referring to one's parents by name?
 

I was watching Ponyo in Japanese yesterday and I noticed that Sosuke + his mom call his dad by name （こいち）, instead of saying おとうさん or ちち.
By the same token, Sosuke calls his mom りさ instead of おかあさん or はは. I'm not positive, but he might have referred to himself by name at one point as well.

Can anyone offer an explanation for this? Thanks in advance!

PS.Also-perhaps because of their closeness-he never says りささんorこいちさん.

This proves once again that you should never learn Japanese from anime. We. the real people, simply don't talk like anime characters.

That would be pretty rare but still possible. But you will never use ちち there, period. You use it to talk to another person outside your family about your father.

That would be super-rare to nearly impossible. Never seen a family like that in my rather long life in Japan. Again, はは is utterly impossible to begin with.

Impossible. You don't address your parents "Mr. ~~" or "Mrs. ~~", do you?

Referring to one's self in the third person does happen in Japan, though. I don't know too much about the context of a family-- but I have seen it in that context a few times. Referring to one's self in the third person is actually quite a feminine thing to do. Guys can do it to, but it sounds funny (and if that's your intention then it works). I do it sometimes with my girlfriend, actually.

Sometimes your parents will have nicknames-- as a lot of people have nicknames. I've heard my girlfriend call her dad by his nickname before (what the snack ladies call him), and it was said as well as taken as a joke.

Sashimister is Japanese so that says a lot about this kind of thing. I'm happy that someone agrees with me that Anime is a bad way to learn the language. While you might get some insights on language usage from them, you will also get fantasy, which is what most anime is full of.

As a side note, it may be a regional thing, but I have almost never heard ちち (chichi) or はは (haha) said in actual spoken Japanese. In the handful of times that I have, it's always 父親 (chichioya)... living in the inaka like I do, I may have a biased view on things, but I don't know why they teach such words so early on in Japanese courses. I'm also suprised at the amount of times I've heard people call their parents パパ　and ママ. With that said, I've seen husbands call their wives mama and wives call their husbands papa (or お父さん、お母さん, or whatever they go by). In English, a husband will refer to his wife to his kids as "mom" or a wife will refer to her husband as "dad" to her kids... but I haven't heard a husband calling his wife "mom" or a wife calling her husband "dad" when actually talking to each other too often (I've heard it, but not nearly as much as I've heard it in Japan). I might have made that more complicated than it needs to be, but i hope you get my drift.

Sashimister, I have heard of Americans calling their dads "Sir" before. That's usually when you get busted for something though. (unless you have a super ultra strict dad).

Referring to yourself in third person is pretty normal, but it isn`t what the original poster was asking about...

Ponyo brought up that same sort of question with Japanese viewers. Why does he call his parents by name? Is it following after some country where it`s normal? Are they not his real parents? etc etc. Supposedly it was an artistic move to represent them all as distinct people, and not let anyone fall into the faceless roles of "mother" and "father".

In other words, it isn`t normal in Japan and doesn`t represent real life.

The closest to using ちち/はは for your own parents I have seen is jokingly calling them 父親様/母親様 like my husband and his siblings do to their parents. The key is that it`s jokingly and not what you`d REALLY call them.

The sexual divide in language is surprisingly more grey in Kansai compared with Kanto. Men in Kansai (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe, and the surrounding areas) use their names or references as much as "ore" or "boku". I have found this isn't as true in Kanto (Tokyo and surrounding areas).

So true, I hear that anime characters often speak in their own made up dialects too right? Only going to add to confusion. Though I have learned vocab from anime like 伝説, It's not something I'll be using in daily conversation!

Really? I wash my dishes with 伝説の魔法スポンジ. :mtongue:

Thanks, everyone for your answers + additional conversation. :) Quite helpful!

Heck, most times 'real' people's speech doesn't have any semblance to movie character's dialogue-especially when it's well written! ;)
While not attempting to learn Japanese through anime, I did think it might be fun to see how much of the language I could pick up on while watching Ponyo.

I wouldn't refer to my parents as Mr.__or Mrs.__, but as steven alluded, 'sir' is more respectful than calling them by name. In America, the only time I've heard one call his parents by name is when the parents are divorced or the kid is adopted. The attempt to represent everyone as distinct-although perhaps a little confusing at first-makes sense.
Thanks, Nyororin. You explained it beautifully. =)

Man, there's so many awesome ways to use 伝説 in daily conversation...it would just take someone like Jack Black to find out what they are. ;)
And 伝説の魔法スポンジ sound like an amazing product...Is it really as legendary and magic as advertised?

