"Lowly"

[IndifferentPerson]

She's not being a tight pants, idk why everyone is so triggered

The thread's basis is 'ur doin it wrong'.

That makes as much sense as saying someone is guilty of "ur doin it wrong" when someone points out a wizard doesn't has divine magic, it's binary, it's either correct or wrong.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

People are clearly very attached to their *hums lowly*

[DM Garynx]

Don't use *whispers lowly* - wtf does that even mean. Regardless of the "three definitions", it is not clear and precise language. The best writers are the least ambiguous. I don't know what you mean when you say *whispers lowly*

*speaks in a low whisper* is what makes sense.

And don't use irregardless. You sound like a tool. And it's Arctic (with a capital A). Canadians know.

Quite frankly, Seven, this makes you sound like a tool. Step off the high horse.

As for the rest of this thread, I think it's great of some part of the playerbase wants to give more insight and information about stuff. It's not great for people to get all high and mighty over it. Gather your thoughts and proceed appropriately.

[Kashisjonny]

Garynx thinks quietly of you all now.
Let's stop being so loud about our opinions and lowly step aside.

(I learn my English off Arelith)

[Anime Sword Fighter]

That makes as much sense as saying someone is guilty of "ur doin it wrong" when someone points out a wizard doesn't has divine magic, it's binary, it's either correct or wrong.

Not everything in the world is either fully correct or wrong. This is one of those things.

We can all agree 2+2=4. This, though, is not something like that- being more abstract, and subject to the individual.

[IndifferentPerson]

That makes as much sense as saying someone is guilty of "ur doin it wrong" when someone points out a wizard doesn't has divine magic, it's binary, it's either correct or wrong.

Not everything in the world is either fully correct or wrong. This is one of those things.

We can all agree 2+2=4. This, though, is not something like that- being more abstract, and subject to the individual.

That is correct, however, she treats it as a binary answer. Your debates against that are fair game, saying she's saying ur doin it wrong is less so . Which was what I was refering to.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

Don't use *whispers lowly* - wtf does that even mean. Regardless of the "three definitions", it is not clear and precise language. The best writers are the least ambiguous. I don't know what you mean when you say *whispers lowly*

*speaks in a low whisper* is what makes sense.

And don't use irregardless. You sound like a tool. And it's Arctic (with a capital A). Canadians know.

Quite frankly, Seven, this makes you sound like a tool. Step off the high horse.

As for the rest of this thread, I think it's great of some part of the playerbase wants to give more insight and information about stuff. It's not great for people to get all high and mighty over it. Gather your thoughts and proceed appropriately.

I'll stand by statement that using "irregardless" is improper. High horse or not.

[CragOneEye]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless?s=t

I will concur it is "improper" as it is a double negative, but it is still word. Ere go my original point, though, what is considered "proper" English, are grammatical rules set up by both the American and British English Academia.

And not to sound flippant, but not sure who in first place decided that there needed to be rules, given a lot of the rules contradict each other, given fact some pronunciations are based on Germanic-based language rules and others based on Latin-based.

On another random tangent for you English nerds out there, I do actually have a serious question, why is it the other three Latin-based languages are called the romantic languages, yet when we refer to English-Latin based words we don't call it romantic-based?

[IndifferentPerson]

Be glad you have english and not something like portuguese. Portuguese sucks.

[Black Wendigo]

When one is describing correct grammar and usage, one needs to footnote the source from which said correctness is based on. There are LOTS of different texts that are used for such for the same or supposedly same language. I maintain that what is used in England is NOT the same language that is used in the USA, or perhaps other countries for that matter, even though they may be closely related or have the same origins.

But why make such a fuss over it? This is why people are reacting greatly to the OP.

[Red Sunset]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless?s=t

I will concur it is "improper" as it is a double negative, but it is still word. Ere go my original point, though, what is considered "proper" English, are grammatical rules set up by both the American and British English Academia.

And not to sound flippant, but not sure who in first place decided that there needed to be rules, given a lot of the rules contradict each other, given fact some pronunciations are based on Germanic-based language rules and others based on Latin-based.

On another random tangent for you English nerds out there, I do actually have a serious question, why is it the other three Latin-based languages are called the romantic languages, yet when we refer to English-Latin based words we don't call it romantic-based?

Because English is at its heart actually a Germanic language. It also has influences from the Normans, (French speaking), who invaded and conquered. The Latin words English also borrowed, although some came to it through Norman influence. There was a period where scholars were rampantly borrowing words from Latin as well. Truly it's a wonder English didn't die when the Norman's conquered. Its history makes it a bit unique.

