Facebook
Google
GitHub
Linkedin
English is stupid
- Thread starter strantor
- Start date
visionofast
- Joined Oct 17, 2018
- 106
Doubt it's saved more life than has taken...
MaxHeadRoom
- Joined Jul 18, 2013
- 30,671
Growing up in the UK, it was called the End-Crust. But that was with the advent of sliced bread.
Before that it was just called the crust!
Before that it was just called the crust!
Now that you mentioned it, ends was also one of the most used. My family came from england, wonder if that influenced that word in my family. 4th Gen English.Growing up in the UK, it was called the End-Crust. But that was with the advent of sliced bread.
Before that it was just called the crust!
kv
Audioguru again
- Joined Oct 21, 2019
- 6,826
English?
I watch the Formula One car races on TV but all the announcers are from England with severe English accents. The cah (car) race stots (starts) then sometimes a penalty is coled (called).
They are afraid to pronounce the letter R.
I watch the Formula One car races on TV but all the announcers are from England with severe English accents. The cah (car) race stots (starts) then sometimes a penalty is coled (called).
They are afraid to pronounce the letter R.
ElectricSpidey
- Joined Dec 2, 2017
- 3,335
The only word the British pronounce with the "R" to replace "A" that bothers me is Americer.
I hear it all the time on BBC America, and it makes me cringe.
When I watch F1 and they say Honder, it makes me laugh.
I hear it all the time on BBC America, and it makes me cringe.
When I watch F1 and they say Honder, it makes me laugh.
I always enjoyed listening to "the moose is loose in the hoose" guys in Canada. Figured it was a Scottish accent. Had a history prof from around Boston and he would tell us "they got on they haases" for "got on their horses" and being in Tennessee he got a lot of ribbing about his accent. Just as they gave me grief about my Tennessee accent in Maine! One of those "he ain't from roun heah" moments!
I've always known the "crust" to refer to the outer layer of a loaf of bread. Hence we might describe the "heel" (and I think I have heard it called the "end", too, but not sure) as being a slice of bread in which one side is covered in crust.
So for people that call the end slice the "crust", what is the outer edge of a slice of bread (from the middle) called? Here, a lot of people remove the crust when they make a sandwich, what is it they remove where you're from? Does "crust" serve double duty and people just use context to disambiguate?
Same here but also "the end".
For this type of bread
we call it at home "coquito" (suspect is a family thing) and, BTW, everybody reserves them for me.
Since we are at this, have you realized how often you see these words in US (informal) texts?
nada
patio
siesta
macho
fiesta
amigo
Long time ago I started to suspect that those languages that retained their "virginity" are the ones that have long since disappeared.
Enjoy Babel; I always did and still do.
MaxHeadRoom
- Joined Jul 18, 2013
- 30,671
Wot??
you could add "compadre" to that list ...
I don't think anyone here has implied that so far.
Human language has properties independent of the language being examined. They relate to the architecture of the human brain and the practicalities of verbal communication.
In addition to that, we humans being very introspective types and never happy to leave well enough alone (this is very good, of course, but not without less than optimum side effects), we don't deal with the irregularities of language well.
First, we tend to want to smooth them out. We have an impulse modify pronunciations, semantics, and orthography to be consistent. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. Unfortunately, we humans also have a strong penchant for orthodoxy. Seeing or hearing uses of our mama lashon (Yiddish for "mother tongue", with a connection to the language your mother spoke) that don't comport with our settled understanding of it is extremely abrasive to some part of our brains we aren't prepared to question.
This means that if someone learns a pronunciation for a word, even if it is used by a tiny minority, if that's what they grow up around, or live around, they will consider it the "right" one and often argue vociferously for this being the case although a huge majority of English speakers might say it differently.
Similarly, words that are labels for objects we can point at, that is physical things, are very deeply entrenched in our minds. Even it is very clear from readily available information that many different words are used, and that it is a regional thing, ours is the "right" word for that thing. It is exceedingly hard to resist this feeling because something in our brains below our normal ability to ask questions about it, makes us uncomfortable.
Allied to this is the problem of "foreign accents". If we learn a second, or third, or Nth language as a child, we can speak it like a native speaker easily. On the other hand, if we learn a second language as an adult, we find it nearly impossible to do it without the accent imposed by our mother tongue.
