MassDriven, Massdrived, or Massdrove? Winner gets admin

[vcxzet]

Correctness in English is determined by usage

Since when correctness of something is determined by usage.

there are a hundred "engineers" (etc.) that you use daily without a second thought.

You are mixing things up. It is daily language no one cares. Try to use them in an academic article and watch the fireworks.

also engineers and english... wth

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

Correctness in English is determined by usage

Since when correctness of something is determined by usage.

there are a hundred "engineers" (etc.) that you use daily without a second thought.

You are mixing things up. It is daily language no one cares. Try to use them in an academic article and watch the fireworks.

also engineers and english... wth

agreed, this "common usage defines the definition" is a recent development.  say the last 70 or 80 years.  in addition to usage in a academic setting, try using common usage in a legal document.  there is a reason for that estoric dialect of legaleese i suppose.

[Nux]

The article is about how currently correct words will change over time because of people who will use the words incorrectly (unsurprisingly).

Correctness in English is determined by usage, not by some collegium that sets arbitrary standards on what is and is not acceptable, and certainly not by you. For every instance of "ain't" (etc.) that you may think is wrong, there are a hundred "engineers" (etc.) that you use daily without a second thought. (Those are not perfect analogues, but the same process has been applied with the same result.)

colour

Crazy French…

For some reason both you and sirshiz have ended up repeating back to me the same thing I summed up in a single sentence (the sentence you quoted).

I'll make this simple: The article is correct that language changes (which is unsurprising, as I said). I am fully aware of what makes it change (you don't need to explain it to me). If you feel as though it's somehow wrong for me to encourage the established usage of words then fair enough. In the most informal of contexts I might agree with you. If, however, you're suggesting language should never be maintained (or isn't) I would disagree. There's just as much of a history of maintaining language as there is of changing it.

It is a useful thing to maintain proper English. Just like with good manners, it establishes you're making an effort to communicate well. English has an intelligent structure which has evolved from the need to communicate ideas clearly and it's most carefully maintained where clarity is needed most (e.g. technical discussion). Where exactness is unnecessary and ignorance is rife, language will simplify but eventually a new history of words is created and somewhere in the community, exactness will be useful again.

So my point is that we already have an exact language and I choose to maintain it in all it's glory. If you choose not to speak proper English then you choose not to speak with me.

[Pazuzu]

Now it's infected me too. I hope you're happy.

[Undeference]

Since when correctness of something is determined by usage.

Since language first emerged. The difference is that some places have organizations to determine what is "correct"; there is no such thing for english.

agreed, this "common usage defines the definition" is a recent development.  say the last 70 or 80 years.  in addition to usage in a academic setting, try using common usage in a legal document.  there is a reason for that estoric dialect of legaleese i suppose.

"Recent" in the sense that language is a recent development. As for legalese, common usage is acceptable so long as it is understandable. There are particular phrasings some judges and courts are particularly attached to, but I don't think they are a legal requirement anywhere.

For some reason both you and sirshiz have ended up repeating back to me the same thing I summed up in a single sentence (the sentence you quoted).

The article is about how currently correct words will change over time because of people who will use the words incorrectly (unsurprisingly).

incorrect (unsurprisingly).

So my point is that we already have an exact language and I choose to maintain it in all it's glory. If you choose not to speak proper English then you choose not to speak with me.

limh at your irony.

[Dr. A. Goon]

Everyone enjoys a rousing intellectual debate.

Now back to admin bashing.

[Nux]

...people who will use the words incorrectly (unsurprisingly).

Are you saying I should say "people who will use words incorrect"? That's not grammatically correct because 'incorrect' is describing the 'use' part of the sentence which is a verb, so the word should be 'incorrectly' which is an adverb.

If you're saying that I was wrong about the article's nature, then I don't think that's fair. Over-summarised, maybe, but not incorrect.

I wasn't being ironic: I meant every word literally.

[Undeference]

...people who will use the words incorrectly (unsurprisingly).

Are you saying I should say "people who will use words incorrect"?

I'm saying that claiming that correct usage is incorrect is incorrect.

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

agreed, this "common usage defines the definition" is a recent development.  say the last 70 or 80 years.  in addition to usage in a academic setting, try using common usage in a legal document.  there is a reason for that estoric dialect of legaleese i suppose.

"Recent" in the sense that language is a recent development. As for legalese, common usage is acceptable so long as it is understandable. There are particular phrasings some judges and courts are particularly attached to, but I don't think they are a legal requirement anywhere.

i'm not so sure about that, as most common contracts go through the trouble of defining "you".  almost any legal document goes through great lengths to define what many would consider commonly understood usage.  inexact language breeds loopholes and ambiguous laws, something lawmakers seem to dislike for some reason.  you can easily see this from our responses to each other in this discussion so far, as we both made use of the word "recent" with vastly different definitions.

while true most early societies, and modern english did not have some sort of official department defining the language, this in effect has been happening since we developed organised "higher learning".  for example, the word "grinding" has many popular uses.off the top of my head.  to actually describe the act of grinding materials such as rock, metal, or black pepper.  to do repetitive tasks in a video game.  to sell drugs.to do a skateboard trick.  which of these would be considered "proper?

and what is slang, if not common improper usage?

