The wife is on a trip with her family. I'm cooking for myself tonight

The wife is on a trip with her family. I'm cooking for myself tonight.

I love my meat, but I'd like to try something different. Recommend me vegetarian dishes. Idc about vegan or not, just no meat. I always rely too heavily on meat for meals to the point I pick the meat before anything else

>THE wife

Why the FUCK do you niggers do this? Why the fuck can you not say 'my wife'? This sounds so fucking retarded, is it a boomer thing?

It implies they don't have several wives.

Infidels !

do a simple ratatoullie

Kek, thanks user

Since I shitposted earlier have some actual recipes, fag

Deep fried falafel w/ lemon & pomegranate salad

Tempura with a side of rice & various sauces

Mediterranean style Grilled veg and olive ciabatta

Goat cheese topped with honey and rosemary, browned under broiler, carrot puree and polenta
.
Caprese salad

Vegetable lasagna with squash and pecorino

Thai curry

And my #1 is prolly Mapo Tofu. It's godly.

I bet you're the kind of person who gets triggered when someone says, "you guys".

Why all the spacing man

this is a vegetarian thread

spice up some beans, mash them a little to make a sauce, add whatever you like, eat with toasted bread.

I usually post on Reddit.
Force of habit I guess.
I cooked a steak in the end, it was pretty good.

The bait is set

How long did you let that rest? It look really good, although the ketchup was an unnecessary flourish, even as far as memeing goes.

Grammar is bullshit, language doesn't follow strict rules. It's ever changing.

The simple fact you knew EXACTLY what I meant shows your anger is meaningless. My words communicated my meaning clearly.

It's not ketchup.

Why? Seems reasonable

I'm a shitty phoneposter

All the dishes I posted were veg, what the fuck??

I don't give a fuck about grammar Bro, I genuinely want to know WHY, for real

Why did you choose the instead of me? I Must know

must be satan's cum

Catsup, whatever

Grammar is supposed to follow strict rules. It doesn't because some people are idiots and won't or can't follow the rules.

It's like saying well we had slaves in the past so why not have them now? The existence of past fuckups does not justify future ones.

>>My words communicated my meaning clearly.
It also communicated the fact that you're an idiot. Do you want that?

I didn't put thought into it. Unless I'm working on something formal I don't typically weigh the options when choosing my words. "the wife" was just the phrase that came when I decided to make this topic.

As an aside, thanks for the suggestions.

That's a sufficient answer, thanks

Grammar is a new concept relative to the English language. Following there "rules" of Grammer stifles the growth of the language.

There is no single authority on grammar in the English language. There's no grammar book, there are no universally accepted laws of grammar. You took what you were taught in grade school and parrot it like gospel.

Languages change and evolve as cultures grow. The simple existence of dialects shows how much language can change over time. There's several versions of English used in America even though it was settled largely by people of the same general origin.

Linguistics is a complicated topic and trying to apply strict rules to any language is a waste of time that stifles advancement

Russian and Italian also have strict grammar, dunno where the fuck you got your info from

Probably talking to people who try to claim that ebonics is an acceptable way to communicate.

>Following there "rules" of Grammer stifles the growth of the language.

You call it "growth". I call it "confusion because some people are ignorant of, or choose not to follow, the rules.

What "advancement" is there in language? All I see is confusion when older people don't know what the new slang invented by silly children means. As well as downright misunderstanding caused by people using words incorrectly.

I realize that change can and does occur, but that seems like an undesirable side effect, not something that ought to be embraced and supported.

>trying to apply strict rules to any language is a waste of time that stifles advancement

The written language does indeed have formal rules and those that violate them suffer in many ways because they are placed in the uneducated class and assessed as fit only for those things appropriate to that level of being. Changes to those formal rules for the written language happen very slowly. Simply because Joyce, a master of English grammar, violated the rules for specific literary purposes does not mean you can get away with it without looking retarded. The spoken language changes relatively rapidly, but that's entirely different than claiming there are no formal rules.

However, in no way does linguistic change in either case result in an "advancement."

There are guidelines for writing that need to be followed depending on the situation. Spoken language changing is what we're discussing. While this is technically written word, this situation doesn't warrant proper formatting or the removal of slang.

