The English language conspiracy

To make a contraction you replace one letter with an apostrophe, for the most part. There are exceptions.

eg... do not contracted becomes don't


Five characters become contracted to 5 characters. WHAT?

This saves no one time. We have all been duped.

Like I said earlier there are exceptions, for instance cannot becomes can't. Saving of one character. However were contractions to be what they are actually supposed to be you'd save 2 characters and the equivalent time. A DOUBLING of efficiency.

Im calling for a grammatical revolution. No longer will we be duped into not actually saving time and effort.

HELL NO APOSTROPHES MUST GO!

Do not say you can't. You cant.

Do not say you don't. You dont.

Do not say you won't! BECAUSE its wont and you WILL.

We are the 99%.

No longer will we be invisibly taxed for our time and effort by having to use more time and
expend more effort on something that makes no sense at all. Every one of us knows what is and what is not a contraction. We already know what letter(s) has been taken out. There is no need to mark it down. One does not simply make up contractions anyway. They ALL already exist. If there was a free for all of contraction making I might understand having to annotate the missing letter or letters with a mark. But there isnt.

YALL FEEL ME? We must stand as one on this issue or the schools and grammatical laws that grow up around this inanity will rob us of our freedom, time and effort for eons.

reply to post by winnar


I am assuming this is satirical....:-)

I have often thought the same about silent letters. Phone, Gnome etc (sounds a bit like E.T with a cleft pallet)

A total waste of time.

Although if we were timing in miliseconds, it is quicker to put in an apostrophe than a letter.

Also americans sometimes say, and write "period" instead of a full stop. That's insane.

winnar
eg... do not contracted becomes don't

Five characters become contracted to 5 characters. WHAT?

Actually, the space is also counted as a character, so there's six characters in "do not". Check out the character count at the bottom of a reply window and watch the number go down every time you hit the space bar.

winnar
This saves no one time. We have all been duped.

More like, you've been misunderstanding the English language. Contractions were made to make speaking easier, not to make the words easier to type. Typing didn't even exist when contractions were "invented".

The single word "don't" is quicker and easier to speak than the two word: "do not". That's all there is to it. Nothing more, nothing less. It has nothing whatsoever to do with typing out the characters.

_BoneZ_
Actually, the space is also counted as a character, so there's six characters in "do not". Check out the character count at the bottom of a reply window and watch the number go down every time you hit the space bar.

You are right. I didnt even have to go look at the count. I simply forgot. Still though, I think my points stand.

_BoneZ_

More like, you've been misunderstanding the English language. Contractions were made to make speaking easier, not to make the words easier to type. Typing didn't even exist when contractions were "invented".

The single word "don't" is quicker and easier to speak than the two word: "do not". That's all there is to it. Nothing more, nothing less. It has nothing whatsoever to do with typing out the characters.

I suppose you forget that some people still actually write by hand? And it makes more sense that contractions were brought into being by writing, not speaking. Although Im not sure this is a fact per se, just that it makes more sense. Using contractions when talking hardly saves any time at all.

winnar
I think my points stand.

Your points don't stand if you read my second response to you, which you didn't quote in your post. I'll post it again for you:

Contractions were made to make speaking easier, not to make the words easier to type. Typing didn't even exist when contractions were "invented".

The single word "don't" is quicker and easier to speak than the two word: "do not". That's all there is to it. Nothing more, nothing less. It has nothing whatsoever to do with typing out the characters.

For some reason lately I have been copying Jeff Bridges way of speaking in the new True Grit and in RIPD and from my own personal experience talking this way doesnt take any more measurable time, but writing that way does add a noticable deficit.

Ill wait and let you see I did quote it in its own response.

reply to post by winnar

HELL NO APOSTROPHES MUST GO!

What about the

ITS

and

IT'S

?

Language revolves around context. Youd simply use context to know whether its its or its.

There are quite a few instances when you have to do this anyway that dont involve contractions.

Dont fight the logic. Its undeniable.

winnar
I suppose you forget that some people still actually write by hand? And it makes more sense that contractions were brought into being by writing, not speaking.

You're correct about the writing aspect of it. It's easier to write less words and less characters. But it is also easier to speak less words as well.

Not everyone speaks the same speed. Some people talk slower, others talk really fast. So, as someone that talks fast, not using contractions won't impact the speed at which they talk too much. For someone that speaks slower, it will make a big difference to use several contractions in a sentence or paragraph, than to speak all of the words out.

PS your second reply created a strawman which you then defended. Although I never used the word typing. I simply said it takes more time and effort. This is you brain on its own beliefs defending them without actually thinking about them.

reply to post by luciddream


Also, "your" and "you're".


Apostrophes will never go!!!!!

That deserves a S&F. I have thought of that many times. The thing is if you not do it people think strange of you. To use do not sounds more authoritative than saying Don't. Same with other things where stupid shortening tactics are used. Many times when you say don't the person should listen but they don't. I have learned this quite a while ago.

If you print don't go beyond this point on a sign half the people will not go. If you print do not go beyond this point than most people will not go. Still, some don't listen because they feel that the instruction does not apply to them for some reason.

reply to post by winnar


So is this a real conspiracy or is this part of the 99% hoax threads that you talk about?

_BoneZ_

Not everyone speaks the same speed. Some people talk slower, others talk really fast. So, as someone that talks fast, not using contractions won't impact the speed at which they talk too much. For someone that speaks slower, it will make a big difference to use several contractions in a sentence or paragraph, than to speak all of the words out.

The relative speed at which someone talks makes no difference. They will talk at the same relative speed whether saying do not or dont. You are creating strawmen again, attempting to compare fast speakers with slow speakers when its their speed relative to itself that matters. Their slowness in speaking will hardly add up to anything compared to the slowness they already had. Jeff Bridges relative speed didnt change when he was using words that can be contracted compared to words he used that could be.

One can only experience this by making it a habit to not use contractions when speaking like the actor mentioned in the two aforementioned movies.

thesaneone
reply to post by winnar

 

So is this a real conspiracy or is this part of the 99% hoax threads that you talk about?

I dont know what makes you think that isnt a real conspiracy. What would the owners of the board gain or lose if most threads here were in the hoax bin? And why are you cross posting?

Do you think this board would be as trafficked or make any money if all the hoaxes were in the hoax bin?

My percentage might be off, but its definitely over 90%.

Try thinking.

reply to post by winnar


The English language like many others is constantly changing.

Trying to re-write and homogenise English grammar is silly. The English language is rich. If you can’t be arsed to write properly, then try another language. Preservation of the English language in the face of laziness is my sacred duty. Contractions are a part of the formal/informal use of the language, in that you can write “can’t” to your mates, but in a formal document you would write “cannot”. It’s the thin line between civilised and uncivilised.

On apostrophes in general, dialects would die out without them - if I were a Yorkshireman the above would have been:

Tryin ta re-wri' grammar is daft. T' English language is rich. if theur can’t be arsed ta wri' properly, then try anotha language. Preservation o' t' English language int' fyass o' laziness is uz sacred duty. Contractions are eur part o' t' formal/informal use o' t' language, i' 'a' theur can wri' “can’t” ta thy mates, bur i' eur formeur document theur 'ood wri' “cannot”. it’s t' thin line atwixt civilised 'n uncivilised.

Translation courtesy of www.whoohoo.co.uk...

Regards

_BoneZ_
reply to post by luciddream

 

Also, "your" and "you're".

Apostrophes will never go!!!!!

Um, your and youre are easily differentiated. Perhaps stop replying from English class and pay attention.