 |
 | 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 2010correcting my son's grammar?
(Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's accent last summer.) He has now picked up the local accent from his peers. But unfortunately he's also picked up their bad grammar and says things like "Me and Billy did this" -- how can I get him to say "Billy and I did this" instead? My husband and I both set a good example, and I've tried "recasting" his sentences, but his peers' bad example seems to keep overriding ours. Any advice? > (Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's > accent last summer.) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Any advice? Keep him away from Billy.  SignatureJames > (Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's > accent last summer.) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Any advice? Sure. Don't crosspost questions like this to sci.lang, because the people hereabouts are likely to tell you that you shouldn't worry about it, and that "Me and X did this" is not "bad grammar" as such. Something tells me you probably won't like those answers. If you want someone to talk in an intellectual-sounding fashion, scolding him is going to have little positive effect. Make him passionate for reading, though, and that would probably carry over into his speech. On Oct 26, 9:36 am, Christopher Culver <crcul...@christopherculver.com> wrote: > > (Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's > > accent last summer.) [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > passionate for reading, though, and that would probably carry over > into his speech. Though now that she _has_ cross-posted to sci.lang, maybe Brian Scott will explain how he ended up "talking like a book," since that's apparently the fate she wants for her son. She'll probably need to lay in a good supply of Band-Aids and Bactine. (Do they still make Bactine?) Leslie Danks's attitude is Neanderthal at the latest. [...] > Leslie Danks's attitude is Neanderthal at the latest. Yeah. That's probably why your ancestors ate them. SignatureLes (BrE) > On Oct 26, 9:36 am, Christopher Culver > <crcul...@christopherculver.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > will explain how he ended up "talking like a book," since that's > apparently the fate she wants for her son... In the absence (so far) of a contribution from Brian Scott, maybe I can comment on the development of my daughter -- now a fully trilingual adult -- who grew up in France with one English-speaking and one Spanish-speaking parent. I wouldn't say she spoke like a book when she was ten, but she certainly spoke like an adult. For a long time her only native model for English was me (not 100% of the time, but a large part of it), and, not surprisingly, she used very few childish expressions in English and a lot of words that one normally hears only from adults. However, it only took a day or two of exposure to English-speaking children for her to adopt a way of speaking more usual for her age. Her development in Spanish was quite similar, whereas in French she followed exactly the course you'd expect for someone mixing all the time with French children. Signatureathel On Oct 26, 12:02 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > On Oct 26, 9:36 am, Christopher Culver > > <crcul...@christopherculver.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > French she followed exactly the course you'd expect for someone mixing > all the time with French children. It's _really_ hard to mess up native language acquisition. Since she speaks three languages natively, supposedly she has more than normal aptitude for learning (i.e. as L2) additional languages -- has she tried? > On Oct 26, 12:02 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel...@yahoo.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > than normal aptitude for learning (i.e. as L2) additional languages -- > has she tried? She had some years of German at school, and made faster progress than I remember doing myself at school with French or German. When she was 15 she spent a few days with the daughter of a German colleague. The German girl had had more English at school than she had had of German, and supposedly spoke English, but in practice they found it more convenient to communicate in German. I had the impression (just an impression, mind, no actual measurements) that the fact of being trilingual already made it easier for her to learn a fourth. Another subjective comment: when she was around She can pretty much understand written Portuguese, Catalan and Italian, and can make a lot of sense of them when hearing them. Signatureathel >>> In the absence (so far) of a contribution from Brian Scott, maybe I >>> can comment on the development of my daughter -- now a fully [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>> whereas in French she followed exactly the course you'd expect for >>> someone mixing all the time with French children. > I had the impression (just an impression, mind, no actual measurements) > that the fact of being trilingual already made it easier for her to > learn a fourth. Another subjective comment: when she was around > > She can pretty much understand written Portuguese, Catalan and Italian, > and can make a lot of sense of them when hearing them. My L2 Spanish and L2 French put me in about the same position vis-a-vis Portuguese, Catalan, and Italian. I did eventually take a formal summer course in Italian in grad school, the main effect of which was to leave me without an excuse for not knowing the grammar in detail. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) > Though now that she _has_ cross-posted to sci.lang, maybe Brian Scott > will explain how he ended up "talking like a book," since that's > apparently the fate she wants for her son. What do you mean by "talking like a book"? I automatically use pronouns in the (prescriptively) correct way, probably because I taught myself to do it. Is that wrong? > She'll probably need to lay in a good supply of Band-Aids and Bactine. > (Do they still make Bactine?) I doubt that people who routinely say "Me and Billy..." will have issues with hearing someone else say "Billy and I...". > Leslie Danks's attitude is Neanderthal at the latest. What if the OP had said she wanted her son to have good table manners even if his peers don't? Would that be evil prescription? SignatureA: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting. Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)? > > Though now that she _has_ cross-posted to sci.lang, maybe Brian Scott > > will explain how he ended up "talking like a book," since that's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > pronouns in the (prescriptively) correct way, probably because I > taught myself to do it. Is that wrong? I mean all the things that Brian has reported about himself over the years. > > She'll probably need to lay in a good supply of Band-Aids and Bactine. > > (Do they still make Bactine?) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What if the OP had said she wanted her son to have good table manners > even if his peers don't? Would that be evil prescription? It would be inappropriate to bring candelabra, table linens, and fingerbowls to a picnic or a barbecue. >> What if the OP had said she wanted her son to have good table manners >> even if his peers don't? Would that be evil prescription? > > It would be inappropriate to bring candelabra, table linens, and > fingerbowls to a picnic or a barbecue. Those have to do with the facilities, not the person's own behaviour. If Martha had expressed concern that her kid's friends chewed with their mouths open and talked with food in their mouths, and she didn't want him to pick up those bad habits, I doubt you would criticize her. I see no reason why language use, as opposed to other kinds of social interaction, has to be magically exempted from the imposition of standards. SignatureI put bomb in squirrel's briefcase and who gets blown up? Me! >>> What if the OP had said she wanted her son to have good table >>> manners even if his peers don't? Would that be evil [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > interaction, has to be magically exempted from the imposition of > standards. Everyone's language follows some kind of standard. I think you mean that other people's language should not be exempted from the imposition of *your* standards. SignatureJames >>> What if the OP had said she wanted her son to have good table manners >>> even if his peers don't? Would that be evil prescription? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > interaction, has to be magically exempted from the imposition of > standards. Cleanliness standards (and similars) have an objective reason to be. Your 'linguistic standards' do not. António Marques <m.ap@sapo.pt> writes: >>>> What if the OP had said she wanted her son to have good table >>>> manners even if his peers don't? Would that be evil [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Cleanliness standards (and similars) have an objective reason to > be. Your 'linguistic standards' do not. I would think that table manners are about as arbitrary (and variable) as linguistic standards. What did you have in mind? SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Usenet is like Tetris for people 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |who still remember how to read. Palo Alto, CA 94304 kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > António Marques<m.ap@sapo.pt> writes: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > I would think that table manners are about as arbitrary (and variable) > as linguistic standards. What did you have in mind? Isn't '[c]leanliness' in response to 'chewed with their mouths open and talked with food in their mouths' explicit enough? As for really arbitrary standards, the assumption is that if someone doesn't use them it's because of ignorance. That, not the non-use itself, is what irks people. António Marques <m.ap@sapo.pt> writes: >> António Marques<m.ap@sapo.pt> writes: >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Isn't '[c]leanliness' in response to 'chewed with their mouths open > and talked with food in their mouths' explicit enough? They appeared to be connected, but it wasn't clear why. I don't see any cleanliness issues involved with chewing with an open mouth or talking with food in your mouth, and I would be very surprised if such things were universally considered to be bad manners. > As for really arbitrary standards, the assumption is that if someone > doesn't use them it's because of ignorance. That, not the non-use > itself, is what irks people. Either non-use or not considering the standard important enough to adhere to. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |He seems to be perceptive and 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |effective because he states the Palo Alto, CA 94304 |obvious to people that don't seem |to see the obvious. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | (650)857-7572 | Tony Cooper http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > António Marques<m.ap@sapo.pt> writes: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > talking with food in your mouth, and I would be very surprised if such > things were universally considered to be bad manners. Anything that heightens the chances of spitting bits of chewed food mixed with your own saliva into other people is a cleanliness issue. Of course, you might object that cleanliness obeys different standards in different environments, but the issue here is that they are the animus behind most 'table manners'. Whereas the 'linguistic standards' being discussed have nothing behind them but themselves. >> As for really arbitrary standards, the assumption is that if someone >> doesn't use them it's because of ignorance. That, not the non-use >> itself, is what irks people. > > Either non-use or not considering the standard important enough to > adhere to. I suppose the latter is inconceivable to most people, except for some exceptions. António Marques <m.ap@sapo.pt> writes: >> António Marques<m.ap@sapo.pt> writes: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > mixed with your own saliva into other people is a cleanliness > issue. But an exceedingly minor one. Do you have any evidence that this, as opposed to, say, disgust at the sight of chewed food, is the primary reason for this particular bit of manners? My own guess is that cleanliness had about as much to do with that particular prohibition as trichinosis did with the reason that Jews were prohibited from eating pork. It's a nice just so story, but nothing more. > Of course, you might object that cleanliness obeys different > standards in different environments, but the issue here is that they > are the animus behind most 'table manners'. Do you really want to go with that "most"? Don't eat with your fingers (except for certain foods, which vary by place and for everything in certain places)? Elbows off the table? Fork in your right hand, switching to left to cut (except where you keep it in your left hand)? Head uncovered (except when/where it must be covered)? Don't start eating until everybody (or certain people) is ready? Don't mush your food together on the plate (except for certain things)? Keep your napkin in your lap (or tucked into your collar or folded next to your plate)? Use the proper fork for the proper course? Don't just tear off a hunk of bread (or do, depending on the circumstances)? Ask permission before leaving the table? Excuse yourself after burping (except where you don't)? Etc. > Whereas the 'linguistic standards' being discussed have nothing > behind them but themselves. They have exactly the same things behind them. Conformity to social norms, indicating in-group status. And conformity to others' expectations, leading to less misunderstanding. >>> As for really arbitrary standards, the assumption is that if >>> someone doesn't use them it's because of ignorance. That, not the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I suppose the latter is inconceivable to most people, except for > some exceptions. Right. Few people consciously choose to rebel against (or simply ignore) parental or societal expectations. I'd ask if you had children (especially teenagers), but a more pertinent question is whether you've actually *been* a teenager. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It does me no injury for my neighbor 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to say there are twenty gods, or no Palo Alto, CA 94304 |God. | Thomas Jefferson kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > António Marques<m.ap@sapo.pt> writes: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > as opposed to, say, disgust at the sight of chewed food, is the > primary reason for this particular bit of manners? And why could such disgust be? > My own guess is that cleanliness had about as much to do with that > particular prohibition as trichinosis did with the reason that Jews > were prohibited from eating pork. It's a nice just so story, but > nothing more. Yes, it's your own guess and nothing more. >> Of course, you might object that cleanliness obeys different >> standards in different environments, but the issue here is that >> they are the animus behind most 'table manners'. > > Do you really want to go with that "most"? I'll stand by it, but no, I'm not particularly interested in 'discussing' anything whatsover with people who'll go blathering on and on for the sake of it. > Don't eat with your fingers (except for certain foods, which vary by > place and for everything in certain places)? ??? Keep your fingers clean. If it's too hard or they don't get that dirty, it's relaxed. > Elbows off the table? Of course. We don't know where they've been. > Fork in your right hand, switching to left to cut (except where you > keep it in your left hand)? No forks on the right hand here. This one has to do with practicality. I didn't say 'all'. > Head uncovered (except when/where it must be covered)? Lest the covering falls on your plate or someone else's? > Don't start eating until everybody (or certain people) is ready? Does that need an exaplanation? > Don't mush your food together on the plate (except for certain > things)? I didn't say 'all'. > Keep your napkin in your lap (or tucked into your collar or folded > next to your plate)? Where else, on the floor? Next to your neighbour's, so that they get confused? > Use the proper fork for the proper course? There's a reason they call it 'proper'. > Don't just tear off a hunk of bread (or do, depending on the > circumstances)? Ahh, the circumstances. What could those mean? > Ask permission before leaving the table? Does that need an exaplanation? > Excuse yourself after burping (except where you don't)? Those tricky circumstances again... > Etc. This one is hard to beat, but judging by the sample you've offered, the odds are that they, too, are not arbitrary. I know it must be very hard on you, but sometimes things just don't work the way you expect. Sometimes you go to bed thinking you'd like to have risotto the next day, and the next day you don't feel like having anything. Logic will be of no avail to you when dealing with your appetite, and likewise the fact that you'd like and think it logical that certain behaviours are expected over others always for the same reasons, reasons which you derive - again - using your logic, because it's all you care to have, doesn't command reality. You're like a marxist trying to explain everything in terms of class struggle. However it makes you look, it tells the world more about you than it tells you [correctly] about the world. >> Whereas the 'linguistic standards' being discussed have nothing >> behind them but themselves. > > They have exactly the same things behind them. Conformity to social > norms, indicating in-group status. And conformity to others' > expectations, leading to less misunderstanding. Nonsense: - 'conformity to social norms' is circular (unobservantly so) - this discussion is about *one* standard everyone is supposed to follow - not one of the above is without something behind it, that's what makes them reasonable to follow, and it's not anyone else's fault that you lack the sensibility and have to resort to your inexpensive "they're just-so stories" attitude - it should be easy to point out convincing "just-so" justifications for said 'linguistic standards', but you're at a loss to do it, can't admit that and resort to armchair psychology >>>> As for really arbitrary standards, the assumption is that if >>>> someone doesn't use them it's because of ignorance. That, not [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > children (especially teenagers), but a more pertinent question is > whether you've actually *been* a teenager. It may come as a surprise to you, but not all teenagers are punks. If you observe hard, maybe the difference will come to you. But what does that matter to someone for whom life is an endless string of pointless sophistry? Heck, life at HP must be dry. António Marques <m.ap@sapo.pt> writes: >> António Marques<m.ap@sapo.pt> writes: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > And why could such disgust be? Probably due to its visual similarity to decomposing meat. Either that or (or possibly and) because you are most likely to see chewed food when it caused the person chewing it to gag or vomit, where triggering a similar response in you is likely to be beneficial when you are eating from the same source. See William Miller's _The Anatomy of Disgust_ for a much better treatment about what factors apparently led to the formation of disgust reactions. >> My own guess is that cleanliness had about as much to do with that >> particular prohibition as trichinosis did with the reason that Jews >> were prohibited from eating pork. It's a nice just so story, but >> nothing more. > > Yes, it's your own guess and nothing more. Whereas your copious support is where exactly? >>> Of course, you might object that cleanliness obeys different >>> standards in different environments, but the issue here is that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > ??? Keep your fingers clean. If it's too hard or they don't get that > dirty, it's relaxed. It would be interesting to watch you try to apply that across cultures (including those that eat almost everything with their hands or, often, with only one hand) and across foods within American (or some other) culture. Probably the quintessential finger-food in the US is fried chicken, which is not hard to eat with utensils and is so likely to make the fingers greasy that when good it's described as "finger-lickin' good". >> Elbows off the table? > > Of course. We don't know where they've been. Forearms and wrists, of course, are never dirty. And places where nobody would think of criticizing elbows on the table are simply unconcerned about cleanliness? Face it, this one is purely an arbitrary convention, mostly there to back up the goal of having people sit up straight in their seats rather than slouching or leaning. (Of course, in many cultures, if you were wealthy enough, proper table manners were to eat lying on your side. Sitting up was for the poor.) >> Fork in your right hand, switching to left to cut (except where you >> keep it in your left hand)? > > No forks on the right hand here. This one has to do with > practicality. I didn't say 'all'. It actually has to do with table manners at the time forks were introduced into the various cultures (see Petroski, _The Evolution of Useful Things_). In Europe, it replaced a knife; in America, a spoon. It's about as arbitrary a bit of cultural transmission as you're going to find. >> Head uncovered (except when/where it must be covered)? > > Lest the covering falls on your plate or someone else's? The mandatory ones are typically far more precariously balanced than the prohibited ones (including hoods). >> Don't start eating until everybody (or certain people) is ready? > > Does that need an exaplanation? Can you really not see that it does? It's far from universal. But my question was whether this fell under your "most table manners" that are the way they are because of concerns with cleanliness. >> Don't mush your food together on the plate (except for certain >> things)? > > I didn't say 'all'. But you also didn't say which. Hence my questions. >> Keep your napkin in your lap (or tucked into your collar or folded >> next to your plate)? > > Where else, on the floor? Next to your neighbour's, so that they get > confused? Why does there have to be a rule? The right way in some places constitutes bad manners in others. >> Use the proper fork for the proper course? > > There's a reason they call it 'proper'. Is there a reason why it would be bad manners to not follow along? >> Don't just tear off a hunk of bread (or do, depending on the >> circumstances)? > > Ahh, the circumstances. What could those mean? There's a reason they call it "breaking bread". In Jewish households for Shabbat and holiday dinners, at least, when serving challah, the proper thing to do is to rip off a piece for each person and hand it to them. Slicing it would be bad manners. >> Ask permission before leaving the table? > > Does that need an exaplanation? Of course. Any rule needs explanation. Especially when it's not invariant. >> Excuse yourself after burping (except where you don't)? > > Those tricky circumstances again... I was thinking more in terms of those places in which burping is considered to be good manners and is interpreted as a compliment to the one who prepared the food. >> Etc. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > struggle. However it makes you look, it tells the world more about you > than it tells you [correctly] about the world. Did we just switch roles here? You're the one who said that most table manners can be explained by a single concern. I was the one arguing that different bits arose in different places at different times for different reasons, but that the main reason different rules apply in different cultures is today that those rules (or similar ones) applied in those cultures a generation ago. And many of them have been rationalized after the fact, but the rationalizations often have little to do with the reason that they arose or are worthwhile. >>> Whereas the 'linguistic standards' being discussed have nothing >>> behind them but themselves. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > - 'conformity to social norms' is circular (unobservantly so) Feel free to note that it's just because I'm an uneducated dolt, but I can't find any reasonable reading of that statement. > - this discussion is about *one* standard everyone is supposed to > follow I haven't been participating in any such discussion. > - not one of the above is without something behind it, that's what > makes them reasonable to follow, and it's not anyone else's fault > that you lack the sensibility and have to resort to your inexpensive > "they're just-so stories" attitude You would prefer "rationalizations"? Or perhaps you'd like to provide a shred of evidence. > - it should be easy to point out convincing "just-so" justifications > for said 'linguistic standards', but you're at a loss to do it, > can't admit that and resort to armchair psychology Huh? There are tons of just-so justifications for linguistic standards, they get trotted out here in AUE all the time (typically by newcomers), and they have just as much validity. Mostly they boil down to "people would have trouble communicating if we didn't do it the way we did it when (and where) I was growing up". >>>>> As for really arbitrary standards, the assumption is that if >>>>> someone doesn't use them it's because of ignorance. That, not [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > It may come as a surprise to you, but not all teenagers are > punks. Not at all. It also doesn't come as a surprise to me that very few teenagers are little angels for whom it is "inconceivable" to not follow every single standard they learn from their parents or their society. Perhaps there's a middle ground. One in which nearly all push against some rules at some point. I don't think that makes them "punks". I think it makes them human. > If you observe hard, maybe the difference will come to you. But what > does that matter to someone for whom life is an endless string of > pointless sophistry? Heck, life at HP must be dry. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |There is no such thing as bad data, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |only data from bad homes. Palo Alto, CA 94304 kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ [reasons for table manners] > >> Head uncovered (except when/where it must be covered)? > > > Lest the covering falls on your plate or someone else's? > > The mandatory ones are typically far more precariously balanced than > the prohibited ones (including hoods). ... > >> Keep your napkin in your lap (or tucked into your collar or folded > >> next to your plate)? > > > Where else, on the floor? Next to your neighbour's, so that they get > > confused? ... Reminds me of a seder presided over by my maternal grandfather. He couldn't find a yarmulka, so he put a napkin on his head. It kept sliding off--but not into anyone else's food, as far as I remember. -- Jerry Friedman >Reminds me of a seder presided over by my maternal grandfather. He >couldn't find a yarmulka, so he put a napkin on his head. It kept >sliding off--but not into anyone else's food, as far as I remember. There was a time when Catholic women were expected to cover their heads when attending Mass. It was not uncommon to see a woman who had forgotten her hat or scarf with a Kleenex atop her head. It was a particularly amusing sight when beehive hairdos were popular. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > There was a time when Catholic women were expected to cover their > heads when attending Mass. It was not uncommon to see a woman who had > forgotten her hat or scarf with a Kleenex atop her head. It was a > particularly amusing sight when beehive hairdos were popular. I may have mentioned this previously in AUE, but I know who went to a Roman Catholic school, was very good in maths, and occasionally muddled words; she once said her mother wore a "mantissa" to mass. SignatureOh, I am just a student, sir, and I only want to learn But it's hard to read through the rising smoke of the books that you want to burn [Phil Ochs] >> There was a time when Catholic women were expected to cover their >> heads when attending Mass. It was not uncommon to see a woman who had [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Roman Catholic school, was very good in maths, and occasionally >muddled words; she once said her mother wore a "mantissa" to mass. Carrying a pocket calculator should be enough, today. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE António Marques skrev: > - it should be easy to point out convincing "just-so" justifications for > said 'linguistic standards', but you're at a loss to do it, can't admit > that and resort to armchair psychology It seems you haven't grasped Evan Kirshenbaum's point: that eating habits and other habits vary quite a lot around the world. You may have what you would call sensible reasons for doing things in a certain way, but other people do them differently for equally sensible reasons. Likewise language varies around the world and within each country, each town and even within smaller units. Children (and adults) have to learn to navigate in different social circles and to discern what is appropriate in a given context and what is not. This ability is crucial. > It may come as a surprise to you, but not all teenagers are punks. If > you observe hard, maybe the difference will come to you. But what does > that matter to someone for whom life is an endless string of pointless > sophistry? Heck, life at HP must be dry. Not everyone masters the skill. SignatureBertel, Denmark > António Marques skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It seems you haven't grasped Evan Kirshenbaum's point: that > eating habits and other habits vary quite a lot around the world. (...) Rather, it seems both of you didn't grasp that that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, or if anything comes to support what I said: 1. I made the point that there needn't be a single solution to an everyday problem. That there are different solutions, even opposite ones, doesn't mean only one can be logical and/or sensible. 2. This discussion isn't about mastering different registers. It's about acquisition of a specific register. 3. The specific point being argued is that while there are reasons (I'd even say post-hoc or not) for following specific social standards, the following of the 'linguistic standards' that were being mentioned is externally unjustifiable; the value of such 'standards' is in themselves, not in anything else, real or imagined - there is simply no reason for 'X and I' over 'Me and X' other than "we want it that way" -, while the fact remains that there is no dearth of reasons for most social standards, whether you like it or you don't [and then proceed to say that all those reasons are bogus as if it mattered one bit]. 4. It follows that no matter how similar social standards and those 'linguistic standards' may be, they're not the same. This exceedingly arrogant attitude of mixing up everything without the least regard for distinctions which are important for who actually deals with the matters is something I just can't be bothered to tolerate anymore. Now, if people were actually interested in discussing matters rather than looking smart before an impressionable audience, the world would be a better place. But some seem never to have left kindergarten. > António Marques <m.ap@sapo.pt> writes: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Either non-use or not considering the standard important enough to > adhere to. Actually what matters is proportion or use/non-use. Very few sociolinguistic variables are truly on or off. For most of us (native speakers) here, I would suspect that we use both "me and John" and "John and I" depending on context of use, and even within those contexts are use of one or the other is not 100%. It's only when one's percentage goes above or below the threshold for the situation relative to one's social class that people start to notice. Of course the common perception is that it's an either or situation (I'm not attributing this view to you, Evan.) Alan >>> What if the OP had said she wanted her son to have good table manners >>> even if his peers don't? Would that be evil prescription? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >interaction, has to be magically exempted from the imposition of >standards. The OP wasn't criticized. Most responses suggested that she be less concerned about her son's poor grammar at this point in the child's life, and that she should not be overly-critical of the boy. I'm still hung up on this "toddler" thing. Allowances should be made for the table manners of a toddler if we are using my definition of "toddler" as being at the just-walking stage. "Allowances" doesn't mean anything goes, but the child who is constantly corrected will start to constantly rebel. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > The OP wasn't criticized. Most responses suggested that she be less > concerned about her son's poor grammar at this point in the child's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > mean anything goes, but the child who is constantly corrected will > start to constantly rebel. I agree. I was just opposing that bit of linguistic dogma --- especially from someone who does claims to hate prescription but does correct other people for misusing "beg the question". SignatureI don't know what they have to say It makes no difference anyway; Whatever it is, I'm against it! [Prof. Wagstaff] >> The OP wasn't criticized. Most responses suggested that she be less >> concerned about her son's poor grammar at this point in the child's [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > especially from someone who does claims to hate prescription but does > correct other people for misusing "beg the question". Again, insistence on correct use of terminology is not 'prescription' in the sense that is 'hated'. tony cooper skrev: > I'm still hung up on this "toddler" thing. Allowances should be made > for the table manners of a toddler if we are using my definition of > "toddler" as being at the just-walking stage. "Allowances" doesn't > mean anything goes, but the child who is constantly corrected will > start to constantly rebel. Or worse: stop believing in himself. Corrections need not be explicit by the way. A slight, unconscious facial gesture can do the trick. SignatureBertel, Denmark > tony cooper skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Corrections need not be explicit by the way. A slight, > unconscious facial gesture can do the trick. The very "unconsciousness" of it is key. Peter T. Daniels skrev: > > Or worse: stop believing in himself. > > Corrections need not be explicit by the way. A slight, > > unconscious facial gesture can do the trick. > The very "unconsciousness" of it is key. Quite. That is why I previously wrote that parents must learn to respect the choices of their children, especially when they differ from their own. (The censorship deleted a joke with children of their choice) SignatureBertel, Denmark On Oct 28, 11:52 am, Bertel Lund Hansen <unosp...@lundhansen.dk> wrote: > Peter T. Daniels skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > (The censorship deleted a joke with children of their choice) Censorship??? Denmark is a notoriously free country! Peter T. Daniels skrev: > > (The censorship deleted a joke with children of their choice) > Censorship??? Denmark is a notoriously free country! Shhh ... not so loud! SignatureBertel, Denmark On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:58:41 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:01335993-7ab5-4e80-999f-73da0bdeb1a0@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] > Though now that she _has_ cross-posted to sci.lang, maybe > Brian Scott will explain how he ended up "talking like a > book," since that's apparently the fate she wants for her > son. Largely inclination, I suspect. I also read voraciously from an early age, had educated parents whose everyday English was for the most part prescriptively correct, preferred adult company, and outside of school by choice spent little time with children my own age. The children with whom I did spend some time were those with academic inclinations. [...] Brian > On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:58:41 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > with whom I did spend some time were those with academic > inclinations. I've also been accused of talking like a book 8-) I also have always read voraciously and had educated parents. I did have some friends my age, but sometimes we had next to no neighbors at all, so--more reading 8-) When I was young, however, I never heard the kind of language I've been hearing from children and teenagers in recent years ANYwhere. SignatureErilar, biblioholic bib-li-o-hol-ism [<Gr biblion] n. [BIBLIO + HOLISM] books, of books: habitual longing to purchase, read, store, admire, and consume books in excess. http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo > Leslie Danks's attitude is Neanderthal at the latest. They were smarter than you think. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/13/neanderthal-man-archaelogica l-research SignatureTwo of the most famous products of Berkeley are LSD and Unix. I don't think that this is a coincidence. [anonymous] Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> filted: >> Leslie Danks's attitude is Neanderthal at the latest. > > They were smarter than you think. > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/13/neanderthal-man > -archaelogical-research Then why didn't their sitcom do better?...r >> Leslie Danks's attitude is Neanderthal at the latest. > > They were smarter than you think. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/13/neanderthal-man-archaelogica l-research But I don't use makeup, honest. SignatureLes (BrE) >>> Leslie Danks's attitude is Neanderthal at the latest. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > But I don't use makeup, honest. Does it mean you don't need it? pjk On Oct 26, 7:36 am, Christopher Culver <crcul...@christopherculver.com> wrote: ... > > He has now picked up the local accent from his peers. But > > unfortunately he's also picked up their bad grammar and says > > things like "Me and Billy did this" -- how can I get him to > > say "Billy and I did this" instead? ... > If you want someone to talk in an intellectual-sounding fashion, > scolding him is going to have little positive effect. Make him > passionate for reading, though, and that would probably carry over > into his speech. How do you manage that? You can improve the odds by encouraging him, giving him every opportunity, and showing how you enjoy reading, but I doubt there's a way to make him passionate for it. -- Jerry Friedman >> (Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's >> accent last summer.) [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > passionate for reading, though, and that would probably carry over > into his speech. Doesn't necessarily work. A friend of mine, retired professor of microbiology, reads constantly (no TV), especially history, biographies, culture, botany. He would say, "Let Billy and I do this" because "'Billy and me' sounds bad." > (Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's > accent last summer.) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "recasting" his sentences, but his peers' bad example seems > to keep overriding ours. Children have their own agenda and, painful though it may be, acceptance by their peers tends to be more important to them than parental approval. The vile "me and Billy did this" is steadily gaining ground; by the time your children are grown up it will probably be accepted by people otherwise considered to be educated and literate. Your only chance of resistance is to set your son among the right sort of peers -- if you can find any... SignatureLes (BrE) > (Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's > accent last summer.) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Any advice? Children have their own agenda and, painful though it may be, acceptance by their peers tends to be more important to them than parental approval. The vile "me and Billy did this" is steadily gaining ground; by the time your children are grown up it will probably be accepted by people otherwise considered to be educated and literate. Your only chance of resistance is to set your son among the right sort of peers -- if you can find any... SignatureLes (BrE) >(Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's >accent last summer.) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Any advice? What is your son's age? If he's a pre-teen, then it's far too early - in my opinion - to worry about this. What you are trying to convey is unimportant to him compared to fitting in with his playmates. I agree that you should continue to correct him and guide him, but not in a way that makes him feel that you think his friends are unacceptably ignorant. Your criticisms of your son's friend's English may be construed as criticism of the friends. Your son will just become defensive of his friends. If your son is still a "toddler", I think you are *really* premature in your concern. Excessive criticism in areas where the child is not yet old enough to have a concept of the rules involved can lead to insecurities that will stay with him for years. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:33:42 +0100, "Martha N." > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > What is your son's age? Well, if he was a toddler last summer, ... > If he's a pre-teen, then it's far too early - in my opinion - to worry > about this. What you are trying to convey is unimportant to him [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > yet old enough to have a concept of the rules involved can lead to > insecurities that will stay with him for years. Well said. >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:33:42 +0100, "Martha N." >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Well, if he was a toddler last summer, ... What is your definition - age-wise - of a "toddler"? What is the OP's definition? My definition of a toddler is a child that has just learned to walk. A child that can put together a sentence like "Me and Billy..." is past the toddler stage. A child that can be taught to recast a sentence is *far* past the toddler stage. I have two grandchildren well-past the toddler stage. One is four and the other one is just six. They both say things like "My brother hitted me". I'm not at all concerned about it. We (parents or grandparents) don't criticize them for this. We may ask "Why did your brother hit you?" as an example of the correct form, though. The boys will figure it out. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>> "tony" == tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes: tony> I have two grandchildren well-past the toddler stage. One is tony> four and the other one is just six. They both say things like tony> "My brother hitted me". I'm not at all concerned about it. tony> We (parents or grandparents) don't criticize them for this. tony> We may ask "Why did your brother hit you?" as an example of tony> the correct form, though. The boys will figure it out. How does that serve as an example? "My brother spotted me" -> "When did your brother spot you?" and *"My brother hitted me" -> "When did your brother hit you?" are parallel. How can a child or even an adult learning English as L2 figure out that "hitted" is the wrong from from your example? SignatureLee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~} E-mail: danlee@informatik.uni-freiburg.de Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee LEE Sau Dan skrev: > tony> We (parents or grandparents) don't criticize them for this. > tony> We may ask "Why did your brother hit you?" as an example of > tony> the correct form, though. The boys will figure it out. > How does that serve as an example? How does it not? > "My brother spotted me" -> "When did your brother spot you?" > and > *"My brother hitted me" -> "When did your brother hit you?" > are parallel. Yes. > How can a child or even an adult learning English as L2 figure out that > "hitted" is the wrong from from your example? They can't. They need many other examples. Natural use of language offers precisely that. The method that Tnoy described, is the best way to teach small children correct language. Whenever they say something ungrammatical, repeat the central words using them correctly. SignatureBertel, Denmark On Oct 26, 12:13 pm, Bertel Lund Hansen <unosp...@lundhansen.dk> wrote: > LEE Sau Dan skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > children correct language. Whenever they say something > ungrammatical, repeat the central words using them correctly. LSD is quite right. The correct preterite "hit" is not used in the response, so it cannot serve as a model for replacing the regularized form "hitted." A response that _does_ incorporate the correction would be "Your brother hit you?? When did he do that?" Children _understand_ "irregular" inflections before they can _produce_ them. > Children _understand_ "irregular" inflections before they can > _produce_ them. ISTR reading that children understand lots of linguistic phenomena before they can produce them, including phonemes that they can't articulate yet. I came across examples (in a book by David Crystal, I think, but I'm not certain) in which a small child mispronounces a word, then gets annoyed when the parent repeats the mispronunciation and says "No, I said ____!" with the same mispronunciation. SignatureLe beau est aussi utile que l'utile. [Victor Hugo] >> Children _understand_ "irregular" inflections before they can >> _produce_ them. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > word, then gets annoyed when the parent repeats the mispronunciation > and says "No, I said ____!" with the same mispronunciation. "My fiss". SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu >>> Children _understand_ "irregular" inflections before they can >>> _produce_ them. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > "My fiss". Yes, that's a good example (which I couldn't recall). SignatureCivilization is a race between catastrophe and education. [H G Wells] >>>> Children _understand_ "irregular" inflections before they can >>>> _produce_ them. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Yes, that's a good example (which I couldn't recall). And what word would that be? >>>>> Children _understand_ "irregular" inflections before they can >>>>> _produce_ them. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > And what word would that be? "fist" --- ISTR that /s/ for /st/ at the end of a word is a common child's error in English. SignatureBob just used 'canonical' in the canonical way. [Guy Steele] >>>>>> Children _understand_ "irregular" inflections before they can >>>>>> _produce_ them. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > "fist" --- ISTR that /s/ for /st/ at the end of a word is a common > child's error in English. Could that be an indication that such -st is really a single phoneme? > >>>>>> Children _understand_ "irregular" inflections before they can > >>>>>> _produce_ them. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Could that be an indication that such -st is really a single phoneme?- Or that dropping a final stop isn't just a French bizarrerie? It's normal in AAVE. There's also the little problem of the "Sonority Hierarchy," which has to throw up its hands in despair when it comes to [s]. [children pronouncing "fist" as /fIs/ temporarily] >> > "fist" --- ISTR that /s/ for /st/ at the end of a word is a common >> > child's error in English. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Or that dropping a final stop isn't just a French bizarrerie? It's > normal in AAVE. Are these omissions over time considered to be derived from issues like that in child language acquisition? > There's also the little problem of the "Sonority Hierarchy," which has > to throw up its hands in despair when it comes to [s]. I don't know much about that. SignatureBob just used 'canonical' in the canonical way. [Guy Steele] > [children pronouncing "fist" as /fIs/ temporarily] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Are these omissions over time considered to be derived from issues > like that in child language acquisition? Well, "over time" _every_ change has something to do with language acquisition: it's simply the constant battle between ease of articulation and difficulty of comprehension. The postulated LAD (Language Acquisition Device) tries to establish the simplest grammar that will account for all and only the well-formed input it receives. Neurolinguistics _may_, however, have made some progress in recent decades (though probably not much) in discovering what's actually going on in infant brains. > > There's also the little problem of the "Sonority Hierarchy," which has > > to throw up its hands in despair when it comes to [s]. > > I don't know much about that. You're not missing anything. >> > Or that dropping a final stop isn't just a French bizarrerie? It's >> > normal in AAVE. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > acquisition: it's simply the constant battle between ease of > articulation and difficulty of comprehension. I can see that for many types of language change, but not all of them. Ease of *articulation* doesn't explain the issue that started this thread ("me and Bob did it" vs "Bob and I did it") --- I guess you could say that something like "ease of syntactic generation" is driving that? Of course, such arguments provide ammunitition to those who argue that dropping phonemes and making these grammatical errors (prescriptively speaking) result from "laziness". SignatureHistory teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure. (Thurgood Marshall) > >> > Or that dropping a final stop isn't just a French bizarrerie? It's > >> > normal in AAVE. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > could say that something like "ease of syntactic generation" is > driving that? Analogy? > Of course, such arguments provide ammunitition to those who argue that > dropping phonemes and making these grammatical errors (prescriptively > speaking) result from "laziness". A condition that affects every speaker in the world, no matter their industriousness. It is at every step confronted by intelligibility. >> >> > Or that dropping a final stop isn't just a French bizarrerie? It's >> >> > normal in AAVE. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Analogy? Sure. (I was thinking of something like "easier to remember/generate", in parallel with "easier to pronounce".) SignatureNo right of private conversation was enumerated in the Constitution. I don't suppose it occurred to anyone at the time that it could be prevented. [Whitfield Diffie] >> Of course, such arguments provide ammunitition to those who argue that >> dropping phonemes and making these grammatical errors (prescriptively >> speaking) result from "laziness". > > A condition that affects every speaker in the world, no matter their > industriousness. It is at every step confronted by intelligibility. Then the popular books on language acquisition are slighly misleading. Instead of saying "don't worry; your kids will after a few years acquire the language", they should say "...acquire a slightly (but perhaps almost indetectably) lazier version of the language". SignatureNam Sibbyllam quidem Cumis ego ipse oculis meis vidi in ampulla pendere, et cum illi pueri dicerent: beable beable beable; respondebat illa: doidy doidy doidy. [plorkwort] >>> Of course, such arguments provide ammunitition to those who argue >>> that dropping phonemes and making these grammatical errors [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > slightly (but perhaps almost indetectably) lazier version of the > language". Which is, of course, counterbalanced by the increase in complexity that comes from making vocabulary (and, sometimes, pronunciation) distinctions that the older generation "doesn't get". Everybody learns their own approximation to the language. And the target itself is nothing more than a sort of aggregate of everybody else's approximations. So what your kids will learn is an idiolect that's well within the range of variation of the language. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |There are just two rules of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |governance in a free society: Mind Palo Alto, CA 94304 |your own business. Keep your hands |to yourself. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> I can see that for many types of language change, but not all of them. >> Ease of *articulation* doesn't explain the issue that started this [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Analogy? I guess the analogy is "Alice saw me and Bob" --> "Me and Bob saw Alice", or something like that ... but stronger constraints prevent "Alice saw me" from leading to "Me saw Alice"? I don't see how either ease of articulation or avoidance of ambiguity can explain the addition of superfluous consonants, e.g. /INk/ for /IN/ ("-ing") in certain SE English accents --- what's the theory for this? SignatureClassical Greek lent itself to the promulgation of a rich culture, indeed, to Western civilization. Computer languages bring us doorbells that chime with thirty-two tunes, alt.sex.bestiality, and Tetris clones. (Stoll 1995) >>> I can see that for many types of language change, but not all of them. >>> Ease of *articulation* doesn't explain the issue that started this [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Alice", or something like that ... but stronger constraints prevent > "Alice saw me" from leading to "Me saw Alice"? What stronger constraints are they? I see "Me and Bob saw Alice" just as grammatically incorrect as "Me saw Alice". pjk > I don't see how either ease of articulation or avoidance of ambiguity > can explain the addition of superfluous consonants, e.g. /INk/ for > /IN/ ("-ing") in certain SE English accents --- what's the theory for > this? > >>> I can see that for many types of language change, but not all of them. > >>> Ease of *articulation* doesn't explain the issue that started this [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I see "Me and Bob saw Alice" just as grammatically incorrect > as "Me saw Alice". Not for many native speakers of English. There's a reason why they have to be taught year after year after year in school to say "Bob and I saw Alice", but they never need to be taught to "I saw Alice". The rule they seem to be operating under is roughly that a NP in subject position of a finite clause is nominative, and all others are accusative. Two NPs conjoined together are not technically in immediate subject position; the larger conjoined NP occupies that position, but the individual components do not. Without a rule that forces nominative case to "trickle down" to the conjuncts, they will end up in the default accusative case. Nathan SignatureNathan Sanders Linguistics Program Williams College http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/ >>>>> I can see that for many types of language change, but not all of them. >>>>> Ease of *articulation* doesn't explain the issue that started this [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > default accusative case. > Nathan Thanks, Nathan. I started to learn English seriously when I was twenty six, so it's not surpising that many features of my mother's language consciously or unconsciously influence the way I learned English grammar. In this particular case, the influence works in my favour, I automatically perceive the individual components of NP as needing to be all in nominative or all in accusative. On the other hand, I have to resist the same rule in other situations. For example, only the last word of the NP is marked as genitive or possessive in phrases like "big white house's windows" or "House and Garden's Guide". When I was learning English I had to force myself not to heed the temptation of marking all the nouns and adjectives of the NP individually as possessives. Even after many years later I sometimes catch myself talking about "watches" and "doors" instead of singulars "watch" and "door". The fact that many nouns in my first language happen to be pluralia tantums seem to seep so easily through the language/vocabulary barrier. Even though the etymologies of English "watch" and Czech "hodinky" (a diminutive pluralia tantum of "hour") are totally different, the words don't sound even remotely similar, somehow quite independently, this pluralizing mental image of "littlehours" jumps across the wide chasm between these two languages. pjk >Not for many native speakers of English. There's a reason why they >have to be taught year after year after year in school to say "Bob and >I saw Alice", but they never need to be taught to "I saw Alice". Just as they need to be taught "Bob saw Alice and me", and never need to be taught "Bob saw me." SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > >Not for many native speakers of English. There's a reason why they > >have to be taught year after year after year in school to say "Bob and > >I saw Alice", but they never need to be taught to "I saw Alice". > > Just as they need to be taught "Bob saw Alice and me", and never need to be > taught "Bob saw me." They don't need to be taught either of those, because the rule they have (use "me" whenever it isn't the sole subject of a finite clause) already generates both. Unless you're talking about "Alice and me" versus "me and Alice", in which case, yes, you're right. Somewhere along the line, grammar pedants concocted this notion that "Alice and me" is the only correct order (I've always heard it attributed to "politeness"), even though speakers naturally use both, and many even prefer the opposite order. Nathan SignatureNathan Sanders Linguistics Program Williams College http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/ >> >Not for many native speakers of English. There's a reason why they >> >have to be taught year after year after year in school to say "Bob and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >order (I've always heard it attributed to "politeness"), even though >speakers naturally use both, and many even prefer the opposite order. I've met lots of people who say "Bob saw Alice and I". But very few (except Rastas) who say "Bob saw I". SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > >> >Not for many native speakers of English. There's a reason why they > >> >have to be taught year after year after year in school to say "Bob and [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I've met lots of people who say "Bob saw Alice and I". Right, that's usually the result of hypercorrection. They've been admonished for saying "and me" (or "me and") in certain situations, but for whatever reason, those situations don't register as natural for them, so they change it everywhere instead. > But very few (except Rastas) who say "Bob saw I". I hear "Bob saw myself". Ordinary native speakers are really confused by this whole "I/me" business. They want to use "me", but are told to use "I", so they use "I", only to find out that "I" isn't always correct. So they give up, and use "myself". Interestingly, they still don't make the replacement when the NP is the immediate subject of a finite clause. It's just become the new default form, replacing "me". This new usage of "myself" as the default form doesn't seem to be quite yet common enough for prescriptivists to have noticed it yet (or perhaps prescriptivist condemnation of it hasn't become common enough for me to have noticed it!). Nathan SignatureNathan Sanders Linguistics Program Williams College http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/ > In article <mjbkh5589sb6aemcnr7uuiiqs05umfc...@4ax.com>, > SteveHayes<hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Right, that's usually the result of hypercorrection. Ultimately, but I believe without data that lots of people have now learned "Bob saw Alice and I" from their parents and peers, and quite possibly teachers (I'm no longer surprised to hear teachers say things like that), so it's natural for them. > They've been > admonished for saying "and me" (or "me and") in certain situations, > but for whatever reason, those situations don't register as natural > for them, so they change it everywhere instead. Not necessarily everywhere. The only definite example I've found is an interview with the singer Uncle Kracker: "Me and him work so well together." "I said this before, but it’s the best analogy I have for he and I is that I don’t talk very much when it comes to just general – usually I’m pretty quiet – and he never shuts the f.ck up." This was at http://theywillrockyou.com/interviews/interviews/uncle_kracker/ which is not there any more and not at the Wayback Machine either. Don't these people realize the linguistic importance of that interview? (Just kidding.) Anyway, I suspect there are a lot of people who switch pronoun cases any time "and" is involved. Should it be called the "and-conversive"? > > But very few (except Rastas) who say "Bob saw I". > > I hear "Bob saw myself". Mr. Google hasn't (not that I'm doubting you). > Ordinary native speakers are really confused > by this whole "I/me" business. They want to use "me", but are told to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > perhaps prescriptivist condemnation of it hasn't become common enough > for me to have noticed it!). Here's one from Bryan Garner: http://books.google.com/books?id=z_VmtjAU01YC&pg=PA224#v=onepage&q=&f=false -- Jerry Friedman In article <8161397f-e84a-4e93-895d-f082e4512ccf@v37g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, > > In article <mjbkh5589sb6aemcnr7uuiiqs05umfc...