This seems to arise from the superposition of several things about how we speak. First, we learn to tokenize phonemes that we've incorporated into the area of the brain that deals with listening to languages. Phonemes can have different versions, and we automatically and. unconsciously actually hear the pronunciation of the new word with the familiar phoneme.
This is why when we are trying to help someone speak English we are often baffled by their inability to hear the difference between what they are saying and our correction. It is because they literally can't hear it due to brain wiring no matter how "obvious" it is to us. We suffer precisely the same trouble when the tables are turned.
The related problem comes even if they manage to hear it, the literal mechanics of saying it. Along with the tokenizing of phonemes we have muscle memories for the various word parts we speak. Generally, people have no idea how they use their vocal apparatus to make the sounds of language. To teach someone how to say a new phoneme you have to be able to teach them how to use tongue, teeth, lips, and breath. You can't just keep saying, "no this way", they don't know how to do that.
A famous example of this problem is the single liquid (a sound made by allowing the air to move over the sides of the tonuge) used in Chinese. This leads to a problem making an English "R" sound. In fact, when a native English speaker hears a native Chinese speaker attempt Rs and Ls, we perceive they are inverted!
This is because the Chinese liquid is neither R nor L and we are expecting one or the other. We convert the error into a perception that it is the "wrong" one. This can be very puzzling since they seem to be unable to say R yet when they try to say L they manage it. No, that's not happening, that is our problem of perception.
As an aside, it is very unfortunate that it is common to latch onto this sort of thing as an occasion for denigrating people. We as humans (not Americans, not some other group, but as humans) somehow see this as "stupid" or a sign of inferiority. Racial prejudice and ignorance of the reality of things allows us to use this "evidence" to "prove" our superiority or the "other's" inferiority. The same is true concerning accents of our own language that aren't our own.
Is a southern accent a sign of stupidity? Is northern accent a sign of arrogance? Is a vocabulary developed by only basic exposure to literature or educational materials a sign of a defective person? Is a large vocabulary the sigh of affectation, or alternatively, superiority?
What ever answer you might give to the example questions above, it is not enough to simply assert "yes" or "no", have a think about why you believe those answers. Imagine you believe the opposite, try to make the best argument for that, is it very different from your own unquestioned assumptions?
This is just a terrible failure mode of the human-social system we all live in. Correcting it requires using our rational facility to question the hidden assumptions that we don't usually have any reason to even look for. It is hard on many accounts but definitely a meritorious undertaking.
In this extreme case, a language might use phonemes that don't even exist in our mother tongue. But this fixed and mostly imperceptible mental and physical tokenization means we can't hear nor change these things without the effort to recognize our own well worn language grooves.
The situation is made worse by the way the feedback concerning language operates in our brain-mind system. Mispronouncing things is embarrassing! We have learned over the course of the many years it took to speak our language to monitor and adjust our sounds to match those around us. When they don't match, even as adults, we get a twinge of discomfort, or even worse.
If we move to an area with a different accent we begin to adopt it to a greater or lesser extent. You may well have had the experience of moving from your home town and after some time away returning to be told "you sound like a <person from your new place>!" While the people you now live among will likely tell you that you speak with the accent of your home town.
But how this affects the preservation of accents in a new language is interesting. Let's say you are an American English speaker and want to learn French where the pronunciation involves a lot of sounds that simply aren't part of your existing toolkit.
First, you have to learn to hear French. Until you can tokenize the French words and know where they start and stop, and understand the actual sounds they are composed of, you don't have a chance at becoming fluent. It's something like learning morse code, you have to learn how to hear the symbols rather than dots and dashes to gain any facility.
Then you have to learn how to properly say French. This is a big hurdle. Your strong American accent will sound unpleasant to the French speakers in much the same way a strong French accent sounds unpleasant to English speakers. It makes understanding very hard even if the speaker imagines their utterances to be good approximations. Note that a light accent on English from any number of foreign tongues can lend a pleasant exotic quality that people enjoy—but that comes from polishing away all of the bits that making understanding the foreign speaker difficult.
When we attempt to speak a foreign language anew, it can be embarrasing! That is, when we attempt to go past mechanics of vocabulary and grammar, and try to sound French, it feels like we are "faking" and being affected. Ironically, if a French speaker tried to remediate their pronunciation, we would just hear iterative approximations of the "correct" way to speak.
