0
   

The most common pronunciation of "would" in "I would like to"

 
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Apr, 2011 09:07 am
@oristarA,
Quote:
Sig's is apparently wrong here.


His is wrong - absolutely wrong, Ori. Terribly faulty logic on his part, though it isn't his logic. [See link to Henry Churchyard's website, below]

Often these kinds of people make loud noises about the importance of clarity and preciseness in writing and speaking. Consider first, in number 1) what these prescriptivists, like OmSig, would demand people write and say, in order to conform to "logic" and maintain clarity and preciseness.

1) ?? Every one of them wants his girlfriends to go with him.??

I've marked number 1) as strange [question marks] because, while it is grammatical and semantically sensible for the meaning that "All the people of a particular group want one single guy's multiple girlfriends to go somewhere with him", it's nonsense for the meaning that "all the people of a particular group want their own girlfriends to accompany them somewhere".

2) Every one of them wants their girlfriends to go with them.

If English grammar actually required us to follow the nonsense 'he/his' rule, there would be things that we couldn't say.

Om Sig doesn't have the brains to even BE a prescriptivist. He's merely repeating some nonsense that he once read or was told by another.

As Steven Pinker says,

Quote:
The very fact that they [prescriptive rules] have to be drilled shows that they are alien to the natural workings of the language system.


And,

Quote:
"For here are the remarkable facts. Most of the prescriptive rules of the language mavens make no sense on any level. They are bits of folklore that originated for screwball reasons several hundred years ago and have perpetuated themselves ever since. For as long as they have existed, speakers have flouted them, spawning identical plaints about the imminent decline of the language century after century. All the best writers in English have been among the flagrant flouters. The rules conform neither to logic nor tradition, and if they were ever followed they would force writers into fuzzy, clumsy, wordy, ambiguous, incomprehensible prose, in which certain thoughts are not expressible at all. Indeed, most of the "ignorant errors" these rules are supposed to correct display an elegant logic and an acute sensitivity to the grammatical texture of the language, to which the mavens are oblivious.


[The two quotes, above, are from the article linked to below]

Quote:

Grammar Puss

Steven Pinker

...

Sometimes an alleged grammatical "error" is logical not only in the sense of "rational," but in the sense of respecting distinctions made by the logician. Consider this alleged barbarism: Everyone returned to their seats. If anyone calls, tell them I can't come to the phone. No one should have to sell their home to pay for medical care.

The mavens explain: [everyone] means [every one], a singular subject, which may not serve as the antecedent of a plural pronoun like [them] later in the sentence. "Everyone returned to [his] seat," they insist. "If anyone calls, tell [him] I can't come to the phone."

If you were the target of these lessons, you might be getting a bit uncomfortable. [Everyone returned to his seat] makes it sound like Bruce Springsteen was discovered during intermission to be in the audience, and everyone rushed back and converged on his seat to await an autograph. If there is a good chance that a caller may be female, it is odd to ask one's roommate to tell [him] anything (even if you are not among the people who get upset about "sexist language").

Such feelings of disquiet -- a red flag to any serious linguist -- are well-founded. The logical point that everyone but the language mavens intuitively grasps is that [everyone] and [they] are not an antecedent and a pronoun referring to the same person in the world, which would force them to agree in number.

They are a "quantifier" and a "bound variable," a different logical relationship. [Everyone returned to their seats] means "For all X, X returned to X's seat." The "X" is simply a placeholder that keeps track of the roles that players play across different relationships: the X that comes back to a seat is the same X that owns the seat that X comes back to. The [their] there does not, in fact, have plural number, because it refers neither to one thing nor to many things; it does not refer at all.

On logical grounds, then, variables are not the same thing as the more familiar "referential" pronouns that trigger agreement ([he] meaning to some particular guy, [they] meaning some particular bunch of guys). Some languages are considerate and offer their speakers different words for referential pronouns and for variables. But English is stingy; a referential pronoun must be drafted into service to lend its name when a speaker needs to use a variable. There is no reason that the vernacular decision to borrow [they, their, them] for the task is any worse than the prescriptivists' recommendation of [he, him, his]. Indeed, [they] has the advantage of embracing both sexes and feeling right in a wider variety of sentences.