@4ax.com>, > > SteveHayes<hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > possibly teachers (I'm no longer surprised to hear teachers say things > like that), so it's natural for them. Possibly. The hypercorrect form could certainly be used enough by a child's parents for it to be acquired as its native pattern. However, I'm not sure if the hypercorrect form is that widespread; it seems to me that it's primarily only used in elevated registers, which isn't the type of speech typically used between family members. > > They've been > > admonished for saying "and me" (or "me and") in certain situations, > > but for whatever reason, those situations don't register as natural > > for them, so they change it everywhere instead. > > Not necessarily everywhere. Sorry, I didn't mean "everywhere, every single time". I meant that they do not distinguish which positions are appropriate for the change, and which aren't, so they do a sort of scattershot attempt, trying both options in all positions. > Anyway, I suspect there are a lot of people who switch pronoun cases > any time "and" is involved. Should it be called the "and-conversive"? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Mr. Google hasn't (not that I'm doubting you). Here are a few Google hits for unconjoined "myself" showing up where we would prescriptively expect "me" (most of these sound odd to my own ears, but there are definitely representative of what I hear other native speakers saying): yeah as much as petrol was a nutter, i was a nutter before? him, and so anything he saw myself do i guess he imitated it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSqt78W1kpk We went directly to my sister's birthday party and she seemed to be over the moon, when she saw myself. http://www.nogler.ch/links/blog.htm They saw myself to be a 'servant-based leader' http://www.lobbytools.com/article.cfm?16539847 They saw myself walk through the doorand boom they got on the line for another one. http://joehillfiction.com/?p=1022 They both gave myself a quick interview and an insight on their votes. http://www.leadernewspapers.net/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=11 451 Thus, you can widely interpret myself as a person in any aspect of my tenor and behaviour. http://www.freewebs.com/eponineroy/awordfromtheauthor.htm You may think differently from myself as the environment that you run may be different. http://malaysiavm.com/blog/microsoft-mythbusters-top-10-vmware-myths/ please pray for myself http://www.oakgrovebaptist7.org/apps/reports/default.asp?type=prayer&pa geno=3 Their first child was a girl, the only child they had except myself. http://www.themorrisclan.com/GENEALOGY/FERRIN%20Samuel%20F122.html Instead of replying to this email they forwarded it to myself and also to the Police. http://beehive.courier.co.uk/default.asp?WCI=SiteHome&ID=14388&PageID=8 9966 However, it is much more common when directly conjoined with another NP. > > This new usage of "myself" as the default form doesn't seem to be > > quite yet common enough for prescriptivists to have noticed it yet (or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://books.google.com/books?id=z_VmtjAU01YC&pg=PA224#v=onepage&q=&f=false Thanks! Nathan SignatureNathan Sanders Linguistics Program Williams College http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/ > > Ultimately, but I believe without data that lots of people have now > > learned "Bob saw Alice and I" from their parents and peers, and quite [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > child's parents for it to be acquired as its native pattern. However, > I'm not sure if the hypercorrect form is that widespread; Read 'em and weep: 32,200,000 for "for my husband and I" 9,070,000 for "for my husband and me" 20,000,000 for "to my sister and I" 682,000 for "to my sister and me" True, there are known problems in the ways Google forms these estimates. Also a few of these will be punctuated differently, such as: ...I got it for my husband, and I never thought... But not many, maybe less than 10%. I started keeping records in 2002 of Google numbers for conventional and "mistaken" usages, and nothing has ever shown as dramatic ratios like this one does. >it seems to > me that it's primarily only used in elevated registers, which isn't > the type of speech typically used between family members. Elevated? Just try looking at how these phrases are used. ======== - This will be great for my husband and I, we are now finally able to afford a new (or newer) car and he'll be able to trade in his Dodge Ram Van (purchased at a dump for $100.00) that gets 8 miles a gallon for something more reliable... no more getting stranded by the roadside in the 100 + deg Arizona heat. - More than that, however, this will mean an income for my husband and I again. - I made a dinner of freeze-dried food for my husband and I. - It is hard for my husband and I to be separated after 41 years of marriage. - And yet I still dream of crafting warm sweaters for my husband and I. - My daughter enjoys taking the Metro to and from school and it's cheap and easy for my husband and I as well. ========= These are only "elevated" in the sense that the writers spelled out words in full (instead of chat abbreviations) and they didn't use cuss words. Pretty ordinary people. In fact, it is possible that if in ten years, you and I are still insisting on saying for form "for X and me," then we are the ones who will be looked down upon, scorned at best as quaint and at worst as bad at English. We shall see. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > In fact, it is possible that if in ten years, you and I are still > insisting on saying for form "for X and me," then we are the ones who > will be looked down upon, scorned at best as quaint and at worst as > bad at English. We shall see. True. In fact it'd be best to let the matter lay, innit? SignatureSkitt (AmE) > > In fact, it is possible that if in ten years, you and I are still > > insisting on saying for form "for X and me," then we are the ones who [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > Skitt (AmE) It looks like we are moving into a period where pronouns have lost their case significance and English has two forms in free variation for the pronouns: I ~ me, he ~ him, she ~ her, we ~ us, they ~ them (and mostly likely who ~ whom). Such a situation will probably be unstable and will be levelled (I make no prediction how). It is a battle for survival and may the best pronoun win! >>> In fact, it is possible that if in ten years, you and I are still >>> insisting on saying for form "for X and me," then we are the ones [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > It is a battle for survival and may the best pronoun win! What? No reaction to my "lay"? SignatureSkitt (AmE) > What? No reaction to my "lay"? Lay, poultry, lay, Lay across my big brass bed. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>>> In fact, it is possible that if in ten years, you and I are still >>>> insisting on saying for form "for X and me," then we are the ones [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > What? No reaction to my "lay"? The numbing effect of "innit"? I read in a magazine this morning that the Lusitania "sunk" in 1927. (Well, I'm not sure that's the year they said, but that's next to the point.) > >>>> In fact, it is possible that if in ten years, you and I are still > >>>> insisting on saying for form "for X and me," then we are the ones [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > (Well, I'm not sure that's the year they said, but that's next to the > point.)- If they said anything later than mid-1917, they don't understand the significance of the Lusitania. (It was 1915.) >> [...] >> I read in a magazine this morning that the Lusitania "sunk" in 1927. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If they said anything later than mid-1917, they don't understand the > significance of the Lusitania. (It was 1915.) I ran across it again this morning--I had dog-eared the page in Popular Science--they say 1912. Either way, it was before I was born, so how was I to know? I did see the movie, but movies are in one eye and out the other, and I obviously don't understand the significance of the Lusitania. >>> [...] I read in a magazine this morning that the Lusitania "sunk" >>> in 1927. (Well, I'm not sure that's the year they said, but [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I ran across it again this morning--I had dog-eared the page in > Popular Science--they say 1912. Must have been a pre-emptive strike by the Germans. > Either way, it was before I was born, so how was I to know? I did see > the movie, but movies are in one eye and out the other, and I > obviously don't understand the significance of the Lusitania. It was described at the time as "a deed for which a Hun would blush, a Turk be ashamed, and a Barbary pirate apologise." SignatureJames > >> [...] > >> I read in a magazine this morning that the Lusitania "sunk" in 1927. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I ran across it again this morning--I had dog-eared the page in Popular > Science--they say 1912. 1912 was the Titanic. In my yout' I read Popular Mechanics but not Popular Science. I wonder whether I'd recognize either of them today. > Either way, it was before I was born, so how was I to know? I did see > the movie, but movies are in one eye and out the other, and I obviously > don't understand the significance of the Lusitania. The sinking of the Lusitania was one of the events that precipitated American entry into WWI, on the claim that it was an attack on the commercial shipping of a neutral nation. Turned out, however, that it _was_ carrying munitions for the Allies, which made it a somewhat legitimate war target. >> >> [...] >> >> I read in a magazine this morning that the Lusitania "sunk" in 1927. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > _was_ carrying munitions for the Allies, which made it a somewhat > legitimate war target. Was that ever proved? According to: <http://www.pbs.org/lostliners/lusitania.html> there was no conclusive evidence that the ship was carrying munitions. They suggest that the secondary explosion was caused by coal dust: [quote] The torpedo likely ripped open the ship at one of the starboard coal bunkers, nearly empty at the end of the transatlantic crossing. The violent impact kicked up clouds of coal dust, which when mixed with oxygen and touched by fire becomes an explosive combination. The resulting blast, the reported second explosion, ripped open the starboard side of the hull and doomed the ship. [endquote] SignatureLes (BrE) >>>> [...] >>>> I read in a magazine this morning that the Lusitania "sunk" in 1927. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > In my yout' I read Popular Mechanics but not Popular Science. I wonder > whether I'd recognize either of them today. In my youth, which it seems was way earlier than yours if you were really still in school in the 70s, I read both. See if you can still tell the Titanic from the Lusitania when you reach my age. <sob> > >>>> [...] > >>>> I read in a magazine this morning that the Lusitania "sunk" in 1927. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > See if you can still tell the Titanic from the Lusitania when you reach > my age. <sob>- _You_ are perfectly capable of telling them apart (iceberg - torpedo). But if PopSci couldn't get it right -- well, looks like I was right in my discriminating between the two mags. I stopped reading Scientific American when it went pop (which was _after_ they hired the creationist as a successor to Martin Gardner). > _You_ are perfectly capable of telling them apart (iceberg - torpedo). > But if PopSci couldn't get it right -- well, looks like I was right in > my discriminating between the two mags. > > I stopped reading Scientific American when it went pop (which was > _after_ they hired the creationist as a successor to Martin Gardner). I thought Douglas Hofstadter was agnostic. SignatureTake it? I can't even parse it! [Kibo] > > _You_ are perfectly capable of telling them apart (iceberg - torpedo). > > But if PopSci couldn't get it right -- well, looks like I was right in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I thought Douglas Hofstadter was agnostic. I wouldn't know. If I'd meant Hofstadter I'd have said Hofstadter, because I know his name. (He was no successor to Martin Gardner, that's for sure.) On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 04:08:57 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:6d0ee095-b8e4-406a-ad01-9b65774011ee@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>> _You_ are perfectly capable of telling them apart (iceberg - torpedo). >>> But if PopSci couldn't get it right -- well, looks like I was right in >>> my discriminating between the two mags. >>> I stopped reading Scientific American when it went pop (which was >>> _after_ they hired the creationist as a successor to Martin Gardner). >> I thought Douglas Hofstadter was agnostic. > I wouldn't know. If I'd meant Hofstadter I'd have said Hofstadter, > because I know his name. > (He was no successor to Martin Gardner, that's for sure.) None the less, his column 'Metamagical Themas' was the replacement for Gardner's 'Mathematical Games'. It was followed by Ian Stewart's 'Mathematical Recreations', which in turn was followed by Dennis Shasha's 'Puzzling Adventures'. I know nothing about Shasha, but Stewart is certainly no creationist. Brian Brian > On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 04:08:57 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Adventures'. I know nothing about Shasha, but Stewart is > certainly no creationist. Since no one could come close to duplicating Gardner's achievement, they got some guy to write up science experiments. Even after his creationism was outed, they kept him on. Maybe he alternated with the Gardner replacements -- the Connections guy James Burke was also in there for a while. His shtick didn't work nearly as well in print as on TV. I suspect Stewart and Shasha are after my time. >> [...] >> See if you can still tell the Titanic from the Lusitania when you reach [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > But if PopSci couldn't get it right -- well, looks like I was right in > my discriminating between the two mags. PopSci had ship name and date both correct. I just couldn't remember a few hours later. > I stopped reading Scientific American when it went pop (which was > _after_ they hired the creationist as a successor to Martin Gardner). I'll read it to at least 2012 if I live that long, I guess. > >> [...] > >> See if you can still tell the Titanic from the Lusitania when you reach [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I'll read it to at least 2012 if I live that long, I guess. Yeah, I'd renewed my subscription just a few months before it changed, too. > > > Ultimately, but I believe without data that lots of people have now > > > learned "Bob saw Alice and I" from their parents and peers, and quite [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Read 'em and weep: I think you misunderstood what I meant by "widespread". I didn't mean widespread across speakers; I meant widespread across registers for a given speaker (in particular, down into the lowest registers used between family members, *especially* between parents and children, which is what is most relevant for acquisition of native speech patterns). > >it seems to > > me that it's primarily only used in elevated registers, which isn't > > the type of speech typically used between family members. > > Elevated? Just try looking at how these phrases are used. Yes, elevated. The lack of contractions ("we are", "it is") in your quotes is a marker of elevated speech. Furthermore, these quotes are all *written*, which is already at least one step up in register. > In fact, it is possible that if in ten years, you and I are still > insisting on saying for form "for X and me," I have not, and certainly would not, made any such insistence! Nathan SignatureNathan Sanders Linguistics Program Williams College http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/ >> > > Ultimately, but I believe without data that lots of people have now >> > > learned "Bob saw Alice and I" from their parents and peers, and quite [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >I have not, and certainly would not, made any such insistence! That works if rearranged: I have not made any such insistence, and certainly would not! SignatureJohn > >> In fact, it is possible that if in ten years, you and I are still > >> insisting on saying for form "for X and me," [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That works if rearranged: > I have not made any such insistence, and certainly would not! It worked in my head when I wrote it. :-) Nathan SignatureNathan Sanders Linguistics Program Williams College http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/ > In article <0slmh5dhgrt287ld7atq1q9htt4v5sb...@4ax.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > It worked in my head when I wrote it. :-) It was perfectly understandable, just not "logical." > In article <1ja9xkz.rkqdeksrpusiN%t...@euronet.nl>, > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > quotes is a marker of elevated speech. Furthermore, these quotes are > all *written*, which is already at least one step up in register. ... If you want ones with contractions, try searching for "my bf and I". Here's the first Google hit (of "6,570,000", whatever that means). She may be one of the people you mentioned who always use "I" with "and". Any good advice for my bf and I? my boyfriend and I have been tryin to conceive for almost a year. We have had a few times that i thought i was, but they were false alarms. The first day of my last period was november 4th and it was shorter than normal. When could I take a pregnancy test to figure out what is going on? Ive been having faint symptoms since a week after my period. Any advice? Thanks http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091118160201AA0PAoG Of the first ten hits, nine are relevant, and all use contractions except this short one: was wondering if i could get a reading for my bf and i http://www.tarot.com/forum/topic.php?id=3783&page=31 The least elevated one is: Hello again I was wondering if there was any more news and info on the catwalk on january for my bf and i ? i have some shots of my bf but they arnt very clear im afraid http://www.modelmayhem.com/858575 Peter will want to know that she's from Glasgow. -- Jerry Friedman > > In article <1ja9xkz.rkqdeksrpusiN%t...@euronet.nl>, > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > Peter will want to know that she's from Glasgow. No, that was for promiscuous "myself." These all sound entirely likely. Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> quotes someone as saying: > The first day of my last period was november 4th and it was shorter > than normal. When could I take a pregnancy test to figure out what is > going on? Ive been having faint symptoms since a week after my period. > Any advice? Thanks Yes, get those guys at the Earth Rotation Service pedal[l]ing faster. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu >> Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > "mistaken" usages, and nothing has ever shown as dramatic ratios like > this one does. Have you also done counts for "for me and my husband" and "to me and my sister"? These are surely the more natural forms for many (probably most) English speakers everywhere, except in formal registers. It makes sense that the order in noun phrases with "and" should tend to agree with Michael Silverstein's animacy hierarchy: 1st person > 2nd person > 3rd person pronoun > proper name > human noun > animate noun > inanimate noun (This hierarchy turns up all over the place in various aspects of the grammar of the world's languages.) And it makes sense likewise that in formal English, the "politeness hierarchy" (1st person last, 2nd person first) takes over. [...] John. > >> Possibly. The hypercorrect form could certainly be used enough by a > >> child's parents for it to be acquired as its native pattern. However, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > sister"? These are surely the more natural forms for many (probably > most) English speakers everywhere, except in formal registers. They're somewhat comforting, but still less than the above: 25,400,000 for "for me and my husband" 15 for "for I and my husband" 7,980,000 for "to me and my sister" 3 for "to I and my sister" Those tiny numbers, by the way, are attempts to deal with a different grammatical construction: due to I and my sister and countless others suffering this condition Due to I and my sister living in China and Kygyrstan, ... I can imagine anyone struggling with that. I've certainly heard the form "Due to my living in China..." but never "Due to my and my sister living in..." or "Due to me and my sister living..." Maybe it should be "Due to my and my sister's living in..." What do people really do with this? "Due to the fact that my sister and I live in China..."? SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 22:09:45 +0100, Donna Richoux <trio@euronet.nl> wrote in <news:1jabos4.c9eeh9ix2bmjN%trio@euronet.nl> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] > Those tiny numbers, by the way, are attempts to deal with > a different grammatical construction: > due to I and my sister and countless others suffering this > condition > Due to I and my sister living in China and Kygyrstan, ... > I can imagine anyone struggling with that. I've certainly > heard the form > "Due to my living in China..." > but never "Due to my and my sister living in..." > or "Due to me and my sister living..." I've heard (and possibly used) the latter construction. > Maybe it should be "Due to my and my sister's living > in..." Yes, prescriptively. > What do people really do with this? "Due to the fact that > my sister and I live in China..."? I've certainly used this construction. I've also used the 'my and my sister's' construction, though I think that I'm more likely to use it with the perfect ('due to my and my sister's having lived'). Brian > On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 22:09:45 +0100, Donna Richoux ><trio@euronet.nl> wrote in ><news:1jabos4.c9eeh9ix2bmjN%trio@euronet.nl> in > sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> What do people really do with this? "Due to the fact that >> my sister and I live in China..."? Better: "Because my sister and I live(d) in China..." > I've certainly used this construction. I've also used the > 'my and my sister's' construction, though I think that I'm > more likely to use it with the perfect ('due to my and my > sister's having lived'). I suspect a lot of the prescriptive restrictions on "due to" come from a displaced reactions to its overuse, particularly in officialese and badly written signs, and especially where "because" would be better. Signature"It is the role of librarians to keep government running in difficult times," replied Dramoren. "Librarians are the last line of defence against chaos." (McMullen 2001) > > On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 22:09:45 +0100, Donna Richoux > ><t...@euronet.nl> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > a displaced reactions to its overuse, particularly in officialese and > badly written signs, and especially where "because" would be better. Did they ever explain why "due to" was bad but "owing to" was good? > > > On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 22:09:45 +0100, Donna Richoux > > ><t...@euronet.nl> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Did they ever explain why "due to" was bad but "owing to" was good? Probably because _due to_ "should" mean _owed to_. _Owing to_ for causes still seems pretty weird if you take it literally. "This verse to Carryl, Muse! is due." -- Jerry Friedman >> I suspect a lot of the prescriptive restrictions on "due to" come from >> a displaced reactions to its overuse, particularly in officialese and >> badly written signs, and especially where "because" would be better. > > Did they ever explain why "due to" was bad but "owing to" was good? Fowler (MEU, 1st edn) says that "due to ... must like ordinary participles & adjectives be attached to a noun" because unlike "owing to", it has not become a compound preposition. Gowers in the 2nd edn says this is fighting a losing battle. I suspect that because "due to" is more commonly involved than "owing to" in stylistic abuse --- where someone should have written "because". Signature...the reason why so many professional artists drink a lot is not necessarily very much to do with the artistic temperament, etc. It is simply that they can afford to, because they can normally take a large part of a day off to deal with the ravages. [Amis _On Drink_] > Those tiny numbers, by the way, are attempts to deal with a different > grammatical construction: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > What do people really do with this? "Due to the fact that my sister and > I live in China..."? "Because". "Due to" is horrifically overused IMAO. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu > In article > <8161397f-e84a-4e93-895d-f082e4512...@v37g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > me that it's primarily only used in elevated registers, which isn't > the type of speech typically used between family members. That's not the impression I get from my experience here in New Mexico, but I can't give any specifics. > > > They've been > > > admonished for saying "and me" (or "me and") in certain situations, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > change, and which aren't, so they do a sort of scattershot attempt, > trying both options in all positions. Hm. I think some people are consistent with one choice or another, including nominative pronouns for objects of verbs and prepositions when the pronouns are conjoined. ... > > > I hear "Bob saw myself". > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ears, but there are definitely representative of what I hear other > native speakers saying): [snip examples] Two of those aren't native speakers, and there's some doubt about one or two others, but anyway, I'm convinced. By the way, "Petrol" is a very original name for a budgie. -- Jerry Friedman Jerry Friedman filted: >By the way, "Petrol" is a very original name for a budgie. Was it Dorothy Parker who named her bird "Onan", because he spilled his seed upon the ground?... I'd like to find a cat and name it "Nature", because it abhors a vacuum.... I'd also like to teach a parrot to ask for dried cuttlefish by saying "Polly wants a kraken"....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Jerry Friedman filted: >> By the way, "Petrol" is a very original name for a budgie. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'd also like to teach a parrot to ask for dried cuttlefish by saying "Polly > wants a kraken"....r I once named a cat "Astrophe". My first wife was more obscure. Her cats Mikey and Leon were named after famous artists. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> Jerry Friedman filted: >>> By the way, "Petrol" is a very original name for a budgie. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > My first wife was more obscure. Her cats Mikey and Leon were named > after famous artists. I once named a dog Fritz. When we had to give him away, the new owner, who had never heard of Robert Crumb, modified the name to Prince. Then we got a cat whom I christened Rover. She didn't seem to mind. SignatureJames [...] > Then we got a cat whom I christened Rover. She didn't seem to mind. Did you later have her confirmed? SignatureLes (BrE) >>> Jerry Friedman filted: >>>> By the way, "Petrol" is a very original name for a budgie. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Then we got a cat whom I christened Rover. She didn't seem to mind. Prsumably not the total immersion style of christening. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>I once named a dog Fritz. When we had to give him away, the new owner, >>who had never heard of Robert Crumb, modified the name to Prince. >> >>Then we got a cat whom I christened Rover. She didn't seem to mind. > > Prsumably not the total immersion style of christening. Cats don't like aspersion either. SignatureTwo of the most famous products of Berkeley are LSD and Unix. I don't think that this is a coincidence. [anonymous] >> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 15:12:40 +0100, James Hogg >> <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Cats don't like aspersion either. Yeah. Because people keep getting "cast" mixed up with "cats". >>> Prsumably not the total immersion style of christening. >> >> Cats don't like aspersion either. > > Yeah. Because people keep getting "cast" mixed up with "cats". I blame methatesis. SignatureClassical Greek lent itself to the promulgation of a rich culture, indeed, to Western civilization. Computer languages bring us doorbells that chime with thirty-two tunes, alt.sex.bestiality, and Tetris clones. (Stoll 1995) James Hogg filted: >>> Jerry Friedman filted: >>>> By the way, "Petrol" is a very original name for a budgie. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Then we got a cat whom I christened Rover. She didn't seem to mind. A pair of the ferals who sleep on my patio, littermates, are referred to as "Mac and little Dougie"...originally they were McDonnell and Douglas, because they're both jet black....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >> Jerry Friedman filted: >>> By the way, "Petrol" is a very original name for a budgie. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >I once named a cat "Astrophe". My aunt had a Siamese cat called Tai Ping. Another cat had a once-broken paw so she called it Shorthand. ... SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. Richard Bollard skrev: >> I once named a cat "Astrophe". > > My aunt had a Siamese cat called Tai Ping. Another cat had a > once-broken paw so she called it Shorthand. My father had a cat who showed up on his door one day presenting itself as Mao. SignatureTrond Engen > Richard Bollard skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > My father had a cat who showed up on his door one day presenting itself > as Mao. He's lucky it wasn't Deng on his doorstep. SignatureJames > Richard Bollard skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > My father had a cat who showed up on his door one day presenting itself > as Mao. Googling I found out that the chinese for "cat" is māo 貓 http://www.cozychinese.com/cat-mao/ but "Mao" in Mao Zedong is Máo , I gather from máo 毛 meaning "fur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong << Mao Zedong ... "毛" redirects here. "毛" is also the Chinese character meaning Fur. ... Mao Zedong (simplified Chinese: 毛泽东; traditional Chinese: 毛澤東; pinyin: Máo Zédōng; Wade-Giles: Mao Tse-tung) ... > -- > Trond Engen Yusuf B Gursey wrote, on 08-12-2009 10:05: >> Richard Bollard skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > but "Mao" in Mao Zedong is Máo , I gather from máo 毛 meaning "fur ...thick, longhaired, soft and warm? Yikes! >>> My father had a cat who showed up on his door one day presenting >>> itself as Mao. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > ...thick, longhaired, soft and warm? Yikes! There's more: mao(4) (the descending tone) = to risk, to brave, or to take risks, or, alternatively, to falsify, or to emit, give off, or spew forth (same character used for these meanings so context is used to disambiguate) or the noun meaning appearance or looks, which is a different character to the above ones. There are yet more meanings, though the words are quite obscure, so not worth giving here. There's a game that can be played given the nature of the chinese language with its numerous homophones and near homophones, an example of which is when I wrote down a 5 character sentence, in which the first two characters were the same. It meant in English "Is mum beating the horse?" it is pronounced (with tones as numbers) "ma1 ma0 ma4 ma2 ma0" There are tongue twisters making use of similar sounding words, with one famous one being a short story called "Record of Mr. Shi Eating Lions" which, if pronounced in Classical Chinese is made up of "shi" pronounced with differing tones. Text can be found at the end of: http://www.pinyin.info/readings/zyg/what_pinyin_is_not.html with more Chinese tongue-twisters on: http://hua.umf.maine.edu/Chinese/topics/tongue/douying.html SignatureZhang Dawei: Stoke-on-Trent, UK, and Zhangjiajie, Hunan, China. Use Reply-To field, where this email address is guaranteed to be valid for 2 weeks after the date of message it appears in. António Marques wrote: > Yusuf B Gursey wrote, on 08-12-2009 10:05: > >> Richard Bollard skrev: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > ...thick, longhaired, soft and warm? Yikes! ..like a bear?! > > Yusuf B Gursey wrote, on 08-12-2009 10:05: > > > On Dec 8, 3:02 am, Trond Engen<trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > ..like a bear?! And this ties into Magdalenian how, exactly? Dr. HotSalt Dr. HotSalt wrote, on 10-12-2009 03:08: >>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote, on 08-12-2009 10:05: >>>> but "Mao" in Mao Zedong is Máo , I gather from máo 毛 meaning "fur [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > And this ties into Magdalenian how, exactly? I'm sure Fraans can find a way. > Dr. HotSalt wrote, on 10-12-2009 03:08: >> And this ties into Magdalenian how, exactly? > > I'm sure Fraans can find a way. What's with the spelling games? SignatureNam Sibbyllam quidem Cumis ego ipse oculis meis vidi in ampulla pendere, et cum illi pueri dicerent: beable beable beable; respondebat illa: doidy doidy doidy. [plorkwort] >>>>Richard Bollard skrev: >>>>>My aunt had a Siamese cat called Tai Ping. Another cat had a >>>>>once-broken paw so she called it Shorthand. A friend had a duck with only half a bill, so I named it Fifty Cent. Signaturepete > > Yusuf B Gursey wrote, on 08-12-2009 10:05: > > > On Dec 8, 3:02 am, Trond Engen<trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > ..like a bear?! In Russian, bear means honey-eater. --- tiger > > In article > > <8161397f-e84a-4e93-895d-f082e4512...@v37g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > By the way, "Petrol" is a very original name for a budgie. Last night I tried to post the query whether the examples were British -- the vocabulary clearly confirmed that some of them were. But google groups would not let me post to this thread. Before and after, fine; just not here. > > > In article > > > <8161397f-e84a-4e93-895d-f082e4512...@v37g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > Last night I tried to post the query whether the examples were British > -- the vocabulary clearly confirmed that some of them were. You could have checked yourself. One was British, one was Australian, and one could have been from a Brit (etc.) or an American affecting British (etc.) spelling. The others looked American. > But google groups would not let me post to this thread. Before and > after, fine; just not here. I had trouble replying to this. -- Jerry Friedman > > Last night I tried to post the query whether the examples were British > > -- the vocabulary clearly confirmed that some of them were. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I had trouble replying to this. Also, every message in the thread is numbered "1." > >> > Or that dropping a final stop isn't just a French bizarrerie? It's > >> > normal in AAVE. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Ease of *articulation* doesn't explain the issue that started this > thread ("me and Bob did it" vs "Bob and I did it") True, articulation has nothing to do with this. > --- I guess you > could say that something like "ease of syntactic generation" is > driving that? Or some sort of simplicity of the case marking rule. Here's one (for English): (i) NP subjects of tensed clauses get marked with Nominative case. (ii) NP 'subjects'[1] of noun phrases get marked with Genitive case. (iii) all other NPs get marked with Accusative case. In the situation of "Me and John left" or "John and me left" "me and John"/"John and me" is the subject, NOT just "me", so rule (iii) applies. Evidence for this supposedly heretical claim: "John and I met" ≠John met and I met. The rule also predicts Acc for "me and John's book" (cf. ?my and John's book/?John's and my book). Although in this case the ordering matters: "*John and me's book". It also predicts that the default case form in English is Acc, as in: Me, I don't like that. (*I, I don't like that) Who is it? It's me. (*It's I) John is bigger than me (*John is bigger than I) The prescriptive rule here is more complex, since it requires Nominative case on NP subjects of tensed clauses and NPs contained in coordinated NP subjects of tensed clauses. This of course gets overgeneralized by many speakers to "Nom on all coordinated NPs", yielding the "between you and I", and "John and I's" (google "John and I's wedding" for plenty of real examples of this.) Nominative case is also hypercorrected in the "It's I" and "bigger than I" cases as well. Note: [1] I'm using subject here purely syntactically: in "The army destroyed the city", "the army" is the subject and in "The city was destroyed by the army", "the city" is the subject. By analogy, in "the army's destruction of the city", "the army" is the 'subject' of the noun phrase, and in "the city's destruction by the army", "the city" is the subject. Feel free to replace this term with one more to your liking, such as "Possessor", as I'm not interested in debating this point. Alan > [1] I'm using subject here purely syntactically: in "The army destroyed > the city", "the army" is the subject and in "The city was destroyed by [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > subject. Feel free to replace this term with one more to your liking, > such as "Possessor", as I'm not interested in debating this point. Noun phrases don't have subjects. If they did, they'd be verb phrases. In article <16e5c591-e126-45d3-99fb-35123a8115ad@m35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, > > [1] I'm using subject here purely syntactically: in "The army destroyed > > the city", "the army" is the subject and in "The city was destroyed by [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Noun phrases don't have subjects. If they did, they'd be verb phrases. What part of "I'm not interested in debating this point" did you not understand? > In article > <16e5c591-e126-45d3-99fb-35123a811...@m35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > What part of "I'm not interested in debating this point" did you not > understand? (a) Your apparent sole purpose in your occasional postings to sci.lang is to use technical terms in ways that are not known to other linguists. (b) I believe that what you did is called a "pseudo-sorites" -- you state that you are not interested in discussing some statement that you set forth in considerable detail. Along the lines of Smith saying "I am not going to claim that my opponent Jones is an alcoholic! I am not going to state that Jones is seen to come staggering out of watering holes at closing time nearly every night!" (c) Then why did you respond? _Other_ people may be interested in setting forth criteria for various linguistic categories, even if you're not interested in defending your unorthodox uses of them. In article <3ab14b55-1ebd-4465-8a48-a681cca6f683@p33g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, > > In article > > <16e5c591-e126-45d3-99fb-35123a811...