But that part of the brain that wants to keep us safely in the middle of our language-community keeps poking at us to "stop saying things like that", and we usually acquiesce. This same effect seems to be in play when trying to imitate other accents of English. It is unusual to be free of it, such as is the case for accomplished actors. It requires a studied awareness of our listening shortcomings and speaking roadblocks.
We also have a big problem if we have "learned" a rule, such as "never end a sentence in a preposition", from a supposed authority, we latch onto it as if it's a natural law and violation of it shows that you are somehow a perverted speaker. The problem is, these "rules" are essentially bogus.
In our instant example, there is no such "rule" concerning English sentences. The origin of this nonsense will not surprise some—it was a high school English teacher. For a while, there was a movement to bring English in line with Latin. The theory being that Latin represented the "perfect language" and to reform English (somehow this was assumed to be necessary) it was necessary to bring it in line with the dead language of Latin.
This was an arbitrary and capricious undertaking but thanks to the structure of academia and primary education at the time it took only a few nitwits to cause a great deal of trouble. But there is hope, because some academics are much more aware of their role as people who work to describe rather then prescribe.
In 1926, Henry Fowler published A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. This book is a fantastic source for insights that can lead to questions of the assumptions we hold concerning language. Fowler, when read without depth, can seem like a prescriptivist—but he is quite the opposite.
Classically, there are two kinds of dictionary: prescriptive and descriptive.
A prescriptive dictionary is, ironically, what many people think a dictionary is supposed to be—an authority on the use of words and their spellings. In reality, prescriptive dictionaries are just opinions from people that think to highly of their own importance to the language. Fortunately, prescriptive dictionaries are embarrassing to the various experts in the field at this point, no matter how important they think they are. All modern dictionaries are descriptive.
A descriptive dictionary is one that seeks to record, by references taken from printed materials, what "educated users of the language" do with the words. Early on, "educated users" mostly meant the elitist thing it sounds like, and "slang" dictionaries were written to record the maunderings of the hoi polloi.
As things matured, it became clear that "educated users" has a context. If the word involves a term used by, say, blacksmiths then it's necessary to figure our what blacksmiths actually say since they are the most "educated" about those words. So, published works by people not blacksmiths only tells us what non-blacksmiths say, and while in the past the blacksmith's argot might have been fodder for the slang documentarian, it can now be seen as the quite legitimate speech of an expert.
This has lead to many more "slang" words appearing in the "normal" dictionaries. Which brings us to the important point. Much like Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty who said,
So, of course there are going to be cases of completely incorrect usage, errors by individuals but as I learned from H.W. Fowler, the test of what things we might legitimately complain about vs. that which we only have the single vote of personal aesthetic objection lies in "descriptive power". This is the crux of Fowler's thesis.
While Fowler's precise comments on words are clearly out of date (for some), the expressed rationale for those comments is timeless. I strongly encourage anyone curious about how to get to the heart of language-in-practice to read his book for this content. The link above is the full text. Be careful not to mistake the third edition for the second. The third is... Fowler's dictionary in name only and does not seem to understand Fowler at all, which is quite a shame in my opinion.
Language's job is to describe, to relate ideas from the speaker to the listener. Language succeeds to the extent this is possible. Changes to the language that increase this power, or are neutral with respect to it, are, as close as we can get to objectivity, objectively "legitimate". Even if we find these things aesthetically objectionable, we have that one vote saying "I don't like it" and don't have any authority to back up that dislike.
It's OK not to like things on a purely aesthetic basis, but it surely isn't OK to condemn people who do those things on account of our personal quirks. A cogent example of this is "text-speak". It is very common to suggest that the abbreviations, initialisms, and idiographic shortcuts of text messaging are a sign of social degeneration and a loss of... something.
But on what basis? Many times text-speak offers a much more robust communication with far more convenience. It doesn't lead to a loss of descriptive power, it enhances it by tokenizing important shared sentiments. This is not to say there aren't side effects that lead to loss of descriptive power—if you have a limited set of tokens to work with, you might have to settle for an imprecise communication.
But this situation is often imposed by UI designers who offer a limited number of flags (like, dislike, etc.) for reactions to messages, and a lack of agreement on the meanings of the constantly increasing library of emojis at our disposal. These things are just more of the same for language, though.