[vcxzet]

I'm saying that claiming that correct usage is incorrect is incorrect.

claiming correct usage to be correct-usage-according-to-undeference might not be correct

anyway since this is the interwebs, you are fine as long as your sentences are understandable.

[Undeference]

i'm not so sure about that, as most common contracts go through the trouble of defining "you".  almost any legal document goes through great lengths to define what many would consider commonly understood usage.  inexact language breeds loopholes and ambiguous laws, something lawmakers seem to dislike for some reason.  you can easily see this from our responses to each other in this discussion so far, as we both made use of the word "recent" with vastly different definitions.

Many contracts also have unenforceable clauses, but that is not required. Where definitions are necessary in contracts is when a term is used in a way that is not consistent with its legal definition. But as I said, "As for legalese, common usage is acceptable so long as it is understandable." (Perhaps I should have added "in the context", since the meanings of certain words of phrases can change by context.) No discussion of specificity, but understandability.

and what is slang, if not common improper usage?

Noun

slang (uncountable)

    Language outside of conventional usage.
    Language that is unique to a particular profession or subject; jargon.
    The specialized language of a social group, sometimes used to make what is said unintelligible to those not members of the group; cant.

Vulgar slang is, by definition, common. It may still be "proper" (in the sense of correctness), but still slang.

[Plague Bringer]

Hahaha. I laugh at the "English language is glorious" bit. The English language, as I'm sure we all know, is far too convoluted and filled with awkward spelling, pronunciations, and meanings for words. Most of English doesn't work how you'd expect it to, and there are many exceptions to every rule. To pretend that keeping a broken language from being tainted by "misuse" and "slang" is ridiculous. All that being said, I'm an advocate of "proper" and "right" English when it's the time and place to use it. I also happen to think that most professional situations are the time and place; Just like you'd wear a dress shirt rather than a hoodie to a meeting or a job interview, you'd say "isn't" as opposed to "aint". Not to say that hoodies or "aint" are bad so much as they are inappropriate. If anything, Nux, I'm surprised you're not an advocate of making English even more colorful than it already is, since you're obviously an advocate of the convoluted and confusing "proper" English. Heck, it could become a double rainbow, after all. Everyone likes rainbows (except Ontario).

[CreatureofHell]

All languages are full of their own nonsense that constantly changes but that doesn't mean the language isn't glorious. Unless you think glorious things must be neat, not awkward, etc.

[sirshiz]

GUYS GUYS GUYS.
At this rate, NOBODY will get admin (level one).
Now which is the official correct term of massdriving someone in the past tense?

Using this template:
I have rifled someone.
I rifled someone.
I had rifled someone.

Which sounds more correct:
I have massdriven/massdrove/massdrived someone?
I massdriven/massdrove/massdrived someone
I had massdriven/massdrove/massdrived someone

Discuss.  

Edit: what about massdrivered?

[CreatureofHell]

We don't want admin! We want to to continue our discussion about the English language.

[vcxzet]

Perhaps one of the most interesting words in the English language today is the word massdriver.
Out of all of the English words that begin with the letter “M”, massdriver is the only word that is referred to as the “M” word.
Its the one magical word, just by its sound can describe pain, pleasure, hate and love.
Massdriver, as most words in the English language, is derived from German, the word “Fleichen”, which means to strike.
In English, massdriver falls into many gramatical catagories.
As a transitive verb for instance: “John massdrivered Shirley”
As an intransitive verb: “Shirley massdrivers”
It’s meaning’s not always sexual.
It can be used as an adjective such as: “John’s doing all the massdrivering work”
As part of an adverb: “Shirley talks to massdrivering much”
As an adverb enhancing an adjective: “Shirley is massdrivering beautiful”
As a noun: “I don’t give a massdriver”
As part of a word: “Abso-massdriveren-lutely” or “In-massdriveren-credible”
And, as almost every word in a sentence: “massdriver the massdrivering massdriverers”
As you must realise there aren’t to many words with the versatility of massdriver.
As in these examples, describing situations,
such as fraud: “I got massdrivered at the used car lot”
Dismay: “Oh, massdriver it”
Trouble: “I guess I’m really massdrivered now”
Aggression: “Don’t massdriver with me buddy”
Difficulty: “I don’t understand this massdrivering question”
Inquiry: “Who the massdriver was that?”
Dissatisfaction: “I don’t like what the massdriver is going on here”
Incompetance: “He’s a massdriver off”
Dismissal: “Why don’t you go outside and play hide and go massdriver yourself”
I’m sure you can think of many more examples.
With all of these multipurpose applications, how can anyone be offended when you use the word?!
We say use this unique, flexible word more often in your daily speech.
It will identify the quality of your character immediately.
Say it loudly and proudly…
“MASSDRIVER YOU!”

