"It's grammatical/ungrammatical to me."

pash · Dec 1, 2006

It is true that some native English speakers would consider the following sentence as grammatical.

"I might could be persuaded to try that."

But, could we say that "I could be persuaded to try that" is a variation/variant form of that sentence, and v.v.?

Sandi LeFaucheur · Dec 1, 2006

With both might and could? No.

pash · Dec 1, 2006

Sandi LeFaucheur said:
With both might and could? No.

Sorry? As far as I know, that form is considered correct by some native speakers.

Here's a link:

The use of the double modal is definitely not "illiterate," but rather typical of regional dialect. It just happens to be largely, if not exclusively, confined to spoken language or reported speech, which says more about the intolerance of dialectal forms in "standard" written English than it does about the education level of the speaker. It's generally true that more educated Southerners tend to avoid this construction, but that's due to a prejudice of perception, not to any inherent inferiority of the use.

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20001120

CaroGirl · Dec 1, 2006

pash said:
"I might could be persuaded to try that."

In no universe that I know about is that grammatical. I don't care from what book you quoted. I've certainly never heard that construction before in my life, spoken or otherwise.

BottomlessCup · Dec 1, 2006

pash's link said:
It's generally true that more educated Southerners tend to avoid this construction, but that's due to a prejudice of perception, not to any inherent inferiority of the use.

That's the biggest load of PC baloney ever.

"Prejudice of perception??!!??" I guess I'm prejudiced against bad grammar.

Julie Worth · Dec 1, 2006

pash said:
It true that some native English speakers would consider the following sentence as grammatical.

"I might could be persuaded to try that."

Some in the South do speak that way, but they'd be more likely to say, "I might could try that."

veinglory · Dec 1, 2006

Dialect is dialect, but not everything that is said regionally is considered grammatical--is is just a context-dependent reason to not observe grammar--e.g. in writing dialogue.

pash · Dec 1, 2006

CaroGirl said:
In what universe is that grammatical? I don't care from what book you quoted. I've certainly never heard that construction before in my life, spoken or otherwise.

Well, you can't be everywhere at once, can you, Carogirl? Do you feel that only your variant of English is grammatical?

pash · Dec 1, 2006

BottomlessCup said:
That's the biggest load of PC baloney ever.

"Prejudice of perception??!!??" I guess I'm prejudiced against bad grammar.

Same question I put to Carogirl: Do you feel that it is only your variant of English that is grammatically correct?

pash · Dec 1, 2006

veinglory said:
Dialect is dialect, but not everything that is said regionally is considered grammatical.

By whom?

pash · Dec 1, 2006

I wanted more a discussion about what can be called a variant, and variant of what, but it looks more like the standardists/prescriptivists are going to swamp this thread with their view of correct grammar. It's not really for me to have to defend a certain dialectal use. Ah, well.

Onward:

2.4 Modal stacking

The complement of a modal cannot be a Finite verb, as there is no room in INFL for a second instance of Finite/Deixis. This explains why standard English, which has no nonfinite forms of modals in its lexicon, does not allow modals to be "stacked" as in (40b).

However, German and some non-standard dialects of English do allow stacking. Within the framework presented here, the simplest way to account for modal stacking is to say that languages that permit stacking have infinitive forms of modals. In German, infinitive forms of modals bear the usual infinitive suffix -en, as in (40b). In stacking dialects of English, the
infinitive forms of modals are generally phonologically identical with the present or past finite forms. For example, in the sentences in (43) (taken from Di Paolo 1989: 195), can, should, and oughta function as infinitives.

(43) a. We might can go up there next Saturday.
b. This thing here I might should turn over to Ann.
c. Well, once we get under way, it shouldn't oughta take us very long.

Since the present and past forms of English modals have been diverging in their lexical semantics, it is not entirely surprising to observe that they are treated as uninflected forms of separate verbs in some dialects.

http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~danhall/hall.generals.2001.pdf

Grammar at work (conscious restriction):

"while the full range of stacked modal constructions attested in English dialects and
English-based creoles is wide, each individual dialect permits only a restricted subset of
combinations of modals."

CaroGirl · Dec 1, 2006

pash said:
Well, you can't be everywhere at once, can you, Carogirl? Do you feel that only your variant of English is grammatical?

Just because someone, somewhere says something does not automatically make it grammatical. That's bunk. My neighbour says, "I'm going to the store. You want to come with?" She can say it all day, and so can a million others, but that doesn't make it any more grammatical than the word "ain't."

And your style and tone here, pash, your rapid-fire "right-back-atcha" questions, are a bit off-putting. You asked for opinions, I gave you mine. I shan't give you another if you respond in that way to me again.

pash · Dec 1, 2006

<

CaroGirl said:
Just because someone, somewhere says something does not automatically make it grammatical. That's bunk. My neighbour says, "I'm going to the store. You want to come with?" She can say it all day, and so can a million others, but that doesn't make it any more grammatical than the word "ain't.">

?? Why isn't it grammatical?

<And your style and tone here, pash, your rapid-fire "right-back-atcha" questions, are a bit off-putting. You asked for opinions, I gave you mine. I shan't give you another if you respond in that way to me again.>

I didn't ask about the grammaticality of the thread sentence. You decided to attack it's grammaticality. Now, how about answering the thread question.

<In what universe is that grammatical?>

BTW, you may like to ponder your own way of putting things:

"In what universe is that grammatical?" That is one heck of an arrogant and provocative way to ask a question.

pash · Dec 1, 2006

Julie Worth said:
Some in the South do speak that way, but they'd be more likely to say, "I might could try that."

