It's because, they want money. English is the language of money, not Music. English is not greatly beautiful, so why could it be language of Music?
Some languages more sensitive to mistakes?
Aunque el inglés sea el idioma de la música, solo es el idioma de la música basura consumerista. La única verdadera lengua de la música es el italiano.
>>An example of this is the word "gonna."
This word is not correct in any dialect or sub dialect of English. This is a word that was created via slang during the 1800's when the average person was of a lower education. I still hear this everyday where I live because people think that this is a correct expression; even though most of them were taught in school that this is incorrect and the correct phrase should be "going to."
However, they are never going to correct their mistakes unless they understand they are making them.<<
Umm, no. As stated before, "gonna" represents the normal pronunciation of what is formally written as "going to" in everyday spoken North American English as a whole. I am not sure where you got the idea that such is "incorrect" from, but whoever/whatever they are, they are simply wrong. Or maybe you simply cannot understand the difference between formal writing and everyday speech...
This word is not correct in any dialect or sub dialect of English. This is a word that was created via slang during the 1800's when the average person was of a lower education. I still hear this everyday where I live because people think that this is a correct expression; even though most of them were taught in school that this is incorrect and the correct phrase should be "going to."
However, they are never going to correct their mistakes unless they understand they are making them.<<
Umm, no. As stated before, "gonna" represents the normal pronunciation of what is formally written as "going to" in everyday spoken North American English as a whole. I am not sure where you got the idea that such is "incorrect" from, but whoever/whatever they are, they are simply wrong. Or maybe you simply cannot understand the difference between formal writing and everyday speech...
I use words like gonna all the time. We say it that way so often simply because it's easier. Is it technically considered correct? I'm not sure. But...some Japanese textbooks for high school English (I'm teaching there now) use gonna and wanna. I also think it is a good idea to teach students these variations because they are so common but sound very different from the proper form.
But anyways, gonna and wanna are not mistakes and are part of common speech.
When I speak in a more formal way, I still use "going to", not "gonna"...
@Milton
If you are not a native speaker and you have never heard German music besides some old Eurodance crap, how can you say that German music sounds ugly?
And BTW: This whole Eurodance crap is hardly played on any German radio station today.
If you are not a native speaker and you have never heard German music besides some old Eurodance crap, how can you say that German music sounds ugly?
And BTW: This whole Eurodance crap is hardly played on any German radio station today.
I actually like the idea of being corrected by natives (free teachers, imo), but people rarely do this.
I did not know that Russians correct foreigners, but I've started to pick up that Russians love their language in a different way than Americans love English.
I was corrected as a teenager by a French Canadian. I asked where the subway was, but I used the wrong article in French. I was corrected, but I was not told...the location of the subway.
Recently a lady in her late twenties told me that she had been corrected in a similar way in an area just outside of Paris. She seemed on the edge of tears, and had really developed a dislike for French because of this.
I've encountered other people (mostly women) who really take corrections hard. I remember a French woman who was corrected about saying "soap" for "soup" in a restaurant and I could tell that she almost bore a grudge against the server. I remember a Korean woman whose temper flared in ESL class when she was corrected. No other students (even Koreans) got upset, but this lady did.
If you can't take corrections of all sorts (polite, rude, frank laughter), maybe languages are not for you. I've been there. I've had to go through it. There are little twinges of pain getting to fluency.
I did not know that Russians correct foreigners, but I've started to pick up that Russians love their language in a different way than Americans love English.
I was corrected as a teenager by a French Canadian. I asked where the subway was, but I used the wrong article in French. I was corrected, but I was not told...the location of the subway.
Recently a lady in her late twenties told me that she had been corrected in a similar way in an area just outside of Paris. She seemed on the edge of tears, and had really developed a dislike for French because of this.
I've encountered other people (mostly women) who really take corrections hard. I remember a French woman who was corrected about saying "soap" for "soup" in a restaurant and I could tell that she almost bore a grudge against the server. I remember a Korean woman whose temper flared in ESL class when she was corrected. No other students (even Koreans) got upset, but this lady did.
If you can't take corrections of all sorts (polite, rude, frank laughter), maybe languages are not for you. I've been there. I've had to go through it. There are little twinges of pain getting to fluency.
Travis,
I am sorry, but I am going to have to disagree with you here. English has no formal distinction between writing and speaking. There are languages that do formally separate them, Welsh for example, but English does not.
