 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2009Resources teaching an extinct dialect
I'm currently teaching English as a foreign language in Asia. We were watching a video the other day in class and it had the following grammatical explanations: (singular) There's a monkey in the tree. (plural) There are monkeys in the tree. As soon as I heard the second one, which uses "there are", it sounded odd, very unnatural. So I asked around, I asked a New Zealander, an Australian, a Brit, and a German man who had been immersed in an English-speaking area for three years. All of them agreed that they say: (plural) There's monkeys in the tree. The German man was more certain than the others, because his learning of English had been a very conscious process which he still fully recalls, and as soon as I said "There are monkeys", he replied with "Nobody says that". My conclusion is that the video is teaching an extinct dialect of English which is no longer spoken today in 2009. In fact, it seems that every English grammar book and grammar video I come across teaches an extinct dialect of English. For instance, the form "I have broken the window" has been replaced in a lot of dialects with "I'm after breaking the window", yet I have yet to see a single grammar book that explains "I'm after". I'd feel I'm doing my students a disservice if I taught them to say "There are", but at the same time I don't want them to get marked wrong in a test question for saying "There's monkeys". So basically I'm left with telling them: Say 'there's monkeys', it's correct today in 2009, but be aware that some people will hold the opinion that you're incorrect. >I'm currently teaching English as a foreign language in Asia. We were >watching a video the other day in class and it had the following [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >recalls, and as soon as I said "There are monkeys", he replied with >"Nobody says that". "There are monkeys in the tree" is correct grammatical English. "There's <something plural>..." is increasingly used in casual conversation, but "There are <something plural>..." is still correct in conversation, particularly of a more formal character, and should certainly be used in writing. >My conclusion is that the video is teaching an extinct dialect of >English which is no longer spoken today in 2009. In fact, it seems [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >after breaking the window", yet I have yet to see a single grammar >book that explains "I'm after". In my, limited, experience the form "I'm after <doing something>" comes from Irish English. Perhaps it is a direct translation of a form in Irish (Gaelic). >I'd feel I'm doing my students a disservice if I taught them to say >"There are", but at the same time I don't want them to get marked >wrong in a test question for saying "There's monkeys". So basically >I'm left with telling them: > Say 'there's monkeys', it's correct today in 2009, but be aware >that some people will hold the opinion that you're incorrect. There are different styles of English for different circumstances. I am not a teacher so I can't advise you how to explain this to your students.  SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) >>I'm currently teaching English as a foreign language in Asia. We were >>watching a video the other day in class and it had the following [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >particularly of a more formal character, and should certainly be used in >writing. It is only natural to join the two words "there" and "is" to make "there's". The language 'flows' easily. In careless speech, some people may indeed say "There's monkeys". It flows easily, and doesn't sound too strange. But if you say "There is monkeys", you will immediately see that it is incorrect. Of course, if you said "There's a lot of monkeys", this would be grammatically correct (because "a lot" is really singular). However, you will often hear "There are a lot of monkeys", which is grammatically wrong, but does sound OK! Note that you can also join "there" and "are" to make "there're". However, the " 're " is only really pronounceable as "are", so "there're" sounds the same as "there are". "There're" is not an abbreviation which I use myself. >>My conclusion is that the video is teaching an extinct dialect of >>English which is no longer spoken today in 2009. In fact, it seems [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >In my, limited, experience the form "I'm after <doing something>" comes from >Irish English. Perhaps it is a direct translation of a form in Irish (Gaelic). Yes, I'm fairly sure that "I'm after breaking the window" is an 'Irish-ism'. However, I don't think it means "I have broken the window". Unless I'm greatly mistaken, it means "I want to break the window" or "I intend to break the window". >>I'd feel I'm doing my students a disservice if I taught them to say >>"There are", but at the same time I don't want them to get marked [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >There are different styles of English for different circumstances. I am not a >teacher so I can't advise you how to explain this to your students. Yes, I would say that, if possible, teach 'correct' English, but also tell them what is normally used for everyday speech and writing. SignatureIan >>>I'm currently teaching English as a foreign language in Asia. We were >>>watching a video the other day in class and it had the following [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >Unless I'm greatly mistaken, it means "I want to break the window" or "I >intend to break the window". I live in Northern Ireland and have heard "I'm/He's/She's after <doing something>". The context has always left the clear impression that the "after" is simply temporal: "He's after <doing something>" = "He's just <done something>". There is the other meaning you mentioned where "after" means "pursuing a goal" but that isn't specific to Irish English. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) On Jan 10, 8:11 am, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjack...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In message <fe5hm4lmrjncnmllinvgqn5d62d484j...@4ax.com>, "Peter > Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> writes [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Some people, when speaking, will say "There is [something plural]," but that is most often because they didn't plan on using a plural when they started the sentence. Yes, some will always use the singular verb, but many of us will use the grammatical plural "are." "I'm after [afther?] doing something" I have never heard, only read, in novels featuring Irish -- or Celtic -- characters. Cece AmE >Note that you can also join "there" and "are" to make "there're". >However, the " 're " is only really pronounceable as "are", so No, it's not. >"there're" sounds the same as "there are". Maybe for you but not for me or those I know. There're rhymes or almost rhymes with bearer, fairer, Sherer (the name), rarer, and wearer. > "There're" is not an >abbreviation which I use myself. Nor I. It's a contraction! :) SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years <snip> > Of course, if you said "There's a lot of monkeys", this would be > grammatically correct (because "a lot" is really singular). However, you > will often hear "There are a lot of monkeys", which is grammatically > wrong, but does sound OK! I don't think that last is wrong, because "a lot of" can be construed as a counting term: what verb would you supply for "there ___ a hundred monkeys"? Moreover, I don't think any native speaker would say "There's a lot of monkeys in the tree, and it's climbing to the top," showing that the 'singularity' of "a lot" isn't as fixed as it may seem in the shorter example -- cf. the (corrected) sample dialogue elsewhere in the thread, where although the discussion of a notionally plural subject began with "There's", subsequent references to it were in the plural. There are quite a few situations in English usage where either a singular form or a plural can be chosen to go with a collective, whether according to context, determined by dialect, or as a matter of style, irrespective of the _prima faciæ_ rules of agreement. I suppose one could say that semantics can sometimes trump syntax. SignatureOdysseus ><snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >thread, where although the discussion of a notionally plural subject >began with "There's", subsequent references to it were in the plural. I don't know about the UK but in the US there are job lots and odd lots, and people buy things buy the lot (and not just referring to real estate). For example you can buy a lot of 100 printers, or 1000 bearings, or however the seller puts it together. An odd lot is made up of leftovers, either not enough to sell as a full lot, or whatever is left when the orders stop coming. So I guess one could have a lot of monkeys, if they sold monkeys by the lot, and lot would be singular. But I've never seen them sold that way. >There are quite a few situations in English usage where either a >singular form or a plural can be chosen to go with a collective, whether >according to context, determined by dialect, or as a matter of style, >irrespective of the _prima faciæ_ rules of agreement. I suppose one >could say that semantics can sometimes trump syntax. SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years >I'd feel I'm doing my students a disservice if I taught them to say >"There are", but at the same time I don't want them to get marked >wrong in a test question for saying "There's monkeys". You'd be doing them a worse disservice if you taught them that anybody would accept the latter in formal written English. You didn't say exactly how "are" was pronounced in the video, but "there're" is far from extinct in the circles I move in. ¬R >> I'd feel I'm doing my students a disservice if I taught them to say >> "There are", but at the same time I don't want them to get marked [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You didn't say exactly how "are" was pronounced in the video, but > "there're" is far from extinct in the circles I move in. Nor in those I move in. I'd be very surprised to hear "there's monkeys" from an educated speaker. Signatureathel >>> I'd feel I'm doing my students a disservice if I taught them to say >>> "There are", but at the same time I don't want them to get marked [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Nor in those I move in. I'd be very surprised to hear "there's monkeys" >from an educated speaker. I've heard some educated speakers slip into using "There's <something plural>" if others in a conversation are using it, but they were not, in my judgement, likely to initiate the use of it. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) >I've heard some educated speakers slip into using "There's <something plural>" >if others in a conversation are using it, but they were not, in my judgement, >likely to initiate the use of it. I knew a Peace Corps volunteer in Guatamala and he said that when he made mistakes in Spanish, the people he knew there, especially iirc the Indians, would start making the same mistake so as to not embarrass him. He knew enough Spanish to know they had said it differently earlier, and when he compared the two, he saw that he was wrong. SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years On Jan 10, 8:36 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote: > I'd be very surprised to hear "there's monkeys" > from an educated speaker. What's education got to do with it? You don't have to educate a small child to get them to say "Does the boy run?" and "Do the boys run?". They pick it up perfectly all by themselves. Similarly you don't have to educate a small German child to get them to say "der Hund" instead of "das Hund" or "die Hund". You'd be flabbergasted at the inflections small children can pull off in languages such as Irish or Basque, and nobody had to tell them how to do it. The point I'm making is that kids easily pick up the things that get said, and they /don't/ pick it up the things that /don't/ get said. The stuff that doesn't get said sounds weird, such as "I didn't went to school yesterday". If "there are" was truly correct, a child would pick it up. I've yet to hear a child say it though. It seems the only people who say it are the "educated" people who read a grammar book. I'm genuinely surprised that so many people hear agree that "there are" is correct; everyone I asked in real life replied with "that sounds wrong" or "nobody says that". Even when words are split up for emphasis, people still use "is" for the plural, such as: -There's four eggs in the fridge -No there's not! -Yes there is! >On Jan 10, 8:36 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >What's education got to do with it? In discussing language usage "an educated speaker" means one with a higher level of education, in particular one who has learnt to write and speak good Standard English (in this context). The adjective "educated": http://www.bartleby.com/61/35/E0043500.html 1. Having an education, especially one above the average. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/educated Having attained a level of higher education, such as a college degree. http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1 861607548 1. well taught: having had a good education This is the writing of an educated person. 2. cultured: showing good taste or refinement a quiet educated manner 3. knowledgeable: having the benefit of experience or knowledge And, yes, it is possible for a person to become an educated speaker by mixing with educated speakers and adopting their style of language. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) > On Jan 10, 8:36 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > The stuff that doesn't get said sounds weird, such as "I didn't went > to school yesterday". And you think this is news to us? > If "there are" was truly correct, a child would pick it up. I've yet > to hear a child say it though. It seems the only people who say it are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > are" is correct; everyone I asked in real life replied with "that > sounds wrong" or "nobody says that". So you asked a question, and now you won't accept the answer because it doesn't accorcd with your expectations? All we can give you is or own experience -- which is what you asked for, after all -- derived from what we hear and read. My experience is that "there's" is used in casual speech for both singular and plural but that formal register in both speaking and writing requires "there are" for the plural. If your experience is different, fine. And if your students never venture beyond Asia, it's likely that no one is going to notice whether they say "there's" or "there are" in most contexts. So perhaps the question is merely of academic interest. > Even when words are split up for emphasis, people still use "is" for > the plural, such as: > > -There's four eggs in the fridge > -No there's not! > -Yes there is! Again, that may be what you expect. I'd expect to hear > -There's four eggs in the fridge > -No there aren't! > -Yes there are! I consider your version irregular to the point of illiteracy. There's nothing unusual about differences in grammatical and idiomatic usages among different people -- or even in the speech of one person in different contexts. What's unusual is expecting otherwise. SignatureBob Lieblich Idiom savant (in his spare time) >I'm genuinely surprised that so many people hear agree that "there >are" is correct; everyone I asked in real life replied with "that >sounds wrong" or "nobody says that". I though you only asked four people. >Even when words are split up for emphasis, people still use "is" for >the plural, such as: > >-There's four eggs in the fridge >-No there's not! >-Yes