And no, there aren't universal formal rules, which is why there are arguments over proper apostrophe use and various formal writing formats.
Would you like to take a stab on why the word "downright" exists and why you chose to use it? It's "real" definition and use was to mean literally straight down, but every English speaking person on this board knows you mean it as a synonym for "absolutely"

Step back in time 60 years and what you consider normal polite speech will be viewed no differently than southern English or ebonics.

The slang that becomes a part of everyday life eventually becomes a part of the language. Just as downright and literally changed to have different meanings, new words are created and changed as the language grows.

As an example, "proper" English only has the word "you" for a second person pronoun. Southern English is a dialect that uses the the contraction of you and all as y'all to differentiate between single and multiple people. We generally shit on people who use it, but it's quite literally the only single word or contraction that does what it does in English.

>The slang that becomes a part of everyday life eventually becomes a part of the language

Like I said, I understand that changes do happen. But I don't understand why this is seen as "advancement" or something good as opposed to a change which happens to occur that we are forced to put up with despite its tendency to cause confusion.

Every written language has strict formal rules of grammar. The spoken language even when there is no writing has strict formal rules as well. Those rules are why infants can learn the language. If there were no rules, there would be no pattern and nothing for an infant's brain to assimilate. The written language rules are simply a formal documentation of that pattern at a particular point in time and those that follow them have the advantages of the educated class.

Honestly, it's a generational thing. The older generation considers new things to be confusing and meaningless, while the newer generation considers them to be a part of life.

Ask someone in their 80s what they think of cell phones and they'll tell you that it's ruining kids lives. Go back to their childhood and the elderly of their life will have told them that TV was rotting their brains. At one point written word was considered a negative thing because it was supposedly weakening the minds of people who couldn't remember everything.

We all know cell phones, TV, written word, etc, etc are all the advancements in technology. The same applies to language. There's a reason we refer to Old English As Old English. Because it's old. New words and new ways to communicate have changed how we speak and write.

If it wasn't for things like slang and "improper" English we would still sound like those old British parodies.

Take something that sounds stupid like the word selfie. Did we have a way to refer to a "selfie" before? Yes. Self-portrait by photograph or picture of myself. But thanks to language evolving, we can all now use a single word and understand what it means rather than using the phrase.

Cont.

Even text language is an adaptation of English that has its own rules that differ from grammar but anyone who sends text messages reasonably understands. If someone sends you a text message that only contains the letter k and a period you understand that that person is angry. But if they send you a message that just says k, it doesn't convey that same anger. That's because we've come to understand that a period can convey emotion through text. That's something that isn't taught to anybody, but something that we all came to understand.

And there's nothing wrong with disagreeing and saying that this stuff is all wrong. But the fact of the matter is when you were long gone people are going to be using these things as everyday language just as you use the word downright. And just like that situation it's going to be considered an advancement or evolution of the language.

Apologies for any misspelled words or odd placement. Speech to text can be a bitch

>We all know cell phones, TV, written word, etc, etc are all the advancements in technology. The same applies to language

That seems like a false analogy me. With techology there is a perfectly logical arument to be had: more modern communications technologies are more reliable than earlier methods. They're easier to use, less costly, and can perform many useful functions. Our current "phones" are really quite powerful computers. We can use them to communicate more effectively by incorporating video and pictures. We can use them to translate between other languages. We can use them to get directions, look up the meaning of words, and all sorts of other things.

But what is better or more effective with the change in language? What can "modern language" convey that could not be conveyed with earlier languages? I don't see any appreciable improvement, whereas the improvements between, say, telegraph/radio/telephone/cell phone/smartphone are obvious.

>>selfie
what's wrong with saying "picture" or "photograph", or the informal short form of just "pic"? The fact that's a picture of oneself is self-evident by looking at it.

>I don't see any appreciable improvement, whereas the improvements between, say, telegraph/radio/telephone/cell phone/smartphone are obvious.

Are you saying that old British English is as effective as Modern English?
>what's wrong with saying "picture" or "photograph", or the informal short form of just "pic"? The fact that's a picture of oneself is self-evident by looking at it.

Well in the situation of writing, the image may not accompany of the word so the content of the picture may not be included. There's also the case of using it when referring to perform an action. "I took a selfie" vs "I took a pic of myself". It is quite literally just more efficient. And then it comes down to a question of whether or not efficiency is an improvement to you.

