11:03:58 AM Jan 2nd 2016
Before anything can be done about the most controversial aspect of this page (the thoroughness of the Self-Demonstrating Article conceit), I think we have to face an even broader question: what the heck is this trope actually about? Is it for:
- Works set between 1850 and 1930 that inexplicably and anachronistically use 18th-century English? (That's what the trope description makes it out to be, if one endeavours to parſe the veritable Moraſs of textuall Explication contain'd therein.)
- Any post-18th-century work that uses 18th-century English? (That's what most of the examples seem to assume.)
- Works that use a Theme Park Version of Victorian English? (That's what the Artistic License – Linguistics page claims, and a few of the examples seem to support this reading. But if so, what does this theme-park language actually sound like? Surely it can't be identical to the strict 18th-century Georgian English pastiche in which the trope description is written?)
01:12:28 PM May 4th 2015
TOO MUCH SELF DEMONSTRATION. Basically what every other topic said.
08:46:49 PM Aug 1st 2015
agreed. i can handle the description being self demonstrating. but continuing into the examples make the page unreadable.
01:24:23 AM Aug 2nd 2015
Someone should write up a non-self-demo version. Merely complaining about it won't fix anything.
12:38:54 PM Jan 4th 2016
Since there have been so many requests, I've gone ahead and moved the self-demonstrating version to its own page and written a rudimentary modern-English version for the main page. Some of the examples are still stuck in self-demonstrating mode; feel free to help out and translate them. Thanks.
07:23:11 PM Feb 2nd 2014
Alright, I'm generally a fan of the self-demonstrating gag on this particular page, but I think the surfeit of the "long s" is taking things a bit too far.
08:31:53 AM Apr 8th 2015
I was alright with a self-demonstrating article description, but to continue into the examples is just too much. What was supposed to be a neat little gag is now a long and unfunny slog.
01:16:55 PM Apr 8th 2015
Did anyone post about this here.
05:48:57 AM Oct 20th 2012
I have only ever posted on this site like 3-4 times, I hope someone doesn't get offended but I just wanna say this. The new image stinks the other one was way better.
06:33:04 AM Apr 9th 2012
I feel that there is a more serious issue, here. In making fun of what seems to be, an excessively elaborate and pedantic mode of speech, are we not implying our own comparitive degeneracy, and willingness to allow language to deteriorate, to an eventual point of uselessness? I would remind everyone here, of the section within George Orwell's novel, Nineteen Eighty Four, which dealt with the destruction of words. I have, for quite some time, felt that the (at times even overtly conscious and deliberate) destruction of the English language which has been embraced on the Internet, has some extremely concerning implications for the future of our society.
12:55:02 PM Dec 21st 2012
You can feel free to think that way, but there's very little evidence to back your point of view up. For one thing, you're equating internet lingo, which sacrifices form for efficiency to make the most out of wonderful technology, with the English language as a whole. Regardless, this is the postmodern era; in the unlikely event that words might be destroyed, the fragments will remain to allow linguistic evolution. Second, the so called "degeneracy" and "willingness to allow language to deteriorate" is frankly bull. Language now is rich as ever, and English literature has never been more self-aware or well-researched as it is now. Tout the superiority of the Victorian era speech as much as you want; the moment you try to indulge in some rational discourse with legitimate scholars or legitimately intelligent people, your lack of creativity and your inability to precisely or accurately communicate your views will make it clear just how "antiquated" your linguistics can be. Talk to some poets—you'll see that everything from the impressionistic to the modern era is cut off from you due to a lack of flexibility and a refusal to properly express yourself. Just because you have style doesn't make your mode of speech superior, merely pretentious. Years of culture and the sweat, passion, and work of millions will pass you by simply because you believe that moving forward is worse than not moving at all. What I'm getting at here is that you can't condemn language as degenerate for being different, not for the sparse reasons you have suggested. The last several decades have proven that said "degeneracy" is just a pattern of change. Clinging to the past won't save the English language.
06:12:23 PM Sep 17th 2010
I had a stop over at the brassgoggles the other day for a spot of tea. Fine bunch of gents they are but I digress. I figured this lovely topic would make for appropriate conversation it being a steampunk forum and all. While I hadn't seen anyone rushing for the canons I dare say I may have ruffled a few feathers a bit. Perhaps it would be wise to point out the difference between something that's supposed to be an historically acurate facsimile and a crafted world that's just suppose to be for a bit of fun even if it does heavily borrow its culture from our very own victorian era.
10:22:23 AM Jun 5th 2010
To continue the archived thread of discussion, I agree that the Self-Demonstrating Article thing turns into an Overly Long Gag after a while. I'm of the opinion two or three paragraphs are good, the whole article is a little much but tolerable, and it's just plain annoying that even the examples are written in pre-modern prose. Thoughts? In any case, there is now a Laconic definition up as a supplemental measure.
10:07:28 AM May 13th 2011
I agree that Self Demonstrating Articles tend to get annoying after a few paragraphs, especially the ones about language. I also think that there's a difference between lolcats, 1337 sp33k, and Antiquated Luinguistics in that the pre-modern prose is much more easily understandable and readable. What was that thing they did with the Brian Blessed page where there were two different versions of the same page, one self-demonstrating and the other normal? Maybe we could do that?
09:54:24 AM Nov 4th 2011
What? I love this page - I wouldn't mind seeing more in this style. Then again, I'm just a geek like that. Also, where exactly am I supposed to place a reference to the "verbose meme?" It belongs in here, definitely, Just...where?
06:54:21 PM Nov 2nd 2012
The problem with this style is that it can be hard for us non-natives to read, and even if we do understand all the words we don't always really get what the text is about, or at least it takes a lot of concentration. It's usually OK in the article itself, but when it spills over to the examples it's a bit much, then reading the page starts getting exhausting rather than fun.