Now with the widespread of the field-levelling Internet and dumbing down of cheap snack American pop culture, don't you think that English is fast losing or simply has already lost its flavor and fragrance?
English losing its flavor & fragrance due to Internet &a
Hello Shuimo
You already know the answer to your question. The internet is spreading English to parts of the globe that it does not normally reach. The internet is a superb medium for teaching English. People in repressive countries can practice their English on the internet and dream of escape.
Have you tried Livemocha.com?
Heiniken advert
Did you mean: Heineken advert 'parts that other'
"Refreshes the parts other beers cannot reach"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChttQ3AXlk8
You already know the answer to your question. The internet is spreading English to parts of the globe that it does not normally reach. The internet is a superb medium for teaching English. People in repressive countries can practice their English on the internet and dream of escape.
Have you tried Livemocha.com?
Heiniken advert
Did you mean: Heineken advert 'parts that other'
"Refreshes the parts other beers cannot reach"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChttQ3AXlk8
<<don't you think that English is fast losing or simply has already lost its flavor and fragrance? >>
Did English really have any "flavor and fragrance" to start with? Some people around here look down upon any language lacking the subjunctive (for all practical purposes, anyway), gender, noun cases, etc. At least we still have articles and bad spelling.
Did English really have any "flavor and fragrance" to start with? Some people around here look down upon any language lacking the subjunctive (for all practical purposes, anyway), gender, noun cases, etc. At least we still have articles and bad spelling.
simpletonius Mon Nov 16, 2009 12:22 pm GMT
<<don't you think that English is fast losing or simply has already lost its flavor and fragrance? >>
Did English really have any "flavor and fragrance" to start with? Some people around here look down upon any language lacking the subjunctive (for all practical purposes, anyway), gender, noun cases, etc. At least we still have articles and bad spelling.
==================
Good question you raised!:-(
I thought it had!
OK, what do you think should be the flavor and frangrance of a language?
<<don't you think that English is fast losing or simply has already lost its flavor and fragrance? >>
Did English really have any "flavor and fragrance" to start with? Some people around here look down upon any language lacking the subjunctive (for all practical purposes, anyway), gender, noun cases, etc. At least we still have articles and bad spelling.
==================
Good question you raised!:-(
I thought it had!
OK, what do you think should be the flavor and frangrance of a language?
<OK, what do you think should be the flavor and frangrance of a language?>
Cold water, perhaps.
Cold water, perhaps.
We still use the same words, Shuimo. English isn't losing anything I can think of.
You're right, communication has become dumbed down. When we read letters written a hundred years ago even the most banal ones seem like literary masterpieces. Will people consider our emails of today literary masterpieces? I think not!
<<When we read letters written a hundred years ago even the most banal ones seem like literary masterpieces.>>
Perhaps more "average" people write nowadays, on the internet. The letters that survive from 100 years ago (i.e. haven't been tossed out) are probably well above average.
Perhaps more "average" people write nowadays, on the internet. The letters that survive from 100 years ago (i.e. haven't been tossed out) are probably well above average.
In older forms of English people simply took longer to say things, by a more circuitous route. Does that make it better? I don't think so. It's a stylistic change, nothing more. To us it tends to sound grander and more formal because we have streamlined normal everyday speech to a greater degree, but back then, that simply WAS normal speech. So really it's our perception that has changed, since our frame of reference is now different. But efficiency is not necessarily debasement. It's simply trimming the fat.
Well, true, I'm not arguing that it is a bad thing. Efficiency certainly has it's pluses, but it definitely doesn't add to the "flavour" and "fragrance" of English.
<back then, that simply WAS normal speech. So really it's our perception that has changed, since our frame of reference is now different. But efficiency is not necessarily debasement. It's simply trimming the fat. >
That contains a contradiction. If our frame of reference is indeed different, then to think that we have somehow "trimmed the fat" is the delusion of a changed perception.
That contains a contradiction. If our frame of reference is indeed different, then to think that we have somehow "trimmed the fat" is the delusion of a changed perception.
Doesn't seem contradictory to me. BECAUSE we have trimmed the fat, old-fashioned English now sounds very flowery and fancy and overly formal. However, back when that style of speech was in vogue, it would not have seemed flowery or fancy to its speakers -- just normal. It's because of the alteration in speech habits over the years that modern-day speakers perceive that older style as being formal, etc. -- WE would now only use that style if we were trying to be formal or grandiose.
Why do you keep pushing Livemocha? I saw the writing of one "English" student over there. She had borrowed, maybe ripped entirely, a section from a popular ESL text and OH HOW THEY PRAISED HER WRITING over there.
I wasn't fooled by her writing, but who cares. It made me understand that some people are just dying to be popular and praised in public.
I wasn't fooled by her writing, but who cares. It made me understand that some people are just dying to be popular and praised in public.