OT -- Decline of a noble language: raise your hand if you're innocent

http://www.conti-tyres.co.uk/conticy...security.shtml
Continental, Germany tells us :Animal paws were the model for
designing the tread pattern and it's surface!"

Tom Sherman asks:
How many animals have wheels and travel primarily on pavement?

Colin Campbell writes:
And how many animals misuse "it's" twice in two sentences? I
thought the UK had something to do with the English language.

wrote:
That language is no longer taught in schools as is apparent from
(lie/lay), (effect/impact), (affect/impact) and other speech
embellishments "overwhelming majority" aka "most" that we see all the
time.
Its the overwhelming majority of these kinds of things that give
wreck.bike a lack of clarity.
aka
Most of these things make wreck.bike unclear.

wrote:
Actually, its/it's perfectly clear when read aloud.

The apostrophe is helpful and even elegant punctuation on the printed
page, but its/it's utterly inaudible when you read aloud.

The same is true of they're/there/their and too/to/two.

Or John's/Johns bicycle--the apostrophe that signals possession rather
than plurality to the eye cannot be heard.

Similarly, the contraction function of the apostrophe is literally
inaudible. You cannot hear a missin' letter, even though it eventually
signals the pronunciation of can't vs. cannot

(Try to pronounce the period for abbreviation in "vs." above.)

Somehow we manage to hear things without quite so much quibbling. The
errors of grammar and punctuation on RBT scarcely ever cause even the
slightest confusion.

Andre Jute replies to Fogel:
The first victim of the enemies of society is always the meaning of
the language -- Paul Johnson, The Enemies of Society

Andrew Muzi says:
Some old fogies (me) are driven to distraction on hearing things like
'orientated'. I, for one, have learned to smile and walk away, no one
being interested in my opinions of language. Languages degrade; get over it.

Andre Jute:
I agree with you, Andrew, people should write better English than
"languages degrade". Languages degrade what? What does languages
degrade? No, I think you mean that someone degrades the language. So
let's rewrite in simple and direct English without the solecisms:

****
Some old fogies (me) are driven to distraction on hearing things like
Some old fogies like me are driven to distraction by hearing words
such as

'orientated'. I, for one, have learned to smile and walk away, no one
'orientated' [oriented]. I have learned to smile and walk away because
no one

being interested in my opinions of language. Languages degrade; get over it.
is interested in my opinion of the language. People degrade languages.
Get over it.
*****

Besides "languages" incestuously degrading themselves, the parenthetic
"(me)" is a lazy affectation, "oriented" is a sample from a larger
whole rather than a metaphor and should take "such as", we can take
your opinion but if you imply more sharing your opinion as in "for
one" you should tell us who they are or Creepy Carl will call you a
liar for the deceit of claiming support you don't specify, "being
interested" is in a limp passive case that should be rewritten and
then allows the much more manly connective "because" before it in the
place of the limp comma, there is no reason for your opinion of the
language to be in the plural, you do not tell us what "languages
degrade" nor do you in fact mean to say that languages degrade
something but the someone degrades language to an extent where
resistance is futile, and it makes the two ideas stronger to split
them into separate short sentences.

*****

There will be no further charge for professional services, Andrew; I
like reading your advice on the newsgroup.

By the way, I have no objection to the way Andrew writes; he seems
pretty literate and comprehensible to me. I'm merely demonstrating
that even some of the best of us are not immune from criticism of the
way we use the language, so we should point out solecisms politely.
Not everyone has English as a mother tongue.

Andre Jute
"Whenever I watch TV and see those poor starving kids all over the
world, I can't help but cry. I mean I'd love to be skinny like that
but not with all those flies and death and stuff."
--- Mariah Carey

On 26 Feb, 00:15, Andre Jute wrote:

Andre Jute
*"Whenever I watch TV and see those poor starving kids all over the
world, I can't help but cry. I mean I'd love to be skinny like that
but not with all those flies and death and stuff."
*--- Mariah Carey- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As long as we're being pedantic, you do realise the quotation in your
signature is fictitious, don't you? (See http://www.snopes.com/quotes/carey.asp)

On 26 Feb, 00:15, Andre Jute wrote:

Andre Jute
"Whenever I watch TV and see those poor starving kids all over the
world, I can't help but cry. I mean I'd love to be skinny like that
but not with all those flies and death and stuff."
--- Mariah Carey- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As long as we're being pedantic, you do realise the quotation in your
signature is fictitious, don't you? (See
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/carey.asp)

No, of course he doesn't. He spread all kinds of filth. It's par for the
course for Jute.

