BBC

[thomasaevans]

Why is it the Red Dwarf page on the BBC Comedy site list’s reddwarf.co.uk as a fan site?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/reddwarf/

Topic

[Tanya Jones]

Ha ha! Also, it’s ‘lists’, m’darling.

[thomasaevans]

Oh come now… i doent carr for spellang on yer!

Check this… BBC Youtube. To the right of this Torchwood clip (Many contain spoliers btw) it says:

Contains behaviour which could be imitated.

LMFAO.

Btw Torchwood is awesome, as this clip proves. Its gay and Welsh :D!

[Tanya Jones]

It’s not spelling, it’s grammar, and it’s also one of the things that really annoys me about written English. An apostrophe has never been used to pluralise things, so why am I suddenly seeing more and more people using it? Please humour me; G&T is one of the few places I can escape!

[Danny Stephenson]

DJ wasn’t, hehe.

“The FX Boy’s”

lol

[Ian Symes]

Its gay and Welsh

*You’re* gay and Welsh.

[thomasaevans]

Tanya, for you… I will do my best.

Alright Ian? ;)

[Tanya Jones]

Thanks Thomas! Mmwah!

[Phil]

Hey, I wanted to kiss him first. :-(

[James]

“An apostrophe has never been used to pluralise things”

Don’t you mean pluralize?

Isn’t this just the same as the English language developing and changing over the years? Abeit another coountry, and Admittedly it’s, ok it is not the correct way. But without development you get no movement. I would love to hear your view. Yes I know who you work for :)

[Tanya Jones]

You can use a z or s, according to dictionary.com. It isn’t language developing; it’s just incorrect usage that some people seem to have picked up. I don’t really know why, seeing as it’s not taught in schools, and it doesn’t add anything to the language; in fact, it can confuse matters. Take the sentence “There’s the pigs.”; if you used “There’s the pig’s” it immediately suggests there’s something the pigs own which has been left out of the sentence. Or even look at what I’ve just written; “immediately suggests there’s something the pig’s own which has been left out of the sentence.” That’s now complete nonsense. The pig’s own what?

Language develops when a phrase or word has a new meaning, rather than arbitary changes to grammar, surely?

Paging Seb…

[Andrew]

> An apostrophe has never been used to pluralise things, so why am I suddenly seeing more and more people using it?

I don’t think it’s sudden. It’s certainly something I saw at school, I’m sure – it’s just that you’re exposed to way more written English, by way more people, than you did a decade ago, what with the spread of the internets. Loads of people are expressing themselves in a format that requires them to type – which is done out on necessity rather than because they consider themselves “good at writing”.

It’s just phonetic, isn’t it? We associate the ‘S at the end’ sound with the visual of an apostrophe. It’s not conscious or deliberate. You pulled me up on referring to “Girl’s Aloud” on NtS (rightly, damn you), but I bloody well KNOW that’s not right. I didn’t think about it – just typed faster than my brain can think. (Not saying much.)

> Language develops when a phrase or word has a new meaning, rather than arbitary changes to grammar, surely?

Absolutely. I wouldn’t attribute the apostrophe error to evolution of language, at all. This is nothing like the arrival of pwned, or the dreaded ‘could care less’ contracting. It’s not done to find a new mode of description, or to alter the syntax for ease of use, or to suggest an affiliation. It’s not taken on deliberately.

[Tanya Jones]

Yeah, you’re probably right. What I only saw occasionally on market stall signs in my childhood is now all across the internet, and in some emails. Even colleagues of mine occasionally do it in emails, which I know is the result of typing at speed. The trouble is, I think some people who aren’t sure about the rules pick it up because they think they’ve been making a mistake! It’s a very silly mistake as well, as it adds another key press…the close sound of a plural and a apostrophe can only be the reason, as you say.

One thing that I really find funny is the usage of “” for emphasis falling out of use because it’s been used to suggest irony so often (I think this is the case, isn’t it?). So when people DO use it in the old way, it looks like they’re taking the piss. “Home-cooked” and the like.

[John Hoare]

Scare quotes.

Although I didn’t think it was ever an acceptable way of just emphasising something…

[Andrew]

I don’t think I ever experienced quotes used for emphasis! Only ever for irony – again, coming off speech patterns.

Asterisks for *emphasis*, yes – but only online – quote marks, no. I have lived a sheltered life.

[Phil]

>I don?t think it?s sudden.

Well, in terms of the evolution of language, it IS sudden.

>Language develops when a phrase or word has a new meaning, rather than arbitary changes to grammar, surely?

Unfortunately not always, and not even usually. Language (well, Western language) tends to develop based on overall trends rather than an actual, solidified, agreed-upon change to meaning/spelling/pronunciation. Typically this is lowest-common-denomenator stuff, simply because it catches on and, eventually, steadfast opponents die. That’s a blunt way of putting it, but it’s essentially what happens.

It DOES sometimes work in the reverse…wherein language evolves toward the highest (and therefore narrowest) social class (overall Spanish pronunciation being probably the most obvious example), but historically it’s far more likely that the less-educated corrupt the tongue in some way, and it catches on.

It must catch on, because, after all, every one of us here is posting in a language that English speakers even 100 years ago would consider corrupt.

[Andrew]

> Well, in terms of the evolution of language, it IS sudden.

Tanya’s use of ‘sudden’ referred to her own lifespan, though – her own experience of the usage, “suddenly seeing” – not that of ‘All Language’, or even ‘Modern English’.

If she was experiencing language since it began then, well, she’s using hell of a moisturiser. :-)

[James]

Thank you Tanya/ Andrew, it does explain alot. I think more emphasis should be put on the rules, and what context to use and where to pluralise. Another common one I have seen is She’s. I have just had a look on Wiki, and they are suggesting that the introduction of many European languages into this country has affected the written word. As for German (I’m sure Marleen could help here)For example, in the English sentence “The brown cats run”, only the noun and verb are inflected; but in the German sentence “Die braunen Katzen rennen”, every word (article, noun, adjective, and verb) is inflected.

But when this sentance is traslated back into English, or used in the context Cats is then changed to Cat’s, as it is the formula to use.

[Phil]

>I have just had a look on Wiki,

Hint: when you’re trying to research the reasons for popular language corruption, do not consult a resource compiled exclusively by those in the process of corrupting.

[Phil]

>Tanya?s use of ?sudden?

Sorry! I didn’t actually mean that so seem as though I was refuting you, I just thought it was worth mentioning that it is very much a recent phenomenon, grammatically speaking.

Reading it back it comes across as a direct response to you, which is definitely the hazard of posting quickly at work and not bothering to make sure you’re being clear.

[Author]

Replies