And honestly, the days of older Generations not being able to keep up may be gone. Previously the problem was that older Generations weren't around kids when they were developing the new words, but thanks to social media everyone is. That's why you're likely to run into 60 year old people who know what the word selfie is.

Infants don't learn a language by learning to follow strict rules or guidelines, they learn The Language by listening to the people they are around as they grow. It's why children develop the same dialect as their parents, rather than developing a "proper" accent.

Kids are taught basic guidelines in school, but those kids also tend to ignore those guidelines when speaking informally. That's how we develop new words and new meanings for words. The word literally only recently had its definition updated to include both figurative and literal meanings, but it's been used figuratively for hundreds of years. Some of the greatest writers of the language in history that we use to teach English to students in school use the word with its figurative meaning.

I didn't say there are no guidelines, I said there are no Universal guidelines. The guidelines change as the language evolves. We have some basic concepts of how formal written English is supposed to be done and as you said changes occur slowly over time, but changes do occur because the language evolves.

You're trying to separate things by class based on how someone types, but how someone types in an informal setting has no bearing on their education level. You're putting the effort into being formal because it makes you feel better, and there's nothing wrong with that. But in the real world it makes no difference in social situations. Actually speaking formally in an informal situation is considered rude at all levels of Education. It's why people get labeled as neckbeards and Grammar Nazis when people start trying to be formal on something like Veeky Forums.

Being too formal or pretentious in a work environment can cost you your career because people won't want to work with you. I just recently had a co-worker fired even though he was a fantastic programmer because he carried himself as being above everyone around him in a polite way. Nobody wanted to work with him so he lost his position.

>Are you saying that old British English is as effective as Modern English?

I know very little about "old British English". It's well outside my area of expertise. But I remember from English class that the old authors had no trouble expressing themselves. And I know that, say 1950's English is no worse than modern English. The only real differences I see are that words have been created for technology that didn't exist back in the day. But I see the creation of new words for new concepts to be a very different thing than the much larger changes we see.

>Actually speaking formally in an informal situation is considered rude

I've seen people, usually children or lower class/trashy people make fun of people using correct grammar and punctuation online, but I've never once seen, heard, or even though that it might be remotely rude.

Sure, you're not going to "fit in" with certain social groups if you always speak formally. You're not going to get a very good reaction walking into a biker bar and saying "Pardon me sir, is this seat taken". But Mad Dog and his fellow bikers aren't going to see that as "rude", they're going to see it as out of place.

>"I took a selfie" vs "I took a pic of myself". It is quite literally just more efficient.

There's a fucking huge difference between that example and the tech advancement from smoke signals and drums to a modern smartphone.

>But Mad Dog and his fellow bikers aren't going to see that as "rude", they're going to see it as out of place.
It's maybe not rude or aggressive among a group of people who have chosen to follow a countercultural lifestyle, because they literally derive their self worth from being "different" and whatever problems they have come with the territory.

It would be seen as rude or aggressive if you talk that way among white trash in the Florida Panhandle or some such place, because they perceive educated people as being responsible for whatever problems they have.

Ever noticed how "this is why she lost" is such a common refrain whenever the right and left disagree on issues the understanding of which require basic critical thinking skills? Being able to think and speak coherently are an attack on good old fashioned horse sense.

>they learn The Language by listening to the people they are around as they grow.

Agreed. And if the people around them speak with proper grammar they learn proper grammar. If the people around them speak slang or a dialect they pick that up.

My family was bilingual. My father is British. My mother is Danish, but she studied English in London while working on her legal degree. I was rasied speaking both languages. I speak very formal English because that's what my parents and the rest of the family spoke. My Danish, however, is what you'd probably call a "hick dialect" because my Mother's family was from a small farming village.

Children don't necessarily speak improperly or in "slang". They only do that if the people around them do. And that varies by location, class, wealth, and so on.

I would argue that children learning dialects or slang isn't "the natrual advancement of language" but rather is a *mistake*. A very common, well known, mistake. But a mistake nonetheless. Saying that it "does happen" despite our best efforts to the contrary is not the same thing as saying "its an advancement" which implies that there are somehow benefits to it.

>It would be seen as rude or aggressive if you talk that way among white trash

I've hung out with some real "trailer trash" and we've actually discussed this. Nobody finds my use of "proper English" to be offensive or rude. They just see it as different or perhaps pretentious. But rude or offensive? No way.

