|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Grammatical infelicities
|
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
"If Donald Trump had won the Mr. Sensitivity Award, then he might have gotten my vote"
And that's a whole new can of worms! Yes, I know "gotten" stretches way back to Old English, but we just don't use it in the UK - and plenty of people (incorrectly) would decry it as being "wrong" or "a ghastly Americanism". The majority, I suspect, just avoid it because it's such an ugly, clumsy word. Some of us don't even like to use "got" because it's clumsy in constructions and such an ugly little word. (And many of us grew up with English teachers who would foam at the mouth if we used "got" in our writing!)
--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.
Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604
|
Posted
Following a crime in (I think) Norfolk, the local MP released a statement saying that the thugs "literally come from the sewer." I'm pretty sure they didn't. If they did, surely their victim would have smelt them coming.
--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.
Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It has for a long time been acceptable in British English to use either singular or plural verbs with most collective nouns.
That's just it; I don't think it has been acceptable for a long time. I'm sure people have done it for a long time but it's only relatively recently that it has become acceptable; certainly it is only recently that the Beeb has started doing it. Rather like splitting infinitives and ending sentences with a preposition, people have recently decided "Oh, it doesn't really matter, because people have always done it."
I cannot think of a better reason for deciding that something doesn't matter than that people have always done it, when it comes to language. Language is defined by the speech community; what people generally say is by definition correct.
I'm sure people in the 15th century whined about this bloody northern habit of using "-s" when "-eth" was correct dammit, regardless of what people say! And I bet in 16th Century Ceredigion old people moaned about bloody youngsters using "ddim" after the verb and dropping the all important "nid" before it. There's no absolute arbiter for language beyond usage. How could there be? There's no point appealing to logic, because languages are frequently illogical.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
If anything, you're beta-testing it (though I haven't heard of anyone alpha-testing anything).
No, you wouldn't. Alpha tests are small scale closed-group tests. Unless you are the developer of the software, or one of the small number of people asked to be an alpha tester, you wouldn't encounter them.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I believe that Queen Victoria once said that, "The news from France are bad" - in those days "news" was regarded as plural.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Shall we have "an history" or "a history"?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I cannot think of a better reason for deciding that something doesn't matter than that people have always done it, when it comes to language.
Perhaps. Fortunately, the thread isn't called "Things grammatical that annoy me and really matter." At the last analysis, none of it don't matter, do it?
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
...a history or an history?
A history; an historian!
[ 01. September 2016, 15:09: Message edited by: Teekeey Misha ]
--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.
Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
cornflower
Shipmate
# 13349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
It's really in the past tense that the may/might distinction becomes important.
'might' implies a significant 'if' – if the woman had worn a seatbelt her life might have been saved.
Or, she survived the accident, probably because she was wearing her seatbelt: the seatbelt may have been what saved her.
In my schooldays I noticed that English speakers used 'shall' more often than we did. I was taught that 'I will' expressed determination while 'I shall' was a simple statement of intention; and that in the second or third person, the opposite was the case – 'You shall do it (whether you like it or not).
But my support worker, from Sri Lanka, asked where he could work on his English, because he knew from lessons back home that the difference between 'shall' and 'will' was important and he didn't know if he'd got it right. My thought was, that I didn't know whether anyone still made that distinction, and what he needed was probably a conversation class.
GG
Edited because I hit the wrong button.
Yes, that makes sense what you say about 'may' and 'might'.
Regarding 'shall' you tend to see it's usage more in older books (maybe pre-'60's?), aprt from in rules for games...'the player shall..' or perhaps rules and regulations regarding laws etc
Posts: 111 | From: uk | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cornflower
Shipmate
# 13349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Shall we have "an history" or "a history"?
'A hotel' or 'an hotel'?
I don't know, but do you think the usage of 'an' as opposed to 'a' before those sorts of words, depends on whether perhaps the word originally came from French? Only wondering, probably totally wrong.
A bit like that is whether or not to say 'envelope' or 'onvelope', or 'garridge' or 'garage'.