As Calverley penned, "T'was ever thus"—this is not at all new, even with the addition of technology. It's how the human-society-language complex operates. Language is socially mediated and, like it or not, that's the reality of what is "right" and "wrong".
English is a marvelous language with the potential for amazing precision and sweeping poetry. It readily borrows words from other languages when the present inventory doesn't offer the precision (or when ignorance has left a perfectly good, existing word to wither). We have loan words from a myriad languages that are "English" to us, and we have a set of heuristics, which the largest portion of the speaking population intuit, to create words on the spot others can understand.
So, yes, orthography is not regular thanks to the rich heritage. Pluralization often follows the words origins, and so is inconsistent. But ask yourself, if someone told you there were three "meese" in the garage, would you be at all confused by what they meant? Or is they said there are three blue "hice" on the street, would you have to ask them what "hice" are?
No, of course not. But no doubt you find these usages very objectionable. Why?
Some might say because it sounds "uneducated", but that's not really an objection of substance. So what? Maybe the person is "uneducated", they are still communicating and they would successfully communicate with nearly every native speaker using these non-standard plurals.
So, maybe you object "because it's wrong", but there you go... Just how is it "wrong"? Do you know?
[edited for typos and formatting, there are probably more errors given the length, if you spot something I would be grateful if you'd point it out]
In addition to that, we humans being very introspective types and never happy to leave well enough alone (this is very good, of course, but not without less than optimum side effects), we don't deal with the irregularities of language well.
First, we tend to want to smooth them out. We have an impulse modify pronunciations, semantics, and orthography to be consistent. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. Unfortunately, we humans also have a strong penchant for orthodoxy. Seeing or hearing uses of our mama lashon (Yiddish for "mother tongue", with a connection to the language your mother spoke) that don't comport with our settled understanding of it is extremely abrasive to some part of our brains we aren't prepared to question.
This means that if someone learns a pronunciation for a word, even if it is used by a tiny minority, if that's what they grow up around, or live around, they will consider it the "right" one and often argue vociferously for this being the case although a huge majority of English speakers might say it differently.
Similarly, words that are labels for objects we can point at, that is physical things, are very deeply entrenched in our minds. Even it is very clear from readily available information that many different words are used, and that it is a regional thing, ours is the "right" word for that thing. It is exceedingly hard to resist this feeling because something in our brains below our normal ability to ask questions about it, makes us uncomfortable.
Allied to this is the problem of "foreign accents". If we learn a second, or third, or Nth language as a child, we can speak it like a native speaker easily. On the other hand, if we learn a second language as an adult, we find it nearly impossible to do it without the accent imposed by our mother tongue.
This seems to arise from the superposition of several things about how we speak. First, we learn to tokenize phonemes that we've incorporated into the area of the brain that deals with listening to languages. Phonemes can have different versions, and we automatically and. unconsciously actually hear the pronunciation of the new word with the familiar phoneme.
This is why when we are trying to help someone speak English we are often baffled by their inability to hear the difference between what they are saying and our correction. It is because they literally can't hear it due to brain wiring no matter how "obvious" it is to us. We suffer precisely the same trouble when the tables are turned.
The related problem comes even if they manage to hear it, the literal mechanics of saying it. Along with the tokenizing of phonemes we have muscle memories for the various word parts we speak. Generally, people have no idea how they use their vocal apparatus to make the sounds of language. To teach someone how to say a new phoneme you have to be able to teach them how to use tongue, teeth, lips, and breath. You can't just keep saying, "no this way", they don't know how to do that.
A famous example of this problem is the single liquid (a sound made by allowing the air to move over the sides of the tonuge) used in Chinese. This leads to a problem making an English "R" sound. In fact, when a native English speaker hears a native Chinese speaker attempt Rs and Ls, we perceive they are inverted!
This is because the Chinese liquid is neither R nor L and we are expecting one or the other. We convert the error into a perception that it is the "wrong" one. This can be very puzzling since they seem to be unable to say R yet when they try to say L they manage it. No, that's not happening, that is our problem of perception.
As an aside, it is very unfortunate that it is common to latch onto this sort of thing as an occasion for denigrating people. We as humans (not Americans, not some other group, but as humans) somehow see this as "stupid" or a sign of inferiority. Racial prejudice and ignorance of the reality of things allows us to use this "evidence" to "prove" our superiority or the "other's" inferiority. The same is true concerning accents of our own language that aren't our own.