The separation that your are referring to is actually a common perception that is the result of the laziness of the general English speaking population to enforce the basic grammar rules of the English language over a long period of time. Now before every English speaking person becomes upset at being called lazy, let me explain what I mean.
What is the difference between formal and informal writing? To be honest, there really is no difference. We use the same language, vocabulary, and basic grammar, minus a few exceptions. There is however, a "perceived" difference that allows for less attention to rules of grammar in what we call informal writing. This less attention to grammar allows us to avoid basic rules and therefore makes us lazy because we are avoiding that little extra amount work that is required to ensure a grammatically correct piece of work.
Now this is one of those chicken and the egg things...but ask yourself, are contractions the result of a function of written or spoken speech? If there was a separation of written and spoken English, why would we have to write them? Seriously, if there was a real separation, then wouldn't we just write out words like "cannot" and say "can't." But for some reason we do not do this? Why? I think contractions are proof that there is a lack of separation between spoken and written English.
For instance, you mentioned the "everyday spoken North American English as a whole." You are correct. Words like "gonna, shoulda, etc..." have become everyday words. However, these words did not start out this way.
Back in the 1600's the written and spoken English of North America and the England were the same. By the 1700's there was already the starting of regional separations in both dialects and accent, however...the written and spoken language were still pretty much the same. The only serious differences noted were differences in vocabulary. Then we enter the 1800's and everything changes for the United States. There are a number of reasons for this, but the end result is that our spoken language was degraded...not changed.
I say this because our written language stayed they same, with exception to some minor changes. However, do to a lack of proper education, not to mention a serious lack of enforcement in education...our spoken language began to de-evolve or simplify, pick your favorite term, to reflect the masses speaking it. And who were the majority of the people in the 1800's? They were mostly young uneducated laborers, pioneers, immigrants, and minorities.
In the 1900's a new focus on education slowed this degradation, and in some cases reversed it. However, words like "gonna" had become so second nature to us, that we continue to use them in everyday speech. This stems from the mentality "that's how my grandparents spoke, that's how my parents spoke, and that's how I am going to speak."
Now I am not saying there is anything wrong with speaking like this. I say these words also sometimes. However, grammatically they are incorrect. And if you are dealing with someone who wants to learn the English language...why confuse them and encourage something that you know to be incorrect? Language is best learned if the student learns good habits early.
I am sorry, but I am going to have to disagree with you here. English has no formal distinction between writing and speaking. There are languages that do formally separate them, Welsh for example, but English does not.
The separation that your are referring to is actually a common perception that is the result of the laziness of the general English speaking population to enforce the basic grammar rules of the English language over a long period of time. Now before every English speaking person becomes upset at being called lazy, let me explain what I mean.
What is the difference between formal and informal writing? To be honest, there really is no difference. We use the same language, vocabulary, and basic grammar, minus a few exceptions. There is however, a "perceived" difference that allows for less attention to rules of grammar in what we call informal writing. This less attention to grammar allows us to avoid basic rules and therefore makes us lazy because we are avoiding that little extra amount work that is required to ensure a grammatically correct piece of work.
Now this is one of those chicken and the egg things...but ask yourself, are contractions the result of a function of written or spoken speech? If there was a separation of written and spoken English, why would we have to write them? Seriously, if there was a real separation, then wouldn't we just write out words like "cannot" and say "can't." But for some reason we do not do this? Why? I think contractions are proof that there is a lack of separation between spoken and written English.
For instance, you mentioned the "everyday spoken North American English as a whole." You are correct. Words like "gonna, shoulda, etc..." have become everyday words. However, these words did not start out this way.
Back in the 1600's the written and spoken English of North America and the England were the same. By the 1700's there was already the starting of regional separations in both dialects and accent, however...the written and spoken language were still pretty much the same. The only serious differences noted were differences in vocabulary. Then we enter the 1800's and everything changes for the United States. There are a number of reasons for this, but the end result is that our spoken language was degraded...not changed.
I say this because our written language stayed they same, with exception to some minor changes. However, do to a lack of proper education, not to mention a serious lack of enforcement in education...our spoken language began to de-evolve or simplify, pick your favorite term, to reflect the masses speaking it. And who were the majority of the people in the 1800's? They were mostly young uneducated laborers, pioneers, immigrants, and minorities.
