**Manners I agree are so important, I was brought up with them. People actually told me when I was younger that I was too polite, is there such a thing?! I probably go too far with this as I never swear in front of my sisters or parents, I don't know why, it's just something I've never done. I'm terrible when in the right company though, all the expletives come out!! **

No you can never be too polite and I'm heartened to know that I'm not the only one that corrects people when they get it wrong.  I even correct my boss (the company owner) when he does it because it is just such an automatic knee jerk reaction with me now.  Although it does seem a little incongrous as I have a real potty mouth.

Roma are tuppence ha'penny so it was hardly a demolishing :tongue2:

Divided by a common language again lol.

But actually, Gray/Grey drives me NUTS because I never know which is which lol.

Momodot, you forget that Canada is part of the commonwealth and therefore subject to British... stuff, even though it's not under British rule. I'd guess that includes spelling and would explain why a canadian spellchecker wants the colour spelled grey.

I think I'm going to remember it this way:

GrAy - American
GrEy - English

Make sense?

BTW I don't have that problem with Color / Colour. I always know which is UK and which is American, but grey and gray is going to be what's causing me to reach for Miss Clairol!

Quote - I pride myself on my correct English both spelling and speaking. I still to this day ask with "May I" instead of "Can I". Text speak is horrid. It teaches our children nothing except laziness. (I'm like Valerian and even use punctuation LOL)

As for metric and imperial ... how long do we hold onto the past? Metric is the only way to go  - my generation was never taught imperial. Everything here uses metric with the exception of baby weight ... how weird is that? I still don't know how much my kids weighed at birth in metric LOL

Hang on... so language must remain stagnant and stuck in one fixed state, whilst our systems of measurement can evolve and change?

Don't get me wrong... I use (more or less) full words when texting, and I use punctuation. About the only thing I'm guilty of is possible over-use of the llipsis, because I use it to indicate my train of thought. ButI don't subject others to the same rules I do myself. Similarly, the may I/can I debate - one is the more established, 'grammatically correct' version, but the other is now accepted as vernacularly acceptable.

Languages evolve; words are invented and die; phrases pass in and out of usage; new ways of speaking and spelling are adopted. If culture is to be allowed to move forward and change, then we have to accept that our language will do so too. 

Just to put this further into context - I'm an actor, and a director, and a playwright. I love the English language - from chaucer to shakespeare to Milton to Pratchett - but can anyone honestly say that any of these great writers really wrote in anything like the same way? Or used the same grammatical phrases? Or the same vernacular? If the language has been allowed to evolve so much over the last thousand years, while do we have to stagnate it now?

jonthecelt

I wasn't saying anything should be stagnant, rather that I personally use the language as my generation was taught (which is correct for me but may not be for others). I didn't mean to imply that anything else was wrong. Sorry about that :)
Language can evolve however it pleases, as long as I don't have to use text speak in everyday conversation :^P

A fair point, Xena. For what it's worth, I cant' see txtspk ever becoming a valid part of spoken language. In much the same way that vernacular and written English are different beasts (in 'proper' written language, contractions shouldn't be used, and the flow is more formal - when was the last time you read a novel or other written work which was compeltely written in a vernacular, oral style?), then I think txtspk has its own realm of influence.

It is possible that txtspk will slowly ancroach on written language, though, with the latter giving some concessions to the former's speed and ease of use. 

Another startling thing I've read at some point is that one reason why illiteracy is beginning to grow again in the West is because we are increasingly becoming an icon-basec ulture once more. Many of the things we recognise are based around logos or symbols, especially in the consumer world. do we really need to see the word 'Windows' to recognise the Microsoft OS logo? Or the word McDonalds under the golden arches? Many of our computer programs, too, use icon-based buttons to replicate something that can also be done via text-based menus. Those buttons could be textual rather than icon-based, but our minds work better with pictures. Someone posited that with the advent of txtspk and the increasing prevalence of the icon in our culture, we could be heading backward to a non-textual form of written communication again. It's an interesting theory, although I don't think I'll be around long enough to find out if it's true. :)

jonthecelt

That sure is an interesting theory. My father (62) has been using computers now for about 4 years and he has a tendancy to use the buttons. When explaining things to him I always have to refer to the 'little pictures' on his taskbar rolls eyes Never fails to amuse him how aggravated I get when he doesn't understand "Dad, go to File then Print", but understands "Push the little button that looks like a printer Dad." I sometimes wonder if he does it on purpose :)

