Re: OT Faffy/Mike/Linguistics 101

February 1, 2004

--- Pugh <gramlin@...> wrote: >

> The " correct " version of English, in England is

> called " Queen's English " or ( " Kings English,

> depending who is on the throne). Usually the

> newscasters on the BBC (British Broadcasting

> Corporation) can be relied upon to speak English

> correctly.

>

Apologies if my last post came through half finished -

cat decided to walk across the keyboard and it

disappeared from my screen...

I disagree. The Queen's English is what I speak,

that's my dialect, although not necessarily with the

same accent as the Queen. But that doesn't mean that

other dialects are wrong. The BBC no longer

broadcasts in just the Queens English, but makes an

effort to ensure all regional differences are

represented, because there is no " right " one.

When the English settled in America (was it 15th

Century?) the language was influenced by different

things on each continent (America and Europe). It's

perfectly natural that differences developed between

them. That doesn't mean that American English isn't

English, it's just different from British English, and

there's nothing wrong with that. In the same way that

Yorkshire english is different from London English

which is different from ish english. They are

all valid and correct. (For my birthday I got a

tongue-in-cheek Yorkshire/English, English/Yorkshire

dictionary, I speak English, but have lived in

Yorkshire for 11 years!)

I am a stickler for grammar though - the rules

override all dialects and vocabulary and should be

applied consistently.

Just my 2p!

Jo

___________________________________________________________

BT Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80

http://bt..co.uk

February 1, 2004

But our penchant for " bastardizing " the English language makes it very

colorful.

And real beastie for a non-English speaking person to learn.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

>There is no single " correct " version of English; there

are only hundreds of different dialects that are each 100% correct

within their community of speaker/users.

I don't think that is true. Just because Americans tend to bastardize the

english language doesn't make it " correct " it's wrong and it makes me

cringe. IMO it should be referred to as the " American language " and then,

maybe, it could be forgiven.

The " correct " version of English, in England is called " Queen's English " or

( " Kings English, depending who is on the throne). Usually the newscasters

on the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) can be relied upon to speak

English correctly.

So now you know ;-)

and the K9's

February 1, 2004

At 10:55 PM 2/1/04 +0000, Jo wrote:

>I am a stickler for grammar though - the rules

>override all dialects and vocabulary and should be

>applied consistently.

Agreed. 's prior reference to things that make her cringe made me

think of grammar - that's what I think of when I hear " American

bastardization of the language " . Not that I use perfect grammar myself,

of course ... but hearing people say " being as ... such and such " instead

of something like " since ... such and such " makes me look around for

anything sharp that can be used as a missile weapon in a pinch.

Which, of course, has nothing to do with Linguistics 101, but was fun to

type anyway.

MFJ

Any moment in which you feel like dancing is a perfect moment.

February 1, 2004

--- mfjewett <mfjewett@...> wrote: > Not that I

use

> perfect grammar myself,

> of course ... but hearing people say " being as ...

> such and such " instead

> of something like " since ... such and such " makes me

> look around for

> anything sharp that can be used as a missile weapon

> in a pinch.

>

" DId you do that yet " ? is my pet hate - No-one in

England says that! Should be " Have you done that

yet " .

Jo

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.

February 1, 2004

How about " I and her went. . . " That was a favorite of my hubby's family.

Or this one: " The person that. . . " People are " who " animals and inanimate

objects are " that. "

Both of my parents were teachers, and that helps me very much, but I'm still

far from perfect.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Joanne Pollack [mailto:jopollack2001@...]

--- mfjewett <mfjewett@...> wrote: > Not that I

use

> perfect grammar myself,

> of course ... but hearing people say " being as ...

> such and such " instead

> of something like " since ... such and such " makes me

> look around for

> anything sharp that can be used as a missile weapon

> in a pinch.

>

" DId you do that yet " ? is my pet hate - No-one in

England says that! Should be " Have you done that

yet " .

Jo

February 1, 2004

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Mike/:

> >There is no single " correct " version of English; there

> are only hundreds of different dialects that are each 100% correct

> within their community of speaker/users.

>

> I don't think that is true.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Well, I could just say " sorry, but it is true, and unless you have

graduate-level study and research experience in the scientific study

of language than you're way out of your league to make claims on the

matter " , but that answer would be a bit rude and lazy, and I'm not

known for taking the easy way out. A much better answer goes as

follows.

" correct " does involve an element of subjectivity, so if you decide

that there is a particular dialect of English you'd like to single

out as the " correct " one, then by all means it **is** " correct " **in

your version of the world**. You'll even be able to find a small

group of people who will wholeheartedly agree with you.

Nevertheless, a much much larger group of people will then proceed to

first laugh uncontrollably and second demonstrate in dozens of ways

that your choice is arbitrary and irrational, and, further, that the

premises of even making such a choice is untenable and even

unethical. That's the long version of " you're wrong " .

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Just because Americans tend to bastardize the english language

doesn't make it " correct " it's wrong and it makes me cringe. IMO it

should be referred to as the " American language " and then, maybe, it

could be forgiven.

