Speak American

<<out-of-touch prescriptivist...>>

Especially with all the conversations we've had on this, it's entirely laughable to bring it up again. Hey kids, Mxsmanic The Discouraging Robot is back!

<<out-of-touch prescriptivist...>>

Also, I couldn't resist putting in the tagline I made up for my unilang sig:

"Think Social Darwinism is still a fresh and viable concept? You'll love prescriptivism!"

<<No one speaks completely "standard." We all use phrases and expressions which are pretty much exclusive to normal conversation or specific social circles, and much of this goes on without us even realizing it. Popular perception is often that slang is the domain only of vapid teenagers or possibly hip-hop stars but in truth everyone uses slang.>>

Excuse me Kirk, but have you actually heard ever single person on this planet talk? If so, then there's no way you can know whether or not there's anyone who speaks completely standard. I don't pretend like I've heard ever single person speak, and so I won't say that absolutely no one speaks completely standard.

I will though say that everyone lies sometimes, it's just that some people lie more than others do.

<<If so,>>

I meant, If not.

<<Popular perception is often that slang is the domain only of vapid teenagers or possibly hip-hop stars but in truth everyone uses slang.>>

That depends on how you actually define ''slang''. There is much disagreement as to what is actually ''slang''.

I amn't sure why, but many people think that Australian English is a completely informal and/or slang dialect.

<<We all use phrases and expressions which are pretty much exclusive to normal conversation or specific social circles, and much of this goes on without us even realizing it.>>

Of course. But that doesn't mean that all other expressions are ''slang''.

The matter is that one should not consider things to be "slang", which is very often just an arbitrary way of deprecating usages, unless they are words or usages which are very specific to a particular social group and which are not present throughout the native informal speech of the general population, but which are not specialized technical language, which would then be jargon instead. Informal language, including such which differs very largely from formal speech, is *not* slang in and of itself no matter what if it does not fit this restriction.

<<The matter is that one should not consider things to be "slang", which is very often just an arbitrary way of deprecating usages, unless they are words or usages which are very specific to a particular social group and which are not present throughout the native informal speech of the general population, but which are not specialized technical language, which would then be jargon instead. Informal language, including such which differs very largely from formal speech, is *not* slang in and of itself no matter what if it does not fit this restriction.>>

That's indeed true. That's exactly how I define ''slang''.

Just because Mxsmanic is annoying and says a lot of negative (and false) things doesn't mean you have to insult him.

<<Excuse me Kirk, but have you actually heard ever single person on this planet talk? If so, then there's no way you can know whether or not there's anyone who speaks completely standard. I don't pretend like I've heard ever single person speak, and so I won't say that absolutely no one speaks completely standard.>>

Not that your question was addressed to me, but what Kirk was getting at is that it is impossible to define "standard" when talking about languages. Who gets to decide what the standard form is? People in all different areas have different pronunciations and colloquialisms. And what is generally considered standard is constantly changing, so it's difficult to pinpoint what is "standard" anyway.

>>Just because Mxsmanic is annoying and says a lot of negative (and false) things doesn't mean you have to insult him. <<

But then, why should we treat him as anything other than a persona non grata?

I have to agree with Mxsmanic. If I want to take hold of something, I have to "take it by its smooth handle".

Bandar

There's a little mistake here that you have to correct. American is not a language, I guess you meant U.S. English. don't you ?

<<Not that your question was addressed to me, but what Kirk was getting at is that it is impossible to define "standard" when talking about languages. Who gets to decide what the standard form is? People in all different areas have different pronunciations and colloquialisms. And what is generally considered standard is constantly changing, so it's difficult to pinpoint what is "standard" anyway.>>

Well-put, andre in usa.