Beginning to define the difference.

1 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13
   Share on Facebook  
milky  #379025  Wed, 13 Jun 07 01:29 PM

<The point I was trying to make is that until we decide what we mean by the two terms questions such as: "Would a prescriptivist/descriptivist say x or y in this case?" are difficult to answer. It is not helpful in any forum, linguistics or otherwise, if we all mean different things by the same word.>

Would you at least agree that we can say a description can be wrong, but a prescription cannot be judged by such a term?

  
Top 50 Contributor
Joined on Thu, Jan 15 2004
Senior Member (3,149)
Hume said that if we had perfect or complete descriptive knowledge of reality, we could not, by reasoning, derive a single valid "ought".
milky  #379027  Wed, 13 Jun 07 01:35 PM
Forbes, when a doctor prescribes a certain treatment, medicine, etc. does he mean to say "take this" or "I recommend you take this"? Just a thought.
  
milky  #379030  Wed, 13 Jun 07 01:40 PM

<Linguistic description is often contrasted with linguistic prescription, which is found especially in education and in publishing. Prescription seeks to define standard language forms and give advice on effective language use, and can be thought of as the attempt to present the fruits of descriptive research in a learnable form, though it also draws on more subjective aspects of language aesthetics.>

That kind of covers up the correct-incorrect English, good language-poor language view that normally accompanies prescriptivist texts.

  
MrPedantic  #379253  Wed, 13 Jun 07 11:37 PM

Hello Milky,

 Milky wrote:

That kind of covers up the correct-incorrect English, good language-poor language view that normally accompanies prescriptivist texts.

I quoted this passage earlier:

[1] i a. It is clear whom they had in mind. b. It’s clear who they had in mind.

ii a. Kim and I saw the accident. b. !Kim and me saw the accident.

In [ i ], both versions belong to Standard English, with [ a ] somewhat formal, and [ b ] neutral or slightly informal. There is no difference in grammaticality. But in [ ii ], the [ a ] version is standard, the [ b ] version non-standard; we use the ‘!’ symbol to mark a construction or form as ungrammatical in Standard English but grammatical in a non-standard dialect.

Do you think the part I've underlined reveals a "correct-incorrect English view"?

MrP 

  
Top 10 Contributor
Joined on Tue, Oct 12 2004
Veteran Member (12,168)
Proficient SpeakerSystemAdministrator
...opella forensis / adducit febris...
milky  #379376  Thu, 14 Jun 07 08:09 AM

<Do you think the part I've underlined reveals a "correct-incorrect English view"?>

How could it? It shows there is grammaticality in both Standard and non-standard English.

  
MrPedantic  #379693  Thu, 14 Jun 07 11:10 PM

And would you agree with the CGEL that:

1. Me and Kim saw the accident.

is "non-standard", and "ungrammatical in Standard English"?

MrP

  
milky  #379702  Thu, 14 Jun 07 11:21 PM
 MrPedantic wrote:

And would you agree with the CGEL that:

1. Me and Kim saw the accident.

is "non-standard", and "ungrammatical in Standard English"?

MrP

How would I know?.

  
MrPedantic  #379705  Thu, 14 Jun 07 11:28 PM

Or "Kim and me saw the accident", if you prefer:

[link]

[1] i a. It is clear whom they had in mind. b. It’s clear who they had in mind.

ii a. Kim and I saw the accident. b. !Kim and me saw the accident.

In [ i ], both versions belong to Standard English, with [ a ] somewhat formal, and [ b ] neutral or slightly informal. There is no difference in grammaticality. But in [ ii ], the [ a ] version is standard, the [ b ] version non-standard; we use the ‘!’ symbol to mark a construction or form as ungrammatical in Standard English but grammatical in a non-standard dialect.

MrP

  
milky  #379714  Thu, 14 Jun 07 11:45 PM
 MrPedantic wrote:

Or "Kim and me saw the accident", if you prefer:

[link]

[1] i a. It is clear whom they had in mind. b. It’s clear who they had in mind.

ii a. Kim and I saw the accident. b. !Kim and me saw the accident.

In [ i ], both versions belong to Standard English, with [ a ] somewhat formal, and [ b ] neutral or slightly informal. There is no difference in grammaticality. But in [ ii ], the [ a ] version is standard, the [ b ] version non-standard; we use the ‘!’ symbol to mark a construction or form as ungrammatical in Standard English but grammatical in a non-standard dialect.

MrP

 

Would you say both "Kim and me..." and "Me and Kim..." are grammatical and standard in this kind of English:

"Briefly (for we will return to the topic below), we are describing the kind of English that is widely accepted in the countries of the world where English is the language of government,

education, broadcasting, news publishing, entertainment, and other public discourse."

  
1 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13
AddThis Feed Button RSS Feed: ESL Linguistics Discussion Forum
© 2008 MediaCET Ltd.
Terms and Conditions & Terms of Service