Is a southern accent a sign of stupidity? Is northern accent a sign of arrogance? Is a vocabulary developed by only basic exposure to literature or educational materials a sign of a defective person? Is a large vocabulary the sigh of affectation, or alternatively, superiority?
What ever answer you might give to the example questions above, it is not enough to simply assert "yes" or "no", have a think about why you believe those answers. Imagine you believe the opposite, try to make the best argument for that, is it very different from your own unquestioned assumptions?
This is just a terrible failure mode of the human-social system we all live in. Correcting it requires using our rational facility to question the hidden assumptions that we don't usually have any reason to even look for. It is hard on many accounts but definitely a meritorious undertaking.
In this extreme case, a language might use phonemes that don't even exist in our mother tongue. But this fixed and mostly imperceptible mental and physical tokenization means we can't hear nor change these things without the effort to recognize our own well worn language grooves.
The situation is made worse by the way the feedback concerning language operates in our brain-mind system. Mispronouncing things is embarrassing! We have learned over the course of the many years it took to speak our language to monitor and adjust our sounds to match those around us. When they don't match, even as adults, we get a twinge of discomfort, or even worse.
If we move to an area with a different accent we begin to adopt it to a greater or lesser extent. You may well have had the experience of moving from your home town and after some time away returning to be told "you sound like a <person from your new place>!" While the people you now live among will likely tell you that you speak with the accent of your home town.
But how this affects the preservation of accents in a new language is interesting. Let's say you are an American English speaker and want to learn French where the pronunciation involves a lot of sounds that simply aren't part of your existing toolkit.
First, you have to learn to hear French. Until you can tokenize the French words and know where they start and stop, and understand the actual sounds they are composed of, you don't have a chance at becoming fluent. It's something like learning morse code, you have to learn how to hear the symbols rather than dots and dashes to gain any facility.
Then you have to learn how to properly say French. This is a big hurdle. Your strong American accent will sound unpleasant to the French speakers in much the same way a strong French accent sounds unpleasant to English speakers. It makes understanding very hard even if the speaker imagines their utterances to be good approximations. Note that a light accent on English from any number of foreign tongues can lend a pleasant exotic quality that people enjoy—but that comes from polishing away all of the bits that making understanding the foreign speaker difficult.
When we attempt to speak a foreign language anew, it can be embarrasing! That is, when we attempt to go past mechanics of vocabulary and grammar, and try to sound French, it feels like we are "faking" and being affected. Ironically, if a French speaker tried to remediate their pronunciation, we would just hear iterative approximations of the "correct" way to speak.
But that part of the brain that wants to keep us safely in the middle of our language-community keeps poking at us to "stop saying things like that", and we usually acquiesce. This same effect seems to be in play when trying to imitate other accents of English. It is unusual to be free of it, such as is the case for accomplished actors. It requires a studied awareness of our listening shortcomings and speaking roadblocks.
We also have a big problem if we have "learned" a rule, such as "never end a sentence in a preposition", from a supposed authority, we latch onto it as if it's a natural law and violation of it shows that you are somehow a perverted speaker. The problem is, these "rules" are essentially bogus.
In our instant example, there is no such "rule" concerning English sentences. The origin of this nonsense will not surprise some—it was a high school English teacher. For a while, there was a movement to bring English in line with Latin. The theory being that Latin represented the "perfect language" and to reform English (somehow this was assumed to be necessary) it was necessary to bring it in line with the dead language of Latin.
This was an arbitrary and capricious undertaking but thanks to the structure of academia and primary education at the time it took only a few nitwits to cause a great deal of trouble. But there is hope, because some academics are much more aware of their role as people who work to describe rather then prescribe.
In 1926, Henry Fowler published A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. This book is a fantastic source for insights that can lead to questions of the assumptions we hold concerning language. Fowler, when read without depth, can seem like a prescriptivist—but he is quite the opposite.
Classically, there are two kinds of dictionary: prescriptive and descriptive.
A prescriptive dictionary is, ironically, what many people think a dictionary is supposed to be—an authority on the use of words and their spellings. In reality, prescriptive dictionaries are just opinions from people that think to highly of their own importance to the language. Fortunately, prescriptive dictionaries are embarrassing to the various experts in the field at this point, no matter how important they think they are. All modern dictionaries are descriptive.
