nothing = anything?

@ehBeth,

Quote:

Why do you think your opinion on this has any more meaning or value than any other opinion?

I guess you missed the article by Professor Pullum, Beth. Go back and read it, then maybe we can talk.

Quote:

(not that I think they should or would in this thread)

Okay, so you too, hold to some ignorant notions on language. I'm not really much surprised. Given your age, you too had to have been taught much of this nonsense.

But, why not, for once, just think it thru, discuss it instead of making a few wisecracks in one post and then just running away.

Robert has to play the sanitized version or his business would go down the tubes.

3 Replies

@JTT,

One person's opinion is just that.

You hold opinions, as do others. You need to accept that.

Bludgeoning people with your opinions is not going to make them come around. It's like bombing Baghdad to force democracy on the residents. It doesn't work.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

But, why not, for once, just think it thru,

playing the jw card?

0 Replies

@JTT,

There were no wisecracks in that post. I meant what I said quite seriously.

It is a shame that you make it so difficult for people to read your posts.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Quote:

You hold opinions, as do others. You need to accept that.

I do accept that.

Quote:

One person's opinion is just that.

I'm not the least bit willing to let people run around maligning others language.

Ignorant opinions need countering.

Now if you'd like to discuss it, lead on.

Explain how yours or anyone else opinion matters compared to the combined scholarship of the CGEL, or the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, or the thousands of other scholarly articles and books that state clearly that these long held "opinions" are nothing more than pure, unadulterated ignorance.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

I meant what I said quite seriously.

I'm sure you did.

Now, are you ready to address the issue.

You know, if this was some other topic like womens' rights, sexual assault issues, ..., you'd be right there countering the ignorance.

Just because you happen to share this particular ignorance makes no difference as regards the level of ignorance.

1 Reply

Come on, Beth, really, address the actual language issue if you think you have something to offer - and obviously you do, as you said,

"You push your opinion in a way that makes it difficult for people who might come around to agreeing with you (not that I think they should or would in this thread)".

Now, I'm really interested in how people can not bother to read, or read over, or read and ignore the scholarship on this issue and hold to their belief/opinion.

To me that's what Gunga or Tico or Oralloy or Finn or Okie or Gob or ... does.

0 Replies

@JTT,

I'm being serious too, the 'ink' sound at the end of a word is Bristolian, a Londoner would use a glottal stop, nuffin,' actually more like nughfin.' Who says nicer? Nuffink nicer is straight out of My Fair Lady. People say better, not nicer. If you want to champion the descriptive approach to grammar try to make sure your descriptions are accurate.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

I'm being serious too,

I'm sure you are, Izzy, but that's something that you'll have to take up with Professor Pullum. Dialectal pronunciation is not my bag.

I'd be interested in what he has to say. Do you want his email?

1 Reply

@JTT,

I don't know, Professor Pullum does sound a bit like a joke name. Anyway he's your friend, why don't you email him my last post and see what he says? If I email him he might think I'm starting a fight, and I couldn't guarantee not taking the piss out of his name. I've just opened a bottle of apple wine, and I'm feeling a bit irreverent.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

He's not my friend, Izzy. He a linguist, one of the leading authors of the CGEL. He certainly has my respect because he doesn't put up with these know nothings spreading all manner of ignorance about language about the globe.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Well his view of Cockney is like something out of Dickens, maybe he hasn't been over here recently.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

But many of these grammatical rules derived from the idiotic idea to use Latin grammar as a template for English have survived.

Really, perfessor? Which ones?

Quote:

The prohibition on double negatives is an example in which most English speakers have concurred, and whether or not that silly **** JTT likes it, most people consider the use of double negatives to be wrong.

See, Beth, here's another shining example of stone cold ignorance.

[For many more, just read the rest of Set's completely off topic pile of bullshit.]

English speakers have hardly concurred on the use of negative concord. Examples abound in English.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

Okay, I can see that you are seriously confused on just what the meaning of Standard English/Nonstandard English is.

No, merely, you post someone else's idea of what Standard English is, and interpret it to mean something different than what I am saying, when actually what you are quoting virtually paraphrases what I meant. You don't even articulate for yourself what Standard English is, and instead misread what you're copying and pasting.

