Standardized English...

[ItsNotGonnaBeAlright]

Since there are an inordinate ammount of grammer nazis around these parts, I was just curious to see some opinions on whether or not there truly is such a thing as standardized english. Keep in mind, this is a debate that dates back to the tenth century and continues to rage on today in linguistic circles.

And both sides of the debate are right to a certain extent, btw.

[pstall]

On the interwebz, prose rules. At work, standard.

[ItsNotGonnaBeAlright]

Business-speak often comes up as proof that standardization is necessary in modern context. Allow me to dispell that myth.

In many written contracts, there is often a parenthetical statement that percludes that and entity "X" will be referred to as the substitution "Y". However, a parenthetical statement can only be used to expand upon a given verb-subject relationship in one sentance of the contract only, not as an introduction of a place holder "Y" for "X". In short, it is convention and not standardization that cuts down on a lot of paperwork, but there is no rule that makes this possible.

Personally, I don't know when that convention came into play.

[Skew]

Since there is an inordinate amount of grammar Nazis around these parts, I was just curious to see some opinions on whether or not there truly is such a thing as standardized English. Keep in mind, this is a debate that dates back to the tenth century and continues to rage on today in linguistic circles.

And both sides of the debate are right to a certain extent, btw.

fixed

[ItsNotGonnaBeAlright]

fixed

You missed my run on sentance and my use of a vernacular slang abbreviation, not to mention a missuse of a transitional phrase, but that's ok.

[Skew]

Blame MS Word

[ItsNotGonnaBeAlright]

Blame MS Word

Every chance I get lol.

[Jase]

I believe you mean standardizated english.

Simple mistake.

[ItsNotGonnaBeAlright]

I believe you mean standardizated english.

Simple mistake.

Now that's funny poo right there.