Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#18 - Sethorein (07/04/2014) [-]
Yeah, no. 			****		 off you edgy twat and learn to speak your language properly.   
You're of the same stock that misuses the word "which" and "who" when describing objects as opposed to living things. I bet you also end sentences with prepositions. You think you'll get research grants or scholarships with colloquialisms and half-assed sentence structure?   
School prepares you for life. I see you're preparing exceptionally for a future in retail.
Yeah, no. **** off you edgy twat and learn to speak your language properly.

You're of the same stock that misuses the word "which" and "who" when describing objects as opposed to living things. I bet you also end sentences with prepositions. You think you'll get research grants or scholarships with colloquialisms and half-assed sentence structure?

School prepares you for life. I see you're preparing exceptionally for a future in retail.
User avatar #85 to #18 - lunarmage (07/05/2014) [-]
I know this is b8 but still
This was an informal request to go to the toilet, not an application for a ******** permit. How well you follow your language's rules is irrelevant as long as you get your point across.
User avatar #86 to #85 - Sethorein (07/05/2014) [-]
Honestly, not bait. Pet peeve.

I've already had a pissing match with like 20 other people. Just go ahead, rage thumb every comment I've made without reading them and move on.
User avatar #88 to #86 - lunarmage (07/05/2014) [-]
Just saying. Not mad or anything. Nobody knows everything
User avatar #89 to #88 - Sethorein (07/05/2014) [-]
And yet so many people have made their ill informed opinions known below.

The joke of it all is no one has proved me wrong. I'm willing to bet if I make this same statement with smiley faces and butterflies I'll get the opposite reaction.

Fun times.
User avatar #34 to #33 - Sethorein (07/04/2014) [-]

This video is evil.
User avatar #35 to #34 - Compootor (07/04/2014) [-]
"That is precisely the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put."
User avatar #41 to #35 - Sethorein (07/04/2014) [-]
See, that's wrong too.

Putting up with something is a colloquialism in and of itself.

Using the more appropriate structure "that is precisely the sort of nonsense with which I will not put up" ends up leading to ambiguity solely because that form of colloquialism relies on ambiguous sentence structure.

The woman in that video doesn't understand the simple concept of sentence ambiguity.

a preposition is a perfectly appropriate word to end a sentence with. With what? It'd arguably make more sense to remove "with" altogether.

The fun in abuse of this ambiguity comes from garden path cognitive errors. A preposition is a perfectly appropriate word to end a sentence with milk, honey, and sugar cubes.

Now imagine you're making a rather longwinded statement and your mind is already taxed enough trying to keep up with your tongue as you spout words; which is more likely to lead to garden path grammatical errors, "with which to end a sentence" or "to end a sentence with"?

While the former presents no possibility for error, the second does, and thus it is condemned.

Get it?
#46 to #41 - kingpongthedon (07/04/2014) [-]
Are you seriously suggesting that you understand the English language better than the people at Merriam-Webster? English is a highly bastardized language with many, many source languages. As a result there are practically zero definite laws when it comes to English grammar. But at its heart English is a Germanic language, a language-family where it's commonplace to end sentence with a preposition.
User avatar #57 to #46 - Sethorein (07/04/2014) [-]

It doesn't matter if it began as German, the psychology of language still prefers the grammar proposed by the Englishmen that the woman insults.

I argue for the sake of increasing specificity and reducing ambiguity. You argue for the sake of being lazy with your speech and writing.

Apparently funnyjunk prefers laziness. Go figure.
User avatar #43 to #41 - Compootor (07/04/2014) [-]
Alright, bro, I see where you're coming from, but I'm sure you won't condemn me because I'm more inclined to trust the dictionary than a random FJ user.
User avatar #44 to #43 - Sethorein (07/04/2014) [-]
Oh, the negative attention has begun in earnest now.

I'm rank 176 in comments though so a few little red thumbs from the children who have no idea how terrifying writing an academic paper will be, without appropriate, unambiguous writing style, does not bother me.
User avatar #45 to #44 - Compootor (07/04/2014) [-]
I thumbed up your "Oh boy, someone is gonna get a mad hardon for that error." comment.
User avatar #83 to #45 - Sethorein (07/05/2014) [-]
Oh man, it's like christmas in this thread now hah!
User avatar #58 to #45 - Sethorein (07/04/2014) [-]
It's fine, I've gotten a comment in the top 40 every day this week. I'm allowed a small unpopular thread to unwind.
User avatar #74 to #58 - slugnugget (07/04/2014) [-]
On how many of those comments did you use the word "ambiguous"?
User avatar #75 to #74 - Sethorein (07/04/2014) [-]
Would I really get a top comment with a word 80% of you kids don't understand?
User avatar #79 to #75 - slugnugget (07/04/2014) [-]
You're right. It seems that you're probably getting thumbed by the 20 percent of users who find swelled headed arse holes funny.
User avatar #80 to #79 - Sethorein (07/04/2014) [-]
Darling, I'm being thumbed up by everyone because when I don't feel like calling you out for your idiocy I am funny.