there is! I have never known anyone socially who would say these things. In the first line, it wouldn't be a case of not realizing until later in the sentence that he was talking about more than one. The speaker wouldn't start the sentence until after he had noticed there was more than one egg. In the seocnd sentence, I can imagine someone saying something that sounds like "No, there' not." "There'" would be a very contracted version of "there are" or might be the use of an ellipsis, where the "are" from the first sentence is understood and it's not necessary to repeat it, just like "in the fridge" is understood in the second and third sentences. The third sentence would definitely be "Yes there are!" SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years In article <ce8e3566-61f6-47dc-acf0-3e02871e329e@p36g2000prp.googlegroups.com>, > I'm genuinely surprised that so many people hear agree that "there > are" is correct; everyone I asked in real life replied with "that > sounds wrong" or "nobody says that". I'm slightly horrified to hear you say this, Tomas. "There's monkey's" is just plain wrong in standard English. And if you're (as I guess you are) Irish, and teaching English (god help your pupils), then you should know that the 'after' form is an irish dialect feature - a literal translation from the Irish language - which is totally wrong (and never used) in standard English. You really need to sort out what is your own (very limited regional) dialect. Incidentally, education does have something to do with it. Standard English is the dialect which is used as a lingua franca by educated speakers. Lazarus [ ... ] > "There's monkey's" is just plain wrong in standard English. With the exception of informal spoken Standard English (including transcriptions of informal spoken Standard English and other writings in the register of informal spoken Standard English, which includes most of the postings to this group), where it is commonplace. There's plenty of prior threads here and in AUE on this very subject. [ ... ] SignatureBob Lieblich There's a good lad > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > There's plenty of prior threads here and in AUE on this very subject. I have to agree here. I've thought back on what I would say, and I'd most likely say "there's", not "there're". However, I would say "there are" rather than "there is". So it seems to be based on the fact that for me "there're" is hard to say clearly, enunciating both the "re" and the following "er". I tend to drop the last "r" and turn it into "there-@". I have the same problem with "bearer"; unless I'm being consciously careful to say "bear-er" it comes out "bear-@" >> [ ... ] >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> in the register of informal spoken Standard English, which includes >> most of the postings to this group), where it is commonplace. It's one thing when speaking to not use the right verb for what follows, but people who do this in writing, even here, are wrong. They can use the left arrow to move their cursor back to 's and change it to 're . I've seen a few such sentences on Usenet, but in my experience, it's not commonplace. >> There's plenty of prior threads here and in AUE on this very subject. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >have the same problem with "bearer"; unless I'm being consciously careful >to say "bear-er" it comes out "bear-@" Yogi Bearer used to have this problem. But I don't. I put at least some r at the end of the word. There're rhymes or almost rhymes with bearer, fairer, Sherer (the name), rarer, and wearer. SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years > > "There's monkey's" is just plain wrong in standard English. > > With the exception of informal spoken Standard English (including > transcriptions of informal spoken Standard English and other writings > in the register of informal spoken Standard English, which includes > most of the postings to this group), where it is commonplace. Maybe this is geographical. I live in England, where !'There's monkeys'! would occasionally crop up but would be rare even in speech from any standard English speaker. L > In article > <ce8e3566-61f6-47dc-acf0-3e02871e329e@p36g2000prp.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > "There's monkey's" is just plain wrong in standard English. For those who are learning English and are reading here: That should be "There's monkeys". Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reverse parts of the user name and ISP name for my e-address >> In article >> <ce8e3566-61f6-47dc-acf0-3e02871e329e@p36g2000prp.