Here's a list of what Southern American English permits (i.e. sees as grammatically correct in that context):

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1283%28199324%2968%3A4%3C430%3AEFBSOD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1&size=LARGE

CaroGirl · Dec 1, 2006

pash said:
It true that some native English speakers would consider the following sentence as grammatical.

"I might could be persuaded to try that."

But, could we say that "I could be persuaded to try that" is a variation/variant form of that sentence, and v.v.?

Okay. Since you only want answers to your specific questions, then the only acceptable (to me) grammatical "variants" on this construction are: "I could be persuaded to try that" and "I might be persuaded to try that." Not "might could".

And I thought you might be questioning the grammar, since the beginning of your first sentence is missing a word. You could mean either, "Is it true..." or "It is true..."

Buh-bye.

pash · Dec 1, 2006

Grammar at work:

Specifically, may/might
can occur ONLY as the FIRST modal in a sequence, and always with the epistemic meaning 'maybe', 'it is possible that'. On the other hand, can/could ONLY occurred as the LAST modal in a sequence, and always with a root or deontic meaning involving ability or permission. The maximum number of modals in attested sequences was three, and 'should' and 'will' were found in addition to the others.

http://linguistlist.org/issues/5/5-253.html

Deleted member 42 · Dec 1, 2006

That isn't grammatically correct. It's a dialect, and the particular construction is so marked that Hans Kurath uses it as a dialect marker.

You are misusing grammatically correct Pash; it isn't a matter of opinion. It's the deep-structure functionality of the language. Nor does grammatically correct equal "standard."

Deleted member 42 · Dec 1, 2006

pash said:
Grammar at work:

Specifically, may/might
can occur ONLY as the FIRST modal in a sequence, and always with the epistemic meaning 'maybe', 'it is possible that'. On the other hand, can/could ONLY occurred as the LAST modal in a sequence, and always with a root or deontic meaning involving ability or permission. The maximum number of modals in attested sequences was three, and 'should' and 'will' were found in addition to the others.

http://linguistlist.org/issues/5/5-253.html

Now you're misusing linguistic corpus data.

pash · Dec 1, 2006

<

CaroGirl said:
Okay. Since you only want answers to your specific questions, then the only acceptable (to me) grammatical "variants" on this construction are: "I could be persuaded to try that" and "I might be persuaded to try that." Not "might could".>

OK, thanks for the feedback.

<And I thought you might be questioning the grammar, since the beginning of your first sentence is missing a word. You could mean either, "Is it true..." or "It is true...">

No, it was a slip. It is now fixed. Strange that you should answer what you thought could be a question with another question though:

<In what universe is that grammatical?>

Julie Worth · Dec 1, 2006

pash said:
Grammar at work:

Specifically, may/might
can occur ONLY as the FIRST modal in a sequence, and always with the epistemic meaning 'maybe', 'it is possible that'. On the other hand, can/could ONLY occurred as the LAST modal in a sequence, and always with a root or deontic meaning involving ability or permission. The maximum number of modals in attested sequences was three, and 'should' and 'will' were found in addition to the others.

http://linguistlist.org/issues/5/5-253.html

Ironic that, when people speak about grammar, they are incomprehensible.

pash · Dec 1, 2006

Medievalist said:
That isn't grammatically correct. It's a dialect, and the particular construction is so marked that Hans Kurath uses it as a dialect marker.

You are misusing grammatically correct Pash; it isn't a matter of opinion. It's the deep-structure functionality of the language. Nor does grammatically correct equal "standard."

Sorry, Med, but you'll have to provide me with your definition of "grammatically correct" if you want me to keep up.

pash · Dec 1, 2006

Think I'm gonna leave this one now. Too many upset standardists and prescriptivists here for me. I wonder, by your narrow approach to grammaticality, if any of you shame the dialect of your parents.

Onward to wider horizons.

CaroGirl · Dec 1, 2006

pash said:
<

CaroGirl said:

Strange that you should answer what you thought could be a question with another question though:

<In what universe is that grammatical?>

Click to expand...

It was a rhetorical question. Rhetorical questions do not require an answer. Because you found it confusing, I corrected it for you, to reflect my meaning.

pash · Dec 1, 2006

CaroGirl said:
pash said:

<
It was a rhetorical question. Rhetorical questions do not require an answer. Because you found it confusing,

Click to expand...

Do they require an interrogation/question mark?

veinglory · Dec 1, 2006

pash said:
Same question I put to Carogirl: Do you feel that it is only your variant of English that is grammatically correct?

There is, roughly speaking, a 'standard English'--the kind used in text books and by news readers. It is English as most people in the country can easily understand.

Deviations from it are regionally correct but many well be ungrammatical and incomprehensable to other people of the same nationality. Thus, pragmatic people know when to use their dialect and when to use standard grammatical English to best communicate.

If that offends anyone then I guess I don't know why. It just seems like common sense to me. I am sure 'Med' with be back with the references soon, but yes--with very limited wiggle room and regions of dispute there sure is such a thing as 'grammatically correct'. Just like there is a thing called the USA or the color blue.

"It's grammatical/ungrammatical to me."

pash

Sandi LeFaucheur

pash

CaroGirl

Living the dream

BottomlessCup

Getting settled

Julie Worth

What? I have a title?

veinglory

volitare nequeo

pash

pash

pash

pash

CaroGirl

Living the dream

pash

pash

CaroGirl

Living the dream

pash

Deleted member 42

Deleted member 42

pash

Julie Worth

What? I have a title?

pash

pash

CaroGirl

Living the dream

pash

veinglory

volitare nequeo