Why I am an atheist – Tony Moss » « Creationist math and accounting

Cephalopodial conversations

I thought one mark of the superiority of cephalopods over cats was the absence of ungrammatical LOLspeak hovering over their heads. I was wrong. It turns out that octopusses do text like mad tweenagers. At least squid insist on proper English still.

Why I am an atheist – Tony Moss » « Creationist math and accounting

Comments

  1. says

    You linked to a Yuletide fic! Aaaaah! Don’t cross the streams! You’re getting atheism in my fandom!

    (Why yes, I do have a fic there, but it doesn’t involve any cephalopods, I’m afraid. Just hermaphroditic bunnies. But they’re not texting.)

  3. 'Tis Himself, OM. says

    I thought one mark of the superiority of cephalopods over cats was the absence of ungrammatical LOLspeak hovering over their heads.

    LOLcatism is a mark of inferiority? Only a hardened cephalopod fanatic would suggest such a silly thing.

  5. Derek Czajka says

    Can you provide a definition of “proper English” that doesn’t involve simply enumerating its many arbitrary rules? It should be possible to derive these rules from the definition.

  6. Dr. Audley Z. Darkheart, liar and scoundrel says

    I especially like the bit where the octopus asks the squid to check GameFAQS to look up how to open a jar. Too cute!

  11. Brian says

    Can you provide a definition of “proper English” that doesn’t involve simply enumerating its many arbitrary rules? It should be possible to derive these rules from the definition.

    Just arrived on the planet, did you?

  12. Derek Czajka says

    No, I merely wanted to see if someone was up to the charge. I’m well aware that there is something called “proper English,” and I would even suggest that I am reasonably adept at using it. However, this model of linguistic perfection to which we are all taught to aspire is nothing more than a set of conventions that speakers and writers of previous generations, or at least from the elite classes of those generations, have found useful. I have never seen a reason to accuse those who discard some of these previous conventions and adopt new ones of using language improperly. You could suggest that they are incautiously tampering with the carefully honed linguistic conventions of the past. I might dispute the point, but at least it is a reasonable one. You cannot, however, suggest that they are guilty of the improper use of language, unless you define a reasonable standard for what constitutes linguistic propriety. I have never heard anyone do this. Sure, I’ve been taught “proper English,” but ultimately, any statement I’ve ever heard about it can be reduced to a simple assertion that certain things belong to the set of linguistic practices that are “proper,” and others do not.