In the 1900's a new focus on education slowed this degradation, and in some cases reversed it. However, words like "gonna" had become so second nature to us, that we continue to use them in everyday speech. This stems from the mentality "that's how my grandparents spoke, that's how my parents spoke, and that's how I am going to speak."
Now I am not saying there is anything wrong with speaking like this. I say these words also sometimes. However, grammatically they are incorrect. And if you are dealing with someone who wants to learn the English language...why confuse them and encourage something that you know to be incorrect? Language is best learned if the student learns good habits early.
<< but the end result is that our spoken language was degraded...not changed. >>
What constitutes a "degradation" of a language and what constitutes a "change"? It seems to me that a "degradation" can only be defined as a change that the speaker doesn't like. After all, we're able to communicate just as well as our ancestors did. Considering that the purpose of language is to communicate, if there is no degradation in communication ability, there is no degradation of language.
<< Now I am not saying there is anything wrong with speaking like this. I say these words also sometimes. However, grammatically they are incorrect. >>
Structures can only be incorrect according to a standard. There is no such thing as objectively incorrect grammar.
- Kef
What constitutes a "degradation" of a language and what constitutes a "change"? It seems to me that a "degradation" can only be defined as a change that the speaker doesn't like. After all, we're able to communicate just as well as our ancestors did. Considering that the purpose of language is to communicate, if there is no degradation in communication ability, there is no degradation of language.
<< Now I am not saying there is anything wrong with speaking like this. I say these words also sometimes. However, grammatically they are incorrect. >>
Structures can only be incorrect according to a standard. There is no such thing as objectively incorrect grammar.
- Kef
Josh,
I was not saying that any "pure English" was being spoken. I was saying that the British English that was brought over to the New World during colonization was more uniformed grammatically than people think. And from this point forward American English started to deviate into a separate dialect. And with the introduction of certain things such as "gonna"...you can actually mark some of these deviations.
I am well aware of the prescription vs. description argument. I have heard this for debate for many years...and to be honest...I do not put much faith in these philosophical references. These are more like political ploys used by people to credit or discredit any work dealing with historical research that they know cannot be proved or disproved because of a lack of evidence. Unless someone has been traveling through time and doing research without my knowledge...
Kef,
Perhaps degradation is a harsh term, I will stick with deviation if you prefer. If I understand what you are saying, then look at these examples.
If you think that one these is correct, and the other is incorrect...then you have proven there is standard that is either known or understood by which to judge proper English. And in truth, there is...I think it is safe to say that with formal written English, a safe standard from which to measure norms and deviations exists.
It doesn't matter if I speak these out loud, or write them down...they are incorrect and I personally would correct a person if I heard them say it.
I did it.
I done it.
Come quickly!
Come quick!
... the book that I bought ...
... the book what I bought ...
... those books ...
... them books ...
I didn’t break it.
I never broke it.
I didn’t break anything.
I didn’t break nothing.
I was not saying that any "pure English" was being spoken. I was saying that the British English that was brought over to the New World during colonization was more uniformed grammatically than people think. And from this point forward American English started to deviate into a separate dialect. And with the introduction of certain things such as "gonna"...you can actually mark some of these deviations.
I am well aware of the prescription vs. description argument. I have heard this for debate for many years...and to be honest...I do not put much faith in these philosophical references. These are more like political ploys used by people to credit or discredit any work dealing with historical research that they know cannot be proved or disproved because of a lack of evidence. Unless someone has been traveling through time and doing research without my knowledge...
Kef,
Perhaps degradation is a harsh term, I will stick with deviation if you prefer. If I understand what you are saying, then look at these examples.
If you think that one these is correct, and the other is incorrect...then you have proven there is standard that is either known or understood by which to judge proper English. And in truth, there is...I think it is safe to say that with formal written English, a safe standard from which to measure norms and deviations exists.
It doesn't matter if I speak these out loud, or write them down...they are incorrect and I personally would correct a person if I heard them say it.
I did it.
I done it.
Come quickly!
Come quick!
... the book that I bought ...
... the book what I bought ...
... those books ...
... them books ...
I didn’t break it.
I never broke it.
I didn’t break anything.
I didn’t break nothing.
I apologize...
After I sent the above, I read it found all my grammar errors.
I am not a complete hypocrite. I know that I am complaining about the making grammar errors and in the process making them...;0)
These were not made because I am a complete idiot, but because when it comes to checking my grammar...I am lazy also.