..Since the subject was (albeit vaguely) mentioned, is it more masculine to refer to ones' self as わたし、ぼく、or おれ？ Sosuke called himself ぼく several times, and from what I've read (from some sources) it's considered rather little-boyish. I did quite a bit of research, but found so many different views on the subject.

Thanks again, everyone!

おれ = the tough guy's "I"
ぼく = the nice guy's "I"
わたし = the nice and unisex "I"
わたくし = businessman and busineswoman's "I"

Calling ぼく little-boyish is ludicrous. You will see many senior ciitizens referrring themselves ぼく.

The thing is, believe it or not, many men use all four depending on the situation. Besides, you always have the choice of not using a pronoun.

I bought it at the 100 yen shop. :P It`s a sponge stuck on the end of a stick - the package had a (pathetic) drawing of a witch like character waving it around like a wand with soap suds flying off of it. It`s great for washing the inside of glasses and bottles. To the point of being legendary? I don`t think so. But the name was funny enough that I emphasize it every time I refer to it.

Kind of on topic, but while I've been in Japan the only time I've ever heard someone refer to themselves as any of the above was when someone sat on the TV remote and bumped the volume up to top notch and we were tying to figure out who it was. The rest of the time its been their own name or 自分. Or by status such as　パパ, but my fave is 姉々 haha. So.. sometimes its more realistic not to refer to yourself.

Thanks, Sashimister, for the straightforward response. I appreciate it.
-true, true. I guess the only time one really needs to refer to one's self is to change the topic back to himself. Perhaps the reason people said that ぼく is 'little-boyish' is because (according to what I've read) it can be used in the same way as the English terms 'kid' or 'squirt' in referring to a younger kid.

Say, I've seen those sponges sold in America...just a regular old sponge...on a stick. I wonder what supposedly makes them so legendary...
-I love Japanese advertising. :)

Out of curiosity, SHADOW, in reference to what steven + MMM shared......were your friends at the time of the TV remote 'incident' ladies, by chance?
I suppose one aught to take advantage Japanese offers of cutting out useless pronouns when possible. :)

Actually yes they were now I think about it... Though there was one guy other than myself.. can't remember what he said now.

Oh well lol.

Haha. That's cool. Your experience verified it's feminine, anyway. ;)

That what exactly is feminine? Referring to oneself? :confused: Guys do it just as frequently, so I am having trouble seeing what has been "verified" here.

:P Perhaps 'verified' was a strong word to use. Anyway, from what I've been reading, it seems that referring to one's self is more common among females. ...But you say that it's just as common among guys? I guess it just depends on the people....But now I'm curious as to why people say it's feminine. Would it be something like when girls try to talk in a 'cute' voice? Saying "Hewwo", etc.?

I Didn't mean to upset anybody or sound like "We've got the final say! Aha-Proof is in the puddin'!"

Just one more thing...Might this be relevant at all concerning your geography and friends?

It just seems to me like you`re trying to draw very final conclusions from an extremely small data set, or from something you have misunderstood.

Referring to yourself by name is more common among females in general. THIS is what MMM was referring to - calling yourself by your name instead of using some other pronoun or form of reference. He was stating that there didn`t seem to as big of a gap between the types of references used when in Kansai.
There is no gap whatsoever in the amount that men and women refer to themselves in some form, and no one has said there is. It was all about using your own name to refer to yourself.

You seem to have interpreted this as meaning that using any reference other than a straight pronoun is a feminine thing. It`s not at all, and living directly between Tokyo and Osaka - I`d say that there is really only a small difference in the usage between the areas. Say, a difference of 10 or 15% - not enough to mark something as "feminine". Just like 10% more children than adults using ぼく doesn`t mark it as being "childish".

I`d say that when you do refer to yourself, using an indirect reference, like 自分, is probably the most common among men and women everywhere I have ever been in Japan. I`ve been translating a literal mountain of business related correspondence recently - it`s 90% between men and personal references use names just as commonly as any other reference.

I would be very wary of jumping to conclusions. Where did you hear that ぼく was childish or that referring to yourself was feminine?

