"thon", "thon's" and "thonself"

Kev (correcting the spelling of your name): you are confused. You say "There's no such thing as correct or incorrect English except when compared to a standard. " And then say ""Themself" is a nonstandard construction (and therefore should not be taught as standard), but that doesn't make it wrong. "

If correct or incorrect only has meaning when compared to a standard, then a nonstandard construction is incorrect. Think about what you write.

Travis: you are missing the point. Raise your standards and get closer to proper English. Don't wallow in the gutter. We all know that gutter English exists. Why celebrate it?

> Kev (correcting the spelling of your name)

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you do not have the right to determine the spelling of my name. It's very special to me and I happen to like it the way it is. There is only one person who can definitively determine the "correct" form of a name: the bearer. Last I checked, that was me. I hope you have a good argument to the contrary, rather than just having said that to try to provoke me.

> If correct or incorrect only has meaning when compared to a standard, then a nonstandard construction is incorrect.

You're missing my point. A nonstandard construction is incorrect ONLY compared to that standard. It is not objectively incorrect, because there is no such thing. If I use the word "ain't", it might be considered incorrect standard English, but it's perfectly acceptable AAVE, for example. The word "ain't" isn't an inherently incorrect word; it's only incorrect compared to certain standards. If you're not adhering to a standard, then the rules of that standard don't apply.

Note that there are two definitions of "standard" that can potentially confuse this situation. In the above definition, I'm referring to any standard at all: any dialect that has a particular set of rules. The other definition, of course, is the "main" dialect of a region, like "Standard American English". What I'm saying is that the word "themself" doesn't exist in any of these main dialects, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all. There's no reason why dialects have to conform to any main dialect, nor is there any reason why Standard American English (or whatever main dialect you prefer) should be a more "correct" dialect than, say, AAVE. There's no such thing as a correct or incorrect dialect. So, in conclusion, "themself" may not be standard (it may not be in any main dialect), but it isn't wrong (it may still be in some other dialect).

Have I expressed myself clearly?

- Kef

"Travis: you are missing the point. Raise your standards and get closer to proper English. Don't wallow in the gutter. We all know that gutter English exists. Why celebrate it?"

Ah. I see you are indeed a snob!

Say, David, how DO you define "proper English", anyway?

Kev, proper English is the language of Charles Dickens and Jane Austen.

You say there is nothing that is objectively incorrect. This statement is anti-cultural. But I will over look that. Take: "I could of done it". The "of" is clearly a corruption of "have", and no matter how many uneducated people write this, it doesn't make it right. Q. E. D.

>>You say there is nothing that is objectively incorrect. This statement is anti-cultural. But I will over look that. Take: "I could of done it". The "of" is clearly a corruption of "have", and no matter how many uneducated people write this, it doesn't make it right. Q. E. D.<<

This obviously shows how little you truly know about what you speak of. The above is an orthographical mistake, and has nothing whatsoever to do with how people actually *speak* - it is just a frequent error resulting from the fact that in many if not most English dialects, "could of" and "could have" are homophones, just like how people often confuse "there", "their", and "they're" in writing.

David, dont correct the writings of American people. They are thick skulls. They write from their back arse. Jessica is a correct spelling of a name but Americans write it as Jessyca - what an awful spelling!Grrrrrrrrrr.................!!!!

>>Kev (correcting the spelling of your name): you are confused. You say "There's no such thing as correct or incorrect English except when compared to a standard. " And then say ""Themself" is a nonstandard construction (and therefore should not be taught as standard), but that doesn't make it wrong. "

If correct or incorrect only has meaning when compared to a standard, then a nonstandard construction is incorrect. Think about what you write.<<

Most people do not speak like they write, and if they did try to speak like they wrote, they would sound horribly stilted and artificial.

And note that the sort of "correctness" that I speak of is solely *within* a given variety, and does not pertain to English as a whole. What is correct in one dialect may very well be incorrect in another. What is considered standard in one standard variety may very well be deprecated in another.

