A Stupid question.

[John Bokma]

Seriously people, grab a sense of humour (sorry - English spelling) from
somewhere - purl's giggling over there is driving me nuts.

Nah, she is probably still dancing ;-)

 

[Peter Hickman]

Language *does* work like that. The correct plural of a word (in a given
dialect) is that which people use. People (except pretentious idiots) do
not use 'virii'.

There is no requirement for there to be only one spelling of a word.

Give it 100 years and you may find that viruses is recorded as an
archaic form of virii. Language is alive, new words and forms of grammar
come into being all the time and people have no problem with them,
except, as I have said, language lawyers.

As they live they die, 'well wicked' is in and 'awfully nice' is out.
You wont find the grammatical rules for 'You are a genius, not' taught
anywhere but oddly enough people have no problem with this construct.

'through'. 'thru' is an invention of that illiterate idiot Noah Webster.

I though it was some highways department who started to use it on road
signs, but the point is 'thru' is used and understood by millions of
people and I can see no point for your attitude.

This is correct, of course. While a word or usage is still young in the
language, it is permissible to argue about this or that being right or
wrong according to its derivation; once it has become 'fixed', what
people say is right.

Language is forever young, it is forever changing. 'Fixed' is a very
temporary thing in language use. I have only been around for 40 years
and in that time language use has changed greatly and the children I
know are using forms that I never used as a child.

'Fixed' languages are dead languages, as long as people use a language
it will change.

 

[Peter Hickman]

Seriously people, grab a sense of humour (sorry - English spelling) from
somewhere - purl's giggling over there is driving me nuts.

Hey, I'm enjoying this.

 

[Sam Holden]

As long as people understand me then it does not matter, even the
pedants know what virii and b4 mean. Thus we have common understanding
of a these words. Language is communication and 'virii' and 'b4' allow
communication. If I were to use 'sdkjfa' you would be on stronger ground
to say it was not a word but you understand 'virii' and 'b4' and your
understanding is the same as mine. Communication! That is what language
is all about, not rules.

I think you'll fine many people, particularly those who do not have
English as their first language, will not understand "b4" as a word.

 

[John Bokma]

Give it 100 years and you may find that viruses is recorded as an
archaic form of virii.

r u krazy? th3n we 4ll wr1+3 733+ 8r0! z1s v33ruz!

 

[John Bokma]

Sam Holden wrote:

[b4]

I think you'll fine many people,

How much?

particularly those who do not have
English as their first language, will not understand "b4" as a word.

I don't even understand my own cousin when she chats with me in "our"
first language.

 

[Andre Wisniewski]

I think you'll fine many people, particularly those who do not have
English as their first language, will not understand "b4" as a word.

My first language is german. Most of young german people understand b4.
Language lives, so does german. In my opinion german cannot live without
english influences and vice versa.

But b4 can't be part of language. You can use b4 for communication but
communication is not language.
Language is more special.

 

[Charlton Wilbur]

MG> So, according to you, b4 is a word? And it doesn't matter if
MG> you use there, their or they're, because intended meaning
MG> overrides poor grammar? There is an English plural for virus,
MG> it's viruses. You can use virii all you want, but it just
MG> shows that you have a poor grasp of the language.

And, more to the point, it shows, in the absence of other evidence to
the contrary, that he should have the bozo bit set on him.

Fortunately, my newsreader now automates this. -10 points to a poster
each time he uses the word *virii.

Charlton

 

[John Bokma]

My first language is german. Most of young german people understand b4.
Language lives, so does german. In my opinion german cannot live
without english influences and vice versa.

But b4 can't be part of language. You can use b4 for communication but
communication is not language.
Language is more special.

As in language is a subset of communication, true.

But I can imagine things like b4, can become part of a language, same as
ok, etc.

 

[Ala Qumsieh]

Language *does* work like that. The correct plural of a word (in a given
dialect) is that which people use. People (except pretentious idiots) do
not use 'virii'.

Maybe the *English* language works like that, but you can not generalize
to other languages unless you speak every single one of them.

GRRRRRR.
'through'. 'thru' is an invention of that illiterate idiot Noah Webster.
Agreed.

This is correct, of course. While a word or usage is still young in the
language, it is permissible to argue about this or that being right or
wrong according to its derivation; once it has become 'fixed', what
people say is right.