This is exactly what I am talking about. We need to be careful ;0)
After I sent the above, I read it found all my grammar errors.
I am not a complete hypocrite. I know that I am complaining about the making grammar errors and in the process making them...;0)
These were not made because I am a complete idiot, but because when it comes to checking my grammar...I am lazy also.
This is exactly what I am talking about. We need to be careful ;0)
No...
Prescription vs. description is a philosophical perspective from which we view language...
I compare it to the liberalism vs. conservatism debate in politics.
A person who uses a prescriptive point of view believes that a language should be viewed based off of an established set of norms.
A person who uses a descriptive point of view believes that language should not be viewed based off of an established set of norms.
Both have strengths and weaknesses.
Also, I did not say that formal written English was a standard, or better than any other form of English. I said that it can be used as a standard. I say this because it is being used right now by every single form of English currently being spoken on this planet. And you can't argue that, it is a fact. It has been established and recognized by the international community.
In my examples...the second option could only be justified in an informal spoken context.
No matter who you are, where you are, or why you are writing...if you had turned my examples into your teacher for inspection, they would have marked them incorrect. Why? English has established rules for grammar. They are same grammar rules that was I teaching in the Philippines in the 70's that are currently being taught in down town Chicago.
And I do not think we are on the same page of what I was saying about what happened to English in the United States. I think you misunderstand what I meant with the term degraded. I meant deviated from the norms of the language at that time. And this is exactly what happened.
Prescription vs. description is a philosophical perspective from which we view language...
I compare it to the liberalism vs. conservatism debate in politics.
A person who uses a prescriptive point of view believes that a language should be viewed based off of an established set of norms.
A person who uses a descriptive point of view believes that language should not be viewed based off of an established set of norms.
Both have strengths and weaknesses.
Also, I did not say that formal written English was a standard, or better than any other form of English. I said that it can be used as a standard. I say this because it is being used right now by every single form of English currently being spoken on this planet. And you can't argue that, it is a fact. It has been established and recognized by the international community.
In my examples...the second option could only be justified in an informal spoken context.
No matter who you are, where you are, or why you are writing...if you had turned my examples into your teacher for inspection, they would have marked them incorrect. Why? English has established rules for grammar. They are same grammar rules that was I teaching in the Philippines in the 70's that are currently being taught in down town Chicago.
And I do not think we are on the same page of what I was saying about what happened to English in the United States. I think you misunderstand what I meant with the term degraded. I meant deviated from the norms of the language at that time. And this is exactly what happened.
>>Travis,
I am sorry, but I am going to have to disagree with you here. English has no formal distinction between writing and speaking. There are languages that do formally separate them, Welsh for example, but English does not.<<
Actually, as I see it, English has a quite strong distinction between writing and speech, just like, say, Welsh or German (in areas where Standard German has not managed to destroy the native dialects there).
>>The separation that your are referring to is actually a common perception that is the result of the laziness of the general English speaking population to enforce the basic grammar rules of the English language over a long period of time. Now before every English speaking person becomes upset at being called lazy, let me explain what I mean.<<
Oh, there are definitely rules in the spoken language, but they are just *different* ones than in the written language. Actually, they are often more rigid than in the written language; for instance, word order is generally far more fixed in the dialect here than in the written language, where I very often have far more freedom with respect to word order than in everyday speech. At the same time, they are sometimes more free than in the formal language, such as with respect to modal constructions due to the use of quasimodal forms in the spoken language which are unused in the written language, and nonexistant in the formal literary language. But one way or another, there are firm rules that operate in the spoken language, which would not be the case if the spoken language as is were just the result of "laziness" on the part of native speakers.
>>What is the difference between formal and informal writing? To be honest, there really is no difference. We use the same language, vocabulary, and basic grammar, minus a few exceptions. There is however, a "perceived" difference that allows for less attention to rules of grammar in what we call informal writing. This less attention to grammar allows us to avoid basic rules and therefore makes us lazy because we are avoiding that little extra amount work that is required to ensure a grammatically correct piece of work.<<
There is a whole world of difference between formal writing and informal writing. Formal writing is the direct expression of English the literary language, while informal writing is a far more direct (but still quite loose and inaccurate) transcription of the everyday spoken language. Informal writing is not "lazy" and does not have "less attention to grammar", but rather simply follows the rules of the spoken language rather than those of the literary language.