And we can also express ourselves just as effectively. But we do it in a fewer words as well.

A very simple thing to do is to compare one of the older versions of the Bible to whatever the newest one is. Even when they haven't been cropped they'll still have fewer words overall because we've learned to communicate in a more efficient manner.

And maybe I'm using advancement a bit loosely. It would be more appropriate to say that regardless of what any of us think about the language, it is going to change. What's considered proper now will not be considered correct use of the language in 100 years. Even informal use of the language is going to change over time. And whether or not it would be considered an advancement, it is going to be the "correct" way to use the language.

I think the word lit and pronouncing the letters AF for as fuck sounds ridiculously stupid. But the fact is at least one of those is going to outlive me. Just like the word cool, when it refers to something other than temperature, is still being used that way long after the people who considered this stupid are dead

Maybe I'm just low class And my coworkers are also low class. Or maybe I work in IT and my work environment has just advanced faster than yours. Twenty or thirty years will tell which.

>And we can also express ourselves just as effectively. But we do it in a fewer words as well.

It's like you've never read David Foster Wallace.

Obviously there's a huge difference. There's a huge difference between a firecracker and a stick of TNT. But the fundamental concept is still the same, compact an explosive substance into a small area and ignite it.

Older Generations don't understand the new language, just like they don't understand the new technology. And in 50 years when those people are dead, both the language and the technology will be accepted as normal and valid.

Wait. You work in tech, and you actually get offended if someone writes you a message using proper grammar? Am I understanding correctly?

Go to /lit if you want to spend all day discussing grammar and sentences.

Okay if you want a simple factual Improvement, contractions are thing. While contractions of existed mostly since the beginning of the language, all of the ones we use today we're not there in the beginning.

The contraction that you just used you'd didn't first appear in written English until the 16th century, even though the language has been around at least since the 6th century. It wasn't considered proper English.

Have that advancement not come you would have used two words instead of one which is just as effective, with measurably less effort to both write and say.

I'm not saying that language changing isn't advancement in and of itself, I'm saying the language changing isn't advancement because it's becoming more efficient.

And more efficiency is what I am equating to advancement. Now weather efficient or precise as the more advanced method depends on your personal views, but efficient tends to succeed precise in most cases.

"Tech" is a lot more ideologically diverse than the Veeky Forums/reddit hivemind seems to think, the idea that everyone who understands technology must be a fat trannie with "triggered" glasses is about as accurate (and emblematic of this environment) as the idea that everyone who has ever eaten and enjoyed sushi must be a weeaboo who hates the west

There are ghetto gang banger types in tech, there are white trash trump voter types in tech, there are pajeets, there are autists, and, yes, there are fat trannies in tech

It's a huge industry with a multi trillion dollar output, why should it be homogenous?

Sure, I get that. But that's not the angle I'm coming from.

I'm specifically focusing on the word "Advancement". That implies some kind of a change in benefit. It implies that the change is "positive", or in other words "a good thing".

From that perspective the analogy seems silly because the improvements in technology are massive and undeniable whereas the "improvement" in language is subtle at best.

>white trash trump voters
Well I know what kind of techie you are.
"Uh, using 'proper english' is pretty racist because it forces people of color to conform to your colonial understanding of language'"

I am a software developer and sever admin, but I don't get offended by that. That was an obviously reaching statement on your part. His incessant use of proper English in casual situations was specifically brought up by a few co-workers when we were meeting to discuss this, but the final reason was everyone felt that he considered himself above the rest of us.

>why should it be homogenous?

I never said it should be. I was asking the person I was talking to if he or she would honestly be "offended" by a message written in proper grammar.

My family is from one of those colonies, so, yeah, my understanding of language could accurately be called "colonial"

You're doing that "unless the person states their race and/or gender they're a white male" thing, stop doing that. It's racist and sexist ;^)

You're exactly right. Changes in language are subtle. That's why we still speak English over a thousand years after its Inception. But the way we speak it has changed significantly over that time frame through subtle changes over time.

I think the word advancement is being taken the wrong way here. I'm equating Advanced and efficient when I say this. But whether efficient is Advance or not depends on your point of view.

We have developed words and contractions that replace entire phrases. Perhaps if I had said efficient instead of advanced this conversation wouldn't be happening.

No.