>>Travis: you are missing the point. Raise your standards and get closer to proper English. Don't wallow in the gutter. We all know that gutter English exists. Why celebrate it?<<

Aside from your extremely loaded usage of the word "gutter", the matter is that people don't speak your "proper English" in practice, aside from possibly some misguided sorts who want to emulate Hugh Grant. And why would someone celebrate how they speak? Because maybe they identify as something or as being from somewhere, because maybe they are proud of what they identify as. Because maybe they do not believe in silly notions of "proper English" and whatnot, especially with respect to speech.

"You say there is nothing that is objectively incorrect. This statement is anti-cultural. But I will over look that. Take: 'I could of done it'. The 'of' is clearly a corruption of 'have', and no matter how many uneducated people write this, it doesn't make it right."

David:

If what you say is true, then it would follow that everyone who speaks English today - including yourself - is an uneducated bum.

We all use words which are "corruptions" of earlier forms. As just one example, if you were to read your statement above, you presumably wouldn't pronounce the "gh" sound in the word "right." Why not? Surely failing to pronounce that sound has "corrupted" this word?

Please inform us of the specific date when the evolution of English was officially halted, the language preserved in aspic and any further changes were henceforth to be considered "incorrect" or "uneducated."

Oh but wait, you did inform us! It was 9 June 1870 on the death of Charles Dickens.

"Guest" (whoever he or she was) was correct. When written as "could of," it's a spelling mistake, akin to writing "their" for "they're" or "to" for "too."

>>"Guest" (whoever he or she was) was correct. When written as "could of," it's a spelling mistake, akin to writing "their" for "they're" or "to" for "too."<<

That was actually me - I just forgot to write my name before posting.

<< Kev, proper English is the language of Charles Dickens and Jane Austen.

You say there is nothing that is objectively incorrect. This statement is anti-cultural. But I will over look that. Take: "I could of done it". The "of" is clearly a corruption of "have", and no matter how many uneducated people write this, it doesn't make it right. Q. E. D. >>

OK, I will now write to you in unadulterated English:

"Hwanon ferigeað ge fætte scyldas,
græge syrcan ond grimhelmas,
heresceafta heap? Ic eom Hroðgares
ar ond ombiht. Ne seah ic elþeodige
þus manige men modiglicran,
Wen ic þæt ge for wlenco, nalles for wræcsiðum,
ac for higeþrymmum Hroðgar sohton."
Him þa ellenrof andswarode,
wlanc Wedera leod, word æfter spræc,
heard under helme: "We synt Higelaces
beodgeneatas; Beowulf is min nama.
Wille ic asecgan sunu Healfdenes,
mærum þeodne, min ærende,
aldre þinum, gif he us geunnan wile
þæt we hine swa godne gretan moton."

There are two points here:
1) Modern English is full of the very same kinds of corruptions that you condemn.
2) Languages change. Get over it.

The bottom line when it comes to languages is whether or not the other party understands you. If the speech of two people is fully mutually comprehensible, then the dialect they share is as good as any, no matter what kind of "corruptions" may have occurred.

I should note that, despite what it may seem, I am not 100% descriptivist and 0% prescriptivist. Indeed, there is a bit of "Devil's Advocate" in me making my argument here. I have many thousands of edits on Wikipedia correcting all kinds of errors -- but that's because Wikipedia should be written in some kind of standard English. If I came across a Wikipedia article written in a very colloquial Scottish English, it'd be my duty to "correct" it to "proper" English. But if I saw the same article on the Scots Wikipedia, it'd be my duty to rewrite it in proper Lowland Scots, "corrupting" the spelling, grammar, and vocabulary even further compared to Standard English. Because, you see, what may be very improper English is proper Scots. Surely you can't argue that Scots is an inferior language to English, considering that people can communicate in it just fine. That is, after all, the sole purpose of language.

- Kef

P.S. I notice that you insist on misspelling my name without any further explanation. I can only conclude that you're simply trying to annoy me. Please be civil.

I'm still waiting for your response, David...

Using such rubbish as "thon", may be valid English, however it certainly shows lack of culture and breeding. Words such as these are abominations.

What's wrong with thong wearing while cultivating and breeding abominably?!