1
   

War on Grammar

 
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 10:19 pm
Ah, but we could use your savvy on the next venture on Language and Thought, if not that one.
0 Replies
 
mezzie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 10:57 pm
I'll keep my eyes open. Smile

More likely I'll just jump in with a bunch of links that should be required reading before posting! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 11:30 pm
Read before posting? What? We are a community of talkers, first and foremost - or if not talkers, typers - though you're right, whole bunches of us do read the links.
0 Replies
 
mezzie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 11:37 pm
No, I was only kidding. Smile

I like promoting open, engaging discussion. I also like when people take the time to prepare reasoned, well-thought-out answers to questions with references linked... and it makes me sad when others continue asking the same questions when the answer is already there...
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 12:40 am
ah, we have both types here. I fear I fall in number two, semireasoned, illprepared, sans links. We try, within our ken, here, and hope to grow and sputter back and forth ever more intricately.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 12:48 am
I'm looking forward to mezzie and Craven perhaps talking about Portuguese, and regional Brazilian dialects, should Craven be willing to start a convo.
0 Replies
 
drom et reve
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 05:32 am


Mezzie wrote:
Using the "proper" variety of a language in a particular context can be crucial for communicating most efficiently.




Mezzie wrote:
There is so much to disagree with in here! First of all, why is Scotch any more a true dialect, than, say ebonics, or Spanglish, or Singapore English (all 3 of which get derided). Go to New Guinea and listen to the Pidgin English spoken there, which is the national language and has newspapers written in it. 50 years ago it sounded like a joke to speakers of "standard" English. Once again, "standard" English and "established" dialects are social constructs, dictated by political power, geographical borders, and sheer number of speakers, along with their control of media outlets, publishing, and so on.

How can one possess "wilful misknowledge"? If one doesn't know something, they can't wilfully disobey or change it! I would reckon that you are likely far more ignorant of the language used by Eastern Canadian fishermen than they are of Standard English. They may have a passive knowledge of it, but in a sense are bilingual, while you remain monolingual. (of course I have no idea what varieties of English you may be familiar with; this is just an illustrative example)


This is where the confusion begins! I thought that you were defending the misuse of English by people who both a) do not belong to a different culture or clique and b) speak English as their first language. I thought that you were defending people's mistakes when trying

I wrote:
See, that's the thing; by the nature of being divergent from 'Proper' English, ebonics is considered 'improper' and thus 'inferior.'




Mezzie wrote:
The fact that you said this:

Perhaps, like in the ebonics case, if people knew both how to speak standard English and this misconstrued collection of wrong things at the wrong time, maybe I would be less harsh.

was the most disturbing thing to me!

Based on this quote alone, it sounds as though you truly believe that ebonics is somehow "wrong", and hence "inferior",


0 Replies
 
drom et reve
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 05:37 am
Incidentally, I apologise for what is, in hindsight, a very long-winded reply! I had a lot to say, to ensure that you don't consider me some rash kind of Language fascist...
0 Replies
 
mezzie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 10:13 am
Hey drom,

thanks for the very thorough reply! Reading it certainly put my mind at ease about the majority of points. I can see how your "disturbing" sentence really wasn't if I had interpreted it differently (properly!). :d

The one thing we will likely agree to disagree about is your comment about "laziness" of people who should "take the time to learn the rules" of Standard English.

The did/done thing is one example.

I would venture that people who make such "mistakes" when apparently trying to speak in Standard English aren't being lazy; rather, they are simply speaking what is more natural for them. The fact that the majority of such a person's speech is so similar to Standard English makes it seem as though with a little more effort they could just master it. They themselves may not be aware of the slight differences between their speech and Standard speech; or they may feel inferior because of the "imperfections" of their speech. This again is irrelevant to their "work ethic" or intelligence level.

Again, very interesting stuff, and very important to be as aware as possible about the motivations for why people say what they say and how they say it. (thought it was a good idea to end on a confusing note!)

PS I have no idea of the origin of "a-". I'll look into it and get back to you. Smile
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 10:40 am
Habla Espanol?
0 Replies
 
drom et reve
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 11:35 am
No worries; if I were reading that sentence without knowing my ideologies, I'd think the same thing too.

I know that supporting dialectical divergence from the rules of standard English but disliking the way that people don't even bother to use correct Standard English in a Standard English context- using 'was' for every person- may seem like a bit of a contradiction, but it just grates on my nerves! Still, that is probably the way that their parents spoke, and so it's only natural for their speech to have the imperfections of those with whom they grew up, but most people to whom I've talked have said that they do this because it saves time instead of considering the conjugations! I would have thought that this would have come instantly. What grates me is when people refuse to learn how to speak in a S.E. environment.

Do you find many dialects in Japanese?

No sé si fueses preguntándome, pero sí, hablo castellano Lo aprendí cuándo era muy joven, ya que opinaron mis padres que deben preservar nuestra historia. Me gusta mucha el idioma, aunque opino que son más fáciles el francés y el catalán. Voy corrientemente a países hispanohablantes: siento que sean muy cariñosos los hispanohablantes. ¿Y tú, Cav, habla Ud. español?
0 Replies
 
mezzie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 12:14 pm
it just grates on my nerves!

I hear ya! Despite my linguistics background and experience living in various countries and having contact with different cultures, etc., I still feel irked, riled up, or what have you when I hear certain constructions. That is, of course, human nature, though it still is no excuse! Very Happy

Still, that is probably the way that their parents spoke, and so it's only natural for their speech to have the imperfections of those with whom they grew up, but most people to whom I've talked have said that they do this because it saves time instead of considering the conjugations! I would have thought that this would have come instantly.