Try reading what you c&p before going off on your mulish rants.

Quote:

I have no problem with you expressing an opinion, at any time. You are entitled to that. That doesn't mean that you have the right to seriously mislead on language.

How, exactly, am I misleading on language?

Quote:

Illustrating that other languages use double, triple, quadruple, ... negating features in their grammar doesn't suggest that English has to, should, or must bring those features into English. It merely illustrates that the process isn't ignorant at all. If it was ignorant of English speakers, it would also be ignorant of millions of speakers of other languages.

You're flailing against your own straw man argument. No one said that the process of double negation is ignorant. If you'd bother to read before you spew you'd find that I wrote that the use of double negation sounds ignorant in light of Standard English.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

Quote:
But many of these grammatical rules derived from the idiotic idea to use Latin grammar as a template for English have survived.

Really, perfessor? Which ones?

What I have been reading recently indicates that Setanta is right about that.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

and interpret it to mean something different than what I am saying, when actually what you are quoting virtually paraphrases what I meant.

Show me how it's different and show me how it "virtually paraphrases" what you mean.

Quote:

and instead misread what you're copying and pasting.

Try actually explaining what you mean, Infra.

Quote:

How, exactly, am I misleading on language?

You provided a take on language that wasn't even your own. You are simply repeating the ignorance of your "teachers".

Quote:

I wrote that the use of double negation sounds ignorant in light of Standard English.

No, it sounds ignorant because you were misled into thinking it was ignorant. There's nothing ignorant about people's language. The ignorance is in thinking that different styles/dialects are somehow less a language than standard English.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

Show me how it's different and show me how it "virtually paraphrases" what you mean.

I said the standard, i.e. Standard English, is widely recognized or employed as a model of authority and excellence. Your copy and paste job explains that Standard English is the language we use for public discourse, and is the language of our social institutions such as the news media, the government, the legal profession, schools, universities, etc. i.e. authoritative and excellent use.

Quote:

You provided a take on language that wasn't even your own. You are simply repeating the ignorance of your "teachers".

My take on language is everyone's that can follow simple logic. People that use double negation sound ignorant of Standard English.

Quote:

No, it sounds ignorant because you were misled into thinking it was ignorant.

No, it sounds ignorant of Standard English's eschewal of double negation.

Quote:

There's nothing ignorant about people's language. The ignorance is in thinking that different styles/dialects are somehow less a language than standard English.

Well you've handily taken care of those two straw man arguments of yours. Good for you.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Standard English is the language we use for public discourse, and is the language of our social institutions such as the news media, the government, the legal profession, schools, universities,

Don't take this the wrong way, Infra, but you are mightily confused. You tell me I should read this.

How did you happen to miss this?

These nonstandard varieties of English are no less logical or systematic than Standard English. In this book an expression labeled nonstandard is not wrong; it is merely inappropriate for ordinary usage in Standard English.

It is important to remember that formal and informal refer to styles of expression, not standards of correctness. Informal English has its own rules of grammar and is just as logical as formal English. You can be serious using informal English, just as you can be comical using formal English. The two styles are simply used for different occasions.

And this,

The slim difference is that nonstandard English co-opted the word [no] as the agreement element, whereas Standard English co-opted the word [any].

But there is no need to use terms like "bad grammar," "fractured syntax," and "incorrect usage" when referring to rural and Black dialects. Though I am no fan of "politically correct" euphemism (in which, according to the satire, "white woman" should be replaced by "melanin-impoverished person of gender"), using terms like "bad grammar" for "nonstandard" is both insulting and scientifically inaccurate.

Quote:

i.e. authoritative and excellent use. People that use double negation sound ignorant of Standard English.

Your argument is simply nonsense. You pick out one example and call it ignorant, Lord know why, when the vast majority of your language use is informal, that's nonstandard English. You, and everyone else must be ignorant.

And once again, standard English is not the authoritative and excellent use - it's simply one type of language we use in limited circumstances.

Quote:

My take on language is everyone's that can follow simple logic.

Please explain "your" take on following simple logic.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

Please explain "your" take on following simple logic.

It's over your head.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

I knew that you would chicken out, Infra.

0 Replies

nothing = anything?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know