Here's an interesting question that got discussed on clpm a long while
ago. What does "couple" mean? It *used* to mean "two", but more and more
people (perhaps even most?) are using it interchangeably with "few".
www.dictionary.com defines both, with the latter being "Informal".

Anyway, I don't know why people are discussing this. The English
language is perhaps the most confusing alphabet-based language due to
its many exceptions. Luckily its grammar is really simple, or else it
would've been harder for it to get accepted universally (I'm neglecting
the effect of the British empire here, but I think you get my point).

--Ala

 

[Andre Wisniewski]

But I can imagine things like b4, can become part of a language, same as
ok, etc.

Ok, here you are right. I think the characters of languages are more
special than in communication, aren't they?
So 4 should no character in a language, eg german. What do you think?
Perhaps this will change because language lives.

The most important difference between language and communication is:
With language you can say different things with the same characters but
different accentuation, in communication you can't.

 

[Vetle Roeim]

MG> So, according to you, b4 is a word? And it doesn't matter if
MG> you use there, their or they're, because intended meaning
MG> overrides poor grammar? There is an English plural for virus,
MG> it's viruses. You can use virii all you want, but it just
MG> shows that you have a poor grasp of the language.

And, more to the point, it shows, in the absence of other evidence to
the contrary, that he should have the bozo bit set on him.
Fortunately, my newsreader now automates this. -10 points to a poster
each time he uses the word *virii.

Even if it's in the quoted text?

 

[Andre Wisniewski]

The English language is perhaps the most confusing alphabet-based
language due to its many exceptions.

You don't speak german, do you?

 

[Charlton Wilbur]

PH> As long as people understand me then it does not matter, even
PH> the pedants know what virii and b4 mean. Thus we have common
PH> understanding of a these words. Language is communication and
PH> 'virii' and 'b4' allow communication. If I were to use
PH> 'sdkjfa' you would be on stronger ground to say it was not a
PH> word but you understand 'virii' and 'b4' and your
PH> understanding is the same as mine. Communication! That is what
PH> language is all about, not rules.

Yes, and one of the things you're communicating is "I am a twit who
can't be bothered to attempt to speak correctly." If that's one of
the things you *intend* to communicate, then by all means carry on.
If it's not one of the things you intend to communicate, then I
recommend you take the advice of your interlocutors.

Charlton

 

[Andre Wisniewski]

virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii
virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii
virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii
virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii
virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii
virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii
virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii
virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii
virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii
virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii

Purl Gurl

viruses

 

[Charlton Wilbur]

VR> Even if it's in the quoted text?

No.

Charlton

 

[Charlton Wilbur]

PG> virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii
PG> virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii
PG> virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii
PG> virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii
PG> virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii
PG> virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii
PG> virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii
PG> virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii
PG> virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii
PG> virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii

Sorry, Purl Gurl, your score is already so low that I only see your
messages if they're in a subthread I posted to. This may just have
pushed you over that edge, however.

Charlton

 

[Andre Wisniewski]

PG> virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii
PG> virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii
PG> virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii
PG> virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii
PG> virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii
PG> virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii
PG> virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii
PG> virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii
PG> virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii
PG> virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii virii

Sorry, Purl Gurl, your score is already so low that I only see your
messages if they're in a subthread I posted to. This may just have
pushed you over that edge, however.

Charlton

ROFL

 

[Peter Hickman]

Luckily its grammar is really simple, or else it
would've been harder for it to get accepted universally (I'm neglecting
the effect of the British empire here, but I think you get my point).

The simplest grammar used to be Nunggubuyu, S->W* (a sentence is made up
of words, in no discernable order with afixes pretty much where you
like). However I believe that since I stopped studying linguistics some
progress has been made in this area (unrelated one hopes).

 

[Peter Hickman]

Ok, here you are right. I think the characters of languages are more
special than in communication, aren't they?
So 4 should no character in a language, eg german. What do you think?
Perhaps this will change because language lives.

German added that 'beta' (double s), confused the hell out of my mother
when she returned home.