When "an English" fails you.

MollyB   Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:14 am GMT
Do you agree with this observation?

"So far as the language used furthers the writer's intended effect, it is good; so far as it fails to further that effect, it is bad, no matter how 'correct' it may be."

Professor Porter G. Perrin
beneficii   Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:52 am GMT
Well, I know that the title of this thread is total fail.

Other than that, the person quoted makes a good point.
Guest   Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:41 pm GMT
<Well, I know that the title of this thread is total fail. >

What variety of English is "total fail" from?
MollyB   Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:42 pm GMT
<<Well, I know that the title of this thread is total fail.>>

Why do you say that, Beneficii?
Guest   Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:44 pm GMT
"What variety of English is "total fail" from? "

Net English.
Guest   Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:46 pm GMT
Obviously "Net" as in Inter-net.
Guest   Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:21 pm GMT
<"What variety of English is "total fail" from? ">

Souns like something the Yanks would invent.
Uriel   Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:57 am GMT
Try "total failure". That's what a Yank would say.
Another Guest   Fri Oct 17, 2008 8:00 pm GMT
If it furthers the writer's intended effect, then it is good in the sense of good for the writer. But that doesn't mean it's good. If it promotes bad English, then it's bad for society as whole.
Guest   Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:01 pm GMT
<If it promotes bad English, then it's bad for society as whole. >

What's "bad English", in your view?