@@@@@@@@@@@

First, it must be pointed out that your first sentence here is

incoherent. Note that the word " the " means " one and only one

(contextually salient) entity " , so there must exist one and only one

(contextually salient) " English language " . Is there such an object

in the world? The answer is that we could either arbitrarily choose

one language (say Yorkshire English for example) and define that

as " the English language " , or, alternatively, we could define an

abstraction of the common features shared by the various English

languages (note plural). The former option is absurd (see above),

but the latter option is in fact a common and entirely useful

conceptualization, so we'll go with that. Now note the American

English is one of the languages that partially defines the

entity " the English language " , so it is logically impossible for

American English to bastardize " the English language " . Logically

impossible by definition. Therefore you are henceforth reprieved

from cringing.

Please note that such terms as " English " , " American

English " , " British

English " , " Italian " , " Catalan " , " Polish " , " Hindi " , " Imeraguen " , etc

are nothing more than vague and useful abstractions of shared

properties of dozens or hundreds of dialects, which themselves are

nothing more than vague and useful abstractions of shared properties

of dozens or even hundreds of thousands of idiolects, and, well...

we're all a little different everyday... We can call things whatever

we (a given speech community) like...

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

> The " correct " version of English, in England is called " Queen's

English " or ( " Kings English, depending who is on the throne).

Usually the newscasters on the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation)

can be relied upon to speak English correctly.

@@@@@@@@@@@@

Which queen, which king? Which time period? Also note that even the

language commonly accepted as the current " Queen's English " can

really be subdivided into multiple dialects, so which dialect of

the " Queen's English " ? I'd be willing to bet there are vociferous

commentators in England who decry the current version of " Queen's

English " as an immoral degeneration of some older version of " Queen's

English " that they have chosen as a standard.

Please note that BBC newscasts represent a very narrow register of

discourse, and hence cannot be used as a basis for defining an entire

language, whose scope is obviously all discourse. Will you then

select a particular newscaster's private personal everyday speech as

the standard? If so, I'm sure you'll come up against some

significant linguistic differences in the informal speech of various

newscasters, so who's the lucky one? Do I need to go on?

I will anyway. If you view non- " Queen's English " dialects of English

as incorrect or bastardized versions of your chosen " holy language " ,

then are you are also denying the genetic cognitive entitlement of

human equality for all children born in America, Australia, India,

Hong Kong, Canada, Scotland, etc past the date you'd have to choose

to define when these other languages broke off from their independent

and equal status and became inferior subordinates to your reference

standard of " English " . This is the ethno-cultural equivalent of

racism. You might want to spend some quality time reflecting on this

point before issuing any more glib insults to 99.999999999999% of the

world's English speaker-users, past, present, and future.

Finally, I bring your attention to the much deeper generalization of

this last point. If we were to actually formulate and uniformly

apply the logic behind your Theory of Language Morality (any

discourse using the word " should " in the prescriptive sense is making

a moral claim), then we would arrive at the following hideous

conclusion: The first human language (or languages if there were

more than one that developed independently) is the gold standard of

all human language, and all current and future languages are

degenerate bastardizations (notably including " Queen's English " ). I

already made this point more concisely in my previous email, but note

that " English " has not existed forever, and shares the same parents

as German and French, so why don't you view all forms of English as a

bastardization of your favorite ancient Viking language? For that

matter, let's go back to Sanskrit... Let's go back to Africa...

I hope the point is clear by now, but there's plenty more where this

came from if you want to try the " historical quality

peak " / " complexity " defense... I'd really go to town on that...

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

February 1, 2004

At 11:21 PM 2/1/04 +0000, you wrote:

> " DId you do that yet " ? is my pet hate - No-one in

>England says that! Should be " Have you done that

>yet " .

>

>Jo

>

Actually, in New-England-speak, that would be " Didja doot yet? " In the

DC area (which translates to Who-Knows-What-Speak), it would be simply

" Didja do it yet? " Although my born-and-raised-Dubliner friend would say

either " Haven't you done it yet? " or " Isn't it done then, gobshite? "

(oops, is that a bad word?!)

MFJ

In the clearing stands a boxer .... ~Simon & Garfunkel

February 1, 2004

Jo,

Nice post from our resident UK language expert!

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

> I am a stickler for grammar though - the rules

> override all dialects and vocabulary and should be

> applied consistently.

>

> Just my 2p!

>

> Jo

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

not quite. there can be grammatical differences across dialects just

like there are differences in pronunciation, semantics, pragmatics,

etc. there are grammatical differences between American and British

English, for example. this is too OT; i don't want to get into the

details...

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

February 1, 2004

At 06:33 PM 2/1/04 -0500, you wrote:

> Both of my parents were teachers, and that helps me very much, but I'm still

> far from perfect.

>

> Judith Alta

Mom was a teacher, so that gives me a certain sensitivity, too.

Certainly I use plenty of license (interesting spelling in an attempt to

create a written version of a tone of voice is probably my worst failing)

.... but even more than grammar, it's the spelling that gets me. I have

no patience with 'u', 'ur', etc., nor with essays written using a

spell-checker alone. " Tot he " is the most common tupo ... that is

something up with which I will not put.