Actually, I think it's closer to human - or organic - nature. Text is actually a highyl abstract method of communication, when you think about it. An icon is simple, and crosses most language barriers - a printer is a printer, no matter whether you come from America, France, or Japan. Granted, some icons might have greater cultural significance in some cultures than others - that's what semiotics and semiology is about. But we are a visual and oral species. We see things - and hear things - and talk bout them. Text is able to get more nuance out of visual communicatoin than simple iconogrphy, but for basic statements, icons are able to get the message across to more people from more cultures with less ambiguity than any level of textual translation could.

jonthecelt

I tend to correct people' spelling in chatrooms I habg out in.  Of course, being a professional linguist (I recently completed my PhD in Modern languages), that kinda comes with the territory.
But, being as I am  somewhat dyslexic, I'm also the "typo king", so the use of txtspeak actually makes sense (fewer lettrs to make typos with). I don't use it myself because all those years studying langiages got me into this nasty habit of spelling things right and using things like grammar and syntax, etc...

Late to the table because of two computers konking out the last couple of weeks.  I was taught "grey" in school and university in a former colony of Britain, and also while doing my Ph D in the UK.

Arcadia is right!

Quote - There is only one valid way to spell it, and that's "Grey", if you spell it any other way it's wrong :P

How do I know she is right? If I look in the mirror I can see that my hair is grey, not gray!

Attached Link: http://www.contentparadise.com/us/user/cp_grey_alien_bundle_product_19882

"May" versus "might" versus  "can" versus "could" is not a question of  choice.   It boils down to fundamental meaning.   Compare these:

"I can photograph Peter Rabbit."

That means that I have the power to photograph Peter Rabbit.

"I could photograph Peter Rabbit."

My current state of mind doesn't dispose me to photograph Mr. Rabbit, but, in other circumstances, Iit would be possible for me to photograph him.

"I may photograph Peter Rabbit."

That means that I am thinking of photographing PR, but have yet to decide whether to do so.

"I might photograph Peter Rabbit."   

I am thinking of photographing Peter Rabbit, but whether or not I photograph Peter Rabbit is conditional on something else.

The differences are subtle, but they are priceless.   If we lose the ability to differentiate among "can", "could", "may" and "might", English surrenders a huge amount of its ability to express itself.

You are technically correct, Morgano, as far as 'proper' English usage goes. However, one has to accept that the vernacular English is also equally valid. Allowing 'can', 'may', 'might', and 'could to have an overlapping meaning doesn't remove the original sense - it simply adds further nuance to the language. One of the reasons why English poetry and literature works so well is because, due to its many linguistic roots (and geniuses like Shakespeare, who simply made up words when there wer enone that worked for him), the language is flooded with synonyms. 'Pale' and 'wan', 'jaded' or 'cynical' or 'disillusioned', just to think of a few off the top of my head... these are all words that can be interchanged, yet have subtle meaning differences between them, and yet no-one could claim that, just because we sometimes use one and not another, we have lost the ability to express ourselves. If anything, the wider range of synonyms and blended definitons gives us more expressive power.

jonthecelt

This is so funny! I just sent an email to a friend in the States and I said that the weather here was still grey and damp... Then I wondered if I had it spelled right. See I am French speaking and from Québec. I learned British English at school and here in Canada we use English spelling. But I've seen the word "grey" spelled "gray" very often in my correspondance with English speaking friends and I always wonder which is correct. From what I've read here, both are correct. It's the same with neighbourhood and neighborhood and many other words like that.  I guess as long as we understand each other, it doesn't really matter, heh? ;o)

It's like double negatives. The grammar people always calim that double negaitves cancel each other out and make a positive. Although that makes sense logically, it doesn't really work that way (or at ;east I've nver heard  of abyone who took it that way whenb they heard someone else  use a double negative.
Many other languages use double negatives.

