)

Of course, this could be like 'begging the question' and the incorrect usage has become the norm...

 

[S for September]

You know what really shits me? People that like to complain about spelling and grammar on a fecking football forum. It adds nothing to the discussion and just makes you look like an elitist w***er.

The important thing is that the persons view is brought across, and that theres discussion. It's pretty rare that grammar and spelling is so bad you dont understand what they are trying to get at.

 

[Skids]

You know what really shits me? People that like to complain about spelling and grammar on a fecking football forum. It adds nothing to the discussion and just makes you look like an elitist w***er.

The important thing is that the persons view is brought across, and that theres discussion. It's pretty rare that grammar and spelling is so bad you dont understand what they are trying to get at.

Oh come on. If one can't position oneself as an elitist w***er on a fecking football forum then what possible avenues are there for one to be an elitist w***er? This is the bottom of the barrel. If we scrape any more, we're no longer in the barrel. Should you take this opportunity away from us, where will we find the pathetic light of elitism? Tell me, where? Oh the humanity!

 

[invinciBlues]

You know what really shits me? People that like to complain about spelling and grammar on a fecking football forum. It adds nothing to the discussion and just makes you look like an elitist w***er.

The important thing is that the persons view is brought across, and that theres discussion. It's pretty rare that grammar and spelling is* so bad you dont understand what they are trying to get at**.

*are

**And we don't end our sentences with a preposition. See me after class

 

[J_Moore]

That is really quite untrue. ie.

No it's not. A book from four centuries ago is almost entirely intelligable to modern English speakers. That's not to say the language hasn't changed, because there have been changes (the removal of pronoun cases and the codification of spelling chief among them), but the suggestion that english changes so much that it will be unrecognisable in 100 years is a bit of a stretch.

And Andy: I take your point about middle English, but that's why I specifically excluded it. I disagree with you about early modern English. It requires very little effort from a modern reader to understand it. Essentially, vocab is the only significant difference, and it's hardly substantial.

And I have a different view of the French inflexibility than you. I tend to regard it as a pretty futile, vain exercise. English's adapatability and wlllingess to assimilate new words is one of it's real strengths. The language is richer because of it's adoption of "schadenfreude", for example. Beats having to say "joy from others misfortune" instead.

 

[invinciBlues]

No it's not. A book from four centuries ago is almost entirely intelligable to modern English speakers. That's not to say the language hasn't changed, because there have been changes (the removal of pronoun cases and the codification of spelling chief among them), but the suggestion that english changes so much that it will be unrecognisable in 100 years just isn't true.

Bullshit. If you ever get over to the UK go to a place called Lancashire. You'd struggle to hold a conversion, they still use thee, thou, thine, etc, etc... Very hard even when you have a Liverpudlian whose father hails from there.

Point being, there are still many dialects in the English language that come across as a completely different language. One hundred years ago? Forget about it.

 

[J_Moore]

Bullshit. If you ever get over to the UK go to a place called Lancashire. You'd struggle to hold a conversion, they still use thee, thou, thine, etc, etc... Very hard even when you have a Liverpudlian whose father hails from there.

Point being, there are still many dialects in the English language that come across as a completely different language. One hundred years ago? Forget about it.

you can't understand 100 year old English texts?

 

[Ando727]

No it's not. A book from four centuries ago is almost entirely intelligable to modern English speakers. That's not to say the language hasn't changed, because there have been changes (the removal of pronoun cases and the codification of spelling chief among them), but the suggestion that english changes so much that it will be unrecognisable in 100 years is a bit of a stretch.

And Andy: I take your point about middle English, but that's why I specifically excluded it. I disagree with you about early modern English. It requires very little effort from a modern reader to understand it. Essentially, vocab is the only significant difference, and it's hardly substantial.

I can guarantee that unless you have studied English linguistics you are going to have some trouble reading anything written in Early Modern English. By the way, Shakespeare is from the later stage of Early Modern so it is significantly easier than the early stuff. I suspect you are Shakespeare as your case. From what you say, I doubt that you have looked at texts from the earlier stages of Early Modern English. It was still in it's formative years then. It's more difficult than Shakespeare, trust me. These periods are a bit general too, by the way. It wasn't like they just made a decision to move from Middle English to Early Modern. It was a continuous evolution. That's why a lot of Early Modern period English was still hard to decipher and had lots of "false friends".