Also I might be wrong, but I thought there was more than three Latin based languages. There Spanish, Italian, French, and Romanian (the odd one most forget), and Portuguese.

The Latin family of languages though comes from the same language as Germanic family languages do. Something scholars refer to as Indo-European. Sanskrit is related to Indo-European as well. So even if English is not a Romantic language you will find some similarities that are not only because it has borrowed many Latin words. An easy one to look at is always the word for Mother. Its eerily similar looking and sounding across many of the Indo-European languages. The other one I remember is Jupiter. It's actually a combination scholars think of two words: father and Zeus (We don't know the original name for the god so I used the Greek one which is familiar to most of us). Anyway I've kind of gone off on a tangent, but the subject was too fun.

[Urch]

It's interesting to see the etymology behind the word low. Middle English takes the form of lowe, lohe, lah, then you'd have the Proto-Germanic legaz. But what is funny is these older words generally take the meaning of "low to the ground, flat, of a lower height" etc.
If one was to say it in old English, it would be around the lines of "hē hommen unhlud" (he hums not loud).
The amazing thing I found with Old English is that there is no comparable word for low. It has several words to note the various meanings of "low" (such as "ebbe" referencing low tide, or "unheáh" meaning low to the ground), but there is no word for "low", much the same as there is no meaning in Latin for the word "yes".
Other such Old English words that use "low" in it are;
gnéðn - low/moderate temperature
gehén - fallen low
unæðele - of low birth
þwastrian - to murmur or speak quietly (aka in a low tone)
niðerian - to debase, embarrass, bring low (in opinion)
licgan - to lie, be low, kneel, be rested
etc. etc.

[CragOneEye]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless?s=t

I will concur it is "improper" as it is a double negative, but it is still word. Ere go my original point, though, what is considered "proper" English, are grammatical rules set up by both the American and British English Academia.

And not to sound flippant, but not sure who in first place decided that there needed to be rules, given a lot of the rules contradict each other, given fact some pronunciations are based on Germanic-based language rules and others based on Latin-based.

On another random tangent for you English nerds out there, I do actually have a serious question, why is it the other three Latin-based languages are called the romantic languages, yet when we refer to English-Latin based words we don't call it romantic-based?

Because English is at its heart actually a Germanic language. It also has influences from the Normans, (French speaking), who invaded and conquered. The Latin words English also borrowed, although some came to it through Norman influence. There was a period where scholars were rampantly borrowing words from Latin as well. Truly it's a wonder English didn't die when the Norman's conquered. Its history makes it a bit unique.

Also I might be wrong, but I thought there was more than three Latin based languages. There Spanish, Italian, French, and Romanian (the odd one most forget), and Portuguese.

The Latin family of languages though comes from the same language as Germanic family languages do. Something scholars refer to as Indo-European. Sanskrit is related to Indo-European as well. So even if English is not a Romantic language you will find some similarities that are not only because it has borrowed many Latin words. An easy one to look at is always the word for Mother. Its eerily similar looking and sounding across many of the Indo-European languages. The other one I remember is Jupiter. It's actually a combination scholars think of two words: father and Zeus (We don't know the original name for the god so I used the Greek one which is familiar to most of us). Anyway I've kind of gone off on a tangent, but the subject was too fun.

Another interesting point is, that Normans originally weren't french speaking but spoke a norse dialect "norman" I think we call it? Untill after settling in Normandy and being influenced by their french neighbours, which would also likely explain why when they invaded england that england was able to maintain english.

[Faye]

Nordic is the Norse dialect, as far as I know.

[yellowcateyes]

We can all agree 2+2=4. This, though, is not something like that- being more abstract, and subject to the individual.

This isn't an abstract question! Whether it is good practice to use 'lowly' as an adverb describing audio quality is a very specific issue.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless?s=t

I will concur it is "improper" as it is a double negative, but it is still word. Ere go my original point, though, what is considered "proper" English, are grammatical rules set up by both the American and British English Academia.

And not to sound flippant, but not sure who in first place decided that there needed to be rules, given a lot of the rules contradict each other, given fact some pronunciations are based on Germanic-based language rules and others based on Latin-based.

Why embrace linguistic authority figures and rules in a living language that encompasses diverse origins and is spoken broadly across the globe?

The short answer is that rules are useful.

At the most basic level, standardized spelling is the modern era's great gift to intelligibility. The fact that the words and sentence structure you learned in a schoolhouse in rural Kentucky will serve you equally well in Johannesburg or Hong Kong is empowering, not limiting.