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html



Quote:
The singular "they"/"their"/"them"/"themselves" construction

These files contain a list of over 75 occurrences of the words "they"/"their"/"them"/"themselves" referring to a singular antecedent with indefinite or generic meaning in Jane Austen's writings (mainly in her six novels), as well as further examples of singular "their" etc. from the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and elsewhere.

While your high-school English teacher may have told you not to use this construction, it actually dates back to at least the 14th century, and was used by the following authors (among others) in addition to Jane Austen: Geoffrey Chaucer, Edmund Spenser, William Shakespeare, the King James Bible, The Spectator, Jonathan Swift, Daniel Defoe, Frances Sheridan, Oliver Goldsmith, Henry Fielding, Maria Edgeworth, Percy Shelley, Lord Byron, William Makepeace Thackeray, Sir Walter Scott, George Eliot [Mary Anne Evans], Charles Dickens, Mrs. Gaskell, Anthony Trollope, John Ruskin, Robert Louis Stevenson, Walt Whitman, George Bernard Shaw, Lewis Carroll, Oscar Wilde, Rudyard Kipling, H. G. Wells, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Edith Wharton, W. H. Auden, Lord Dunsany, George Orwell, and C. S. Lewis.

Singular "their" etc., was an accepted part of the English language before the 18th-century grammarians started making arbitrary judgements as to what is "good English" and "bad English", based on a kind of pseudo-"logic" deduced from the Latin language, that has nothing whatever to do with English. (See the 1975 journal article by Anne Bodine in the bibliography.)

And even after the old-line grammarians put it under their ban, this anathematized singular "their" construction never stopped being used by English-speakers, both orally and by serious literary writers. So it's time for anyone who still thinks that singular "their" is so-called "bad grammar" to get rid of their prejudices and pedantry!

[read on at, ]

http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html


Another link,

Examples of singular "their" etc. from the OED and elsewhere

http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/sgtheirl.html


0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Apr, 2011 09:13 am
The following two tags have been added, though they don't appear, to this thread; 'everyone their' & 'singular their', for anyone who wants to find this information at a later date. The part in bold means the same and is understood to mean the same as "all the people who want to find this information at a later date".
laughoutlood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2011 01:12 am
@JTT,
Given that this thread is about how to say 'would' I'm nonplussed that more has not been made of the etymology of would and it's devolution from original pronunciation.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2011 08:16 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:
As for "a speaker and their..." thing, the usage is around online, rooted in feminism, which is acceptable.
JTT wrote:
It has little to nothing to do with feminism, Ori.
We know that, as u have correctly pointed out,
this deviation from grammar occurred at the instance of feminists.
Indeed, I remember an actual writing explaining, seeking to justify
this aberration of logic (of counting) on feminist grounds, at the behest of the feminists,
JTT's denials to the contrary notwithstanding.

However, I will admit the possibility that for any length of time,
careless Englishmen might have made any number of confusions
in their writings, possibly including that one.






JTT wrote:
It was simply another silly prescription invented by some wag back in the 17th century.
Singular 'their' had existed in English for centuries before this dumb idea ever saw the light of day.
I don 't believe that it is wise to accept this allegation
on the basis of JTT's authority, but I admit that careless Englishmen
might well have made all numbers of chaotic errors in some of their writings.
Such confusions do not render legitimate JTT's assertions.
Logic still rules what makes sense, even if JTT disapproves.







JTT wrote:
That 'their' [plural possessive. David] can't combine with 'anyone' as Om has suggested can be easily refuted.
All you have to do is look at the pronoun 'you' which serves as both a singular and plural.
That is JTT's naked assertion,
with no supporting evidence.
The conclusion that he urges
concerning plural possessives is a non-sequitur.








JTT wrote:
Or look at 'I' in,

I'm right about that, aren't I?
That is simply BAD grammar; it shoud be "am I not ?"








JTT wrote:

Singular 'I' with the plural verb 'are'.

========================

Everyone brought their backpacks.

The language mavens, like Sig, tell us that you have to use 'his', as in,

Everyone brought his backpack.
YES; that 's right.
Some people choose to add "or her" to "his".







JTT wrote:
to maintain agreement with the singular 'everyone'.

'everyone', singular, really?
YES: REALLY.