You don't get top comments without being funny unless you get lucky rolls or happen to be the right kind of racist.
User avatar #81 to #80 - slugnugget (07/04/2014) [-]
Translated - "I can be funny when i'm not busy being an egotistical twat"
User avatar #82 to #81 - Sethorein (07/04/2014) [-]
More or less.
#22 to #18 - noschool (07/04/2014) [-]
actually one definition of can is "to be permitted".
User avatar #24 to #22 - Sethorein (07/04/2014) [-]
Not it's primary definition. There are better, less ambiguous terms to be used.
#29 to #24 - noschool (07/04/2014) [-]
but still it's not incorrect to use can.
User avatar #31 to #29 - Sethorein (07/04/2014) [-]
But it reduces the variety of the language.

The sheer fact that dictionaries added the secondary definition is rather depressing.
#71 to #31 - anon (07/04/2014) [-]
If dictionaries didn't list secondary definitions we wouldn't be able to learn and speak our language properly, genius.
User avatar #65 to #31 - redeadhunter (07/04/2014) [-]
The variety of the language? Are you serious? Another definition of can is cylindrical metal container. The English language relies on context just as much as, if not more than, any other factor in communication. Hell it's not even the only language to do that, remember that post with the Chinese story about the guy who ate lions? Phonetically speaking, it was read like Porky Pig trying to say " **** ".
#40 to #31 - noschool (07/04/2014) [-]
If that's how people want to use the work "can" then you can't really stop them, yes language is based on a set of rules but if people start not liking those rules they can change them, that's how new dialects form and in the extremest of cases new languages but that's not too common in modern times. Americans don't speak identical to the British hell even in America there are numerous different dialects.
User avatar #42 to #40 - Sethorein (07/04/2014) [-]
Then we ought to start cranking out double-plus good. It's convenient.

I hate this notion in society that just because you like something, that's how it is meant to be.

Words were given their definitions for a purpose, deciding to destroy the need for vocabulary for the sake convenience at the expense of sentence ambiguity is one of the most disgusting things you can do to your language.
#49 to #42 - kingpongthedon (07/04/2014) [-]
Languages naturally evolve to a more efficient state. Sometimes words get shortened, sometimes unnecessary words are eliminated. If we can use "can" to express the same sentiment as "may," then why use it?

That said, the two words have different connotations, which is just as important, if not more so, than the exact definition. The use of "can" suggests a more familiar relationship between the two, while "may" suggests a formal relationship. By having two words with the same definition and different connotations, we have a better understanding of the situation than we did before and we haven't had to add even a single letter. As you can surely see, it doesn't detract from the variety of language but adds to it.
#48 to #42 - leminlyme (07/04/2014) [-]
Awfully ******* haughty for a guy representing a language that derives from another (multiple actually) language.
User avatar #55 to #48 - Sethorein (07/04/2014) [-]
And yet those languages didn't need to change because of English.

If you want to make a new language, call it yol0sw@gish go right ahead. Don't ruin English because you're lazy.
#59 to #55 - leminlyme (07/04/2014) [-]
What does that have to do with anything previously discussed? And English as you currently know it is so far removed from what it was originally written to be by its "rules." Just because it's your generation, it's automatically the iron ruled source now isn't it? You're so full of **** , that if you aren't baiting I recommend that you just exit the browser cause you don't really have a basis for your attitude to stand upon. If however you are baiting however, carry on. I'll watch silently from now on 'cause it's kind of amusing.
User avatar #61 to #59 - Sethorein (07/04/2014) [-]
Oh don't get me wrong, develop English. Make it more specific, less ambiguous. Create new words. That's not my problem. My problem is when you remove words, reduce specificity and increase ambiguity.

That's what I've argued throughout this thread.
#64 to #61 - leminlyme (07/04/2014) [-]
That's not really the message I got from your posts, sorry then. I'll change tracks in that case, have you investigated the differences between VERNACULARS (lolgay) of the past and now? The average vocabulary is greatly extended, and the general population actually is actually Surprises me too sometimes when I read **** on the internet. more intelligent. You're mistaking the loudest population for the majority. Yoloswaggit. You look at certain demographics because that's where you spend your time, but just because it's what you see doesn't mean it's what they're capable of. Try having a real conversation with someone who posts yoloswag online in a serious setting, like in a cafe or something. They're usually very different people. Same phenomenon as when you meet someone in an online game who seems like they're handicapped typing, then you get them on voice chat and they're eloquent as **** . They're just unfamiliar with their new mediums of communication. Maybe a little ignorant in opinions in how they should behave under what settings.
#60 to #59 - leminlyme (07/04/2014) [-]
User avatar #62 to #60 - Sethorein (07/04/2014) [-]
#47 to #42 - noschool (07/04/2014) [-]
That's how language works though, Language is just a tool created and used by humans to help convey ideas and like any tool people will change it to fit their needs. do you think the first English is identical to modern English, hell no, old English looks like a different language. The funny thing is if old English hadn't evolved into modern English from the changes made by people there wouldn't be a word "can" for you to complain about.
User avatar #56 to #47 - Sethorein (07/04/2014) [-]
And you're arguing to try to reduce the specificity of the terms we use in order to convey our ideas and increase ambiguity.
#63 to #56 - noschool (07/04/2014) [-]
No all i am saying that that these things occur, languages have changed, and will continue to change. It doesn't matter that you may condemn these changes as a degradation of the language they will happen because a sizable number of people see the changes as beneficial.
User avatar #25 to #24 - Sethorein (07/04/2014) [-]
its* oh boy, someone is gonna get a mad hardon for that error.
User avatar #27 to #25 - mutzaki (07/04/2014) [-]
I'm two strokes away from orgasm.
 Friends (0)