Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I agree with Saffron and DaveR. However, I think what some people were reacting to was more the tone of some of the comments than the idea that at any given time there are standard grammatical rules. There are loads of differences between spoken and written English and regional / colloquial speech. Some posters (though not all) seemed to be bothered more by those associated with immigrants / the poor.

Tone can be understood in a number of different ways. I've just re-read the thread, and personally I don't find it racist. Observing and commenting on cultural or race-related differences in itself is not racist. Neither is it racist or classist to want to hear one's own children speak in a similar manner to oneself, so long as none of these things is done in a way that disparages other cultures. It is possible to dislike other cultural practices to the preference of one's own without being racist. That is how I personally read the comments on this thread.


Herein is one of the curiosities of written versus spoken English, that two people may read the same statements and infer different tones. However, the beauty of online Forums is that they turn written English into (nearly) realtime conversations, allowing an interchange of ideas that reading alone does not allow.


It's a very interesting discussion.

I actually agree with you Saffron. I don't think anyone was being racist at all and one of the things that bothered me most about starting a family here with my English partner was that any children we have won?t sound like me (bizarre I know!) I was just clarifying what I thought the disagreement was about?that the speech patterns of the poor / immigrants seemed to be the target of some posters' disdain. For me, the ?Braying Henry? speech pattern is equally annoying though I have quite a few friends who speak that way! I suppose its really a question of examining "why" something bothers you more than other things.
Agreed. Funny, I also did not grow up in London, and my daughter already sounds different compared to me. But then again, she also sounds different to DH who did grow up in London. She makes her own unique word combinations, and I love hearing her language progress. She's nearly 3 years old. Our recent struggle has been to get her to say 'hospital' instead of 'hostibal'. I make a habit of just repeating it correctly without actually correcting her. Although occasionally when I'm very tired, she's gotten me saying it wrong.

"gotten" - that's surely not proper english? :)


Also just wanted to say that my comments aren't racially motivated either. Having been brought up down here in the south, I would feel the same if my kids were to start pronouncing 'bath' instead of 'bahth', and 'dance' instead of 'dahnce'. And I have northern friends who are equally horrified that their London offspring use the long vowel sound!

ladywotlunches Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "gotten" - that's surely not proper english? :)

>


It is if you are American, then it is perfect! Like a lot of so-called 'Americanisms' it is actually an old English form that has gone out of use here.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Because they have been awful - scoring own-goal after own-goal. You cannot be an apologist for their diabolical first 100 days on the basis that the previous lot were worse - in the same way the whole of the 14 years of Tory rule was tarred with the brush of despair about their very worst behaviour in the latter years Labour run the risk of their government being tarred with the same brush on the basis of their first 100 days. It has probably been some of the worst 100 days of any new government and Starmer's approval ratings aren't as low as they are without reason. You know they are in trouble when MPs start posting the good bits from their first 100 days - it's a sure sign they know they have a problem. And when this government have a problem the frontbenchers disappear from media interviews and they roll-out the likes of Pat McFadden to provide some air cover. Yesterday it was farmers. Today it is the pensioners being pushed into poverty by Winter Fuel payments. It's a perceptual disaster and has been since day 1 - they have to get a grip on it else this leadership team is doomed. You highlight the very problem here. Farmers are not being gifted money. They are being gifted assets. Assets that they don't realise as they continue to work those assets to provide food for the country. Most inheritance is cash or an asset (a house) that people sell to generate cash. Passing a farm to younger family members is very different. On the news they interviewed a farmer whose family had owned the farm since 1822 and he broke down in tears when he spoke about his 13 year old son who was working in the farm to continue it - no doubt in the realisation that his son would be hit by a tax bill when he took it over. Given farmers are not cash rich then the decision would likely be that they would need to sell some of the land that generations had worked hard to build to fund the tax bill - and so many farms are on a knife's edge that it might be enough to send them over the edge.   There are many valid reasons why the government are doing what they are doing but those reasons are not cutting through and they are losing control of the narrative. That is a massive issue for them.  
    • Another great job by Simmonds Plastering. This time he decorated the newly plastered living room and added a pantry cupboard in kitchen.  He is reliable and works really hard.  Highly recommend 07949 180 533
    • Because land has been exempt from inheritance tax wealthy individuals (like Clarkson and Dyson) have used it as a tax avoidance measure. Clarkson is on the record stating that he bought land for precisely this purpose. It is people like him who farmers should be angry with, if anyone, because they have exploited a loophole, which is now being (partially) closed. Yes, I do grasp the concept of inheritance - it's were one is given money, or valuable assets by chance of birth (having done nothing to earn it). As money you have earned, is taxed, it seems odd that money you have not, shouldn't be. I assume you don't disapprove of income tax? Why do you think people coming into a massive, unearned windfall shouldn't pay tax, but a nurse who works hard for everything they earn, should? Everyone has to pay inheritance tax over a certain threshold. In my opinion, if you are fortunate enough to be gifted any amount of money (whether cash, or a valuable asset), to quibble about paying some tax on some of it, seems rather entitled. Most farms worth under £3m will still end up being passed on tax free. Those that do have to a pay inheritance tax will do so at just 20% on that part of it that is over the threshold (rather than the standard 40%), and they'll have 10 years to do so (usually it is payable immediately). So it is still preferential terms for those being gifted a multimillion pound estate. 
    • Ah yes, good spot! Thanks for the link. It sounds like they are planning a licensed restaurant with a small bar from reading through the application. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...