@m35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > not going to state that Jones is seen to come staggering out of > watering holes at closing time nearly every night!" Nothing in this particular post related to the use of technical terms, but how case works in English. I don't like to use the term "Possessor", since it is relatively inaccurate: many genitive NP are certainly not semantically possessors; calling it genitive is circular, and referring to some structural position such as "Specifier of DP" or some such will lose people in another way. The term subject as it pertains to NPs has been in use in much the syntactic literature since at least the early 70's (It is used in Chomsky's 1973 "Conditions on Transformations" in formulating the Specified Subject Condition. It's hardly a term "not known to other linguists". It was, however, likely to be relatively unknown to this audience, hence the explanation of my use. I put in the note so that people could feel free to use whatever term they liked, since it wasn't necessary to the argument. > (c) Then why did you respond? _Other_ people may be interested in > setting forth criteria for various linguistic categories, even if > you're not interested in defending your unorthodox uses of them. To which? The original post, I responded to about the idea that rule simplicity could be a factor in language change. This had nothing to do with linguistic categories, per se. Furthermore, when there was a discussion of my methods for positing categories, you were noticeably silent. To your post? Frankly, I have no idea, since I should have known better. Alan Alan Munn: >>>>> Or that dropping a final stop isn't just a French bizarrerie? >>>>> It's normal in AAVE. [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > case is also hypercorrected in the "It's I" and "bigger than I" cases > as well. It would be interesting if your analysis could predict or explain a hierarchy of hypercorrection. In what constructions are hypercorrect forms most likely to occur and why? > Note: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to your liking, such as "Possessor", as I'm not interested in > debating this point. You're not? I'll have a go anyway. I can see it making sense at some level of analysis -- an underlying sentence behind the noun phrase or something -- but I would think that in cases where the scope is on the whole sentence rather than the phrase alone this view may lead to confusion. What do you make of examples like "the army('s) (me/my) destroying the city"/"the city('s) (me/my) (being) destroyed by the army"? But this reminds me of an old thought of mine (and I may well have aired it before and forgotten what came out of it (and it's probably a banality to linguists anyway)): The details of the grammar of any natural language can be analysed in different mutually exclusive ways, none of which fits perfectly. This lack of perfection gives a flexibility of expression, interpretation and reinterpretation that is essential for language to work. SignatureTrond Engen > Alan Munn: > [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > -- > Trond Engen You could easily argue that every speaker of a language makes a different analysis of what she heard and therefore each speaker extends the language examples they have heard in different ways. That is, everybody speaks their own idiolect. To argue that a language has a unique analysis or even a small number of alternative analyses might be called the Chomskian fallacy. > You could easily argue that every speaker of a language makes a > different analysis of what she heard and therefore each speaker > extends the language examples they have heard in different ways. That > is, everybody speaks their own idiolect. I thought you were an implacable enemy of Robert A. Hall, Jr., whose position that was. > To argue that a language has a unique analysis or even a small number > of alternative analyses might be called the Chomskian fallacy.- > > You could easily argue that every speaker of a language makes a > > different analysis of what she heard and therefore each speaker [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I thought you were an implacable enemy of Robert A. Hall, Jr., whose > position that was. You have me confused with somebody else. I have nothing but good feelings for Hall. He gave my etymology for "pidgin" a good word - which it needs. I still think it's right. >> > You could easily argue that every speaker of a language makes a >> > different analysis of what she heard and therefore each speaker [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > feelings for Hall. He gave my etymology for "pidgin" a good word - > which it needs. I still think it's right. For them of us what aren't keeping up with the hate list, what is your etymology? I've never been particularly convinced by "business". SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu > >> > You could easily argue that every speaker of a language makes a > >> > different analysis of what she heard and therefore each speaker [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Online waterways route planner:http://canalplan.org.uk > development version:http://canalplan.eu I don't know if it is available online. It was published as a Note in the IJAL. Briefly there was an indian community at the mouth of the Oyapock River in Brazil north of the Amazon whom at least one English-speaking writer in the seventeenth century called the Pidians. This was not a tribal name and the community was a refugee settlement not a regular tribal group. The word Pidian is found in Arawack (now often called Maipuran) languages in central Guyana (not in Arawack proper) in the sense of "people". There was a tribe called the Mapidians (not-people, named doubtless by their enemies). In English Pidian and Pijin are virtually identical. The idea is that the word Pidian lived on in sailor's jargon for natives who were willing to trade. That is the sense of the word in the seventeenth century example. Actually there is a bit of evidence not known to me then for the continued use in the eighteenth century. > Briefly there was an indian community at the mouth of the Oyapock > River in Brazil north of the Amazon whom at least one English-speaking [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Actually there is a bit of evidence not known to me then for the > continued use in the eighteenth century. I like that one. Thanks. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu >> Briefly there was an indian community at the mouth of the Oyapock >> River in Brazil north of the Amazon whom at least one [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I like that one. Thanks. On the other hand, it doesn't really explain the use of "pigeon/pidgin" to mean "business", as in "not my pigeon". That usage is closely connected with China. From the OED 1807 R. MORRISON Jrnl. in Jrnl. Asian Pacific Communication (1990) 1 93 Ting-qua led me into a Poo Saat Mew, a temple of Poo Saat. 'This Jos', pointing to the idol, said he 'take care of fire "pigeon", fire "business"'. SignatureJames >>> Briefly there was an indian community at the mouth of the Oyapock >>> River in Brazil north of the Amazon whom at least one [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >pointing to the idol, said he 'take care of fire "pigeon", fire >"business"'. The etymology in the OED : < Chinese Pidgin English "pidgin" business < English BUSINESS n. Numerous 19th-cent. sources give this etymology; compare 1845 J. R. PETERS Misc. Remarks upon Chinese vii. 73 Pidgeon, is the common Chinese pronunciation of business. 1850 J. BERNCASTLE Voy. China II. 65 The Chinese not being able to pronounce the word business, called it bigeon, which has degenerated into pigeon, so that this word is in constant use. 1873 Macmillan's Mag. Nov. 45 The strange jargon known as Pigeon English..derives its name from a series of changes in the word Business... The Chinaman contracted it to Busin, and then through the change of Pishin to Pigeon. The development in Chinese Pidgin English was perhaps via an intermediate form /{sm}p{shti}d{zh}{shti}n{shti}s/ (with replacement of English/z/ before a consonant by /d{zh}{shti}/), the final syllable of which was taken as a plural inflection and dropped. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > >> Briefly there was an indian community at the mouth of the Oyapock > >> River in Brazil north of the Amazon whom at least one [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > -- > James I am disinclined to debate this matter any longer. The easiest explanation would be that the Chinese pronunciation of Business was so close to the Engliah jargon word Pidgin that the English imagined that was what they were saying. There is a tiny semantic step from "people who are willing to do business" to "doing business with those people". So in a sense both etymologies are valid. DKleinecke> I am disinclined to debate this matter any longer. The DKleinecke> easiest explanation would be that the Chinese DKleinecke> pronunciation of Business was so close to the Engliah DKleinecke> jargon word Pidgin that the English imagined that was DKleinecke> what they were saying. Why would a Chinese pronounce "business" like "pidgin"? SignatureLee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~} E-mail: danlee@informatik.uni-freiburg.de Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee > DKleinecke> I am disinclined to debate this matter any longer. The > DKleinecke> easiest explanation would be that the Chinese DKleinecke> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Why would a Chinese pronounce "business" like "pidgin"? From the OED: "1845 J. R. PETERS Misc. Remarks upon Chinese vii. 73 Pidgeon, is the common Chinese pronunciation of business. 1850 J. BERNCASTLE Voy. China II. 65 The Chinese not being able to pronounce the word 'business', called it 'bigeon', which has degenerated into 'pigeon', so that this word is in constant use. 1873 Macmillan's Mag. Nov. 45 The strange jargon known as 'Pigeon English'..derives its name from a series of changes in the word Business... The Chinaman contracted it to Busin, and then through the change of Pishin to Pigeon. The development in Chinese Pidgin English was perhaps via an intermediate form /p?d??n?s/ (with replacement of English/z/ before a consonant by /d??/), the final syllable of which was taken as a plural inflection and dropped." SignatureJames >> DKleinecke> I am disinclined to debate this matter any longer. The >> DKleinecke> easiest explanation would be that the Chinese DKleinecke> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > English/z/ before a consonant by /d??/), the final syllable of > which was taken as a plural inflection and dropped." In ASCII IPA that would be /pIdZInIs/. SignatureJames >>>>> "James" == James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com> writes: James> LEE Sau Dan wrote: >>>>>>> "DKleinecke" == DKleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes: >> DKleinecke> I am disinclined to debate this matter any longer. The DKleinecke> easiest explanation would be that the Chinese DKleinecke> >> pronunciation of Business was so close to the Engliah DKleinecke> >> jargon word Pidgin that the English imagined that was DKleinecke> >> what they were saying. >> >> Why would a Chinese pronounce "business" like "pidgin"? James> From the OED: James> ... My question was: why? Most Chinese dialects have /s/ or /S/ or both as phonemes. Some even have /z/ (e.g. Shanghainese/Wu dialects, Hokkein/Minnan dialects). Is there any reason that they would pronounce the second syllable of "business" with an initial that is none of /s/, /S/ or /z/? And what makes the first syllable become closed? James> The development in Chinese Pidgin English was perhaps via an James> intermediate form /p?d??n?s/ (with replacement of English/z/ James> before a consonant by /d??/), Why would this replacement have taken place? James> the final syllable of which was taken as a plural inflection James> and dropped." What? When has English ever used such a pluralizer? If you say the final [z] is dropped, then it still makes some sense. But the whole syllable? These arguments all sound unconvincing to me. SignatureLee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~} E-mail: danlee@informatik.uni-freiburg.de Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee >>>>>> "James" == James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com> writes: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > These arguments all sound unconvincing to me. I was just quoting the OED. Somewhere in the world, someone pronounced the word "business" as "pigeon" in conversation with people speaking English of some kind, and a word with this pronunciation achieved a wide international spread, used in a range of senses (business, affair, matter, thing). The word later became the name of the mongrel form of English used as a contact language. This mispronunciation is blamed on the Chinese because the earliest record of it is from China in 1807. Of course, there is no outright proof that it originated there, but it was certainly used there. It's interesting to compare evidence from two completely different places. First let's look at a description from 1845 of English as spoken in China: http://books.google.com/books?id=XC_OTWALxHAC Go to page 73-74 to find this: start quote The English language is most barbarously used in China, and conversations like the following daily take place in old and new China streets, which are near the factories, or foreign residences, and are filled with small shops which depend upon foreigners for support. A person sauntering along one of these thoroughfares, is accosted by some shopkeeper on the lookout, with with "chin chin! wanchy some littey chow chow ting to-day?" ... "Au! you lib Missy Fauk's house. My sobby he velly plopper; Missy Fauks my number one good flend, hab gib my ple-enty pidgeon..." The Spanish or Portuguese word "sa-be," or the French "savez," is used instead of the English words know and understand; and maskee, for no matter, or I don't care. Pidgeon, is the common Chinese pronunciation of business; but those who try to speak correctly call it pidgeoness. end quote Here's a slightly earlier representation, from 1834, of this type of English, but this time put into the mouth of a black South African: http://books.google.com/books?id=q8ARAAAAYAAJ Go to page 145. "Tubbs! Tubbs! massa me tell him true, my no sabe dat pigeon... No massa, ... my no see him nebber." Despite the huge geographical distance we see that the Chinese shopkeeper and the Cape Town cooperage worker both use "pigeon" to mean "business, thing" and "sabe" to mean "know". These two well-known features of this lingua franca were evidently well established by the time these accounts were written. So here's my suggested answer to your question "Why?" The pronunciation as "pigeon" or "pidgin" might not have anything to do with the supposed inability of Chinese to pronounce the English word "business" correctly. The Chinese may have adopted the "pigeon" pronunciation from other travellers and merchants who were using an already corrupted form. They first heard "pigeon", not "business", and they correctly reproduced this form. SignatureJames [business English] > First let's look at a description from 1845 of English as spoken in > China: http://books.google.com/books?id=XC_OTWALxHAC [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > good flend, hab gib my > ple-enty pidgeon..." Interesting to see that use of "chow chow". The story, as I heard it, is that my dog's breed got its name from pidgin, where it meant "trade goods", but I suppose "merchandise" or even "purchase" would do. Chinese pidgin, of course, because they are northern Chinese dogs. [...] > [business English] > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > do. Chinese pidgin, of course, because they are northern Chinese > dogs. [...] One meaning of "chow chow" is "mixture, medley". Does that mean your dog is a mongrel? SignatureJames >> [business English] >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > One meaning of "chow chow" is "mixture, medley". Does that mean > your dog is a mongrel? I called him that once, when he was being overbearing, and he was stiff with me for a day or two. But perhaps it was tone of voice more than choice of words. His early years are lost to history, but his physical characteristics are those of a pure chow-chow. Given his health problems (hip dysplasia, entropion, allergies), I think he was probably a puppy-mill purebred. I wonder if the other* chow chow was so called because it was bought rather than home-made. *I had been going to say "edible". Ha. >>> [business English] >>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> >*I had been going to say "edible". Ha. [AUE only] Interesting word, "purebred" or "pure-bred" as COD has it. It seems to have a similar meaning to the "thoroughbred" that I'd use of a dog that has parents of the same breed, although thoroughbred is more often used of horses. There seem to be over 400 genetic problems caused by close inbreeding of dogs, and it's quite likely that any purebred suffers from one or more. We seem to have been lucky in that our Springer Spaniel, with Kennel Club pedigree going back a dozen generations, has bottom incisors that are slightly too large for him to be a show dog, but (cross fingers) no apparent other problems. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England Robin Bignall: > Interesting word, "purebred" or "pure-bred" as COD has it. It seems > to have a similar meaning to the "thoroughbred" that I'd use of a dog > that has parents of the same breed, although thoroughbred is more > often used of horses. I've never heard "thoroughbred" used of dogs or cats. Pure-bred is usual and refers to ancestry consisting of the same breed for some generations back. In horses, "thoroughbred" is the *name* of a breed. As I recall, all thoroughbreds are descended from one of three stallions that lived something like 150 years ago. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "Common sense isn't any more common on Usenet msb@vex.net | than it is anywhere else." --Henry Spencer My text in this article is in the public domain. > First let's look at a description from 1845 of English as spoken in China: > http://books.google.com/books?id=XC_OTWALxHAC [...] > The Spanish or Portuguese word "sa-be," or the French "savez," is used > instead of the English words know and understand; I suspect that the English speakers are to blame for this one. Even today you can find people who use the following reasoning: 1. They speak a foreign language. 2. French is a foreign language. 3. Therefore I can make myself understood by using French words. It's one step up from the assumption that foreigners will understand you better if you speak very loudly. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. On Nov 9, 6:34 am, LEE Sau Dan <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote: > DKleinecke> I am disinclined to debate this matter any longer. The > DKleinecke> easiest explanation would be that the Chinese [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de > Home page:http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee You haven't been listening. Look upthread at the example quotes from the OED. Personally i still find the "business" etymology unbelievable so I refuse to defend it. >>> Children _understand_ "irregular" inflections before they can >>> _produce_ them. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >"My fiss". Doesn't he also give the "wok/rock" example - child can't pronounce r but when parent talks about finding a 'wok' in the garden, child is cross because while he can't pronounce the difference, he can still hear it. "Listen to your child", I think the book is. Peter T. Daniels skrev: > A response that _does_ incorporate the correction would be "Your > brother hit you?? When did he do that?" That was what I meant. SignatureBertel, Denmark >>>>>> "tony" == tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >How can a child or even an adult learning English as L2 figure out that >"hitted" is the wrong from from your example? It doesn't teach the child the rules, but it does get across to the child that "hit" is the word and "hitted" is not. Children pick this kind of thing. It wouldn't work on an adult learning English because the adult has an advanced power of reasoning and needs to know "why". Children don't care about "why" in this area. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:05:12 +0800, LEE Sau Dan > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > child that "hit" is the word and "hitted" is not. Children pick this > kind of thing. No, it doesn't, because no child would or could say "When did your brother hitted you?", because any child who can make do-support questions knows that do-support operates on the infinitive, not on the preterite. > It wouldn't work on an adult learning English because the adult has an > advanced power of reasoning and needs to know "why". Children don't > care about "why" in this area. No non-linguist native speaker knows the "why" (if "why" means 'do- support operates with the infinitive not the preterite). No one, including linguists, knows "why" do-support operates with the infinitive not the preterite; that's simply the facts of the language. In article <be4901d8-f8c9-4339-8a02-6413a40efbad@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com>, > > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:05:12 +0800, LEE Sau Dan > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > questions knows that do-support operates on the infinitive, not on the > preterite. Not completely true. With irregular verbs, (and even some regulars) these kinds of errors definitely arise. Here are some real examples from the Brown corpus (Adam, Age (in the cited examples) 3;4 - 3;10, Eve 2;2, Sarah 4;5-5;0) Of course I agree with the general sentiment that the child will figure it out her own. Somehow, given the disappearance of the OP, I wonder if this is simply a troll. Alan Yes/No questions: *** File "adam29.cha": line 1261. Keyword: did *CHI: oh (.) did I caught it ? *** File "adam30.cha": line 2207. Keyword: did *CHI: did you broke that part ? *** File "adam31.cha": line 3423. Keyword: did *CHI: did the milk broke ? *** File "adam31.cha": line 3810. Keyword: did *CHI: did you made a mistake ? And with wh-questions: *** File "adam36.cha": line 4637. Keyword: did *CHI: what movie did I saw ? *** File "eve17.cha": line 4506. Keywords: did, did *CHI: what did you doed [: did] [* +ed] ? *** File "sarah111.cha": line 110. Keyword: did *CHI: how did I untangled it ? *** File "sarah127.cha": line 1449. Keyword: did *CHI: how did you caught him ? And some even wackier ones: *** File "adam34.cha": line 2001. Keyword: did *CHI: did was it be a comb ? *** File "adam39.cha": line 1404. Keyword: did *CHI: did there be some ? *** File "adam39.cha": line 1407. Keyword: did *CHI: did it be there ? > In article > <be4901d8-f8c9-4339-8a02-6413a40ef...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com>, > > No, it doesn't, because no child would or could say "When did your > > brother hitted you?", because any child who can make do-support [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > *** File "adam39.cha": line 1407. Keyword: did > *CHI: did it be there ?- That's one weird kid. >> In article >> <be4901d8-f8c9-4339-8a02-6413a40ef...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > >That's one weird kid. Pretty normal, in my experience. >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:05:12 +0800, LEE Sau Dan >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >questions knows that do-support operates on the infinitive, not on the >preterite. I really don't understand, after reading the above, how my son and my daughter have managed to get to the point where they speak and write very grammatical English. I never once discussed do-supports or preterites with them. They somehow managed anyway. >No non-linguist native speaker knows the "why" (if "why" means 'do- >support operates with the infinitive not the preterite). No one, >including linguists, knows "why" do-support operates with the >infinitive not the preterite; that's simply the facts of the language. I certainly can't argue with that. I'm a non-linguist native speaker of English and don't know why do-supports operate with the infinitive and not the preterite. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:53:10 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > very grammatical English. I never once discussed do-supports or > preterites with them. They somehow managed anyway. That is precisely the point. There is no conscious component to language acquisition. > >No non-linguist native speaker knows the "why" (if "why" means 'do- > >support operates with the infinitive not the preterite). No one, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of English and don't know why do-supports operate with the infinitive > and not the preterite. >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:53:10 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >That is precisely the point. There is no conscious component to >language acquisition. Yes, I know. I managed to work out your point on my own. Too bad mine passed overhead. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:53:10 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > of English and don't know why do-supports operate with the infinitive > and not the preterite. It was a political decision back in the 1630's when the pretrites were taking over parliament. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada > On Oct 26, 10:30 pm, tony cooper<tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > John Kane, Kingston ON Canada I still don't understand how from "When did your brother spot you?" "When did your brother hit you?" one is supposed to get that the preterite of 'hit' is not '*hitted'. But then I still don't understand either how Milo could buy eggs in Malta for seven cents apiece and sell them at a profit in Pianosa for five cents. > I still don't understand how from > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Malta for seven cents apiece and sell them at a profit in Pianosa for > five cents.- Currency manipulation? (No idea what you're talking about.) In article <d365987f-8612-4c5d-acae-dea930df8924@y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > I still don't understand how from > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Currency manipulation? (No idea what you're talking about.) It's from Catch 22. As with almost everything, "there's a link for that". http://everything2.com/title/Milo%2520Minderbinder Alan > In article > <d365987f-8612-4c5d-acae-dea930df8...@y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > http://everything2.com/title/Milo%2520Minderbinder I read it in high school (anyway, before the movie was made) and remember things like Major Major and the original catch-22. >> I still don't understand how from >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Currency manipulation? (No idea what you're talking about.) You could probably figure out how to find out. It's been a while since I read the book, but Googling refreshed my memory on the particulars. There are two answers. The first answer is that he bought the eggs from himself, and eggs cost sellers in Malta 4.25 cents, so he made three quarters of a cent per egg. The second answer is that he actually bought the eggs for one cent apiece in Sicily and transported them to Malta, where he sold them to himself for seven cents, so he mad four cents an egg (less transport costs). SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If I am ever forced to make a 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |choice between learning and using Palo Alto, CA 94304 |win32, or leaving the computer |industry, let me just say it was kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |nice knowing all of you. :-) (650)857-7572 | Randal Schwartz http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> I still don't understand how from >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Malta, where he sold them to himself for seven cents, so he mad four > cents an egg (less transport costs). Of course he didn't make the profit. The syndicate made the profit. And everybody had a share. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) >>>> I still don't understand how from >>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Of course he didn't make the profit. The syndicate made the profit. And >everybody had a share. She was only the stockbroker's daughter, but every man got his share. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. >> I still don't understand how from >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Currency manipulation? (No idea what you're talking about.) Lt Milo Minderbinder, of course. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >But then I still don't understand either how Milo could buy eggs in >Malta for seven cents apiece and sell them at a profit in Pianosa for >five cents. There must be a Catch to it. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > But then I still don't understand either how Milo could buy eggs in > Malta for seven cents apiece and sell them at a profit in Pianosa for > five cents. Simple. He made it up in volume. Reread the above with emphasis on "he made it up." SignatureGood luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://home.comcast.net/~kerrydeare Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:47:37 -0400: tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net>: in sci.lang: >It doesn't teach the child the rules, but it does get across to the >child that "hit" is the word and "hitted" is not. Children pick this [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >advanced power of reasoning and needs to know "why". Children don't >care about "why" in this area. Right. It's the way it is, just because. Or because everybody says it like that. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.eu Ruud Harmsen filted: >Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:47:37 -0400: tony cooper ><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Right. It's the way it is, just because. Or because everybody says it >like that. For suitably small values of "everybody"....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? On 26 Oct 2009, tony cooper wrote >> (Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's >> accent last summer.) [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > involved can lead to insecurities that will stay with him for > years. Couldn't agree more, Tony; I'd just add that another reason for treading carefully at that age is that as they grow up, kids usually become pretty adept at working out what register to use with what group, and seamlessly switch between them. "You and me should go there, Billy." "Hey, mum -- can Billy and I go there?" SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 26 Oct 2009, tony cooper wrote > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > "You and me should go there, Billy." "Hey, mum -- can Billy and I > go there?" To get this to work, you have to have some way to let your son know that you prefer "Billy and I". Criticism may not be the way, and "excessive criticism" is by definition not the way. And I suspect you have to be prepared for some emphasis on "Billy and I" and a supposedly surreptitious glance at Billy to point out how cruel you are. -- Jerry Friedman On 26 Oct 2009, Jerry Friedman wrote >> On 26 Oct 2009, tony cooper wrote -snip- >> Couldn't agree more, Tony; I'd just add that another reason >> for treading carefully at that age is that as they grow up, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > know that you prefer "Billy and I". Criticism may not be the > way, and "excessive criticism" is by definition not the way. Indeed. As Tony said, correction is right and proper; that's what I meant by "treading carefully", though. > And I suspect you have to be prepared for some emphasis on > "Billy and I" and a supposedly surreptitious glance at Billy to > point out how cruel you are. I should hope so. One doesn't want to deprive kids of that delicious feeling of having let your parents know you're being sooooo unreasonably persecuted... SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > >(Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's > >accent last summer.) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > What is your son's age? 4 & 1/2 > If he's a pre-teen, then it's far too early - in my opinion - to worry > about this. What you are trying to convey is unimportant to him [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > yet old enough to have a concept of the rules involved can lead to > insecurities that will stay with him for years. Thanks. I guess what concerns me is that I know children make mistakes (like irregular verbs) and "grow out of" them from exposure to correct language, but in this case he seems to be regularly exposed to what we think is incorrect, what we don't want him to learn. > Thanks. I guess what concerns me is that I know children > make mistakes (like irregular verbs) and "grow out of" them > from exposure to correct language, but in this case he seems > to be regularly exposed to what we think is incorrect, what > we don't want him to learn.- That's exactly the point: "what you think is incorrect" is _not_ incorrect in the contexts where he uses them. >> Thanks. I guess what concerns me is that I know children >> make mistakes (like irregular verbs) and "grow out of" them [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's exactly the point: "what you think is incorrect" is _not_ > incorrect in the contexts where he uses them. I wouldn't be too sure of that. At that age, if I (deadpan) mimicked my son's mistakes, I would often be met with a reaction that implied that he knew that I was saying something wrong. ("Dad, don't be silly!") At least, he recognized that it was something that "big people" shouldn't be saying. And if brought an error to his attention ("Bringed?") he would immediately see that it needed correcting and often supply the right form. But he would go on making the mistake. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Oh, forget it: I can't write about 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |this anymore until I find a much Palo Alto, CA 94304 |more sarcastic typeface. | Bill Bickel kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:24:27 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote in <news:y6mxfx2s.fsf@hpl.hp.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>> Thanks. I guess what concerns me is that I know children >>> make mistakes (like irregular verbs) and "grow out of" >>> them from exposure to correct language, but in this >>> case he seems to be regularly exposed to what we think >>> is incorrect, what we don't want him to learn.- >> That's exactly the point: "what you think is incorrect" >> is _not_ incorrect in the contexts where he uses them. > I wouldn't be too sure of that. At that age, if I > (deadpan) mimicked my son's mistakes, I would often be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it needed correcting and often supply the right form. > But he would go on making the mistake. Happens with pronunciation, too. One of my siblings couldn't produce initial /f-/ when he was very young and replaced it with /t-/, e.g., <funny> /'tVni/. But he objected strenuously if any of the rest of us did it. (It actually *was* rather funny, because he could produce an extended voiceless labiodental, [f::::] in isolation; he just couldn't follow it with anything. Try to get him to go [f::::Vni], and he'd produce [f::::tVni].) Brian Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:47:52 -0400: "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu>: in sci.lang: >Happens with pronunciation, too. One of my siblings >couldn't produce initial /f-/ when he was very young and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >extended voiceless labiodental, [f::::] in isolation; he >just couldn't follow it with anything. Same problem for me with clicks (except of course that clicks cannot be extended). SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.eu > >> Thanks. I guess what concerns me is that I know children > >> make mistakes (like irregular verbs) and "grow out of" them [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > ("Bringed?") he would immediately see that it needed correcting and > often supply the right form. But he would go on making the mistake. You seem to be mixing two things together: register differences, and acquisition delays. >> >> Thanks. I guess what concerns me is that I know children make >> >> mistakes (like irregular verbs) and "grow out of" them from [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > You seem to be mixing two things together: register differences, and > acquisition delays. No, I'm simply not assuming that what is being described is a register difference. Certainly not at age four-and-a-half. You're stating categorically that his phrasing "is _not_ incorrect in the contexts where he uses them". [emphasis yours] I'm allowing that it may be. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |...as a mobile phone is analogous 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to a Q-Tip -- yeah, it's something Palo Alto, CA 94304 |you stick in your ear, but there |all resemblance ends. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Ross Howard (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > And if brought an error to his attention > ("Bringed?") he would immediately see that it needed correcting and > often supply the right form. "Bringed"? My son and his best friend always say "brang". And I doubt he can supply the usual form. Signaturedie gugelmänner schleppen leichen, kranke LILIENCRON GRIMM, Deutsches Wörterbuch >> And if brought an error to his attention ("Bringed?") he would >> immediately see that it needed correcting and often supply the >> right form. > > "Bringed"? My son and his best friend always say "brang". And I > doubt he can supply the usual form. Josh tended (and still does occasionally) to overregularize irregular verbs rather than pick the wrong irregular form. So "bringed", "catched", "buyed", and the like. "Brang" never seemed to be common among his cohort, either when he was little or now. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It's like grasping the difference 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |between what one usually considers Palo Alto, CA 94304 |a 'difficult' problem, and what |*is* a difficult problem. The day kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |one understands *why* counting all (650)857-7572 |the molecules in the Universe isn't |difficult...there's the leap. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Tina Marie Holmboe > >> And if brought an error to his attention ("Bringed?") he would > >> immediately see that it needed correcting and often supply the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "catched", "buyed", and the like. "Brang" never seemed to be common > among his cohort, either when he was little or now. I think "brung" is more common than "brang" -- because of that principle I mentioned that pasts are reanalyzed as participles rather than preterites, as in "I played the piano" : "I rung the bell." >>>> And if brought an error to his attention ("Bringed?") he would >>>> immediately see that it needed correcting and often supply the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > principle I mentioned that pasts are reanalyzed as participles rather > than preterites, as in "I played the piano" : "I rung the bell." Are there dialects that have bring/brung/brung, in just this verb, as opposed to the widespread tendency to replace every strong past with the participle form when it's different? I know that there are many dialects that have bring/brang/brung, both in the USA and Britain, though I don't know offhand which ones they are, and of course don't know whether one of them is spoken where Oliver's child and his friends might have picked it up (as opposed to it being a personal innovation by them). John. > >>>> And if brought an error to his attention ("Bringed?") he would > >>>> immediately see that it needed correcting and often supply the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Are there dialects that have bring/brung/brung, in just this verb, as I doubt it. > opposed to the widespread tendency to replace every strong past with the > participle form when it's different? I know that there are many [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > might have picked it up (as opposed to it being a personal innovation by > them). John Atkinson (in sci.lang): >>>>> And if brought an error to his attention ("Bringed?") he would >>>>> immediately see that it needed correcting and often supply the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > might have picked it up (as opposed to it being a personal innovation by > them). Interesting; there are west-middle-German dialects that have bringen - gebrungen (no past tense in that area) instead of bringen - gebracht. Joachim >>>>> And if brought an error to his attention ("Bringed?") he would >>>>> immediately see that it needed correcting and often supply the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > might have picked it up (as opposed to it being a personal innovation by > them). That's a possibility of course. I haven't noticed it in adults around here (Montreal, Quebec), but then, I don't have contact with that many native speakers of English. Especially my son's friend, being a native speaker himself, will have a broader exposure to dialects. Signaturees sol kain leitgeb eim paurnknecht nicht mer parigen dann sein gurtelgewant, ... swert und gugel wert ist österr. weist. >>> And if brought an error to his attention ("Bringed?") he would >>> immediately see that it needed correcting and often supply the >>> right form. >> >> "Bringed"? My son and his best friend always say "brang". And I >> doubt he can supply the usual form. They are almost 8, by the way. > Josh tended (and still does occasionally) to overregularize irregular > verbs rather