electric towel rail

I certainly agree with you about evolution John. .... All those mistakes makes us what we are. ... All those mistakes (mutations of our DNA etc ) makes us more diverse and advances us. .... So those mistakes certainly win my vote - If we are allowed to vote on it.
Indeed. It's obviously difficult to prove, but it is generally thought that the great majority of chromosomal 'mistakes' which arise during the reproductive process are incompatible with life, and therefore do not result in any live offspring. Of the remainder, most do not confer any particular 'survival advantage', and therefore do not preferentially proliferate - and that just leaves a tiny number which do offer a 'survival advantage and therefore do preferentially proliferate ('survival of the fittest') - hence 'evolution'.

So I wonder whether those facts transfer to 'evolution of language'? Just as with chromosomal mutations, I presume that millions of people make 'random mistakes'in the use of language every day, but the vast majority of those mistakes are one-offs and/or are person-specific, and hence do not proliferate. However, just a tiny proportion of those mistakes do 'catch on', and proliferate, so one has to wonder whether they afford some sort of 'advantage'. If not, why do only a tiny proportion of linguistic mistakes come into such widespread use that they come to be accepted as 'evolved language'?
There are some mistakes that do wind me up though and I too, like EFLI, try to correct them.
You and EFLI are not alone! There are a good few aspects of current use of English which annoy and irritate me intensely, sometimes 'sending shivers down my spine'. However, I'm not sure that I classify them as 'mistakes', given that they are pretty ubiquitous in my offspring's generation - but I certainly would not waste my time 'correcting' use of language which was regarded as totally normal by a whole generation!

Kind Regards, John
 
Sponsored Links
What if the recent youngsters' use of 'wicked' to mean good had become the 'norm' and everyone was using it such that the news reported that "Netanyahu says peace settlement in the middle east was wicked" and "The King was hoping for a long and wicked reign": how would that be a good thing?
I'm not sure you've picked a very good example to cite ...

... long before 'the youngsters' were born, 'we' (probably including you and I) were talking about "wicked grin", "wicked laughter", "wicked sense of humour" etc. ... none of which had anything to do with 'evil'.

Kind Regards, John
 
Ok? .... Are you sure?
Sure about what? Sure about thee fact that 'we' were talking about those things before today's youngsters were born (I certainly was) or sure about them having nothing to do with 'evil' ( think I am). ?

[ in passing, a point I often make is that the most important thing about language is that is should facilitate "clear and unambiguous communication" ! :) :) ]

Kind Regards, John
 
Sponsored Links
Indeed. It's obviously difficult to prove, but it is generally thought that the great majority of chromosomal 'mistakes' which arise during the reproductive process are incompatible with life, and therefore do not result in any live offspring. Of the remainder, most do not confer any particular 'survival advantage', and therefore do not preferentially proliferate - and that just leaves a tiny number which do offer a 'survival advantage and therefore do preferentially proliferate ('survival of the fittest') - hence 'evolution'.
Yes, my thought is that of the tiny minority that survive many make no difference. That might leave a few that make a difference, probably only a small difference.
Some of those differences might be beneficial but some might have the opposite effect.
I would think that might skew things ever so slightly in the possibility of beneficial changes becoming established.
All this might in some way save us from complete extinction one day.
I suppose I will have to stop criticising folk who say "Excuse me! Are you reading that Newspaper that you are sat on?"
 
Yes, I gave up at the point it ceased to be of any value to @Cottsyboy . And that was two pages ago...
Very wise (for you). We had more than exhausted what could usefully be said to the OP about his (pretty trivial) issue, and anyone (like you) who was not interested in the (totally different and unrelated) discussion which then followed would be daft to continue reading it.

However, assuming that you're not 'daft' (as above), what I don't dully understand is how, if you gave up reading this thread two pages ago, you saw, quoted and replied to a message posted only an hour or so ago ;)

Kind Regards, John
 
Yes, my thought is that of the tiny minority that survive many make no difference. That might leave a few that make a difference, probably only a small difference.
Some of those differences might be beneficial but some might have the opposite effect. .... I would think that might skew things ever so slightly in the possibility of beneficial changes becoming established.
Sure. Provided only that one believes in the concepts of Darwinian evolution, the situation with biological evolution is pretty straightforward - i.e. 'survival of the fittest' causing proliferation of random mistakes which happened to result in a survival advantage.

In the case of language, it's not at all clear (at least, not to me!) what would be the concept corresponding to biological 'survival'- yet, just as with the latter, something is resulting a situation in which the vast majority of 'random linguistic mistakes' do nit proliferate, whilst a tiny proportion do, to the extent of eventually becoming 'commons usage', and hence probably 'accepted' by most people (other than those like EFLI, who are obviously fully entitled to their view/opinion).

Kind Regards, John
 
Which was pretty much all totally unnecessary
Well go on then. I`ll admit that I sometimes go off on a tangent or sometimes provide too much not totally relevant info etc. That`s just me being me.
And I do like the humour of someone say "I gave up reading this XXX ago!" then someone asking "how do you know what`s been written subsequently then?"

All good fun and most often with good intent in the main I think.
;)
 
About what you wrote in the quote to which I responded "Are you sure?".
As I wrote, your"Are you sure?" question was ambiguous (hence not 'clear unambiguous communication') since, as I went on to spell out, there were two statements within my words which you quoted which you might have been asking 'whether I was sure' about.

In an attempt to achieve that 'clear and unambiguous communication, could you perhaps tell me which one (or both) of my statements were yoiu askingf me about?

Kind Regards, John
 
We now seem to have another person reading messages which are of no interest to them, and also contributing to the thread in which they no longer have any interest - I suppose it's a way in which some people spend their time :)
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top