By mastering and making use of the rules of a language, you ensure that will be understood by fluent speakers of that language, the world over. On the other hand, clumsy use of that language will mean that potential listeners or readers will be struggling to decipher your format, rather than directly engaging with the substance of your ideas.

These rules are decided by convention. That is to say, dictionary-writers and compendium-compilers are reporting on, rather than deciding on, the uses of language. When a linguist writes upon the correct use of a phrase, or the proper application of grammar, they are actually making a case for what is the commonly accepted use of that phrase. This is so that, when you use that phrase correctly, you have a good idea as to how your words will be interpreted. This is a service to you, rather than any inherent limitation on how you play with language. It certainly saves you the trouble of running your own surveys, or doing the footwork to understand the scope of a local colloquialism.

(This is true, at least, for the English language. Not all languages rules are defined by convention. For example, the Académie française is a government-sponsored, state-recognized curator of the French language.)

Ultimately, you can use whatever letters, markings and/or spaces to communicate whatever you want to communicate. Unless you're still in school, with a teacher ready to apply corporeal punishment with a ruler, nothing is stopping you from freely swapping your its and it's, or being loose with the uses of 'affects' and 'effects.'

The only thing that suffers is your own legibility - your own capacity to be understood. That is to say, you can buck convention freely. But you should be mindful that it is only your own clarity that suffers if you do so unwisely.

Remember that this is the internet age. Content is overabundant; self-publication is the norm. Potential readers have a legion of options to decide from. Before anyone gets to the merit of your idea, they'll already be making judgements about your qualifications to have an idea. In this era, you win or lose people at the level of the sentence.

And in that regard, you ignore the advice of "academia" at your own peril.

Borgia makes clear that, in her line of work as a professional editor, 'irregardless' is not accepted. Seven points out in blunt words that the university setting is intolerant of the word. Those dictionaries that do list it as a word (often begrudgingly, as a 'nonstandard' listing or as a colloquialism) often contain such straightforward warnings as 'careful users of the English language avoid this word,' or simply 'use regardless instead.'

Can you use the word 'irregardless'? Sure. No armed enforcers of the NY Times Editorial staff are going to kick down your door the moment you do.

Is it wise to alienate a significant number of readers, many of whom associate the use of 'irregardless' with lack of education or knowledge, just for the sake of using a longer and more obtuse variant of an accepted and uncontroversial word? That's another question entirely, and one you have to answer yourself.

[Lorkas]

So really what you're arguing is not that *hums lowly* is "incorrect" usage (whatever that means in reference to a system that evolves constantly and has had its rules blatantly tampered with in the past, like the English language), but that when people use that phrase, it makes you think that they're uneducated?

Fair enough. Maybe that is something that people should consider, but maybe you should also consider that language is a bigger and wilder thing than you can really control with pedantic forum posts.

[CragOneEye]

I just realized if the original post was placed under the thread "Expand your vocabulary",this current topic would have likely gotten a lot less fuss from the forum community.

[Lorkas]

It depends on the tone of the original post. When someone starts off by casting themselves as a self-aggrandized expert on grammar to whom a clueless player sent a letter regarding one weirdly specific linguistic usage, I have a feeling there will be a response based on the tone.

If the OP starts off more like "Hey guys I noticed a couple people doing this thing and I thought maybe some people might be interested in this info..." then perhaps the response would be a little less combative.

[Plonkers]

now i just want to make a character that never speaks the right way just to piss off you language ego's..

I am so damned tired of you people always trying to sound so much better than everyone else you (a whole lot of words that can't be said here)
It's not that i dont mind being currected when i make a errors with the language i didnt grow up with learning and i often ask a few friends to help me out to do so, but when these posts comes along with seven or yellow talking about how people are stupid for not saying a sentense like they wanted them to, just makes me avoid them. (because most people got brains to figure out what a person is trying to say even if it is wrong) this is just stupid to be honest..
There are so many nationalities playing and it aint all of them that know english like an english speaking person often do, think about it at least..

[Marsi]

err calm down

[Plonkers]

"nope i wont calm down its bloody retarded" okay thats about all the rage i ould manage, i apologies if i sounded more angered than i really am.
Its just not fair to the none english speakers that have hard times with the language, its the same for the few people that point out spelling errors on the message boards without realizing how hurtful it can be, now i am no saint but really it does not take long to think about it before acting all high and mighty because you know a language better than others.

im not saying everyone is like this not at all.