By Constructions, Dialects

Sorry. I don't quite catch your point.Are you asking whether the substitution of was for were is an idiosyncrasy? I don't think I'm comfortable with calling it an idiosyncrasy. I think 'variant' is a better word. Maybe that's because my own English and that of my...

In BrE, on the other hand, the "if X'd have done Y" construction tends to represent "if X had have done Y", not "if X would have done Y", and has the same meaning as "if X had done Y". It also turns up in an inverted form, e.g. "Had X have done...

Oh my, I'm so surprised! I would never have thought you said it yourself! By the way, you said "If I'd have known", and not "If I'd known" (which can't mean "If I would have known", because you would be leaving out a syllable...).Anyway, I'll tell...

Your American colleagues must all speak the same dialect, but the dialect they speak is apparently not the same as mine. What part of the US are your colleagues from?- The doctor recommended (that) he lose weight. (lose = subjunctive)- The doctor recommended losing weight.- The doctor...

MrPedantic wrote: version non-standard (why? what does this mean?); we use the ‘!’ symbol to mark a construction or form as ungrammatical in Standard English (?) but grammatical in a non-standard dialect (so everything that is non-standard is dialect?).Hi MrP, that one?I already commented in the...

MrPedantic wrote: Or "Kim and me saw the accident", if you prefer: http://www.cambridge.org/assets/linguistics/cgel/chap1.pdf 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 ...

Or "Kim and me saw the accident", if you prefer: http://www.cambridge.org/assets/linguistics/cgel/chap1.pdf 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

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: version non-standard; we use the ‘!’ symbol to mark a construction or form as ungrammatical in...

Hello Milky, Milky wrote: Jim. please tell us what is bunk about the explanation given under the heading "Description versus prescription" here: http://www.cambridge.org/assets/linguistics/cgel/chap1.pdf Out of interest, what do you make of this passage from further on in Chapter 1: ...

Hello CB, "For" + "to" + infinitive is very common in earlier forms of English, where e.g. "for to do" represents "in order to do" or "with the purpose of doing", or occurs in a causative construction, e.g. "I made him for to do". There are many examples in Chaucer; also in Malory (see these...