On Feb 26, 7:34*am, "Pat" wrote:
On 26 Feb, 00:15, Andre Jute wrote:

Andre Jute
"Whenever I watch TV and see those poor starving kids all over the
world, I can't help but cry. I mean I'd love to be skinny like that
but not with all those flies and death and stuff."
--- Mariah Carey- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As long as we're being pedantic, you do realise the quotation in your
signature is fictitious, don't you? (Seehttp://www.snopes.com/quotes/carey..asp)

No, of course he doesn't. He spread all kinds of filth. It's par for the
course for Jute.

"Misquoting" an important cultural figure like Mariah Carey!!! The
HORROR!!!!

On Feb 26, 10:50 am, wrote:
On 26 Feb, 00:15, Andre Jute wrote:

Andre Jute
"Whenever I watch TV and see those poor starving kids all over the
world, I can't help but cry. I mean I'd love to be skinny like that
but not with all those flies and death and stuff."
--- Mariah Carey- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As long as we're being pedantic, you do realise the quotation in your
signature is fictitious, don't you? (Seehttp://www.snopes.com/quotes/carey.asp)

Oh dear. You can't trust the newspapers these days. I've jerked that
quote out of my list of sig files. Sorry, Mariah! Thanks for taking
the time to let me know, Rob.

******
http://www.conti-tyres.co.uk/conticy...security.shtml
Continental, Germany tells us :Animal paws were the model for
designing the tread pattern and it's surface!"

Tom Sherman asks:
How many animals have wheels and travel primarily on pavement?

Colin Campbell writes:
And how many animals misuse "it's" twice in two sentences? I
thought the UK had something to do with the English language.

wrote:
That language is no longer taught in schools as is apparent from
(lie/lay), (effect/impact), (affect/impact) and other speech
embellishments "overwhelming majority" aka "most" that we see all the
time.
Its the overwhelming majority of these kinds of things that give
wreck.bike a lack of clarity.
aka
Most of these things make wreck.bike unclear.

wrote:
Actually, its/it's perfectly clear when read aloud.

The apostrophe is helpful and even elegant punctuation on the printed
page, but its/it's utterly inaudible when you read aloud.

The same is true of they're/there/their and too/to/two.

Or John's/Johns bicycle--the apostrophe that signals possession rather
than plurality to the eye cannot be heard.

Similarly, the contraction function of the apostrophe is literally
inaudible. You cannot hear a missin' letter, even though it eventually
signals the pronunciation of can't vs. cannot

(Try to pronounce the period for abbreviation in "vs." above.)

Somehow we manage to hear things without quite so much quibbling. The
errors of grammar and punctuation on RBT scarcely ever cause even the
slightest confusion.

Andre Jute replies to Fogel:
The first victim of the enemies of society is always the meaning of
the language -- Paul Johnson, The Enemies of Society

Andrew Muzi says:
Some old fogies (me) are driven to distraction on hearing things like
'orientated'. I, for one, have learned to smile and walk away, no one
being interested in my opinions of language. Languages degrade; get over it.

Andre Jute:
I agree with you, Andrew, people should write better English than
"languages degrade". Languages degrade what? What does languages
degrade? No, I think you mean that someone degrades the language. So
let's rewrite in simple and direct English without the solecisms:

****
Some old fogies (me) are driven to distraction on hearing things like
Some old fogies like me are driven to distraction by hearing words
such as

'orientated'. I, for one, have learned to smile and walk away, no one
'orientated' [oriented]. I have learned to smile and walk away because
no one

being interested in my opinions of language. Languages degrade; get over it.
is interested in my opinion of the language. People degrade languages.
Get over it.
*****

Besides "languages" incestuously degrading themselves, the parenthetic
"(me)" is a lazy affectation, "oriented" is a sample from a larger
whole rather than a metaphor and should take "such as", we can take
your opinion but if you imply more sharing your opinion as in "for
one" you should tell us who they are or Creepy Carl will call you a
liar for the deceit of claiming support you don't specify, "being
interested" is in a limp passive case that should be rewritten and
then allows the much more manly connective "because" before it in the
place of the limp comma, there is no reason for your opinion of the
language to be in the plural, you do not tell us what "languages
degrade" nor do you in fact mean to say that languages degrade
something but the someone degrades language to an extent where
resistance is futile, and it makes the two ideas stronger to split
them into separate short sentences.