It is more of a regional thing, I'd think. There is definately more what they call "feminine" language used by men in the Kansai region, as MMM said. I don't live in Kansai, but linguistically speaking, it's closer to Kansai than it is Edo-ben. Because of that, men here are more prone to use more feminine language, which is something I think I like more about Kansai-- there's a bit more flavor in the language. As far as my experience goes, I've never heard a man referring to himself by his own name without having it be used in a joking manner. People do it, but it's usually for comedic purposes. It's not something I'd ever do in the workplace.

As Sashimister pointed out, you can use just about any words you want. I've head a guy say "Atashi" before, too. He was clearly そっち、though. The language that you use, especially how you refer to yourself and who you're talking to totally changes depending on the situation. I probably use おれ、わたし、and　ぼく all in the same day on a regular basis. I'm not gonna look my boss in the eye and say おれ, because it just feels weird and out of place.

Another thing that I've noticed is that you can even call other people ぼく or おれ if you want to. I think it's usually looking a little bit down on them though. It's funny because I've even called some of my students (the girls of course) あたし, which usually gets a laugh. That could be a regional thing, but I've head it used enough times to confirm that it's not just something that a small group of people I know use.

Nyororin, I have to admit that at one point I was under the impression that ぼく was childish, too. It was right before and right after I got to Japan (to live here). I don't have that perception anymore, but I do know that most of my elementary school students would write "ぼく" whenever they wrote something-- and they would say "ぼく" during speeches. During most conversations though, I heard a lot more of おれ. In a sense, I'd see おれ as being more little-boyish because little kids (and even young adults) seem to use it to their teachers/elders etc. That might be a misconception on my part though... I've heard/seen that happen so much that I guess it's just how students talk to their teachers. There's also the inaka factor, which I guess implies that the language here isn't as "sophisticated" as big cities (which is how I think a lot of people look at it).

Okay. Wow. I see where I got off track. I completely misunderstood SHADOW in that post about his friends. I was thinking he meant they referred to themselves in the third-person. :P
Apparently, I kept reading into the posts what wasn't there-as well as leaving out an important bit of what I had intended to say. '...it seems that referring to one's self (by name) is more common among females...'

I understand that people refer to themselves, I was just confused as to why-through my misinterpretation-you were saying that it's not very uncommon for guys to call themselves by name.

I got my information from forums, web-searches, etc. After I read one post saying that ぼく is considered childish, I googled it and came up with a ton more results with the same opinion-some people claiming that Japanese friends told them not to use the word. :P
Just do a search for 'boku is childish'.

Sorry for making such a mess of that! I definitely need to be more specific in my speech.
Thanks for calling me out on my mistake. :)

Man...my mind is not working right now. I see how I came to the conclusions I did. SHADOW said that at the time of the whole remote control 'fiasco' (I'm just having fun with words. :) ) his friend referred to herself with a pronoun. However, "...The rest of the time its been their own name or 自分." therefore, I assumed that he was in the company of female friends, and my I continued to post with that in mind.

Also, thanks, steven for that last post.

Here's something mildly interesting...
I stayed with a host family during my last trip to Japan, and I spent plenty of time asking my host mom questions about the language. :) I had learned to say おとこにひと, 'OtokonoSHito', but my host mom said that it should be pronounced 'Otokonohito', with a whispered 'h'. When I asked a Japanese friend I met up with later how she pronounced it, she agreed with the 'OtokonoSHito' version. Both people are from Tokyo and-I believe-are Tokyo natives.

Sorry if I confused things. To add to all this my boss calls his wife "anata"

Very very very common between husband and wife (usually wife to husband).

Really? I thought it was rude etc etc?

Not when it is between partners in a relationship. That is the #1 proper use of it.

I am having trouble visualizing an S sound in there...

Chances are, one of them (host mother) was stricter on the pronunciation than the other. People will excuse you for pronunciation mistakes if it is "close enough to be understood". This is particularly true if your Japanese isn`t that good.

Ha! Finally! It's about time I discovered it!

