?

Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Assorted links:

He doesn't want to tell you (how he got trapped behind that couch). Amusing comments about vid. WS.

The Man Your Man Could Smell Like (WS vid) on a cake! (WS image.) Andrew's a lucky boy.

This text isn't WS when you highlight it. There's a technical term for this technique, but I forget it.

From one perspective, this is a funny kitty pic, but if you look closely enough, you'll see the angry bunny! (WS image.)

Yet another WS image of a performing kitty.

In other news, I've been discussing whether it would be better to simplify English spelling or found an academy to dictate and defend our language usage. My suggestion, now that I have left the "debate," is this: let's just teach the language. And hey, why not also make a point of teaching other languages, too? (Things got kind of ugly after that suggestion was put forward, which is one of the reasons that I left the discussion.) In any case, it's not elitism that drives me to desire that people understand the basics of the English language; my reasoning is more pragmatically democratic: English is the common language of the U.S., and we need to be able to communicate with one another using it. We don't need academies of pedants to attempt to restrict the growth and change of our living language. We don't need xenophobic legislators to designate English as our official language. We simply need to teach English and expect that our students learn to make themselves understood in a variety of contexts.

/unsolicited opinion

Tags:

Comments

( 14 comments — Leave a comment )
satismagic
Jun. 8th, 2010 08:09 pm (UTC)
Butbutbutbut foreign languages! How can you think of something like that! Everyone should learn English. And actually being able to talk to and understand foreigners, why, you could get the wrong ideas about "Old Europe", or heck, modern Asia, or ZOMG even Russia! Not. A. Good. Idea. < / sarcasm >

Edited at 2010-06-08 08:09 pm (UTC)
iulia_linnea
Jun. 8th, 2010 08:12 pm (UTC)
I know, what an idea. But really, being told by a colleague that Lolcats were ruining the English language and that it would be "supporting foreigners" to teach other languages was too much to take—well, that and the "anti-immigration" shit she and others were spewing.
satismagic
Jun. 8th, 2010 08:32 pm (UTC)
BZWH? LOLcats of Evil?

~blinks~

~blinks again~

Wow.
iulia_linnea
Jun. 8th, 2010 08:33 pm (UTC)
Yeah, I know a lot of asshats, it seems. *cries*
shiv5468
Jun. 8th, 2010 08:21 pm (UTC)
Depends who the foreigners are. One should never encourage les francaises.
iulia_linnea
Jun. 8th, 2010 08:23 pm (UTC)
*snorts; waves French friends away from this comment*
shiv5468
Jun. 8th, 2010 08:28 pm (UTC)
Oh I'm sure they wouldn't mind. They don't want to be encouraged. Surely that would be Anglo-Imperialism?
iulia_linnea
Jun. 8th, 2010 08:30 pm (UTC)
*glee*

Today I've been told so many times that I don't know what I'm talking about that I'm the last person to answer that question. *annoyed* I expect better of teachers than to focus on xenophobic bullshit rather than on education. English instruction shouldn't be a political topic.
shiv5468
Jun. 8th, 2010 08:43 pm (UTC)
Teachers are just like other people. And I think what people are taught and how they are taught it will always be political. History is, science is, everything has a slant or meaning.

Here, the issue is more about what sort of English people are taught and whether account should be taken of regional accents and whether the imposition of Standard English is denying them their roots etc etc. Well it might be, but it might also be taking them out of a job. People can have choices once they have been educated. Not teaching them takes away choices.
iulia_linnea
Jun. 8th, 2010 08:46 pm (UTC)
I don't disagree with that; perceived stupidity is just as bad as the real thing, and people will cling to their preconceptions. I'm just not certain how we went from having a discussion about educational technique to the one in which "immigrants and their foreign ways are ruining our country!" was the theme. *boggles*

Oh, wait. Yes, I do know how we got there. *cries*
shiv5468
Jun. 8th, 2010 08:23 pm (UTC)
I get a bit peeved with people suggesting that the English language should be made simpler. Its joy is its complexity.

And you lot don't need any more encouragement along the line of not spelling things proper like wot you oughter
iulia_linnea
Jun. 8th, 2010 08:23 pm (UTC)
I agree; complexity is love.

Hee!
the_reda
Jun. 8th, 2010 11:22 pm (UTC)
What makes me cringe is that currently the spelling and preservation is in the hands of companies. Companies who do spell-check in writing programs, companies who print dictionaries. Even while I am typing firefox tries to control my spelling.

I am honestly not a fan of having that kind of power in the hands of companies. Why are we letting Microsoft Office, Websters etc define what English is? Should there not be some kind of scholarly outside control?
iulia_linnea
Jun. 10th, 2010 07:16 pm (UTC)
I'm not sure who tells the programmers what to program in terms of spell check and grammar check features, but I never recommend using either. As I recall, a student of mine once used "thru" on the recommendation of spell check. o.O
( 14 comments — Leave a comment )