A descriptive dictionary is one that seeks to record, by references taken from printed materials, what "educated users of the language" do with the words. Early on, "educated users" mostly meant the elitist thing it sounds like, and "slang" dictionaries were written to record the maunderings of the hoi polloi.
As things matured, it became clear that "educated users" has a context. If the word involves a term used by, say, blacksmiths then it's necessary to figure our what blacksmiths actually say since they are the most "educated" about those words. So, published works by people not blacksmiths only tells us what non-blacksmiths say, and while in the past the blacksmith's argot might have been fodder for the slang documentarian, it can now be seen as the quite legitimate speech of an expert.
This has lead to many more "slang" words appearing in the "normal" dictionaries. Which brings us to the important point. Much like Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty who said,
It is now clear to those who have carefully observe language that it is usage that determines meaning and not vice versa. No single Humpty Dumpty gets to say what that is, but we as a language using community, by the very act of speaking with each other to communicate ideas, decide what a word means. This is why we can only describe, and the documentation of this we call "the dictionary" is always going to be a lagging indicator of just what that is.
So, of course there are going to be cases of completely incorrect usage, errors by individuals but as I learned from H.W. Fowler, the test of what things we might legitimately complain about vs. that which we only have the single vote of personal aesthetic objection lies in "descriptive power". This is the crux of Fowler's thesis.
While Fowler's precise comments on words are clearly out of date (for some), the expressed rationale for those comments is timeless. I strongly encourage anyone curious about how to get to the heart of language-in-practice to read his book for this content. The link above is the full text. Be careful not to mistake the third edition for the second. The third is... Fowler's dictionary in name only and does not seem to understand Fowler at all, which is quite a shame in my opinion.
Language's job is to describe, to relate ideas from the speaker to the listener. Language succeeds to the extent this is possible. Changes to the language that increase this power, or are neutral with respect to it, are, as close as we can get to objectivity, objectively "legitimate". Even if we find these things aesthetically objectionable, we have that one vote saying "I don't like it" and don't have any authority to back up that dislike.
It's OK not to like things on a purely aesthetic basis, but it surely isn't OK to condemn people who do those things on account of our personal quirks. A cogent example of this is "text-speak". It is very common to suggest that the abbreviations, initialisms, and idiographic shortcuts of text messaging are a sign of social degeneration and a loss of... something.
But on what basis? Many times text-speak offers a much more robust communication with far more convenience. It doesn't lead to a loss of descriptive power, it enhances it by tokenizing important shared sentiments. This is not to say there aren't side effects that lead to loss of descriptive power—if you have a limited set of tokens to work with, you might have to settle for an imprecise communication.
But this situation is often imposed by UI designers who offer a limited number of flags (like, dislike, etc.) for reactions to messages, and a lack of agreement on the meanings of the constantly increasing library of emojis at our disposal. These things are just more of the same for language, though.
As Calverley penned, "T'was ever thus"—this is not at all new, even with the addition of technology. It's how the human-society-language complex operates. Language is socially mediated and, like it or not, that's the reality of what is "right" and "wrong".
English is a marvelous language with the potential for amazing precision and sweeping poetry. It readily borrows words from other languages when the present inventory doesn't offer the precision (or when ignorance has left a perfectly good, existing word to wither). We have loan words from a myriad languages that are "English" to us, and we have a set of heuristics, which the largest portion of the speaking population intuit, to create words on the spot others can understand.
So, yes, orthography is not regular thanks to the rich heritage. Pluralization often follows the words origins, and so is inconsistent. But ask yourself, if someone told you there were three "meese" in the garage, would you be at all confused by what they meant? Or is they said there are three blue "hice" on the street, would you have to ask them what "hice" are?
No, of course not. But no doubt you find these usages very objectionable. Why?
Some might say because it sounds "uneducated", but that's not really an objection of substance. So what? Maybe the person is "uneducated", they are still communicating and they would successfully communicate with nearly every native speaker using these non-standard plurals.
So, maybe you object "because it's wrong", but there you go... Just how is it "wrong"? Do you know?
[edited for typos and formatting, there are probably more errors given the length, if you spot something I would be grateful if you'd point it out]
panic mode
- Joined Oct 10, 2011
- 5,000
