"It's grammatical/ungrammatical to me."
- Thread starter pash
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,907
- Reaction score
- 1,834
- Location
- Hiding in my writing cave
- Website
- www.cathyclamp.com
pash said:
Dialects are fine for LOCAL trade and general living. But when definitions become so skewed that they prevent travelers from being able to incorporate into the local society, it becomes a liability. If a "pancake" is a flat cake of dough in one location, but a muffin in another, a pizza in a third or a clock in the fourth, this creates tension through misunderstanding.
This has happened on more than one continent--where a splinter group of people founded a new village or town and changed the language in subtle ways over the years. Yes, it makes fine work for translators to assist with negotiations about trade, conflict, and such, but it doesn't ENCOURAGE the melting pot that America has become. Standardists aren't afraid to show respect to dialect, but dialect becomes secondary to inclusion of others. The respect is the standardization, not the other way around. It's through respect that we make it easy for a person to travel from place to place, crossing town and state boundaries. By limiting dialectal changes to turns of phrase or accents, we created a system that allows for a fluid flow of visitors. It's BECAUSE of the free inclusion of dialects that American English has, by far, the largest number of words of any language in the world. It's why it's so difficult to learn. A single word, spelled exactly the same, can have a dozen meanings that are gathered from all sources. You can have "reform" mean 1) change the appearance; 2) turn from bad to good; 3) produce gasoline by cracking it; etc., etc.
There's no lack of respect in standarization, IMO.
pash said:
Why do I feel like I'm arguing with a Scientology Auditor here--going rounds for the sake of entertainment? This isn't an "us" against "them" discussion, nor one of multitudes of definitions. Standardized English, in whatever way you're thinking of it, is just one more dialect. It's merely the PRIMARY dialect of the United States, and one we have all agreed to use. If other countries teach a different dialect than the one spoken here, it only creates tension and makes conflict possible. Again, IMO.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 28,750
- Reaction score
- 2,934
- Location
- right here
- Website
- www.veinglory.com
If we are talking about the acknowledgement of dialect it really is a completely different issue and, IMHO, more to do with sociology than linguistics.
I can point to distinct moments in New Zealand and Australian history where we embrace our own national dialect which, given the small size of the countries, would be similar to an American regional dialects. About 20 years ago we stopped using newsreaders with upperclass English accents. About 10 years ago local accent and idiom entered entertainment initially through comedians and then through local Aussie and Kiwi soaps--now it appears spordically even in Amercan movies such as Temuara Morrisons role in Star Wars and the bit players in Xena and Hercules. There was much discussion of 'cultural cringe' the consideration of our accents as inferior shifted and was eclipsed. About five years ago news and weather readers began to pronounce Maori place names in the Maori rather than anglicised fashion and the restof the population largely followed suit.
In the end it is the user who decides whether to consider their dialect inferior and manages their own use of it. Many of use move easily between dialect and 'standard' modes depending on who we are speaking to. I was once in a conversation with two rural Kiwis and two rural Scotsmen. It was fascinating how we could speak easily to each other but asides to our countrymen were mutual incomprehensible
Any person who chooses to be mono-dialectual handcaps themselves severely.
I can point to distinct moments in New Zealand and Australian history where we embrace our own national dialect which, given the small size of the countries, would be similar to an American regional dialects. About 20 years ago we stopped using newsreaders with upperclass English accents. About 10 years ago local accent and idiom entered entertainment initially through comedians and then through local Aussie and Kiwi soaps--now it appears spordically even in Amercan movies such as Temuara Morrisons role in Star Wars and the bit players in Xena and Hercules. There was much discussion of 'cultural cringe' the consideration of our accents as inferior shifted and was eclipsed. About five years ago news and weather readers began to pronounce Maori place names in the Maori rather than anglicised fashion and the restof the population largely followed suit.
In the end it is the user who decides whether to consider their dialect inferior and manages their own use of it. Many of use move easily between dialect and 'standard' modes depending on who we are speaking to. I was once in a conversation with two rural Kiwis and two rural Scotsmen. It was fascinating how we could speak easily to each other but asides to our countrymen were mutual incomprehensible
Any person who chooses to be mono-dialectual handcaps themselves severely.<If a "pancake" is a flat cake of dough in one location, but a muffin in another, a pizza in a third or a clock in the fourth, this creates tension through misunderstanding.>
Really? I would have thought most folks just accept the fact that language will differ form region to region.
<Standardists aren't afraid to show respect to dialect, but dialect becomes secondary to inclusion of others.>
That's true in one, not always so positive, way: Standardists have managed to sell their politics, history, values and wares to others.
<It's merely the PRIMARY dialect of the United States, and one we have all agreed to use.>
All?
<Any person who chooses to be mono-dialectual handcaps themselves severely.>
I agree, and I'm sure there are many bi-lectal posters here on this very forum, but they won't let us know it.
;-)
<If other countries teach a different dialect than the one spoken here, it only creates tension and makes conflict possible. Again, IMO.>
Do you think that having the same standard (by your post I assume you mean AE) will stop all the conflict world over? Your dialect is spoken by many world over, but your country has been involved in numerous conflicts through its short history.
<In the end it is the user who decides whether to consider their dialect inferior and manages their own use of it.>
If only it were that simple. Their are many here who feel it right to ridicule speakers of other dialects and call such speakers illiterate. Such ridicule has an effect, eventually.
Really? I would have thought most folks just accept the fact that language will differ form region to region.
