I started with the evolve argument, Nathan, but proceeded to point out that it
was illogical to have a mix of tenses, as well as confusing. The language is
being degraded through ignorance and poor education. I suspect that your
English, both written and spoken, would be grammatically superior to many of my
fellow-countrymen. Indeed, my colleagues at work do not know the parts of a
sentence.
But it is time to stop: you are merely feeding my obsession ;-)
Chris
On 5 Jan 2014, at 08:55, Nathan Wajsman <photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think you must accept that language evolves, sometimes to your liking,
> sometimes not.
> We don't speak the language that people spoke 400 years ago either, which is
> why it is such a nuisance to read Shakespeare in non-modernised versions.
> Actually, English has changed less than many other languages--for example,
> trying to read 400 year-old Danish is almost impossible for modern Danes.
>
> The particular grammatical form that you cite may be technically incorrect,
> but it is so widely used that it has, in effect, become correct. It is just a
> matter of time before the "academie anglaise" recognises it.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|