And I have a different view of the French inflexibility than you. I tend to regard it as a pretty futile, vain exercise. English's adapatability and wlllingess to assimilate new words is one of it's real strengths. The language is richer because of it's adoption of "schadenfreude", for example. Beats having to say "joy from others misfortune" instead.

You would have to be a speaker of these languages to appreciate how annoying it is to have wrongly defined English words inserted into the language. For the record, English does a better job of this than the Europeans do, we stay closer to the meanings of their words than they do with ours. That's one of the reasons why it's so annoying. It makes me cringe to hear English words that I know so well being misused. Even worse when I am forced to use them myself! It also weird because they pronounce them with their own accent, but I don't have that accent when I say English words, so I am forced to use a stupid accent on words that I say naturally in English. See what I mean? I don't know if you speak another language, but trust me, it's bloody annoying in German.

Regarding French, you are incorrect. It isn't proving to be vain or futile because it's working - they can still communicate properly, but with their own words.They don't need our words because they have their own. German could do that too, they just find it cool to use our words. In fact, German has a lot more very specific words for a lot of things that require whole phrases in English. Your Shadenfreude example being a case in point. Apart from new computer words, German already had a full spectrum of words that are being replaced now, not because they add meaning or richness, but because they think they sound cool. I noticed it in the mid 90's when magazines started the trend. All their headlines contained English. It became like a virus. Newspapers started to do it. Then it was everywhere. Unless you speak German, I don't think you can appreciate what I'm talking about because you are comparing it with the importation of foreign words into English - which was done for different reasons. ie. as you say, making things shorter, single words rather than phrases. But don't you see? They already had the single words, that's why their don't need to import them from us! It's starting to overwhelm German. It's never done that in English.

But in summary,

Carn the Dees!

 

[Dont be a lemon]

This isn't an English complaint, but I can't seem to go one day viewing the main board without seeing someone crack the shits and say "FFS" at the start or end of their shit cracking post.

Actually that is an English complaint - if you're going to write a shitty bitch post at least bother to write your bitching words.

 

[Sloth]

You know what really shits me? People that like to complain about spelling and grammar on a fecking football forum. It adds nothing to the discussion and just makes you look like an elitist w***er.

The important thing is that the persons view is brought across, and that theres discussion. It's pretty rare that grammar and spelling is so bad you dont understand what they are trying to get at.

You know what really shits me? Twelve year olds sneaking access to daddy's computer

 

[sydjackson]

*are

**And we don't end our sentences with a preposition. See me after class

Magnificent rejoinder!

I have enjoyed, and am enjoying, this post immensely.

My pet is the "have/of" issue on these boards, and the ever increasing sloppiness and ignorance of some print journalists. We need a section like Media Watch within BigFooty to "out" some of these journalists.

But then, lets keep it in perspective. I would hate to see "Go you mighty Bluebaggers" changed by the grammar police to "Please progress - excellent combination of blue clothed footballers!"

 

[cam]

It's funny going through this thread and finding a bunch of self-righteous people spouting off at people for grammar or spelling errors while making some themselves. Then seeing other people doing the exact same thing.

What he said!

And for what it's worth, I can't stand Americanised spelling. Note to original poster.

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/judgement.html

 

[PumpyChowdown]

But then, lets keep it in perspective. I would hate to see "Go you mighty Bluebaggers" changed by the grammar police to "Please progress - excellent combination of blue clothed footballers!"

Haaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaha! Brilliant.

 

[Snag Breac]

I used to worry about this when I first joined BF, Pumpy. I even started this Easy Grammar Fix thread:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=414538&highlight=Easy+Grammar

But I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now.

 

[Crow-mo]

You know what really shits me? People that like to complain about spelling and grammar on a fecking football forum. It adds nothing to the discussion and just makes you look like an elitist w***er.

you wish you could be an elitist w***er?

 

[Higgs Boson]

as my fiance will attest, that is my all time greatest gripe.

I cannot stand it when people use it so incorrectly: "I literally exploded"

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17779730&postcount=99