As for vocabulary and grammar, actually, there are very large differences in grammar and vocabulary between English dialects and formal literary English. For starters, the whole construction of clauses differs greatly between English dialects and English the formal literary language, particularly with respect to the expression of modality. There are other significant areas of strong variation between English dialects and formal literary language, such as word order and the linking of related clauses. Likewise, English dialects greatly differ from English the formal literary language with respect to word choice and usage; formal literary English very often prefers words from French, Latin, or Greek where constructions consisting of largely Germanic words are preferred in the spoken language. I find it quite strange that such differences are not obvious to you, to say the very least.
I am sorry, but I am going to have to disagree with you here. English has no formal distinction between writing and speaking. There are languages that do formally separate them, Welsh for example, but English does not.<<
Actually, as I see it, English has a quite strong distinction between writing and speech, just like, say, Welsh or German (in areas where Standard German has not managed to destroy the native dialects there).
>>The separation that your are referring to is actually a common perception that is the result of the laziness of the general English speaking population to enforce the basic grammar rules of the English language over a long period of time. Now before every English speaking person becomes upset at being called lazy, let me explain what I mean.<<
Oh, there are definitely rules in the spoken language, but they are just *different* ones than in the written language. Actually, they are often more rigid than in the written language; for instance, word order is generally far more fixed in the dialect here than in the written language, where I very often have far more freedom with respect to word order than in everyday speech. At the same time, they are sometimes more free than in the formal language, such as with respect to modal constructions due to the use of quasimodal forms in the spoken language which are unused in the written language, and nonexistant in the formal literary language. But one way or another, there are firm rules that operate in the spoken language, which would not be the case if the spoken language as is were just the result of "laziness" on the part of native speakers.
>>What is the difference between formal and informal writing? To be honest, there really is no difference. We use the same language, vocabulary, and basic grammar, minus a few exceptions. There is however, a "perceived" difference that allows for less attention to rules of grammar in what we call informal writing. This less attention to grammar allows us to avoid basic rules and therefore makes us lazy because we are avoiding that little extra amount work that is required to ensure a grammatically correct piece of work.<<
There is a whole world of difference between formal writing and informal writing. Formal writing is the direct expression of English the literary language, while informal writing is a far more direct (but still quite loose and inaccurate) transcription of the everyday spoken language. Informal writing is not "lazy" and does not have "less attention to grammar", but rather simply follows the rules of the spoken language rather than those of the literary language.
As for vocabulary and grammar, actually, there are very large differences in grammar and vocabulary between English dialects and formal literary English. For starters, the whole construction of clauses differs greatly between English dialects and English the formal literary language, particularly with respect to the expression of modality. There are other significant areas of strong variation between English dialects and formal literary language, such as word order and the linking of related clauses. Likewise, English dialects greatly differ from English the formal literary language with respect to word choice and usage; formal literary English very often prefers words from French, Latin, or Greek where constructions consisting of largely Germanic words are preferred in the spoken language. I find it quite strange that such differences are not obvious to you, to say the very least.
I'm only sure that I'm a native Cantonese speaker who is very probably quite picky about Cantonese but not Mandarin.
Hm, I shall admit not many foreigners would like Cantonese, esp. considering the apparent difficulties, namely the limited learning resources, speakers, more tones, largely being a spoken language only, etc... Since I think many expressions and individual syllables are very distinctive (pretty like the various consonants of Hindi, as I heard about), I wouldn't mind repeating the same things as some speaking drills... having somewhat a "higher" standard of pronouncing/saying something correctly, imo, would help the learners to be more precise...
I don't care much about Mandarin, though, because every Chinese has an accent... except those you can hear on the radio/TV. You are understood quite easily even if you make a lot of mistakes... as long as your spoken language is passable.
Hm, I shall admit not many foreigners would like Cantonese, esp. considering the apparent difficulties, namely the limited learning resources, speakers, more tones, largely being a spoken language only, etc... Since I think many expressions and individual syllables are very distinctive (pretty like the various consonants of Hindi, as I heard about), I wouldn't mind repeating the same things as some speaking drills... having somewhat a "higher" standard of pronouncing/saying something correctly, imo, would help the learners to be more precise...
I don't care much about Mandarin, though, because every Chinese has an accent... except those you can hear on the radio/TV. You are understood quite easily even if you make a lot of mistakes... as long as your spoken language is passable.