JTT wrote:
Everyone brought his backpack.
He all had bought new ones and he was eager to try them out.
??
That is ungrammatical and its very awkward. Its unclear what JTT has in mind.
Perhaps JTT means that "every person brought his new one. . ."

OR

"All the people brought their new ones . . . . "







JTT wrote:
Doesn't seem to make any sense when we continue with a real context.
That only results from the confusion with which JTT invested his sentence.









JTT wrote:
Everyone brought their backpacks.
It shoud be: Everyone brought his backpack

OR

all the people brought their packpacks.
The concept is really very simple.









JTT wrote:
They all had bought new ones and they were eager to try them out.[/i]
That is grammatically correct.






JTT wrote:
The notion that 'any/every/no/some + one equals a singular is fatuous in the extreme.
That assertion is false
and it merely demonstrates JTT's mental limitations,
which have no effect upon the logic of the situation.






JTT wrote:
It's only by convention that we use a singular verb with these pronouns but they are notionally plural and indefinite.
JTT's allegations have no logical merit.
Simple arithmetic and simple counting remain stable, regardless of JTT's preferences.


IF I have failed to take any legitimate principle of reasoning
into consideration, I hope that someone will tell me what it is.





David
In contemplation of my last sentence,
hereinabove set forth, I shoud release JTT from the nether regions of Ignore
for at least enuf time for him to offer a response to my corrections, if such be his choice.

Let the record indicate that perhaps around 2 years ago,
after extensive debate of grammar, I abandoned all hope
of seeing a soundly reasoned response from JTT.

He explicitly repudiated logic.
That is below a standard with which I can deal.
Therefore, I put him on Ignore deeming discourse with him
to be a futile waste of time. Let 's see whether his mind
has been re-habilitated (if he wishes to offer anything).
I don 't think there is much chance, but u never know.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2011 08:19 am

OK; JTT has now been released from Ignore.





David
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2011 09:01 am
@OmSigDAVID,
A likely story, Om.
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2011 09:05 am
@laughoutlood,
laughoutlood wrote:

One could and would but shouldnt this close to the wedding.


What wedding?

OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2011 10:18 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
A likely story, Om.
U r off Ignore, for the nonce, JTT.

If u wish to defend from my corrections,
u r welcome to do so and I will consider your assertions.

Note that, upon the basis of our discussions of grammar
in recent years, I never said that u r a bad person,
merely that u are unwilling and unable to reason,
and hence, u r not interesting.

In theory,
u might have improved, tho I don 't believe that there is much chance of that.

Do u wish to add anything to the discussion ?





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2011 10:20 am
@oristarA,

laughoutlood wrote:

One could and would but shouldnt this close to the wedding.
oristarA wrote:
What wedding?
Maybe the Royal Wedding ?????????
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2011 10:57 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Read over the replies. You've got an awful lot of homework ahead of you, Om.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2011 11:26 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
Read over the replies. You've got an awful lot of homework ahead of you, Om.
OK. I must attend to an errand
this afternoon, but I will attend to it.





David


0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2011 09:51 pm
I suggest, OmSig, if you insist the LAW of PRECISENESS AND LOGIC all day long, that you MUST spell ALL your words in stardard English spellings.

Precisely and logically speaking, What is u and r? Your persistence on these informal, wrong or short-lived cyber spellings has obviously put you in an inferior position in the debate and, contributed to the stark contrast to your "precise and logic image."
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 May, 2011 12:57 pm
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:
I suggest, OmSig, if you insist the LAW of PRECISENESS AND LOGIC all day long,
that you MUST spell ALL your words in stardard English spellings.
For brevity, I will address you as A, if that is OK with you.

I was born in New York, and lived in Arizona & in California for a few years,
but I have lived my entire life (except for vacations) in America.
My education was in America. I was a trial attorney in New York for a few decades.
I am retired from the practice of law for many years.
When I was in practice as a lawyer, it never occurred to me
for a minute, nor any fraction thereof, to use fonetic spelling.
I had more important things to do. When addressing the Court
in writing as well as addressing other lawyers or anyone else,
I used fully paradigmatic spelling for years and for decades.