Not a few Tokyoites make little distinction between ひ and し. I hear しと（人）、しどい（酷い＝ひどい） and believe it or not even コーシー（コーヒー） around me. :p

Quoting from Wiki:
"The Shitamachi dialect (下町言葉 Shitamachi-kotoba), or Edo dialect (江戸弁 Edo-ben), a fast-fading dialect of old families from the eastern Tokyo area of Shitamachi, is another example of a Tokyo dialect that differs from standard Japanese. This dialect is primarily known for its lack of distinction between some phonemes which are considered wholly distinct in all other Japanese dialects. Most famous is the decreased distinction between hi (ひ) and shi (し), so that hidoi (酷い terrible) becomes shidoi, and shichi (七 seven) becomes hichi. Though it also includes a few distinctive words, today it is largely indistinguishable from the standard speech of Tokyo other than the phonemic difference."

Thank you for that - I rarely go to Tokyo so had no idea. :D

Although it seems that in this case, the mother would be the one using the older style - not the younger friend. I guess it would depend on family.

I have seen a lot of foreigners who cannot pull off the Japanese ひ sound (or ふ and ほ for that matter)... I personally pronounce ひ sort of closer to... hsi? But there are definitely no one around me who says し for it. :)

No prob, SHADOW-you didn't confuse things. I just lost track of my thought process back there. :P

;) I didn't asked my friend to grade my pronunciation, I asked her how she pronounces the word. She told me she says 'O-TO-KO-NO-SHTO (just as I had learned) but my host mom said to pronounce it (and this, also, is her own interpretation) 'O-TO-KO-NO-HiTO', sort of whispering or blowing the 'Hi' part.

I'm not sure if this was misunderstood, but the reason I wrote 'OtokonoSHito' with the emphasis on 'SH' is because I intended it to be read 'SHTO' rather than 'SHEETO'.

That's interesting about the Shitamachi dialect.
I'm kind of going off topic again , but can anyone tell me if the Japanese language is being mutilated as quickly as English? It's incredible, the rate at which English seems to be deteriorating. We've given new meanings to old words and perverted meanings; we've changed nouns to verbs; kids-and probably many adults-can't spell worth crap; we've developed stupid expressions like the one I just used; txting is rampant-and xtrmly irritating...is the Japanese language suffering as badly?

This is one of the reasons I dislike romaji... A ひ sound closer to a し would have made sense, but as was written seemed like you meant sheeto. :)

There is no such thing as mutilation of language. Other than those that are disappearing (and not even then in many cases), there is no suffering going on.

Ask yourself - at what point was English "pure" and not filled with what you consider "deterioration"? At what stage can we say it is "perfect" and as it should forever remain?

Language evolves. A language that ceases to evolve is one that is falling out of use, and one that cannot evolve is pretty much doomed. Every year countless expressions come into and fall out of use, countless words are coined or have their meanings change, grammar norms change a bit more gradually but still at a constant pace. Trying to stop this is pointless and a bit silly, really.

A "joke" I hear between married couples is them asking themselves after how many years of marriage do they engage in this common exchange:

W: あなた～

H:　なんだい？

It is a very "married couple" exchange

Case in point. You have proceeded to strand together a combination of words with specific meanings, which you assumed that I understand, to intelligently communicate certain ideas to me. You also utilized punctuation, capitalization, spelling, etc.

You saw what happened when I failed to clearly describe my thoughts, a few posts back. You got concerned, I got confused; utter chaos followed. ;) ...It could have, anyway.

I do not agree with George Orwell's political ideals, and I did't take the time to read this entire article, but I do agree with the following:

Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent and our language -- so the argument runs -- must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.
Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers...

I personally don't intend to become militant over the subject (in general-not specifically on this forum) for I think that my time could be used in better ways, but I will encourage the proper usage of the English language and continue in my attempt to properly utilize words, grammar, spelling, etc.

But WHO decides the "proper" use of English? Language is fluid, and constantly changing. The proper use in one social group differs from that of another - Just as it does between different ages, different locations, etc.

Language simply doesn`t change to become less useful - it evolves to make it the most suitable for the times and the people using it. The trends of language can really show you a lot about that era - and I do not mean that in a negative way.

Something we have to keep in mind; The language we use and consider "proper" now only became so because the people who were around before us (people we learned from) used it. Some large chunk of the language they used came from those who came before, but the remainder was coined by their peers. Over generations and generations, language changes dramatically. The "mutilation" that stuck around is exactly what we are now using as "proper". I mean, look back 200 years, 500 years, 1000 years...
Another surprising bit might be that many things you consider "deterioration" are actually parts of the language that have been around longer than the "proper" bits.

