Intellectually stimulating information

[JORDAN]

only for those of the higher IQ levels to exspress there extremely awsome insight

[leahmb]

Express
Their
Awesome

[HotShot53]

Lol, you might want to use a spell check and re-read your post before making such a statement again ;)

Though Leah is completely out of place to point that out.... this is the Fort ;)

[BroTrevor]

oh the irony!!

[JORDAN]

Oh well some people can't bear to see a few missing letters

I do't kow wat wil hapn to humaity at tis rate we'l al becme illiterat or somting:stupid: :yay:

[TommyLewis]

Isn't the point of language to effectively communicate? Why should it matter if a few words are misspelled if the message is communicated? Who gets to decide what the proper spelling of a word is?

[BroTrevor]

Isn't the point of language to effectively communicate? Why should it matter if a few words are misspelled if the message is communicated? Who gets to decide what the proper spelling of a word is?

Hrmm.... now that is a good question.

Unlike law, I believe "society" could determine what is right and wrong in spelling...but I'm interested in hearing anyone elses thoughts on that one. Most ponderous.

[joris]

Isn't the point of language to effectively communicate? Why should it matter if a few words are misspelled if the message is communicated? Who gets to decide what the proper spelling of a word is?A problem with a lack of rules, is the chaos it causes.

For language, well, the whole point of the rules is/should be, to keep communication effective (especially for those who don't have English as their first language, it gets a whole lot harder again if there is no such a thing as proper spelling ;))

Oh well, though I understand the feeling, sometimes people push that of spelling rules a bit too much

[JORDAN]

well I'm sure some people thought webster was wrong when he changed a few words to but do we really need a revolution to be able to change words I think that it would be easier to just change the word myself:juggle:

[TommyLewis]

For language, well, the whole point of the rules is/should be, to keep communication effective


Exactly...the point is effective communication. The point is not to advocate anarchy, but to raise the question of what can be considered "proper" spelling. Is proper spelling determined by the level of effective communication, or is "proper" spelling determined based on some standardized norm that the academia deems acceptable? Currently our social norm is to determine proper spelling according to the latter method, but is that the ideal method?
I spent three years as an English major in college, so I often tend to be more of a "grammar Nazi" than most, but it is interesting to look at it from the opposite point of view.
One thing that was impressed upon me is the dynamic nature of language. It is by no means static. What we consider proper spelling may no longer be considered proper tomorrow. Words are constantly being added to our vocabulary, often first as slang words, but eventually they come to be recognized as academically acceptable. Who decides when such words are acceptable? Who decides when alternate spellings or alternate pronunciations are valid? It is obviously a social process, but who has the final say? Is it the academia? Is it the dictionary printers? Who should it be?

These are the types of questions that keep me up at night, and yes, I am a dork :tongue_sm ;-)

[joris]

One thing that was impressed upon me is the dynamic nature of language.That's an awfully bad thing, especially if you want to read bible and you (someone) decided the oldest bible is the only good one (KJV, anyone?) and it's already hardly readable -- in the sence that we can get the original view of the translator, which, after all, is what we need to get anywhere near the unreadable old greek (well unreadable to most of us anyway)
The more dynamic, the faster every bible gets even less readable... think about that one, before throwing away that (already little) chance of actually getting what God was trying to say through that bible. The fact that many here think God can't use that bible and needs a prophet to reinterpret it for them... ouch :(
Let's not increase the need for prophets to reinterpret the lost meanings of Gods words

[JMG]

The fact that many here think God can't use that bible and needs a prophet to reinterpret it for them... ouch :(



How did you come to this disturbing conclusion?

[TommyLewis]

That's an awfully bad thing, especially if you want to read bible and you (someone) decided the oldest bible is the only good one (KJV, anyone?) and it's already hardly readable -- in the sence that we can get the original view of the translator, which, after all, is what we need to get anywhere near the unreadable old greek (well unreadable to most of us anyway)
The more dynamic, the faster every bible gets even less readable... think about that one, before throwing away that (already little) chance of actually getting what God was trying to say through that bible. The fact that many here think God can't use that bible and needs a prophet to reinterpret it for them... ouch :(
Let's not increase the need for prophets to reinterpret the lost meanings of Gods words

I'm not sure I understand your point bro...
I will go on record as saying I definetly do NOT think the KJV is "hardly readable." I find it fairly easy to understand, at least in terms of the language used.

[joris]

I'm not sure I understand your point bro...
I will go on record as saying I definetly do NOT think the KJV is "hardly readable." I find it fairly easy to understand, at least in terms of the language used.I don't, but English is not my first language. Anyway I often look at a Dutch translation, as KJV to me can be confusing, rather than making things clear (and then, if you then hear weird interpretations, that may or may not be based on that confusing translation... err... makes me check and double check in another translation)

Anyway, even a bible translation of 50 years ago in Dutch, a lot "younger" than KJV, is... well many words used got different meanings, like sounding more negative then they were originally meant, because of shift in meaning - and the example that is valid in English also, that "hope" and "believing" in common language tend to imply uncertainty, while in bible it is to tell of certainty; just be glad English as a language is a bit more stable...

[joris]

How did you come to this disturbing conclusion?that's how things sound like now and then, anyway

[Mick_Mack89]

interesting.......

Although I do feel I should put out though that the ignorant masses are especialy annoying when it comes to the word ignorant.

Here is the Webster definition:
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement

Popular opinion or use seems to be however:
You're a very stupid person why don't you know (XYZ).


( Although use of this isn't as bad as it was a few years ago