After my retirement, in retrospect,
I felt guilty about contributing to the perpetuation of the illogical and inefficient
aspects of traditional spelling. I have some familiarity with the Spanish Language,
whose spelling is very nearly 1OO% fonetic; it is spelled as it sounds.

Logically, that puts English to shame.
Almost all English words are already pronounced the same as they are spelled,
but a far inferior percentage than Spanish. The Spanish did it and DO it the logical way.

When I began to use the Internet, around 2OOO, I decided to set a good example
for my fellow citizens to encourage them to tear down
so much of conventional spelling as was illogical and inefficient.
I decided to show them better ways of spelling,
in hope of having them adopt the easier ways, rejecting the bad old ways.
I am trying to support a paradigm shift among my countrymen.

This was attempted (unsuccessfully) by a very popular and respected
President of the United States, Teddy Roosevelt, about 1OO years ago.
Now, the youth of America are supporting faster & easier writing.
I hope that this will accelerate and come to predominate.

On the merits, the old paradigm does not deserve to endure intact.
For instance: there is NO logical reason
to add the letters UGH to the word tho.
There is no logical reason to SOMETIMES, but not always
spell the sound of F as "ph"; that is foolishness, with no redeeming value.
In the words would, could and should, the letter L serves no purpose.
It is simply not helpful, yet 3OO,OOO,OOO Americans remain doing it year after decade, after century.
That is violence against logic and against efficiency; I choose not to be an accomplice thereto.
Among my own countrymen, I seek to support a REBELLION in defense of sound reasoning,
against stupid traditions of spelling. My ancestors were less than perfect logicians qua spelling.

When I express myself on the Internet, I address my fellow native speakers of English.
Nearly all of them are adults, with years of linguistic experience.
They KNOW and understand the pattern that I am trying to tear down,
to the extent that it is not fonetic.


HOWEVER, in addressing an alien who requests advice on correct English,
I am very uncertain as to the propriety of showing you any variation
from orthodox usage, thoUGH I have done it (perhaps out of habit).
It 'd be very unreasonable of me to enlist your support
in our local rebellion.

If you wish me to employ fully orthodox usage of English
on your threads, then I shouLd understand and comply with your wishes and your needs.




oristarA wrote:
Precisely and logically speaking, What is u and r?
The letter u is the only functionally operative part
of the word that is commonly written: you.
The letter r is the only functionally operative part
of the word that is commonly written: are.
My ancestors were foolish and illogical
in unnecessarily lengthening those words.
By showing the correct ways of spelling them on Internet fora,
I was hoping to encourage everyone to adopt the better methods,
rejecting the bad, old traditions, the atavistic throwbacks to Chaucerian times
or earlier when English was closer to its Germanic origins.




oristarA wrote:
Your persistence on these informal, wrong or short-lived cyber spellings has obviously put you in an inferior position in the debate and, contributed to the stark contrast to your "precise and logic image."
I respectfully disagree.
A failure of PERSISTENCE is inappropriate in a rebellion,
until success has been achieved. Between myself and my fellow citizens,
I argue that the short easy way is the CORRECT way
and that the old established non-fonetic way of spelling is incorrect
and an offense against sound reasoning
EXCEPT when rendering advice to an alien to the English Language
who solicits advice on conservative usage.
Note that in my advice to you, I have NEVER suggested that you adopt
fonetic usage. I will not suggest that to you.

My dispute with Mr. Setanta concerned correct use of grammar,
to wit: his run-on sentences (too persistent in his years of posting).
This is an error of punctuation.
He never disagreed as to the error of using run-on sentences,
nor did he deny the definition of this particular error.

He merely threw another Setantrum.
His side of the argument was purely ad hominem.
His side of the argument consisted of his questioning my mental health
and consisted of his declaration that I am a member of a different species
(indeed, one whose hooves wouLd prevent him from typing Internet posts).
He then (ignominiously) fled the scene, not seen on this thread since.
His position was untenable.


When I have employed short fonetic forms (like u instead of you),
I did so in the belief that even with your limited knowledge of English,
you wouLd get the idea, because of its simplicity.

I re-iterate:
if you wish that I use only purely conventional English when addressing you,
I will comply because of your unique circumstances.

In any event, my advice as to your actual usage of English
has ALWAYS contemplated your use of perfectly standard, orthodox English spelling.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 May, 2011 01:34 pm

JTT:

Sorry for the delay,
but I will get back to u with a reply.