than pick the wrong irregular form. So "bringed", > "catched", "buyed", and the like. "Brang" never seemed to be common > among his cohort, either when he was little or now. Indeed the interesting aspect of my observation seems to be that some unconventional forms might be reinforced by children among themselves. I only noticed that about vocabulary before. Another candidate for that might be "mines" ("you bring yours and I bring mines") - I thought that was a Germanism until I heard it from his EFL friend. This is of course just an informal impression, I would like to see more solid data about that. Signatureda kamen abermals in das Elsas uber die Zaberer steig ein volck, die nante man auch die Engelländer und gugeler B. HERTZOG >> Thanks. I guess what concerns me is that I know children >> make mistakes (like irregular verbs) and "grow out of" them [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's exactly the point: "what you think is incorrect" is _not_ > incorrect in the contexts where he uses them. Do you really say things like "Me and Bill wrote this book"? If not, what entitles you to condemn the OP for wanting her child too to sound (eventually --- I agree with those who said she's mistaken to worry about it this early) like an educated and careful speaker of English? If so, why don't you put your money where your mouth, write that way, and telling the editors where they can stick their elitist, discriminatory usage standards? Signature"It is the role of librarians to keep government running in difficult times," replied Dramoren. "Librarians are the last line of defence against chaos." (McMullen 2001) >> >(Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's >> >accent last summer.) [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >to be regularly exposed to what we think is incorrect, what >we don't want him to learn. He will learn it whether you want him to or not. The best you can hope for, if it bothers you, is that he will confine his use of it to the circles in which it is accepted, and use the "correct" versions around you and other adults. The linguists' term for this is "code shifting"; everybody does it to some extent, and all children learn to do it quite early in life, though not quite as early as this; it is a routine part of language learning except for those who encounter the language only in a formal academic setting. You don't really know a lanuage until you acquire this ability to match your speech to your audience. SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the From: address is not read. To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com" >>> >(Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's >>> >accent last summer.) [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >lanuage until you acquire this ability to match your speech to your >audience. I grew up in a very working class area and quickly learned, once I had started school, to speak like those around me or get picked on by the bullies (and there are five-year-old bullies). This horrified my parents, who were not educated people, but who had had the "Three Rs" firmly established in their schools in the early years of last century. Code shifting between school and home quickly became automatic. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England > (Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's > accent last summer.) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > things like "Me and Billy did this" -- how can I get him to > say "Billy and I did this" instead? Good luck correcting this without also leading him to say "She gave it to Billy and I", a flaw in the speech of millions of Americans, if not also of English speakers elsewhere. Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:09:13 -0400: Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net>: in sci.lang: >> (Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's >> accent last summer.) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >to Billy and I", a flaw in the speech of millions of Americans, if not >also of English speakers elsewhere. Moi, je le crois aussi. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.eu Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:44:48 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.eu>: in sci.lang: >Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:09:13 -0400: Harlan Messinger ><hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Moi, je le crois aussi. C'est moi qui l'a dit. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.eu >Good luck correcting this without also leading him to say "She gave it >to Billy and I", a flaw in the speech of millions of Americans, if not >also of English speakers elsewhere. In the last few days I've heard this from a member of the Royal Family, a cabinet minister, a professor (of chemistry), a leading actor and a Eurosport commentator (all on TV, I hasten to add. I don't mix in those circles). It's a lost cause - like "bought" as the past tense of "to bring". Bob Martin skrev: > In the last few days I've heard this from a member of the Royal Family, > a cabinet minister, a professor (of chemistry), a leading actor and a > Eurosport commentator (all on TV, I hasten to add. I don't mix in those > circles). It's a lost cause - like "bought" as the past tense of "to bring". That reminds me of a lost battle in Danish. We used to have two expression that can be directly translated in English: both ... and not only ... but also Today everybody says both ... but also Has this happened in English? SignatureBertel, Denmark >Bob Martin skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Has this happened in English? They both seem to be alive and well in the circles I move in. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ On 26 Oct 2009, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote > Bob Martin skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Has this happened in English? Not that I've noticed; I'll be interested if others have encountered the "both...but also" combination. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 26 Oct 2009, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Not that I've noticed; I'll be interested if others have encountered > the "both...but also" combination. "not only ... but" (without the "also") not only seems common enough but is frequently regarded as an error by those who care about such things. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) On 26 Oct 2009, Roland Hutchinson wrote >> On 26 Oct 2009, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > enough but is frequently regarded as an error by those who care > about such things. Indeed; it doesn't bother me, but I think I usually add the "also" so as not to give those sorts something to pick on. It's the "both X but also Y" constructiono that I've not come across, though. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed Roland Hutchinson skrev: > "not only ... but" (without the "also") not only seems common enough but > is frequently regarded as an error by those who care about such things. Do you (or anybody else) see these as errors? not only ... but also ... not only ... but ... If so, how would they phrase a sentence if they wanted the same stress on the 'opposition' that one finds in the examples? SignatureBertel, Denmark Bob Martin wrote, in part: ...It's a lost cause - like "bought" as the past tense of "to bring". "Bought"? (What am I missing?) SignatureMaria Conlon > Bob Martin wrote, in part: > > ...It's a lost cause - like "bought" as the past tense of "to bring". > > "Bought"? (What am I missing?) I missed that battle too -- another lost cause that passed me by, like the used of "sought" as the past tense of "sing". SignatureJames >Bob Martin wrote, in part: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >(What am I missing?) Well, you might be missing it, or it might just be a UK thing. When I told my brother how much it annoyed me he said he'd never noticed it, but since I mentioned it he says he hears it all the time. My wife says she now cannot stop herself doing it. As lomg ago as 1994 I heard on Classic FM "the weather was bought to you by National Power". To any UK person who hasn't noticed it - you're not listening! >>Bob Martin wrote, in part: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >by National Power". >To any UK person who hasn't noticed it - you're not listening! It's the Biritsh non-rhoticism at work. Try saying "bwought" instead of "brought". SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>>Bob Martin wrote, in part: >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >It's the Biritsh non-rhoticism at work. Try saying "bwought" instead >of "brought". No, it's definittely "bought". Listen to "Eastenders", or if that's asking too much try Rob Cowan and find out what he's bought from home in his rucksack. > in 276978 20091026 195806 Wood Avens <woodavens@askjennison.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > asking too much try Rob Cowan and find out what he's bought from home > in his rucksack. This may sound like a strange question but I'll ask it anyway. Have you heard this "bought" for "brought" in real life, or only on radio and television? SignatureJames >> in 276978 20091026 195806 Wood Avens <woodavens@askjennison.com> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >heard this "bought" for "brought" in real life, or only on radio and >television? Yes, every day. >>> in 276978 20091026 195806 Wood Avens <woodavens@askjennison.com> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >Yes, every day. Interesting. I don't think I have noticed it to that extent, although here have been occasions when I've wondered whether what was said was "brought" or "bought". I wonder what the speakers think they are saying. Perhaps I'm interpreting "bought"s as totally non-rhotic "brought"s. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > >This may sound like a strange question but I'll ask it anyway. Have you > >heard this "bought" for "brought" in real life, or only on radio and > >television? > > Yes, every day. Any chance of pointing us to a sound clip or two, perhaps on the BBC website? SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux Bob Martin filted: >>Bob Martin wrote, in part: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >by National Power". >To any UK person who hasn't noticed it - you're not listening! I first noticed it among the patter on Rolf Harris's version of "Stairway to Heaven", but he catches himself in mid-statement and realizes that it's wrong....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? Martha N. skrev: > He has now picked up the local accent from his peers. But > unfortunately he's also picked up their bad grammar and says > things like "Me and Billy did this" -- how can I get him to > say "Billy and I did this" instead? I as a child was pretty much annoyed when my parents tried to ridicule or correct my language. It didn't help, and it didn't further warm feelings among us. What I did learn, was a strong interest in language, but that was a result of entertaining and informative discussions about language plus their example in Danish as well as foreign languages. Sons and daughters may become heroin addicts, abducted, killed, gangsters, rapists, pedofiles or satanists. In comparison their use of natural language like "Me and Bobby McGee" seems unimportant. > My husband and I both set a good example, That is what you should do and the only thing you can do - and then you must learn to respect the choices of your son, especially when they differ from the ones you would want. > and I've tried "recasting" his sentences, but his peers' bad > example seems to keep overriding ours. Just like your peers' did yours. > Any advice? Remember your own childhood. SignatureBertel, Denmark Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:13:43 +0100: Bertel Lund Hansen <unospamo@lundhansen.dk>: in sci.lang: >> My husband and I both set a good example, > >That is what you should do and the only thing you can do - and >then you must learn to respect the choices of your son, >especially when they differ from the ones you would want. Right, and the children will notice the difference and be aware of its existence, and master both choices, for later use as apprioprate for the situations they will encounter during their life, which may include setting the example for _their_ children.. It all comes naturally. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.eu Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:33:42 +0100: "Martha N." <martha@NOSPAM.invalid>: in sci.lang: >(Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's >accent last summer.) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >things like "Me and Billy did this" -- how can I get him to >say "Billy and I did this" instead? You can't and don't need to. What he says is good English. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.eu > Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:33:42 +0100: "Martha N." <martha@NOSPAM.invalid>: > in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You can't and don't need to. What he says is good English. This could be qualified by saying that it is not regarded as good formal English and is considered by many to be downright unacceptable in written language. The boy will no doubt learn to understand the significance of different registers. To show that there is some hope for him, I can say that I was born and brought up in a community where everybody said "Me and Billy". I learned how and when to say and write "Billy and I" but I had to learn it as a slightly foreign language. It still hurts to hear that the natural language of my birthplace is "vile". I can't help where I was born, any more than I can help the colour of the skin I was born with, but the consolation is that it's easier for a dialect speaker to learn Standard English than it is to change your skin colour if you suffer discrimination on account of it. SignatureJames >> Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:33:42 +0100: "Martha N." <martha@NOSPAM.invalid>: >> in sci.lang: [...] >>> He has now picked up the local accent from his peers. But >>> unfortunately he's also picked up their bad grammar and says things [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > still hurts to hear that the natural language of my birthplace is > "vile". I apologise for making you suffer. If I had thought a bit longer before pressing "send", I would have explained better what I meant: I find "me and billy" to be vile in the wrong context. I have nothing against it as part of a dialect different from formal English dialect. When my (university educated) children use it while talking to me, I do not like it -- though I have given up the Quixotic struggle to bring them back on to the straight and narrow. > I can't help where I was born, any more than I can help the > colour of the skin I was born with, but the consolation is that it's > easier for a dialect speaker to learn Standard English than it is to > change your skin colour if you suffer discrimination on account of it. Some of my best friends speak a dialect different from mine. SignatureLes (BrE) >>> Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:33:42 +0100: "Martha N." >>> <martha@NOSPAM.invalid>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Some of my best friends speak a dialect different from mine. I appreciate the clarification. As for the accusation that your attitude is Neanderthal, I wonder what evidence Peter Daniels has that the Neanderthals were excessive purists. SignatureJames (posted to AUE only) On 26 Oct 2009, James Hogg wrote > I appreciate the clarification. As for the accusation that your > attitude is Neanderthal, I wonder what evidence Peter Daniels > has that the Neanderthals were excessive purists. [shrug] I don't think Daniels has much evidence for anything he says. I'm always a bit surprised that people in AUE even bother to read his stuff when it's crossposted here. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > (posted to AUE only) > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'm always a bit surprised that people in AUE even bother to read his > stuff when it's crossposted here. It's the authority that he exudes that makes his posts so attractive, combined with puckish wit and self-irony. SignatureJames On 26 Oct 2009, James Hogg wrote >> (posted to AUE only) >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It's the authority that he exudes that makes his posts so > attractive, combined with puckish wit and self-irony. [chuckle] SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >> (posted to AUE only) >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >It's the authority that he exudes that makes his posts so attractive, >combined with puckish wit and self-irony. And he doesn't quote from WikiP. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) On 26 Oct 2009, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote >>> (posted to AUE only) >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > And he doesn't quote from WikiP. Even a broken clock, Peter, even a broken clock..... SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > >>> Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:33:42 +0100: "Martha N." > >>> <mar...@NOSPAM.invalid>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Neanderthal, I wonder what evidence Peter Daniels has that the > Neanderthals were excessive purists. It was a reference to the date rather than to the (sub)species. >>>>> Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:33:42 +0100: "Martha N." >>>>> <mar...@NOSPAM.invalid>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > It was a reference to the date rather than to the (sub)species. That clarifies things. I didn't realise that linguistic purism was so old. SignatureJames >>>>>> Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:33:42 +0100: "Martha N." >>>>>> <mar...@NOSPAM.invalid>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > That clarifies things. I didn't realise that linguistic purism was so > old. Oh, indeed it is; I believe the Neanderthals used to bury their dead with it. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) >>> Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:33:42 +0100: "Martha N." >>> <martha@NOSPAM.invalid>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > before pressing "send", I would have explained better what I meant: I > find "me and billy" to be vile in the wrong context. Imagine Obama saying "Me and Michelle wish all who celebrate Rosh Hashanah a healthy, peaceful and sweet New Year", for instance. Regards, Ekkehard > (Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's > accent last summer.) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Any advice? If he says "Me and Billy" to you & the spouse I suppose the worst he gets is a tut-tut. If he says "Billy and I" to the gang he hangs with he may get called names or even busted in the mouth. Key thing is whether he *knows* the difference. If he does, and can use the right form in the right situation, an occasional lapse is no biggie. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >> (Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's >> accent last summer.) [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >If he says "Billy and I" to the gang he hangs with he may get called names >or even busted in the mouth. I don't think he's going to busted in the chops for saying "Billy and I" in conversations with his group of friends, but he might if he starts correcting his friends to show off his knowledge. If his parents take the position that errors like this are terrible things, the child might start pedantry before puberty. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida [sci.lang snipped] > (Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's > accent last summer.) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Any advice? I spent years trying to stop my daughter from saying things like "he sent this to you and I". Her use of English is otherwise pretty close to the dialect known as "educated Australian". Furthermore, her twin brother never makes this slip. In the end I had to give up trying. Each time I corrected it, her school teachers corrected it back again. As far as they were concerned, "you and I" is invariable; it doesn't inflect for case. Since they were a lot younger than me, it's possible that they had a better feel for the way the language is evolving. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. |
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.