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >For those who are learning English and are reading here: That should >be "There's monkeys". Maybe "there's monkeys" sounds ok to people because they are used to hearing "them theres monkeys", as in "Do you see them theres monkeys?" That is also wrong, but used to be used a lot by some subgroup in the US, rural people or something. I don't know how one would spell "theres" in that phrase, but I think it has nothing to do with "there is". >Bill SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years [ ... ] > Maybe "there's monkeys" sounds ok to people because they are used to > hearing "them theres monkeys", as in "Do you see them theres monkeys?" > That is also wrong, but used to be used a lot by some subgroup in the > US, rural people or something. I don't know how one would spell > "theres" in that phrase, but I think it has nothing to do with "there > is". In my entire life I have never encountered the phrase "them theres monkeys" in speech or writing (until today). It draws a zero on Google. Nor do I recall ever reading or hearing "theme theres <any other noun>." Perhaps Meirman is mixing this up with "Them there's monkeys," which translates to "Those over there are monkeys" and is indeed a feature of some American dialects. But the context into which he puts the phrase, and the omission of the apostrophe, suggests that he is really treating it as a noun phrase and not as a short sentence. I submit that there ain't no such noun phrase nohow nowhere in no kind of native-speaker English. Then again, maybe his invented sentence is supposed to be equibalent to "Do you see that them there's monkeys," making it a clause following "that." If so, this is an instance of extreme misleading through omission of "that" where, though supposedly optional, it is mandatory if the sentence is to be interpreted as intended. And of course an apostrophe would be required as well. Care to clarify, mm? SignatureBob Lieblich Puzzled > >> In article > >> <ce8e3566-61f6-47dc-acf0-3e02871e329e@p36g2000prp.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > "theres" in that phrase, but I think it has nothing to do with "there > is". I was pointing out that the apostrophe in "monkey's" should be removed. I have heard "them there" (or "them thar") a lot, but never, that I recall, "them theres". Bill central Kentucky ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reverse parts of the user name and ISP name for my e-address >> >> In article >> >> <ce8e3566-61f6-47dc-acf0-3e02871e329e@p36g2000prp.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >Bill >central Kentucky I thought it was "There's gold in them thar hills!" SignatureIan >I'm currently teaching English as a foreign language in Asia. We were >watching a video the other day in class and it had the following [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >English-speaking area for three years. All of them agreed that they >say: I wouldn't put much imporance on what the German says, with all of three years. >(plural) There's monkeys in the tree. > >The German man was more certain than the others, because his learning Germans are often very certain. Including when they're wrong. >of English had been a very conscious process which he still fully >recalls, and as soon as I said "There are monkeys", he replied with >"Nobody says that". But phrasing it like that makes him an idiot. He doens't know about everybody or nobody. >My conclusion is that the video is teaching an extinct dialect of >English which is no longer spoken today in 2009. I'm glad you asked here, because otherwise, I'd suggest, with only your own experience and 4 others, that you were jumping to conclusions. >n fact, it seems >that every English grammar book and grammar video I come across >teaches an extinct dialect of English. ROTFLOL. Check NON-grammar videos from America, and you'll see that there too, almost everyone uses "there are" with plurals. Like someone here said, when they don't, it's usually because they hadn't planned out the rest of the sentence when they started it with "there is". (I guess this could end up in a movie.) The exceptions would be poor or uneducated. More likely this mistake would be put in a movie to indicate that the speaker had a hard-scrabble background by showing that he didn't learn English very well. Script writers do things like that. They use short devices to indicate something a novelist might spend 20 pages describing. One piece of bad English indicates a host of other things, which I guess would be lost on someone who didn't realize the words were not used by educated spakers. (One can be educated by school, or by those one hangs out with.) >or instance, the form "I have >broken the window" has been replaced in a lot of dialects with "I'm >after breaking the window", yet I have yet to see a single grammar >book that explains "I'm after". They don't say that in America, and I gather from this thread, where they do say it, it doesn't mean the same and didn't replace what you think it did. >I'd feel I'm doing my students a disservice if I taught them to say >"There are", Asians are at least as likely to deal with Americans as any other English speaker, and only the poorest, most uneducated people in the US would say "there is plural", or at least those who grew up poor or with uneducated people. WRT the latter group, their children will say "there are", like at least 80 or 90 percent of the country does. If you are called a teacher, teach them proper English. >but at the same time I don't want them to get marked >wrong in a test question for saying "There's monkeys". So basically >I'm left with telling them: > Say 'there's monkeys', it's correct today in 2009, but be aware >that some people will hold the opinion that you're incorrect. Because they are. To the great majority of USAns or Canadians, they will remind the listener of those who are ignorant or poor or at least who grew up poor. SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.