To think that grammar/spelling standards are not what they were?

[Meandmarius]

I'm mid 30's and have noticed that most of my friends/peers are able to distinguish between 'your and you're', 'where, were, we're' and using the words 'have' and 'of' correctly.
I've noticed that in younger generations there just doesn't seem to be the same standard anymore and I wonder why that is.
Not saying for one minute that my own sp. and grammar is perfect - it isn't. I just wonder if there is as much emphasis on it nowadays as there was back in the day..

No, but yes. Why constrain the way we can communicate? Why?

Nuances in music and paintings are accepted.

I seem to recall reading one book which discussed attitudes to the book in the early middle ages, where there were terrible worries that the book would be bad for people's brains, and their ability to memorise, etc. And those fears (in terms of memorising) may well have been justified.

But then people developed immensely clever and complicated strategies for memorisation, some of which modern psychological research has been rediscovering (so they are amazingly astute, for strategies developed so long ago!). Maybe we will do the same?

For what it's worth, La Q, I reckon that English would have been much the same had Chaucer been Scottish - he happened to write in a form that was in the process of becoming a standard, but I don't think he was that influential overall.

Yes, LRD, but isn't that because they needed to, and then the technology of the book took away much of that need? I don't know what will happen re printed books and electronic forms, but I doubt that the technology itself will cause some intellectual decline. Although had I relied on auto correct there I would have sounded even more foolish than usual.

Oh, I missed LaQ's post, how did I do that?

I think I agree with Habbibu about Chaucer's English (with some reservations because I do think he was influential, just not that much, and nor was Caxton). It is fascinating to think of, though.

But no: the language of business and the Courts was not Latin. It was mostly French of England. Religion, yes, in Latin. But actually, by the time Chaucer was writing, a lot of business, especially the wool trade, would have been carried out in the vernaculars - Dutch as well as English and French. So the idea that there was a 'universal language' is outdated. Chaucer's language wasn't 'pidgin' because there was another, more important language for everything else.

FWIW, medieval Latin wasn't exactly beautifully standardized and grammatically regular either.

This idea that the past is always better is really problematic.

That's not me you're quoting, I think?

Agree with you that people have loved long, complicated plots pretty much consistently through time.

Sorry, Lrd, I really was trying to say that though the fears about memorization may have vome true, no one, save Michael Gove, possibly, cares about that now. And didn't the advent of print and the increasing use of English cause similar stirs?

I can't be arsed to read all this thread however the OP should have tried a bit harder with her opening post. Within the first three words she screws up what she's complaining about.

Medieval Latin downright nasty to read sometimes!

Oh, yes - I was digressing rather than disagreeing, habbibu. I think we're very much saying the same thing, that usually these anxieties find a way to work themselves out, and we forget there was ever an issue. Then we romanticize the past and decide they never had such problems.

I do think Gove is very, very, very dodgy in the way he is constructing this idealized 'England of the past' narrative as a way to validate his education programme.

(Btw, this is probably dead boring, but I think people are debating all that stuff about Type II London English again. Dialect people make my head hurt, but I think they might be deciding it's all a bit different from what they thought before.)

Well, it's pretty old! Is it Simon Horobin? He was postdoc when I was a postgrad, and talking about revisiting Type II, but that was ages ago.

As to the past being 'better' being 'problematic' I am not so sure. I think there was something to be said - going back a bit - for Latin and Greek being the starting point in helping to instill the ability to focus, to memorise, to analyse, to make deductions and problem-solve; character-development in the directions of diligence, perseverance and even integrity etc.

Some even thought - back in the old days - that Latin and Greek were so effective at training the intellect and character that all the other subjects could be picked up effortlessly outside school during holidays and in spare time.

A long way from the "child-centred" education & progressive education that is almost universal in the Western world today.

Depends exactly when you're talking about, LaQ, I think. Lots of change towards later part of period, and huge expansion of vernacular. Details elude me, mind! Wasn't Anglo-Norman only finally put to bed as a Govt language surprisingly recently?

Hamishbear, second the support for studying Latin and/or Greek. Certainly gives pupils a better working understanding of language in general as well as the skills you mention. There is still quite a lot of Classics teaching about, by the way - you just have to know where to look!

LaQ, I'm really sorry, but this isn't true. Honestly. There is plenty of perfectly official legal stuff going on in French of England. Richard II's court may well have spoken French of England, but they also spoke Middle English.

And no, people didn't necessarily carry out business documentation in Latin. There are plenty of business letters surviving that are written in Middle English, often with French address labels so they could be sent abroad.

habbibu - oh, that's really nice. I like Simon a lot, though he is constantly bemused I ever got to do a PhD. Yes, it's him I'm thinking of. I'd no idea he'd been working on this so long, but shows how little I know about it all.

LaQ - no worries! Both our names start with L, easy to mistake.

Ha! Do you work with him? He's professor of palaeography now, isn't he? Nice chap.

I know, LaQ! Spent much time having the 4 incipient standards drummed into me!

Yes, Gracespeaker but hardly any teachers about (Latin) who teach it in an old fashioned way promoting true understanding rather than encouraging students to guess.