David
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 May, 2011 08:27 am
I appreciate your effort to advance the efficiency of using English, OmSig. Kudos goes to your courage and your intention to better serve people.

However, something needs to be further discussed.

(1) The aesthetical value of a word cannot be ignored

The functionally operative part of a word is not everything, What cannot be neglected is the aesthetical value of the word. Comparing U with You, the latter conveys more dignified atmosphere. The fullness of respectfulness in the form You has been better rendered with a remarkable soothing comfort.

Quote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
My ancestors were foolish and illogical in unnecessarily lengthening those words.


Not really. Your consideration is biased.

(2) The efficiency of writing is mostly improved through new technologies, not the way you've acclaimed

Computerization or AI technologies have revolutionized the way of writing, bestowing it with far better efficiency than yours.

Undeniably, the spirit of your trying to rebel the writing traditions ought to be encouraged. But the BETTER SCIENCE is the right direction to make our English writing more efficient.








0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2011 10:59 am
@OmSigDAVID,
A 100 page thesis isn't necessary, David.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 12:03 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
A 100 page thesis isn't necessary, David.
I was out of town for a while.

I will address your concerns.





David
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 12:37 am
Oristar, whatever you do, do NOT try to learn English from OmSigDavid, or you'll end up sounding like the most pedantic dickhead in the world. But I think you know that already.

David, your comparison of English to Spanish founders on one difficulty you have never even thought about addressing. Spanish has only about 28 phonemes, And it has the 26 letters of the Roman alphabet and a couple combinations and the tilde to represent them. In particular it has five vowel sounds and five vowel letter. English, on the other hand, has around 45 phonemes, and about a dozen of those are vowels. But it only has the same 26 letters and five vowel letters to represent more than half again as many sound. If you want phonetic spelling, you're gonna have to invent a whole lot more letters (or you could of course use the IPA which already can represent all our phonemes and 80 or so others that other languages select from. But you have no idea how to actually do phonetics, so all we get from you is an inconsistent hash).
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 12:43 am
Ori, I've thought about it (and skipped a couple pages of replies), but it seems to me whoever said that "would" is normally pronounced with a schwa (like the a in sofa) is pretty much right. It seems to me there's kind of an increasing degree of formality (or emphasis) involved here. As people have pointed out, probably the most conversational is the contracted "I'd" form. If we're talking just about as informally but for some reason want a "would" in the sentence it'd be "w-schwa-d". If we're being very precise, or formal, or really want to stress it, it would be "wood"/
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 04:49 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Oristar, whatever you do, do NOT try to learn English from OmSigDavid, or you'll end up sounding like the most pedantic dickhead in the world. But I think you know that already.

David, your comparison of English to Spanish founders on one difficulty you have never even thought about addressing. Spanish has only about 28 phonemes, And it has the 26 letters of the Roman alphabet and a couple combinations and the tilde to represent them. In particular it has five vowel sounds and five vowel letter. English, on the other hand, has around 45 phonemes, and about a dozen of those are vowels. But it only has the same 26 letters and five vowel letters to represent more than half again as many sound. If you want phonetic spelling, you're gonna have to invent a whole lot more letters (or you could of course use the IPA which already can represent all our phonemes and 80 or so others that other languages select from. But you have no idea how to actually do phonetics, so all we get from you is an inconsistent hash).
Many times have I said that my (admittedly inconsistent)
rendition will NOT be the final fonetic product.
I leave that to future fonetic lexicografers,
but what I can do now is show easier n faster ways to spell,
each of which is closer to being fonetic than the obsolete atavistic Germanic form
that it seeks to replace; i.e., I can go for the low-hanging fruit,
in contrast to your implicit argument that I shoud spell the old, worse way,
UNLESS I can render PERFECT fonetic spelling.

Accordingly, I show that the word enuf shoud not be spelled enough,
nor shoud tho be spelled thoUGH.

Once in a while I get hit in the head with an idea for something new,
but I bear in mind that posting in these Internet fora,
I need to keep it reasonable, not tediously difficult,
ESPECIALLY not when debating matters of great emotional controversy.





David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/10/2022 at 11:10:53