Sorry to drop so off topic, but... Well, I`m an actual linguist. :)

Here's an excerpt from the writing of a man I agree with a great deal more than George Orwell:

C.S. Lewis on the abuse of the English language - News of the Day

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "…many things you consider "deterioration" are actually parts of the language that have been around longer than the "proper" bits."

The meaning of a word can't be corrupted until there is a meaning to corrupt.
A phrase can't be hacked up into bits and boiled down to a series of letters which represent that phrase unless the phrase itself has a meaning to begin with.
Rules can't be broken if they don't exist.

You say that the English language is 'evolving', but I don't see how the alteration of meanings, abbreviated texts, simplistic words (and simplified concepts), poor grammar, misspellings, incorrect punctuation, and above all, a lack of concern for the dumbing-down of the language itself is an improvement in any way. It seems that, if anything, our language is 'de-evolving'.

Why change something merely for the sake of change? It's silly. If our speech and written word have worked well for us until now-and produced better results in the past-why attempt to change them?
I don't think that everybody LOL-ing and ROTFL-ing is especially useful in any way. U KWIM?

Exactly. And things our parents didn't use but their parents did sounds "weird" or "stilted" or "too formal" or something. Then years before that you get another generation's vocabulary which sounds archaic to us.

I am almost exclusively a descriptivist, but take on the color of a prescriptivist occasionally. Language exists primarily as communication, so prescriptive language is necessary only to facilitate communication. In other words, if you're not an experienced writer, you need to be taught rules in order for you to initially learn how to communicate in writing.

For example, if I had never been taught, I might have just assumed "foo" was a word everyone would understand. Cromulent (hehe) language that would have harmed communication with some audiences. :)

I mean that a lot of the popular examples of words that have been "corrupted" into different spellings, meanings, and uses... Often originally meant the "wrong" meaning. Grammatical patterns that are often brought up as wrong, lazy, etc etc.... Are actually predecessors to the modern patterns that were simply used in areas that were considered "lower class" so were tossed out because they weren`t new and fashionable.

Obviously. And where do these words come from? They do not spring from the air - they either evolve from other words or are invented. A pattern that doesn`t differ much from what you term corruption - having a new meaning assigned, being abbreviated, a new morphing of two words, etc.

And in turn those newly "corrupted" words are used in new phrases, or pounded out into an easily used form - oops, "hacked up into bits and boiled down", right? This is what has been happening for as long as language has existed.

You speak as if someone sat down and said "Hey, let`s make a language called English! I`ll write up a list of words, and you write up a list of phrases! Then we`ll make a set of rules for it!"
Language doesn`t work that way. It is added on to, modified, warped, twisted, revised, abbreviated, etc etc through history. There is no beginning and no end. The rules are made and changed on the fly.

But yet this is exactly what happened to create the languages spoken in the world today.
Take a look at the OED - see how many words still retain their original meanings. See how many retain their original spellings. Note how many seemingly useful words have been simplified along with the concepts they describe, or tossed out altogether to be replaced by something that seems much less intuitive. Note also how much grammar has changed over history. Did you know that English, like many other languages, used to have genders? I`m quite glad it was "dumbed-down" somewhere along the line.

No one changes things for the sake of change - in fact, attempting to manually change language (for whatever reasons) is pretty much hopeless.
I am completely sure that Old English worked perfectly well for the people who spoke it. But we no longer speak it - why? Because it evolved into something better and more accessible.

Neither do I. You don`t see me doing it, do you? Please do not misinterpret what I am saying. I am all for using proper speech and spelling - I just realize that language is not static and should not be expected to be so.

Abbreviations like those above have been used as long as people have been writing. A lot of historical texts are a pain to translate because they are sprinkled with abbreviations unfamiliar to modern scholars - and these are formal texts. It is NOT a new phenomenon. The biggest difference between now and thousands of years in the past is that the majority of people are literate. Pretty much everyone can write in some capacity, and thanks to the internet the writing of virtually all of these people is available for viewing. Historically, only the elite of the elite would have had their words displayed so publicly.

What matters in the end is what withstands the test of time. Not everyone spoke or wrote like the classical writers of the past. They are an extremely small example of a tiny slice of society. Because they were abnormally skilled their work remains. If everyone had been their equals, they would have had little appeal.