When I was a kid if  I asked my mother ,"Can you make a sandwhich for me?" She would always say "Yes, I can."  and keep doing whatever she was doing. If I said "Would you make me a sandwhich?" she would zap me with her finger and say, "PUFF! You are a sandwhich."

What I can't stand is when I see someone say "Do you mind if I sit down here?" and the other person says, "Yes, of course." then the first person says, "Thank you." and sits down. I see this constantly on TV as well.

I hate the use of "How do you do?" in place of hello in North America. A person will respond "How do you do?" to a person who has said to them "How do you do?" and the exchange is complete.

 With all my education in the area of language, I should be a real "grammar-nazi" but for some reason I'm not. I guess it's ecause I always hated when parents and teachers did that when I was a kid, pretending to misunderstand you when you make grammar/syntax errors.  So all these technically incorrect things peopole say never bother me. except for spelling.
I regularly hang out in yahoo chat rooms and it really drives me up the wall when peopel say that something doesn't make "since",  or when people mix up "there" , they''re " and "their"
The funniest one was (on an AOL message board) when someone relied to someone else's post with "your retarted" ( a 2 word insult, both words misspelled).
Beinf  dyslexic, I  should be more patient with othr peopel's spelling, but I suspect that frustratioin with my own spelling problem contributes to being bothered so much by it.
i dunno
so say what you want, double negatives, can instead of may, etc, but for gods sake, spell it right.. :lol:

Speaking of things moving on - a Poser forum thread with "Grey" in the title is a clunky diatribe about the origins of language instead of a splendid flame fest about the origins of Renderosity.

Ahh, it all seemed so real and vital then, but now it's just so much popcorn under the bridge; a mere Will o' the wisp. ;-)
.

I just saw a movie about "Hillbilies" Ozark Mountain People some of whom I knew in Alaska and some in Misora and they were using archaic vocabulary in addition to having the accent as had the people I met to a lesser degree.

I suppose that "technically correct" is a long-winded form of "correct"     ¬:)

Language is interesting in relation to etiquette defined partially as...

"the code of ethical behavior regarding professional practice or action among the members of a profession in their dealings with each other"*
The key there is ethical behaviour which sadly has been replaced in today's society with clever maneuvering. Emily Post once wrote that manners and etiquette fundamentally exist to make others feel comfortable and at ease in awkward situations.

This is ironic since sadly the intent of etiquette was perverted into a weapon to imply superiority and assert power in society last century and before. Being polite implies sincerity. Lack of sincerity might but observing manners might be best described as being "civil".

I with I could remember the author and proper wording of this next quote. I might have been Twain. Anyway someone once said and I am loosely paraphrasing....

* "a lie is the ultimate sin as it perverts the very intent of language, upon which civilization is based,  which is to convey meaning and truth".*
My new favorite word is "behoove"

Gray is for a warm gray. Grey is for a cool or neutral grey.

Ettiquette is not about knowing which fork to use but about knowing not to notice when someone else doesn't.

Attached Link: Definition of etiquette per Wiktionary

1. The forms required by good breeding, or prescribed by authority, to be observed in social or official life; observance of the proprieties of rank and occasion; conventional decorum; ceremonial code of polite society.
2. The customary behavior of members of a profession, business, law, or sports team towards each other.

This discription seems to somehow (for me) relate professional courtesy to professional ethics... it is interesting to contemplate the notion that personal courtesy is somehow related to personal ethics.

Or am I mis-reading given that the customary behavior of members of a profession, business, law, or sports team towards each other can be both unscrupulous and unpleasent?