[ 01. September 2016, 21:24: Message edited by: cornflower ]
Posts: 111 | From: uk | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cornflower
Shipmate
# 13349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[qb]I cannot think of a better reason for deciding that something doesn't matter than that people have always done it, when it comes to language.
Perhaps. Fortunately, the thread isn't called "Things grammatical that annoy me and really matter." At the last analysis, none of it don't matter, do it?
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Well, it doesn't matter too much in general chit chat, perhaps, but if there's no more or less 'proper, standard' grammar, then I think that there would be room for quite bad confusion, especially with legal documents etc (though legal documentation, even simple stuff is ghastly to read...look at all the terms and conditions you have to wade through when you sign up to various things on the computer ![[Frown]](frown.gif) ).
I really do wonder how foreigners cope with English when they come here...it must be incrdibly confusing for them.
Posts: 111 | From: uk | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cornflower:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Shall we have "an history" or "a history"?
'A hotel' or 'an hotel'?
I don't know, but do you think the usage of 'an' as opposed to 'a' before those sorts of words, depends on whether perhaps the word originally came from French?
I say a history book, but an historical novel. The word 'history' is stressed on the first syllable, so the h is loud and clear. The word 'historical' is stressed on the second syllable, and the h has a weaker sound.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cornflower:
I don't know, but do you think the usage of 'an' as opposed to 'a' before those sorts of words, depends on whether perhaps the word originally came from French?
I think that's exactly it... or at least exactly half of it! French origin is one reason; words like hotel that come from the French have no aspirate, which makes them sound as if they start with a vowel and, thus, need "an" rather than "a".
The other half came from an elocution teacher when I was a boy who taught that if the emphasis in the word is on the first syllable, it needs "a" but if the emphasis is on the second syllable, it needs "an". Hence my earlier response - a history but an historian. I think it was something to do with avoiding creating a double emphasis but I forget. It was a long time ago...
It's for a combination of those reasons that ladies of my late Grandmother's class and generation said such things as "We took tea at an 'otEL"! I suspect it's something I still do, but I'm not sure. The more I think about saying hotels, the less sure I am of what I usually say! I know that I do follow the rule for history / historian.
--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.
Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The word 'historical' is stressed on the second syllable, and the h has a weaker sound.
Do you aspirate the 'h' in "an historical"?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Do you aspirate the 'h' in "an historical"?
Personally, I do aspirate the "h" in "historical"; much less than I do in "history" but enough that it's not "istorical".
[Irony alert] I could be completely mis-remembering here but maybe the French language scholars out there can confirm...
In French when words begin with an "h" that is silent, it is called an "aspirated h" although it is, of course, not aspirated. I can't remember the details and might be completely confusing several half memories... [/Irony Alert]
And apologies: I hadn't noticed that I'd cross posted with Moo above.
--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.
Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cornflower:
I really do wonder how foreigners cope with English when they come here...it must be incredibly confusing for them.
I found out when I volunteered to teach ESL to a group of Spanish native speakers. Take, for instance, the word "do":
Do you like me? Yes, I do.
I have to do the laundry.
We're going to do Europe next summer.
She's got her hair up in a do.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif) ![[Confused]](confused.gif) ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Do you like me? Yes, I do.
I have to do the laundry.
We're going to do Europe next summer.
She's got her hair up in a do.
What a to-do!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Oh and there's the sexist observation, "I'd do her."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
...south of the Cotswolds, which are not in Wiltshire.
The Cotswold Tourist Partnership would beg to differ here (scroll down to the third paragraph), as does the map here.
Only a very small part of the Cotswolds is in Wiltshire. Cotswold Water Park, for example.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
Cornflower - there is a UBB practice thread you might find useful. I find it impossible to sort the code/quotes in your last post.
Also, we try and avoid double or triple sequential posts - it looks monopolistic.
Firenze
Heaven Host
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
But is the Cotswold Water Park really in the Cotswolds? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But is the Cotswold Water Park really in the Cotswolds?
And is it a geographical rather than a grammatical infelicity?
Firenze
Taking a Hard Line This Morning Host
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Ah, well - you have a point there! But what if it had been the "Cotswolds' Water Park"?
