You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] omegletrollz 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I tend to agree

We are the same. I too hesitant and reluctantly gave my opinion before - but I maintain that we should be careful not to promote crude mistakes as a "new language". In my own language I know crude mistakes that could become a new and easier coherent grammar but I don't think your examples are on par with that - they are isolated cases.

I think linguists should start studying "broken english" - the de-facto language of the Internet, where "u" is you and "their so weak, we pwned easily" are actually within the norm. I wouldn't been surprised if many native English start adopting broken-English as a second language of sorts, but I wouldn't personally call it a new English when I could say these mistakes are loan words.

This all is very hard to define properly but I would rather call a native English speaker using "their" instead of "they're" a mistake or a broken loan word that the new norm. Maybe I'm being too conservative here and I"m fully aware of that - but as long as it's a matter of opinion...

0
1

[–] SteelKidney [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Also a fascinating topic. Your example of "broken English", Cajun patois, and if anyone here remembers it from the early 90's, the whole "Ebonics" controversy. But then, dialects start bleeding over into the root language.