[Qrntz]

Nobody should care about English.
Khar ruulas, khas arashad!

[CreatureofHell]

Its the one magical word, just by its sound can describe pain, pleasure, hate and love.

Wrong "its".

I give a massdriver about correct usage of "it's" and "its".

[Nux]

If anything, Nux, I'm surprised you're not an advocate of making English even more colorful than it already is, since you're obviously an advocate of the convoluted and confusing "proper" English.

Also note that slang is colourful and useful in it's own right, and even has it's own kind of maintenance. If you use slang wrongly in certain company, you can be seen as out-of-the-loop and just some guy trying hard (and failing) to be part of the crowd.

Language is very much a social thing and it can come down to proving yourself part of a group. I'd like to think there's more going on here than politics though and, if nothing else, I'm happier people speaking the language I've learned than speaking thier own distorted form of it, for clarity's sake.

[Anonymoose]

I prefer to communicate via grunting and tounge clicking, I find it is much more efficient and leaves me more energy to do other important things like masturbating.

[Plague Bringer]

If anything, Nux, I'm surprised you're not an advocate of making English even more colorful than it already is, since you're obviously an advocate of the convoluted and confusing "proper" English.

Also note that slang is colourful and useful in it's own right, and even has it's own kind of maintenance. If you use slang wrongly in certain company, you can be seen as out-of-the-loop and just some guy trying hard (and failing) to be part of the crowd.

Language is very much a social thing and it can come down to proving yourself part of a group. I'd like to think there's more going on here than politics though and, if nothing else, I'm happier people speaking the language I've learned than speaking thier own distorted form of it, for clarity's sake.

It is not "their (singular) own distorted form of it", but rather "their (plural) own distorted form of it". I really believe that there isn't too much trouble understanding people who speak "broken" English; perhaps a second or two more thinking is in order, but if you're a competent speaker/writer/general linguist, then you shouldn't have too much trouble. It seems to me that you're denying that slang and common usage is part of the language when it most certainly is; on top of that, denying that anything not "book learned" is wrong, unprofessional, unofficial, etc. etc.. I think that, as a language lover, the worst thing you can do is wish it stays forever unchanged - condemning it growing stagnant and old as it moves through the generations forever being the same. How art thou not in agreeance?

TL;DR: Is change not good? What if English never changed; wouldn't it grow old?? How can you deny the importance/validity of slang and common usage?

Apologies if this is somewhat inarticulate or poorly put; I just woke up.

EDIT: limh moose

[Tremulant]

It is not "their (singular) own distorted form of it", but rather "their (plural) own distorted form of it".

?

[Nux]

For starters, my point was that slang is a valid form of language. You can just as much speak improper slang as improper queen's English and it's this improper use that we're referring to here.

Of course I'm able (and will try my best) to infer what a person means, but that's not the point. It's harder to read bad English. Are you saying I shouldn't complain about and correct a person who makes no effort to speak correctly? That seems a little unfair when I'm willing to not only make an effort to read their words but also to inform them of how the rest of the English speaking world says it.

I've said this from the start but I'll reword it: I understand that language changes and that those changes can be due to people speaking 'Bad' English. That's no reason to give up on maintaining the current form of the language. Change happens over larger periods of time because of the few corrupted words that become widespread. What you and others are suggesting is opening the proverbial flood gates and letting what is normally a very slow and gradual change become a very rapid one. The only reason language changes so slowly is because people are correcting/teaching it's current form.

[Scorpius]

OMG... nobody said the right one.

name1's mass was driven by TaxiDerrapeTotal XD

Did I win an admin? .:·

no, im not blind, I don't use braille xD

[Nod_Nod_Nod]

-Pilled down
-GOT GRENNY HOLE.
-Saw green light in tunnel.
-Tilt... Your dead meat.
-Massfully Fu***** Deadly Drived
-IS DA DEAD!
-SLAYER!
-Wasn't so nice to dodge.
-Reality hit him hard bro.

Teh all from me

[Nux]

name1's mass was driven by TaxiDerrapeTotal XD

Did I win an admin?

Nope. You were beaten to it 7 months ago, in the 7th post of this thread.

Had his mass driven!

Alright, it was slightly different but you don't get any prizes for that!

[Scorpius]

i didnt care about the admin... was a way to ask if I had won xD.

Actually a mass driver drives masses so...
Here goes another: name1 was raped in a church by Ratzinger.

[Kasofa]

Words get verbed all the time, it crazys language.

-K

[Nux]

Words get verbed all the time, it crazys language.

-K

...or as Calvin and Hobbes said it.

[/dev/humancontroller]

"I LIKE TO YERB WORDS."