This reminds me of a school where my wife used to work. They couldn't decide whether it should be the "X Infants School" or the "X Infants' School". In the end the noticeboard proclaimed it to be the "X Infant School" - which just didn't look right to me, although it was consistent with the "X Junior School" next door.
Perhaps an Infant School grows up to become a Junior School?
Oh, and by the way:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Only a very small part of the Cotswolds is in Wiltshire.
We're back into collective noun verbal ambivalence territory, I see.
[ 02. September 2016, 06:54: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Whoops ... of course the "is" refers to the "small part" rather than "the Cotswolds". ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) Silly me (timed out of editing window).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sparrow
Shipmate
# 2458
|
Posted
Another brand new (to me) usage on the Today programme this morning, in a discussion about the doubt surrounding a Scottish referendum, the speakers referred to there being a lot of "long grass" around the situation.
--------------------
For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life,nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Posts: 3149 | From: Bottom right hand corner of the UK | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Now is that a cricketing or a golfing term?
What does amuse me is when football commentators get their sports muddled. For instance, a penalty-taker is said to be "stepping up to the plate" or a losing team is said to be "on its back foot".
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sparrow:
Another brand new (to me) usage on the Today programme this morning, in a discussion about the doubt surrounding a Scottish referendum, the speakers referred to there being a lot of "long grass" around the situation.
To "kick [thing] into the long grass" is a phrase meaning to put it off until much later, possibly indefinitely.
So to say "there's a lot of long grass" around a new Scottish referendum says to me that a lot of people want to defer it without outright saying so.
Posts: 3690 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It has for a long time been acceptable in British English to use either singular or plural verbs with most collective nouns.
That's just it; I don't think it has been acceptable for a long time. I'm sure people have done it for a long time but it's only relatively recently that it has become acceptable; certainly it is only recently that the Beeb has started doing it. Rather like splitting infinitives and ending sentences with a preposition, people have recently decided "Oh, it doesn't really matter, because people have always done it."
I cannot think of a better reason for deciding that something doesn't matter than that people have always done it, when it comes to language. Language is defined by the speech community; what people generally say is by definition correct.
I'm sure people in the 15th century whined about this bloody northern habit of using "-s" when "-eth" was correct dammit, regardless of what people say! And I bet in 16th Century Ceredigion old people moaned about bloody youngsters using "ddim" after the verb and dropping the all important "nid" before it. There's no absolute arbiter for language beyond usage. How could there be? There's no point appealing to logic, because languages are frequently illogical.
Very good post. I agree that language and speech are determined by usage, and then people often complain about various usages. But we don't have an Academy for determining correct grammar, or correct anything.
Of course, also, dialect versions add another layer of complexity, and English English is subject to various kinds of snobbery. It's interesting!
With collective nouns, I would hazard a guess that they are seen as semantically plural, and this 'leaks' into the grammar. Hence, 'my family are all coming for dinner', is perfectly OK in my dialect, or idiolect, whereas 'my family is ...' sounds odd. On the other hand, 'the family is the bulwark of society', and *'the family are the bulwark ...', (where * = odd construction).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Teekay Misha:
quote:
Yes, I know "gotten" stretches way back to Old English, but we just don't use it in the UK
It's still used up here in the north of Scotland.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
"If Donald Trump had won the Mr. Sensitivity Award, then he might have gotten my vote"
And that's a whole new can of worms! Yes, I know "gotten" stretches way back to Old English, but we just don't use it in the UK - and plenty of people (incorrectly) would decry it as being "wrong" or "a ghastly Americanism".
Although let's face it somebody who has the opportunity to vote for Trump is ... wait for it ... an American.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
"If Donald Trump had won the Mr. Sensitivity Award, then he might have gotten my vote"
And that's a whole new can of worms! Yes, I know "gotten" stretches way back to Old English, but we just don't use it in the UK - and plenty of people (incorrectly) would decry it as being "wrong" or "a ghastly Americanism". The majority, I suspect, just avoid it because it's such an ugly, clumsy word. Some of us don't even like to use "got" because it's clumsy in constructions and such an ugly little word. (And many of us grew up with English teachers who would foam at the mouth if we used "got" in our writing!)