<Standardists aren't afraid to show respect to dialect, but dialect becomes secondary to inclusion of others.>
That's true in one, not always so positive, way: Standardists have managed to sell their politics, history, values and wares to others.
<It's merely the PRIMARY dialect of the United States, and one we have all agreed to use.>
All?
<Any person who chooses to be mono-dialectual handcaps themselves severely.>
I agree, and I'm sure there are many bi-lectal posters here on this very forum, but they won't let us know it.
;-)
<If other countries teach a different dialect than the one spoken here, it only creates tension and makes conflict possible. Again, IMO.>
Do you think that having the same standard (by your post I assume you mean AE) will stop all the conflict world over? Your dialect is spoken by many world over, but your country has been involved in numerous conflicts through its short history.
<In the end it is the user who decides whether to consider their dialect inferior and manages their own use of it.>
If only it were that simple. Their are many here who feel it right to ridicule speakers of other dialects and call such speakers illiterate. Such ridicule has an effect, eventually.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 28,750
- Reaction score
- 2,934
- Location
- right here
- Website
- www.veinglory.com
If the person doesn't move from region to region they just consider the out of towner an idiot who doesn't understand simple nouns (been there done that). Much like the critiquer who flags all UK spelling as incorrect rather than just realising the writer if British and moving to a different spelling set. The out of towner is obliged to learn the local dialect if they enter an area where the locals are mono-dialectual--it's just part of the joy of travelling (never know what pastry product you're going to get, or cookie, or potato side dish...)
<Also, no amount of bantering is going to change the fact that you are wrong in your assessment of English Grammar. The way English works is not for you to decide. >
Hmm. At least four other people here have stated what they think English grammar is and you haven't made the same statement to them. Why?
<Further, the fact that I was taught that 'might could' was incorrect in School, is indication enough that yes, in fact, 'might could' is wrong according to what you consider Standard English.>
And I have not argued otherwise. I agree with you. It is incorrect in at least one form/dialect (the standard form) of the language called English.
Hmm. At least four other people here have stated what they think English grammar is and you haven't made the same statement to them. Why?
<Further, the fact that I was taught that 'might could' was incorrect in School, is indication enough that yes, in fact, 'might could' is wrong according to what you consider Standard English.>
And I have not argued otherwise. I agree with you. It is incorrect in at least one form/dialect (the standard form) of the language called English.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,907
- Reaction score
- 1,834
- Location
- Hiding in my writing cave
- Website
- www.cathyclamp.com
All. We are a citizen based government, at both the local and national level. We elect representatives to take our views and turn them into guidelines, rules and law. If we, the collective people, wished to change the way it works here . . . rest assured we would have at some past point. So far, the version of English taught in the schools is acceptable to those who flow in and out of government in America. Therefore, yes. All.
pash said:
Oh? You're not aguing otherwise, are you?
So then, the post that I'm quoting below is not yours?
pash said:
pash said:
Whether other people agree with me or not, the language is as the language is. Four people on a message board do not make the decisions for the whole English-speaking world.
You have a very bad attitude. In this thread you have 1.) dismissed the people who have stated your OP was mistaken; 2.) dismissed the mods and the owners of this board when they warned you about your combative attitude; 3.) been combative with other posters because they spoke their opinions; and 4.) have attempted to justify your actions by trying to make everyone else look bad.
If you wish to have an intelligent discussion on the English Language, you need to be more civil and stop acting so high and mighty as you are presently acting.
If you wish to continue acting like you're better than everyone else here, the TIO board is still open. I suggest you take your shenanigans over there.
<You have a very bad attitude. In this thread you have 1.) dismissed the people who have stated your OP was mistaken; 2.) dismissed the mods and the owners of this board when they warned you about your combative attitude; 3.) been combative with other posters because they spoke their opinions; and 4.) have attempted to justify your actions by trying to make everyone else look bad>
For "intelligent" responses, and for starters, you should check out posts 4 and 5 in this thread. You could ask why #4 was edited, BTW.
For "intelligent" responses, and for starters, you should check out posts 4 and 5 in this thread. You could ask why #4 was edited, BTW.
<Again, not correct from the viewpoint of the dialect called Standard English.>
Are you a bit confused there, Ian? There is NO place where I said that "might could" is correct in the Standard English dialect.
Are you a bit confused there, Ian? There is NO place where I said that "might could" is correct in the Standard English dialect.
Pash, this is your final warning. You've ignored the mods and board owners when we've asked you to respect your fellow members and continue to make comments that come across as snide and insulting to them. Change your attitude now, or I will temporarily ban you from these boards.
Birol said:
Tell you what, I'll temporaily ban myself. Too much of a clique here for my liking. Too many hypocrites.
Works for me. The door's right over there.
Oh, and many would say that 'clique' is simply a synonym for 'community'. It's one of those many differences in this language known as English that depends largely on one's point of view.
Oh, and many would say that 'clique' is simply a synonym for 'community'. It's one of those many differences in this language known as English that depends largely on one's point of view.
Last edited:
There we are, I'm back. During my self-inflicted temporay ban, I had time to think about my behaviour. I knew I was right! LOL! Do your worst, cliquers.
);-))))))))))))666
);-))))))))))))666
Bye-bye, Pash. I'm going to make the ban permanent. Appeal to MacAllister, Jenna, Charlie, or Fahim if you feel you simply must come back again.
Speaking of "intelligent," I edited post #4 (mine) because OP (pash) had no idea what a rhetorical question is, or even that it requires a question mark.pash said:
- Status