MFJ

In the clearing stands a boxer .... ~Simon & Garfunkel

February 1, 2004

@@@@@@@@@@@@

> Agreed. 's prior reference to things that make her cringe

made me

> think of grammar - that's what I think of when I hear " American

> bastardization of the language " . Not that I use perfect grammar

myself,

> of course ... but hearing people say " being as ... such and such "

instead

> of something like " since ... such and such " makes me look around for

> anything sharp that can be used as a missile weapon in a

pinch.

> MFJ

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

both constructions are perfectly wonderful. variety is beautiful.

language is a subtle flower grown in the fertile soil of human

experience. language, like water, will flow to settle in every

dimple or niche its syntax and lexicon will allow it to traverse.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

February 1, 2004

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

> " DId you do that yet " ? is my pet hate - No-one in

> England says that! Should be " Have you done that

> yet " .

>

> Jo

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

two different sentences, two different meanings--should be either one

depending on the internal temporal frame of reference in the mind of

the speaker at the time of utterance. the tense and aspect are

simply different in the two sentences. it's no different than " cat "

and " dog " . if you're talking about a cat, then use " cat " ; if you're

talking about a dog, use " dog " .

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

February 1, 2004

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

--- In , " Judith Alta " <jaltak@v...>

wrote:

> How about " I and her went. . . " That was a favorite of my hubby's

family.

@@@@@@@@@

indeed, pretty ugly, but " me and her went... " is best, not the common

bastardization of English of " her and I went... " that most people are

taught to believe is " correct " . of course, it is " correct " if

that's what your audience wants to hear, i.e. use it in job

interviews, but please skip it in real life.

@@@@@@@@@

> Or this one: " The person that. . . " People are " who " animals and

inanimate

> objects are " that. "

@@@@@@@@@@@

not quite. if it were that simple syntacticians wouldn't have a

job. " that " cannot be used with non-restrictive (aka appository)

relative clauses so if the speaker wants to ensure a restrictive

modifier interpretation, " that " is a better choice. of course, " who "

is fine too.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

February 1, 2004

>Mom was a teacher, so that gives me a certain sensitivity, too.

>Certainly I use plenty of license (interesting spelling in an attempt to

>create a written version of a tone of voice is probably my worst failing)

>... but even more than grammar, it's the spelling that gets me. I have

>no patience with 'u', 'ur', etc., nor with essays written using a

>spell-checker alone.

i don't think being raised by a teacher per se has anything to do with it -

but rather the values of person you were raised by. BOTH of my parents were

educators as was i (my graduate degree is in education) but i have little

tolerance for rigidity about the form of language (ie' spelling, grammar,

etc). (ok, well except for the pronunciation of " kefir " <weg>.)

frankly spelling and grammar are rather superficial aspects of language, the

purpose of which is to *communicate*. form is fine in appropriate situations

(job, classroom, etc), but in informal situations, such as email lists like

this (and actually in most situations), i think communication is of greater

import than spelling or formal grammatical conventions. as has already been

mentioned - these things evolve and change over time, making any specific

dialect no greater or worse than any other (ie; there is no " correct "

dialect of german, english, etc.) historically, the politically or

economically dominant group has designated *their* dialect as the " correct "

one and those (typically peasants/ " underclass " ) who didn't speak the

" correct " dialect were essentially shut out of economic advancement. as such

language has been a tool used by the " ruling " class to maintain their

position of power.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

>

February 1, 2004

At 09:48 PM 2/1/04 -0500, you wrote:

>frankly spelling and grammar are rather superficial aspects of language, the

>purpose of which is to *communicate*. form is fine in appropriate situations

>(job, classroom, etc), but in informal situations, such as email lists like

>this (and actually in most situations), i think communication is of greater

>import than spelling or formal grammatical conventions. as has already been

>mentioned - these things evolve and change over time, making any specific

>dialect no greater or worse than any other (ie; there is no " correct "

>dialect of german, english, etc.) historically, the politically or

>economically dominant group has designated *their* dialect as the " correct "

>one and those (typically peasants/ " underclass " ) who didn't speak the

> " correct " dialect were essentially shut out of economic advancement. as such

>language has been a tool used by the " ruling " class to maintain their

>position of power.

True, defintely agreed. But I'm stickin' by my pet peeves anyway. :-D

The specific example of lists like this being more important for the

communication than anything else, yes, absolutely, positively I agree.

I mean, where else could you possibly find such a wonderful line as ....

" If your poop stinks, you need to do this. "

*runs off, desperately trying NOT to add that line to her sig file*

MFJ

Some days the bear will eat you, some days you'll eat the bear. ~Joan

Armatrading

February 1, 2004

It does make a difference.

Growing up hearing correct grammar and learning to speak it from the

beginning does not denote rigidity. I butcher the language as much as

anyone, but when I went to secretarial school in the late 1980s I was very

thankful for that upbringing.

I don't remember my parents being " rigid " about language. If my brother I

phrased things incorrectly were told the correct way with several examples.

We were still free to " make merry " with the language when it was obvious

that we knew the correct way.

My grades in the English class were much better than had I not been raised

by teaching parents.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Suze Fisher [mailto:s.fisher22@...]