Interesting. A few months ago the topic of " gotten" cropped up via a Kiwi facebook friend of mine ( who found it quaint, not ugly)a nd it turned into a really interesting discussion about how little nuggets of preserved archaic speech seem to crop up in many former colonies where the native language was overtaken by a European one. I talked about how I'd heard that South American Spanish had many words and grammatical quirks that were pretty much conquistador- era usages trapped in time like prehistoric wasps in amber. A few Canadian folk said the same dynamic could be found in Québécois.
It was a lovely discussion, really. It could have gotten ugly, but people were very civil.
[ 02. September 2016, 18:01: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by Teekay Misha:
quote:
Yes, I know "gotten" stretches way back to Old English, but we just don't use it in the UK
It's still used up here in the north of Scotland.
That's interesting. When I said we don't use it in the UK, I meant we hadn't used it in the UK, but it's now becoming increasingly common (I suppose through the medium of TV.)
I hadn't realised that it was in common usage in parts of the UK. Only in the North of Scotland, or does it crop up in other Scots regional dialects? I'm not conscious of it having been in common usage in Wales or in any English dialects; it would be interesting to learn if anybody knows otherwise. Is it one of Kelly's "little nuggets of preserved archaic speech" that was present in lots of UK regional dialects but not in standard English, or just in part of Scotland? Intriguing...
--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.
Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
One of my pet peeves is use of the demonstrative for persons/things that aren't actually present.
"These two girls were talking on the train today."
Which two? I don't see any girls here.
"Then this rock falls on my windshield."
Which rock? Is it here in this room?
AUGH!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Thus we now have "Canada geese" and not "Canadian geese." I don't like it.
Yes and no. Surely "Canada geese" defines a particular species (is that the right word?) of said bird, while "Canadian geese" could refer to any kind which happened to have flown across the border to the US of A?
Returning to sport, I accept that an "England" footballer has to be English (though the rules as to who is and who isn't "English" are complex). On the other hand, a "Chelsea" player could come from virtually anywhere, not just southwest London - and probably does!
I'm with BT as far as the geese are concerned (we have them here too and they proliferate.
To me, the England team, rather than the English team, represent England.
Interesting: you might discuss the difference between the Australia team and the Australian team, But the New Zealand team is just that – we have no adjective.
GG
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
"Me and her were sat there."
"He was laying on the floor" or even "he laid/layed on the floor."
Interestingly, the use of "sitting" and "standing" seems to be giving way to "sat" and "stood", "lying" seems to be kept for prevarication* rather than position, yet words like "running" that have a single syllable for the past tense form are still being used.
Why the slow painful death of the gerund?
* ("Prevarication" is not a synonym for delaying things, that's "procrastination".)
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
I hadn't realised that it was in common usage in parts of the UK. Only in the North of Scotland, or does it crop up in other Scots regional dialects?
This sparked a discussion in the North East household.
There's a well known folk song about a cooper in Fife who "has gotten a gentle wife."
My husband is from Glasgow and says that he uses "gotten" in only one context; if someone was harbouring a grudge or was still frightened about something he would say "he hasn't gotten over it."
Our nearest farm has sent the first of this year's lambs to slaughter, so I told my husband "the butcher's gotten the new lamb in." My husband wouldn't use "gotten" in that way.
So, based on a survey of two, we conclude that everyone uses it in the folk song, but other usages vary by area.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
One of my pet peeves is use of the demonstrative for persons/things that aren't actually present.
"These two girls were talking on the train today."
Which two? I don't see any girls here.
"Then this rock falls on my windshield."
Which rock? Is it here in this room?
AUGH!
Some of these examples are brilliant, really. I think that this use of 'this' is not about spatial presence, but textual. In other words, 'this' means not 'this rock that you can see in the room now', but 'this rock which I am introducing into the conversation'.
I wonder if it's similar to the dramatic present tense, e.g. 'I'm walking down the street, and this geezer jumps me, so I do a runner'. The speaker isn't actually walking down the street, but he's propelling you into the action.
