- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 0 Hour
- Reading permission
standards of debate?
Machjo and bossel: thank you for your contributions to the debate, and for your patience and mildness under quite indefensible attack. Machjo, I don't personally share your enthusiasm for Esperanto, but there is no doubt that it is a marvelous creation and an absorbing hobby, and humankind is richer for the efforts of those who have invented and nurtured it.|
Temico: your intellectual position, as far as one can discern it from your semi-coherent spluttering, seems to be that British English syntax, vocabulary, grammar and accent are good, and all others are bad, though not equally so. N. American usage might be acceptable, but English speech patterns originated in Asia or Africa deserve scorn.
Clinging to usage standards in this way is like professing faith in the "literal truth" of the Bible. One immediately asks, "which translation?" Similarly, one must ask of the supposed standard of The Queen's English, "of which period, which class, which speaker?" Grammar and usage rules are useful, but part of their usefulness is their flexiblity. Languages are about evolution. Would we not be poorer indeed, linguistically and intellectually, without the coinages of Shakespeare or the grammatical inventiveness of Hopkins, to cite but two examples from among many. In other words, as an intellectual position, yours is not quite beyond the pale, but it's right up against the posts: a half step away from indefensible. One of the hallmarks that separates the great writer from the pedestrian one is the latter's slavish adherence to rules, where the former bequeaths to us a coinage or a novel twist of syntax. That is what the Asian and African speakers of English have done, enlivening the language, enriching its possibilities, and entertaining anyone who finds joy in the new.
What is beyond the pale, sir, is your intemperate, rude, repetitive and wilfully ignorant method of argument - to characterize it as "debate" would be to give it a respect it has not earned. Your ad-hominem attacks, particularly on bossel, are repulsive. They do not earn you sympathy but rather mitigate against even considering your position. YOUR TACTIC OF SHOUTING ALL THE TIME emphasizes only the gaseousness of what is said. (Everybody else seems to be able to figure out how to do <b>bold</b> or <i>italic</i> or even <b><i><u>underlined bold italic,</u></i></b> why can't you?) Your habit of mischaracterizing someone else's position, and then railing against your own invention, is a tactic that recalls the most adolescent style of debate. The principal thing your arguments have demonstrated is the justice of the question with which machjo began this thread.
I'm sure that the acid of your response is even now gnawing away the nib of your pen, and one of the forum rules seems to be that temico has the last word. So, post away; you'll get no response from me.
PS There is good reason to suppose that your response, should you choose to excrete one, will expend no little flame on questions of my ethnic origin and cultural background. So, for the record, I am blonde, blue-eyed and fair complected; my ancestors going back four generations and more were all born in the United States; beginning four generations ago, some of them immigrated from Germany, France, Ireland, England and what is now Canada; and my cultural background is 100% white middle class Northeastern US. Just to satisfy your curiosity.