Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT

WCDT Strips 3356-3360 (21st to 25th November 2016)

<< < (4/32) > >>

NyxDarkness:

--- Quote from: Akima on 21 Nov 2016, 01:01 ---Hasn't Tai come a long way from the irresponsible stoner of her early appearances? I think she is good for Dora, but maybe Dora is good for her too.

--- End quote ---

I agree with this completely. She has definitely matured from the time we first met her. She and Dora have both evolved to be deeper people individually and as a couple. They benefit by learning from each other's experiences.

gopher:
tai really seems to have reined in the sleazy sexual predator talk/vibe she used to have.

oddtail:

--- Quote from: Akima on 21 Nov 2016, 01:01 ---
--- Quote from: oddtail on 20 Nov 2016, 23:22 ---* Well, native speakers of the language. Not just anyone.
--- End quote ---
Speaking as a non-native speaker, I take issue with this. The price native English-speakers pay for the convenience of the widespread use of their language all over the world, is that they don't own the language any more.
--- End quote ---

I may not have been 100% clear, so let me explain my point better.

I don't mean to say non-native speakers do not influence a language at all. English has had huge influence on it throughout its history. In fact, every language has. And I very much subscribe to the idea (as I mentioned) that there is no "right" or "correct" language. Language is correct by virtue of being used a certain way. There is always a "standard" version of a language (or several standard versions, as the case may be), but this is strongly connected to social issues, to literary language, to perceived "appropriateness" of a certain form of language. This has nothing to do with one form of language being objectively correct. As I said, it's a tool of cultural imperialism more than anything else.

As a result, if a variant of a language (not just English) is used by a certain group or community, and it is "incorrect" in the prescriptivist sense, I think that notion is useless from any reasonable point of view. It's a way to paint a group of people as inferior to another group, there is no objective reason one, enshrined version of a language is "better". It's all about status. There are ways to use language appropriate for certain situations or social circles, but if you speak a language a certain way in a consistent way, it works.

But. Non-native speakers are a more complicated case, and there's a reason I made an exception regarding that. A person speaking a foreign language uses it differently, from my understanding of linguistics, than a person using it natively. It's more about learnt rules of using a language. This leaves room for errors, due to imperfect understanding of grammar or idioms or even vocabulary. It can be less about "that particular person speaks a certain way" and more of a "this person has problems following the patterns of the language".

This is not clear-cut, because a person well-acquainted with a language is, to my mind, much closer to a native speaker than to a language learner after passing a certain threshold. English is not native for me, but it's natural enough for me to think in English. I don't mimic the way English works, I use it naturally and with ease. I imagine this is the same way for you. And most if not all non-native users of English in this forum, for that matter.

But, lines are much more blurred with non-native speakers. I did not mean to imply the development of the English language is solely on 100% purely native speakers. But I am more wary of putting learned English on the same level as naturally acquired English, because even if there are gray areas, some less experienced speakers of English clearly speak it in a way that is not "correct" in the sense of following the way the language works. Using a grammar form incorrectly or misunderstanding an idiom by a language learner is not necessarily just a pecularity of their speech, it *can* be regarded as an error. For a native speaker using a form consistently, I reject the notion that they are *capable* of making an error in this manner. If a native speaker speaks in a certain way, this way is, in my view, correct pretty much by definition. For a non-native, it... weeeeeell, it might be or might not be. It's complicated. That's why I avoid taking this "anything goes" approach when talking about a non-native speaker. I hope that makes any sense.

The same ambiguity goes for groups of people. Indian English is not *technically* native for most of its users, but it's distinct enough and has repeatable patterns to a large enough extent that it's a borderline case of an actual English dialect. Same goes for the way English is used in much of Asia. I hesitate to say that's the case for Europe, yet.

But there's no clear divide here, so I am cautious about thinking of English being used non-natively by a group (based on their ethnicity, nationality, geographic area) as a kind of fully, for the lack of a better word, legitimate English. After a long enough time, it is. But the time where the transition of "a group of people use a foreign language and they misuse it in a certain way" to "a group of people use a language and they make it their own" happens is difficult to pinpoint. It's not clear when a dialect is already there as its own thing. In fact, it's impossible, like many things in linguistics, to define that in a sharp way.

And, I should point out that this is a point of contention, especially among linguists.


--- Quote ---The existence of long-established variant forms of English (American, Australian, British, Canadian, Jamaican etc.) already disproves the notion that all native-speakers agree on what is correct. (...)

--- End quote ---

That's just the thing. ALL the forms of English that you mention are, in my view, 100% correct, by virtue of being forms of English used natively. My "if a native speaker says it, it's automatically correct" belief is very common-sense to me, because I see it as logical and at least approaching objectivity in the sense that I get rid of elitist, cultural interference of an arbitrary "you can't speak like THAT, it's not proper" that English has struggled with much more than some other major languages. But this "anything goes", as much sense as it makes for me, in itself is controversial, and I know many would think the notion ridiculous. The level to which non-native use of a language is legitimate and "correct" is bound to be even more controversial and complicated. Again, that's why I avoid making a categorical statement of "everything is correct", the way I do with native speakers of any language.

epmin:
Delurking because I got peeved by this :-D


--- Quote from: oddtail on 20 Nov 2016, 23:22 ---
Bottom line - "pissed" means "drunk", "pissed off" means "angry", and I stubbornly refuse to acknowledge any other use of the terms is correct, despite it being the case for hundreds of millions of people who are native speakers of the language. I'm not even sure how that use of "pissed" evolved in the US (I assume lazy use of language***).


--- End quote ---

The fun thing about the English language is that some words and phrases, despite being spelt the same, can mean different things based on the circumstances they are used in.
'Pissed' as used by Dora to describe Hanners would be an accurate usage in spoken form, whereas if it was Hanners texting station about it, then pissed off would be correct.

Interestingly, I rarely hear 'pissed' to describe drunk these days, it's more often 'pished'

Relurks again

Neko_Ali:
There were several times when the staff has had drinks or gotten tipsy at work. Heck, Dora keeps a bottle of 'Emergency Bourbon' in the shop for just those circumstances. The big difference between that and Faye's drinking at the end was it happened when Dora was aware of it, approved it and wasn't a particular danger of causing harm to her business. Having pizza and a beer when the shop is dead is a far cry from showing up drunk and sneaking drinks all day through your shift.  And again there is the whole thing where Faye was caught, told not to do it again, and then was right after caught sneaking drinks again. That's showing a complete lack of respect to both the business and the owner, as well as being potentially dangerous to herself, the other staff and the customers. Faye may not have been dealing with dangerous machinery that could kill, unless she was welding out back. But accidentally (or intentionally, this is Faye) dumping a scalding hot coffee on someone and sending them to the hospital would have been a huge fine and possible lawsuit.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page