Kazeno Rannaa
Seraphim Initiative.
CRONOS.
145
   |
Posted - 2012.12.03 16:41:00 -
[1] - Quote
Take it down a notch there KIDS. Grammatical use is completely dependent upon the culture and the applied historical context of the development of the language in the first place. When you also start adding the ingestion and usage of a second or third language, as I am sure there are fair number of people doing, there can be some crossed understandings between linguistic structures, i.e., use a rule from one language and cultural contextualization and use it in the context of a different cultural environment. Some times it works and translates over, other times it may not.
So don't delude yourselves with this fantasy of "standardized English" speaking or writing. English is a sort of linguistic genus. The actual practiced dialect is more of the family of language while the specific socioculturally attenuated dialectical choices in discursive interactions would be the actual species, of a sort. It is like the obvious differences between Queen's English i Britain, versus in Australia, or New Zealand in comparison to the development in American English. There are differences in lexicon, semantics, grammatical structures, sociocultural scaffoldings of interpersonal interactions and social proprieties. And this is not to include the different intonational, phonetical, and morphological choices and patterns.
So when you think about it, they may have two or more languages that they are navigating while they are participating on these forums. That is quite a feat if you ask me. So cut them some slack.
If some one is trolling, I say that part of our responsibility of being participatory members of this peer group is to work together and regulate the sociocultural scaffolding that we are consenting to operate within. This should include both the general maintenance of the actual structuring of interactions and the internalization of empathy based upon self-reflective interactionary protocols. Granted we are playing in a universe where we are "going to war" with each other, but it doesn't mean that we can't engage in our test of skill (i.e., our corp battles, etc.) without a sense of common respect, if for anything then at least for showing up and participating. This respect should be initially extended at first encounter. Let them help determine the tone of interactions with each meeting instead of pigeon holing them with a reification of them based upon what turns out to be a truly limited occurrence of interaction with any person. This is the kind of respect that each of us like, if not, out right demand. It is amazingly hypocritical to demand that which a person is unwilling to give, don't you think?
Yet, the reality of our little attempt at democratic utopia is the fact that there will more than likely be a section of our greater peer group that will either whine and complain about how one thing is wrong or another while not working towards mitigating or producing a solution, or they will just do nothing and be a complete drain upon the community while taking every advantage that is produced by the group for the goods of the group. This is a bit of a reification on my part, in one regard, yet it is also a realization of the numerical possibility that lies within the infinite number of possible results from the infinite number of possible ways interactions and reactions can be performed. Plus we have been enculturated with a desire to maximize our rewards with a minimal amount of expenditure.
Humans make bad people. ;) |