*****

There will be no further charge for professional services, Andrew; I
like reading your advice on the newsgroup.

By the way, I have no objection to the way Andrew writes; he seems
pretty literate and comprehensible to me. I'm merely demonstrating
that even some of the best of us are not immune from criticism of the
way we use the language, so we should point out solecisms politely.
Not everyone has English as a mother tongue.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html

On Feb 26, 9:00 am, Andre Jute wrote:

I agree with you, Andrew, people should write better English than
"languages degrade". Languages degrade what? What does languages
degrade? No, I think you mean that someone degrades the language. So
let's rewrite in simple and direct English without the solecisms:

Degrade is in standard use as an intransitive verb.

Andrew's "Languages degrade" was clear; it's not like anyone would
be left wondering whether cats or Martians were responsible instead
of people. And it wasn't weaselly; it didn't have anything like
the evasive tone of, say, Ronald Reagan's "mistakes were made."

I like Andrew's phrasing; it's economical and pleasant to read.
"People degrade languages" doesn't add anything that wasn't
already obvious.

Tom Ace

Tom Ace wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

I agree with you, Andrew, people should write better English than
"languages degrade". Languages degrade what? What does languages
degrade? No, I think you mean that someone degrades the language. So
let's rewrite in simple and direct English without the solecisms:

Degrade is in standard use as an intransitive verb.

Not as "standard" as the correct word: "deteriorate".

In normal everyday English usage in England, "degrade" is a transitive
verb. As a purported intransitive verb, it sounds American-military and
decidedly non-standard.

On Feb 26, 6:58*pm, JNugent wrote:
Tom Ace wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
I agree with you, Andrew, people should write better English than
"languages degrade". Languages degrade what? What does languages
degrade? No, I think you mean that someone degrades the language. So
let's rewrite in simple and direct English without the solecisms:
Degrade is in standard use as an intransitive verb.

Not as "standard" as the correct word: "deteriorate".

In normal everyday English usage in England, "degrade" is a transitive
verb. As a purported intransitive verb, it sounds American-military and
decidedly non-standard.

You jumped in while I was still wondering whether it is politically
correct these days to describe a usage as "undesirable American
military jargon replacing perfectly good words offering greater
clarity of meaning".

Andre Jute
Is it only the non-anglophones who now respect the English language?

Andre Jute wrote:

On Feb 26, 6:58 pm, JNugent wrote:
Tom Ace wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

I agree with you, Andrew, people should write better English than
"languages degrade". Languages degrade what? What does languages
degrade? No, I think you mean that someone degrades the language. So
let's rewrite in simple and direct English without the solecisms:

Degrade is in standard use as an intransitive verb.

Not as "standard" as the correct word: "deteriorate".

In normal everyday English usage in England, "degrade" is a transitive
verb. As a purported intransitive verb, it sounds American-military and
decidedly non-standard.

You jumped in while I was still wondering whether it is politically
correct these days to describe a usage as "undesirable American
military jargon replacing perfectly good words offering greater
clarity of meaning".

Andre Jute
Is it only the non-anglophones who now respect the English language?

You'll find a lot of Anglophones respecting and debating the English
language over on alt.usage.english

Andre Jute
"Whenever I watch TV and see those poor starving kids all over the
world, I can't help but cry. I mean I'd love to be skinny like that
but not with all those flies and death and stuff."
--- Mariah Carey- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As long as we're being pedantic, you do realise the quotation in your
signature is fictitious, don't you?
(Seehttp://www.snopes.com/quotes/carey.asp)

No, of course he doesn't. He spread all kinds of filth. It's par for the
course for Jute.

"Misquoting" an important cultural figure like Mariah Carey!!! The
HORROR!!!!

It wasn't a "misquote." It was something worse. It was going out of his way
to denigrate and slur somebody without first checking to see if the thing he
was passing on was factual, true, or otherwise worthwhile. Obviously, he
couldn't take his precious time to think about these things---slurring and
running down an innocent person is more fun than fact-checking! And you?
What's your excuse?

Pat in TX