I must admit I'm not comfortable with your use of the word "imperfections". That presupposes comparison to a superior form of the language, which I had hoped we agreed is a social, rather than salient, concept.

One other thing, it's always important to keep in mind that the reasons people give for doing something aren't necessarily the actual reasons, whether they themselves believe them or not! "Saves time" might be a convenient explanation, but it still seems more likely that the real reason is "that's the way I speak this language most naturally". Would you force yourself to speak in an unnatural-to-you manner if it seemed there was no problem with communication?

As for Japanese, I can understand (and speak with varying degrees of proficiency) several dialects, including 2 varieties of Kansai (Osaka-Kyoto) dialect, Shizuoka-Yaizu dialect, 3 varieties of Nagasaki dialect (Nagasaki, Isahaya, and Goto Island), Kyushu dialect as spoken in Fukuoka, and of course the "standard" Tokyo dialect. These are all quite different from each other, including grammatical endings, intonation patterns, and so on.

And as far as I know, my brother doesn't speak Spanish, though I wouldn't be surprised if he could decode the majority of your message. Smile
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 01:06 pm
Hee hee...
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 01:23 pm
All I can say is that my Spanish is slightly better than my Tagalog, and when it comes to Romance languages, ahh...please excuse my French. Italian to me is one of the most pleasing to the ear. I post this humble ballad from that fine country here:

vaffaculo, mangia melo
mi pompino, una puttana,
tu testa di merda, mange la gatza,
ey vaffan Napola

faccia bruta, i coglioni
che chiavata meravigliosa
mi prude il culo grafiamelo
si, caro subito
0 Replies
 
HoneyBises
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 03:04 pm
New Languages
I'd like to add a new perspective:

I look at it this way: incorrect English may possibly cause "Standard English" to evolve. Already, American is so much different from British English, and it's because of our lovely "melting pot". It's the beauty of it all: some languages are dying out, it's true, but others are being formed right before our very eyes.

I'm not very educated in the way of linguistics, but I am very interested in it. I've been taught that English was formed by German grammar and French vocabulary. When the Saxons, a Germanic tribe, invaded Britain, they adopted their language and because the Anglo-Saxons. Then there was the Norman conquest, and French was also adopted, yet the grammar stayed mostly Germanic (or so I've been told). So they were speaking incorrect French, but because of it, English evolved! And then Latin was considered the "standard" language of educated individuals and more importantly, the Catholic Church. Of course, I'm sure there's much more to the evolution of the language than simply this.
If anyone would like to correct me, please do so that others and myself won't be mistaken!
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 03:14 pm
Welcome to A2K HoneyBises! I am certain that mezzie will have plenty of info for you. I forgot to mention in another thread that he started that I did study Anglo-Saxon back in university, i.e. 'English' before the Norman conquest, but I don't recall a lick of it, to be honest. I blame a bad teacher (it was all about translation, with no content/context), because reading Beowulf again in it's original language would be quite intriguing for me.
0 Replies
 
mezzie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 05:36 pm
Honey, the history that you have heard is largely accurate, with lots of details missing. There's a fun (though not rigorous scholarship) book called "The Story of English", by Robert McCrum, et al, which provides some detail.

And here's a link to TONS of information about anything you'd ever want to know about English:

History of English

Also, always keep in mind that what you might think of as "incorrect" usage of a language is often a case of borrowing and using words differently, which speakers do every day. It's only "incorrect" compared with some standard decided subjectively. Smile
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 06:53 pm
I read and pipe in with my point of view on a lot of the topics in the English forum, and followed the philosophy topic Language and Thought. I'm quite the dummy on linguistics and whatever goes on at MLA meetings. I just like the play of words, the sounds of words, the changing of the guard of words, the implications of word arrangement, the wit of words, the rhythm, and yes, to some extent the rules - more as a foundation, though, than as some binding covenant. I am crazy for colloquial usage, nothing more fun than reading the italian dictionary and following the examples.
0 Replies
 
rufio
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2003 01:53 am
Mezzie, I see what you're saying - when you think of dog you think of a real physical object, but a "noun" does not refer to anything "real" such as dog does. But if you think about it, it's not just metalanguage that does that - words like "peace" and "love" and "justice" are similarly abstract, yet they have clear meanings, and we can cement a universal (for a group of people anyway) meaning of the word "justice" without actually encountering a "justice" (not a judge, obviously) or interacting with it in any way as we would a dog. Perhaps even with words like "dog" we just form an abstract idea of it in our minds when we interpret the word, as with justice. It seems easier than trying to picture a real dog every time we hear the term. So a noun is just as "real" as everything else, in that case.

I don't think anything really possesses reality through language - language is just a system of labels. Where they're real, I think, is in your mind - where you have these ideas of dogs and justice. Maybe they're sets of identifing characteristics, or a basic model of some sort - but I think they would be there (and not outside) regardless.

Drom - Spanglish is a dialect? I think not. It's just kids who speak Spanish poorly using English words to substitute, or for effect.
0 Replies
 
HoneyBises
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2003 05:32 pm
Thanks, cavfancier. And thank you for the book suggestions, mezzie. I'll make sure to look for those during my next trip to the library. Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deutsch anyone?? - Discussion by tell me why
Languages and Thought - Discussion by rosborne979
english to latin phrase translation - Discussion by chelsea84
What other languages would you use a2k in? - Discussion by Craven de Kere
Translation of names into Hebrew - Discussion by Sandra Karl
Google searching in Russian - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » War on Grammar
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 12:43:11