I need some help
 

Someone in my office just commented that there are "significantly more wars now than ever before." Is this true? I seem to recall reading tat there are fewer "wars" now...

Got any idea? I can't find any information stating whether or not the number of armed conflicts is increasing or decreasing.

Well, we haven't declared war since WWII, IIRC. As for armed conflicts, I'm not sure.

there are always conflicts, chances are that your co-worker is just more aware of them now.

Kinda what Lookout said. Wars and battles have been going on for all of recorded history. There may have been fewer declared wars (ancient Roman expanions could be considered one giant war against the rest of the planet), but the amount of actual fighting between groups of people all over the world has probably stayed the same. Taking into account the current and ongoing warlord fighting in Africa, guerrillas and rebels in S. America, Islamic fundies in the South Pacific, and the hell-hole that is the Middle East.
:2cents:

If you're talking about army vs. army wars, and not tribal conflicts, regional ethnic cleansings, rebellions, and other smaller scale stuff, there are definitely less, I'd think. The smaller conflicts seem more numerous, but that could be because we have global satellite coverage, and things that might have once gone unnoticed by the public are now far more visible.

Now we have to be concerned with all of them because Urbane Gorilla wants us to play world cop. :crazy:

[flicks Bruce's nose with big black strong gorilla finger, watches nose go boing-boing]

Well, like it or not, seems to me we'll frequently be stuck with it. We don't like having our trade routes screwed with, and large enough conflicts have a way of doing that.

Heaven forbid, Walmart shipments would be delayed by Iran's navy. :eyebrow:

Glad to see that everyone is still agreeable and somewhat playful here. :lol:

I think it's probably more conflicts than ever before, as a result of growing population and dwindling resources, and less tolerance and refinement than before. Contrary to popular belief, our societies aren't changing for the better (languages, culturally, etc).

In addition, I think noodle has it right. We're getting more global news than ever before, so we're hearing more and more about these conflicts. If you were a Briton in the 1400's, you didnt know about the Apache and the Navajo conflicts.

Who's to say that these things, particularly language, were better in previous years?

Language is language and is only good or bad if you're under the influence of prescriptivist grammarians.

Not sure who this is attributable to, "Languages are dialects with an Army and a Navy". I really like that.

Ebonics.

Txtspk.

I rest my case.

Love,

Wolf
Grammar Nazi

You don't have to be a Grammar Nazi to refuse to accept ebonics and txspk. Even I refuse those. When I meet or have to deal with people who talk the "shit" lingo if I don't understand them, I just say: "I totally did not understand anything you said." and leave it to them to attempt English.

Language's function is to convey ideas verbally. If you can't understand someone that you need/want to communicate with then yes that is a "Bad Thing" but it doesn't make the language they speak "Bad" and your language "Superior".

When people cannot communicate and there is sufficient pressure to do so they form a pidgin (they meld their languages until they communicate sufficiently well for the intended purpose). If the members of these two(or more) languages are in contact continually for a generation or more then their offspring will pick up the pidgin and turn it in to a full fledged language.

My point being, simply, that language evolves and standing in the way of this process does nothing but make you appear ignorant. If folks want me to list some sources for my statements here I would be glad to provide you with stacks of references and historical anecdotes.

(Note: this isn't directed at Brianna in particular -- her post made a good jumping off point for my ranting)

Ebonics or African American Vernacular English(AAVE) is as much a language as anything else. AAVE is studied by linguists. It's a dialect of English which itself is a creolisation of languages at several points in recent history.

As far as I know Textspeak is not spoken anywhere in the world. It is an abbreviated form of the written form of spoken languages(primarily english. I've never run into it in any other language.). Textspeak is like !337 just a bastardization of the written form of a language. I'll have to ask around when schools back in session but I don't think there are many linguists that would classify these as languages.

Why be a grammar nazi if you're not writing in a formal setting?