The English language conspiracy

winnar

Nostrenominon

No, no one "feels" you because you're completely wrong. Contractions weren't made to save you time writing as much as they save you time reading and speaking them.

Completely backwards as I have already shown and been told 'correct' by the person who first brought it up. Infinitely more time is saved in writing contractions than either speaking or reading.

Try harder.


Also try reading the rest of the thread before replying as the rest of your points were already brought up and consequently shot down.

You don't have to address it if it's already been brought up. Do you seriously think I'm going to read every post before I make a response? You're insane. Try harder yourself, it's common sense that saying "I do not" takes longer to say "I don't". Not only is it a whole extra character or two, it's a whole extra syllable. Sorry to shoot down your pathetic attempt at logic, but once again, you fail.

reply to post by winnar


You are missing the point of having contractions in the first place. It's not about the written language but about the spoken word.

These shortened ways to say certain words are meant to be used for our convenience when spoken. They merely had to have a way to write or spell out these shortened versions of words and thats how they choose to do it. It's not about making the writing of those words any shorter than their counterparts.

The William Shakespeare Conspiracy!!

Not kidding, there is a Shakespeare Conspiracy....

and it involves the English Language and an elite group of people steering the course for the future.

Sound Familiar?

reply to post by rickymouse

To use do not sounds more authoritative than saying Don't.

Except when barked as a command. Which sounds more authoritative:

"Don't you dare!" Or,

"Do not dare!"

"You wouldn't dare!" Or,

"You would not dare!"

In general, apostrophes are the bane of people who text, I am sure. Does punctuation require two fingers on most phones (I don't have a clue)?

Anything that shortens type is easier, right? Spaces, line feeds, capital letters, dropping letters like txt instead of text. All those shorten the time it tales to acccess the smaller "keyboard".

Wait till the "I-Watch" becomes popular...

JohnPhoenix


You are missing the point of having contractions in the first place. It's not about the written language but about the spoken word.

These shortened ways to say certain words are meant to be used for our convenience when spoken. They merely had to have a way to write or spell out these shortened versions of words and thats how they choose to do it. It's not about making the writing of those words any shorter than their counterparts.

You dont hear apostrophes when speaking. There shouldnt be a reason to see them. Theyre for followers of stupid rules.

If, on the other hand, contractions could be made at will of words we dont use contractions for normally, then I could see their purpose. Not the case though.

Anyway people who bring up speaking as the reason for contractions...no one cares. Obviously I was talking about having to write or type them. You dont use them when speaking. Bringing up speaking in this case is just because youre functionally illiterate and missed the entire point, and its not because Im missing apostrophes. The conspiracy is that we are supposed to use them now when they serve no real purpose and you only use them writing or typing.


Adding a character back to a set of words in which you removed characters in the first place is the epitome of stupidity.

Ah, the strange and unfamiliar language of Old English. While it still holds the name “English,” Old English would be as unfamiliar to use Modern English speakers as Latin would be to the Mayans of the Yucatan Peninsula. Derived from the old Ingvaeonic languages of West Germany, Old English first came to be in the 7th century. It was created by the Anglo-Saxon people that had invaded Great Britain a few decades prior. The Anglo-Saxons were a Nordic people, so of course their language reflected that. Instead of using the Latin letters we’re familiar with today, Old English used the runic alphabet. This runic alphabet is totally unfamiliar to us today, further distinguishing Old English from Modern English. The word order of Old English, however, was essentially simliar to Modern English in that they both use Subject-Verb-Object. The words Old English used are totally different from Modern English. For instance, water in Old English is lagustream (I’m writing the transliteration in Latin characters because I couldn’t be bothered finding out how to actually write in runic, so you’ll have to forgive me), sky is rodor, and warrior is beadurinc or beorn or cempa or another 19 different words. And yet, even in Old English, we find contractions. Nis is the contraction of ne is (meaning “is not”) and naefde from ne haefde (meaning “did not have”). Naes was from ne waes (meaning “was not”) and nolde came from the contraction of both ne and wolde (meaning “would not”). Old English was full of contractions, and these contractions have remained in place (of course, not with the same words) in our Modern English today. Nis is simply “isn’t”, naes is “wasn’t”, and nolde is “wouldn’t”.

Olde English had it right. You remove characters and create a new word that means both. Its not rocket science...

Middle English was most popularised by the famous poet Geoffrey Chaucer in his Canterbury Tales. Middle English also marked English’s transition to the Latin alphabet rather than runic. And there were contractions a plenty. Thilke is a contraction of the ilke (meaning “the same”), sit (see, real English words!) is a contraction of sitteth, noot is a contraction of ne woot (meaning “knows not), and nere is a contraction ne were (meaning “were not”). As you can see, the foundations of Modern English are starting to form, and some words today, like sit, which we think of as an actual word, started off as contractions!

To further prove my totally valid point and to further invalidate yours (if you were foolish enough to argue against me) notice the bold? Then notice again, middle english, no apostrophe.

But obviously the apostrophe started being used. But why?

They are irrelevant, especially, if as a few of you have said, they were to make speaking easier. Why add characters back to a word you just removed them from if youre doing things to make it easier? In other words why make speaking easier and writing harder?

Funny watching you english elitists make fun of someone for how it actually used to be.

Wait until the i-watch, herp derp, stupid texters.

Waste more time losing the debate.