I remember in the mid-90s there was a fear in Japan of teenagers losing the ability to read and write because of "poke-bell" or pager abbreviations. I think they allowed for about 40 characters (much less than Twitter's 140) and all kinds of abbreviations and smileys abounded in the purely numeric inputing. (You would have to use a phone keypad to input a message to your friend). Two-number combinations would make one hiragana or katakana character. 01 for あ, 02 for い, 03 for う, etc.

Somehow that branch of linguistic barbarism never actually led to the collapse of Japan's youth, (now in their 30s).

When I see LOL or ROTFL on a résumé, then I will fear for the future. Somehow young people figure out how to do it right when it counts.

The English language 'evolves' mostly because people misuse words, or are too lazy to build their vocabulary and use the proper words to explain themselves. If you look back at many of the words whose meanings have changed, you will find that the changes were unnecessary. There have always (used figuratively) been other words available to describe things.
If there was ever a concept to which there was no word, then it would appropriate to make up a word. Take "google" for example-a word which still has its roots in something significant to its 'meaning'.

Here's a few examples of commonly bastardized English:

1.I have, many times, heard and seen people mispronounce or misspell the phrase "You shouldn't have…." as "You shouldn't of…". The latter has no meaning. "You shouldn't have" is-plain and simple-the correct way to say this phrase. If we want to make "Shouldn't of" acceptable, we will have to alter the meaning of the word "of" to fit that of "have", but why do something so silly when we have a perfectly good word for "have" already?
It is nothing more than ol' fashioned laziness, ignorance (used in the original sense of the word), or idiocy that causes one to misuse this phrase. Saying "…shouldn't of…' does not in any way improve the phrase, yet apparently many people find it 'more accessible'.
The only way I think we could improve it now is to…pound it out into 'an easily used form', such as "shntv". Ah-evolution!

2.I've seen plenty of mistakes concerning "Your" and "You're". The two have completely different meanings. As do 'to', 'too', and 'two'. There's no reason to change the meanings or combine them into one word simply because enough people don't know how to use them properly.
As far as abbreviations go, I can understand applying them to names of some organizations/places such as the YMCA, and state names, etc. but I see no benefit to abbreviating every word/phrase in the English language…it's just plain lazy and completely unnecessary.

3.I looked up the phrase "hear, hear" the other day to see if I was using it correctly, and found that many people misspell it as "here, here". The phrase "hear, hear" has a historical context which gives the phrase a meaning, whereas "here, here" is just nonsense. If enough people remain ignorant of the context, it will eventually be accepted as "here, here", as well as lose its historical meaning, and become yet another ambiguous phrase.
How is that an improvement?

I find it somewhat amusing that many changes in our language are often the result of the repeated misuse of words and phrases by people who are ignorant of their mistakes. I also find it somewhat amusing to hear "ig'nint" people misuse the word 'ignorant'.

Maybe the language is just keeping up with spoken language? Did you ever think that written language is a synthetic form of actual language in that it is a representation of spoken language? I'm starting to care less and less about written language the older I get... it's a great tool for learning... but then again, how many famous writers have I read who "misuse" the socalled gramamr that I've studied in school up to now. Frankly, I don't care any more about all of this nonsense. You're complaining about the written language deteriorating and citing different things that you've seen on the internet... a lot of people on the internet are youngsters or ESL folks... so it's hard to really quantify just how "bad" it is. American people mess up grammar all the time (as do people from other English speaking countries). Take what you want from it-- if you want to base peoples' intelligence off it go ahead, but I'm starting to see less and less signifigaance in doing so. Written grammar will always fall behind spoken grammar anyways-- because that's where language starts, and that's where language ends.

This is why I think it's a joke to try to teach English the way they do in Japanese text books, written grammar-- particularly the junk they use, is way behind spoken grammar (which varies from place to place anyways).

I think no matter what major language you look at you would find similar patterns.

I apologize for being blunt, but what's your point in all this? I can see where you say people are being "lazy" or whatever, but maybe some people put more priority on things a little less arbitrary than English grammar-- like studying and understanding actual concepts, which is far more rewarding than complaining about grammar (which I used to do, although mostly internally, much too often). I think it's something you'd do better getting over because it's not something one or a few people can change. Language is whatever the majority wants it to be. If stupid people are the majority, then the self proclaimed smart folks better catch up or they're gonna fall behind.