Marvelous, innit.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Sometimes "down with the masses" infelicities can be used for effect. "It ain't gonna happen." makes the UK English speaker sound more definite about it than "It's not going to happen."
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
Grammar has gone from being prescriptive to being descriptive. Alas. Or maybe it just isn't taught. If I mentioned some of the things we've grizzled about here to the HOD English at school. who may be half my age, she might wonder what the fuss was about.
Supermarket checkouts for people with ten items or less: No!! Fewer is for countables, less is for uncountables (measurables?) I could change my supermarket if it didn't get it right but the one I prefer spells 'trolleys' correctly too.
Me and Sue are going to the ballet. Or even Sue and me are going to the ballet. But they wouldn't say 'Me am going to the ballet, would they?
Or He's meeting Sue and I at the train station (Grrr!) He's meeting I at the station?
Everyone's doing it!!!! I despair!
GG
Two more
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
Me and Sue are going to the ballet. Or even Sue and me are going to the ballet. But they wouldn't say 'Me am going to the ballet, would they?
I raised this point with someone who said "Oh, I know, but I don't want to talk like a grammar book."
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Sometimes "down with the masses" infelicities can be used for effect. "It ain't gonna happen." makes the UK English speaker sound more definite about it than "It's not going to happen."
You'll find that most, if not all speech is done for effect. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
Me and Sue are going to the ballet. Or even Sue and me are going to the ballet. But they wouldn't say 'Me am going to the ballet, would they?
No. They'd say, "Me am, like, off to the gig - innit?"
[ 03. September 2016, 11:59: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
There is a story about a note left for a milkman which said, 'Please lay a dozen eggs on the porch.'
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Sometimes "down with the masses" infelicities can be used for effect. "It ain't gonna happen." makes the UK English speaker sound more definite about it than "It's not going to happen."
I would say that 'it ain't' is grammatical in some dialects. Of course, some Standard English speakers decry it, but this is not a linguistic judgment, but a social one, I guess. Snobbery, in other words.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would say that 'it ain't' is grammatical in some dialects.
It may be "acceptable" in some dialects, but does that make it "grammatical"? Given that "ain't" is a contraction of "am not", can it ever be "grammatically correct" when it is used in contradiction of the rules of grammar, even if it is "acceptable" in a dialect?
E.g. "'E ain't comin'" may be common use in the Cockney dialect, but that doesn't make it grammatically correct; rather it means that the dialect uses incorrect grammar! " I ain't", though, is grammatically correct.
quote:
Of course, some Standard English speakers decry it, but this is not a linguistic judgment, but a social one, I guess. Snobbery, in other words.
Dismissing opinions and attitudes one doesn't like as snobbery is, surely, merely another form of snobbery. Or isn't it?
--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.
Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
"ed" problem, revisited. Places where the "ed" has dropped off an adjective in a noun phrase, much to the mouse's displeasure.
Whip cream for whipped cream
(Surely that should mean a conditioning product for leather weaponry?)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
[I would say that 'it ain't' is grammatical in some dialects. Of course, some Standard English speakers decry it, but this is not a linguistic judgment, but a social one, I guess. Snobbery, in other words.
I think that "ain't" was part of some upper-class spoken English until fairly recently.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
Given that "ain't" is a contraction of "am not"
Is it now?
"I ent got one."
"I ent comin'."
"She ent (or ant) told him yet."
"They ant done that."
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Is it now?
That is certainly its origin, or so says my friend the etymological dictionary:
quote:
1706; originally a contraction of "am not"
It's use to mean "is not, are not, have not &c" came in the 19th century; that a word has come to be used differently doesn't change the origin of the word.
--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.
Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
Sometimes "me" is used as the object of an implied preposition "with". I would guess that this is an English carryover of that bane of many a Latin student, the ablative absolute. Example: "There we were in the restaurant, and me so hungry I could eat out the whole place."
And then there's the use of "to be like" to mean "to say". Example. "The train stopped between stations, and the conductor's like, 'Sorry, folks, there's debris on the track.'"
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
