mh wrote:
What would you call this then? Sure, we all make mistakes, but although English is not the native language of most participants, I think the linguistic quality of this forum is not that bad at all.
Don’t be too hard on yourself, the 
smileys were meant to show that my comment was not to be taken too serious or literally :) (or better yet, tongue-in-cheek as Patrick said above)
Patrick wrote:
Who/what defines what is “correct” in a language? I’d say it’s the people who use the language and language changes and adapts – for the better or the worse.
Hehe, in German that is pretty simple. Standard German was born as a “book” language (spread through Luther’s bible and other printed works in the 16th century). Everyone spoke local dialects before. Northern Germans originally didn’t speak German at all but Plattdeutsch (Low German). This largely died out in the last 100 years or so (not here in East Frisia were I live, mind) and everyone started speaking Standard German instead, without any dialect at all. Hence, perfect German can only be spoken by people from Northern Germany. A common suggestions says people from Hannover speak the least “diluted” German.
Of course the entire paragraph above isn’t linguistically correct. The truth is much more like you said, Patrick: Languages change and adapt according to usage. German especially so, at it is influenced by all neighbouring cultures and languages (and we have more neighbours than any other Europeans). Words become fashionable and then fall into disuse again. French influence used to be all the rage in Germany 200 years ago, giving us words like “Pistole” or “Trottoir”. The latter was later re-translated into Bürgersteig by language purists, the former remains instead of the original German “Meuchelpuffer” (love this word, really!). Nowadays we import lots of words in English but also create new ones. These Denglish words can be quite interesting and are usually unintelligble for native English speakers, such as
I find all this quite interesting.
Sorry for derailing the thread btw.
As for overuse of abbreviations and acronyms: We have the same “disease” in medicine. Sometimes even much worse, with often one abbreviation meaning different things in practice, such as
HWI for either
At least German is a very structured language with a strong (and rather immutable) grammar and pronunciation.
The trouble with English is that, like our constitution and Common Law, is has never really been formalised and agreed.
The Victorian grammarians tried to apply a formal structure to English by applying principles from Latin. That is where the ridiculous assertion that you must not split infinitives comes from. Latin has a single word for an infinitive, which cannot therefore be split, so these crusty old professors in their ivy covered quads decided that it should not be permissible “to boldly go.”
So English gradually changes and creeps in a way much more pronounced than German. English of the Bible and Shakespeare is not only much more different from modern English than 17C, or even Lutheran, German is from modern German, but also much more variable in itself. You can find multiple different spellings of the same word, and different grammatical structures, even in the First Folio, and it would have been more strictly edited than the original parts from 30 years earlier.
The Victorians tried to stem this tide, but failed.
And we still wince at changes we don’t like: “amount of people”, “less cars”, “me and John are going out”, “I’m literally dying for a tea”, “your wrong”, “Apple’s and banana’s”, “I could of done better.”
Half of me wants to tear out my own retinas when I see that kind of thing, the other half shrugs and thinks “if it was good enough for Shakespeare…”
Thanks, fellows, here are some new insights for the language addict that I have always been. If we may be allowed to stray so far from our prime matter, how do you compare to French? Several languages try to standardise and formalise, but to my knowledge French is the only one that has this actually working, even into (what I consider) foolishness like “connexion”.
Doesn’t the Goethe Institut regulate and formalise German, like the Académie Française does for French?
FWIW, I believe that languages certainly need to be allowed the freedom to grow and change, lest they die, like Latin; but that unchecked growth and change will lead to wilderness – much like a garden. Which is my view on what is currently happening to English, and – to my deep regret – to my native Dutch.
Ideally we should all learn Chinese Calligraphy. It is language agnostic in it’s core, much in the same manner that math and numbers are (it can also be used phonetically, but that’s beside the point). The alphabetic quasi phonetic written languages we have is inferior to Calligraphy.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
Doesn’t the Goethe Institut regulate and formalise German, like the Académie Française does for French?
No Jan, Goethe Institut has the main mission of teaching German language (and culture!) to foreigners.
German orthography is regulated by the Council for German Orthography , not just for Germany but for all German-speaking countries.
The Gesellschaft für deutsche Sprache (Association for German language is an advisory body for maintaining and practicing “good” German, but does not formaly regulate its usage.
All of the above associations also founded the Deutscher Sprachrat, which also aims to watch over and improve proper usage of German. It has no legal powers over the German language either, leaving German, except for its orthography, unregulated in a stricter sense. The most definite summary of German vocabulary used to be the Duden. It is still regarded as the de-facto standard tome of German.
flybymike wrote:
ICAO airfield codes are one of my pet hates.
Really? You should realise that aviation is an international business. Good luck using local names for other’s countries aerodromes. Give me a four letter ICAO designator anyday!
AdamFrisch wrote:
It’s aviations favorite thing and it drives me mad. Sometimes I think it’s just some misguided effort to militarize, sound important and try to dazzle with science.
Abbreviations and acronyms are just part of any specialist business. Aviation is a specialist business. No point complaining about it.
If you’re a hobbyist you need to realise you are sharing the airspace and airwaves with a lot of professionals, for which these are their daily bread.
Archie wrote:
Abbreviations and acronyms are just part of any specialist business. Aviation is a specialist business. No point complaining about it.
While that is true, there are people of all experience and knowledge on here and it is perfectly reasonable of Peter to suggest that any but the most obvious acronyms should have a link to save the reader time.
The only difficulties are:
Archie wrote:
If you’re a hobbyist you need to realise you are sharing the airspace and airwaves with a lot of professionals, for which these are their daily bread.
Don’t think there would have been any complaint if all used acronyms used were part of standard radio phraseology!
Aviation is a specialist business.
I beg to differ: to many here, perhaps even most, and certainly to me, aviation is not business at all.
In English, “business” can be any activity. Doesn’t have to be making money.
